Blogs by D.C. Quillan Stone

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 234

Published in 2022 amid US Government's tyranny crescendo-ing to unprecedented magnitudes as done by many (if not all) presidential administrations and congressional classes, unchallenged by judicial benches, particularly those of 21st century (without exception), that is to say, my 12th book (3rd of trilogy thus 1st and 2nd), entitled appropriately and exhaustively Propositions, Problems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters (May 2022)...

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 234

~ Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness / Part 4 ~

To articulate yet another perhaps final time the Law of Anterior Covetousness; if an action disregarding dissent (not consensual), then anterior the covetousness as the initial speculation, presumption, later arrogance the consequential disposition, disrespect next disregard the eventual manifestation.

Consequently, again consider the following pseudo code (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 225-230), particularly the addendum inserted…

if consensual

then

unity

else (not consensual)

not unity

if action disregarding dissent

then

ethical dilemma…

Addendum; hence logically exposing, deductively proposing the Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness.

e = ethical dilemma *

n = not an ethical dilemma

c = covetousness (arousing con dissent)

p = presumption (flirting con dissent)

a = arrogance (plotting con dissent)

v = violence (acting con dissent)

e = (((n + c) + p) + a) + v

or redundantly…

e = ((c + p) + a) + v

else

not an action disregarding dissent

not an ethical dilemma

(rather ethical continuity)

e = ethical dilemma

n = not an ethical dilemma *

c = covetousness (arousing con dissent)

p = presumption (flirting con dissent)

a = arrogance (plotting con dissent)

v = violence (acting con dissent)

n = c

n = c + p

n = (c + p) + a

n = ((c - c) + (p - p)) + (a – a)

or simply…

n = e - v

done

done/exit

To be clear reiteratively, the point of such exercises is to demonstrate the syllogism as logical hence consistent, the logical argument as the critical prerequisite towards proposing then proving further the ethical argument. To reverse engineer, if to propose any consideration as ethical as should any consideration factual and truthful, then paramount during the observation then determination must be consistency as the primary characteristic, dynamic and/or element, else inconsistency then certainly something other than factual, truthful as well ethical.

---

Contrarily thus and then reasoning towards peace, always the choice
Among cities or deserts, civilizations or wildernesses as few voiced
Less so the study, the ponder, lesser still the labor until tomb’s cold lure
Nonetheless the innate drive, outward cry; qui tacet dissentire videtur

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, as Individualism’s praxis
Opposed to all other isms’ modus operandi regardless the political axis
Thus observable fact is; if arrogance succeeds, presumption precedes
And covetousness the original seed toward government’s violent deeds

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 233

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 233

~ Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness / Part 3 ~

To say (see Proem & Poem No. 147) a person or group of persons have biases is as ridiculously unnecessary as to say having propensities, preferences, limits, scarcities, flaws, errors, inabilities, deficiencies, gluttonies, excesses and so on, for to be human is to have all of these things, that is, the numerous persisting thorn(s) in the flesh (2 Co 12:7). Thus mere congruity imposes the speculation then inclusion; to be human is to covet as well.

These human tendencies prevail mostly unnoticed as part of the larger whole, the philosophically universal propensities for error and excess, else the theologically inherent state of total depravity consequent of the Adamic sin. Amid the context of either proposition, the tendencies, propensities or depravities (if you will) are commonly complicated then compounded hence exceptionally exasperated by covetousness. Always a subtle impulse initially, yet if to linger beyond a few moments capriciously, unintentionally, purposefully or intensely, incited will be presumption, excited the arrogance then ignited the disrespect, disregard therefore violence privately, publicly, socially, politically, legally, illegally, etc., directly against others’ dissent as exercised per the Singular Human Right to Consent or in this case Dissent explicitly else implicitly, of course inseparably, as manifested by the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason.

To clarify (again) before proceeding; Violence is observably, logically, consistently thus ethically defined as each action and every activity exacted against and executed upon another’s dissent explicit else implicit.

So to expand as logically following; Violence is not a static even dynamic list of horridities as usually although arbitrarily, erroneously assumed. For what is harmful or injurious versus beneficial or advantageous are determined solely by the recipient the individual per his/her unique propensity, prerogative, preference, purpose, etc. Consequently the same action, the same activity may be individually determined then accepted as beneficial or advantageous to one person while simultaneously determined then rejected as harmful or injurious to another person.

To deduce further as obviously compelling; Silence or uncontentious participation (i.e. in society) is not Consent unexpressed as usually although arbitrarily, erroneously assumed per mindlessly hailed qui tacet consentire videtur (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 222-224). Such egregious assumption often elaborately purposed by writers so to justify without evidence nor logic a preferred political or economic ism hence governmental system, perhaps as well particular set of laws, regulations, taxes, subsidies, prohibitions, wars and so on. Onward the illogical digression and immoral declination, for soon the assumed implicit consent presumptuously devolves to assumed societal obligation, ordinal citizenship, patriotic allegiance, nationalistic duty.

To say and behave otherwise would be nothing but another’s unmindful presumption and willful arrogance, either well driven by innate covetousness.

---

Ah the scorn amid laurels self-donned by fat elitists, fatter corporatists
Thus the latter and former cronyists along despotists among the unholiest
Acolytes then academics their pantheists of etatism-mysticism blend
Ears bending, eyes transfixing, mouths gaping to each fad and every trend

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Monday, June 8, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 232

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 232

~ Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness / Part 2 ~

To roughly paraphrase the theologian and thinker Francis Schaeffer from his 1971 book True Spirituality, the climatic end to Moses’ list of commandments is the 10^th; thou shalt not covet (Ex 20:17). He goes on to expand and expound, preceding all sins or wrongdoings against others with covetousness, thus the single transgression actually two; the thought then the act. There is of course the two-millennium old parallel where Christ himself levied the same weighty condemnation on the murderous or hateful thought whether the murderous or hateful act was committed or not (Mt 5:21-22, see also Proem & Poem No. 103).

Again (see Proem & Poem No. 148), if covetousness lingers, imagines then entertains, presumption awakes, rises then proceeds to argue, qualify and categorize a person’s preferences as permissible even rightful over others’ preferences. Sooner or later arrogance joins the affair, encouraging violence to act personally, socially or politically against the dissenting individual. So to precisely, concisely understand the core of the rot if you will…

The climax of the Ten Commandments is the Tenth Commandment – “Thou shat not covet” – Actually we break this last commandment, not to covet, before we break any of the others. Any time that we break one of the other commandments of God, it means that we have already broken this commandment, in coveting.

The above quote is perhaps the most profound, far-reaching Biblical commentary of the 20th century, well articulated and postulated by theologian Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) in his 1971 book True Spirituality, identifying the last of the Ten Commandments as already broken before breaking any of the previous nine. To summarize, all sins flow from the one sin; covetousness. Yet the profoundness, the described depth and implied breadth, therefore the logic and consistency by that insight and truth are best understood by rightly expanding the summary as well the Schaefferian text. That is to say, the disrespect and disregard of others' reasoning manifested by their dissent, thus unilateral actions against the same spring always from covetousness first, soon followed by presumption then arrogance and if acted upon personally, socially or politically; violence.

So must be stated again the Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness; if an action disregarding dissent (not consensual), then anterior the covetousness as the initial speculation, presumption the consequential disposition, arrogance, disrespect thus disregard the eventual manifestation.

---

O the thorns amid furrows dry, lacking rain, rented skirts so stained
Trousers long torn, faces wrung, heads shorn, eyes forlorn unable to gain
Hope upon liberty, hence to cope upon one’s ability and responsibility
Risking some or all, subsisting on crumbs till harvest’s haul and virility

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Sunday, June 7, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 231

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 231

~ Schaefferian Law of Anterior Covetousness / Part 1 ~

It would be appropriate even prudent to declare yet again clearly, concisely the two aforesaid laws before proceeding, and prior to proposing the third law conversely however intrinsically related.

Law of Consensual Unity; if consensual among all then ethically determined unity, else rightful dissension among one or more then unavoidable disunity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 225, 226).

Law of Ethical Continuity; if an action disregarding dissent (not consensual) then an ethical dilemma, else not an action disregarding dissent, not an ethical dilemma rather ethical continuity (see Proposition, Problem & Poem Nos. 227, 228).

To proceed appropriately, logically, to state clearly, concisely the following the third law…

Law of Anterior Covetousness; if an action disregarding dissent (not consensual), then anterior the covetousness as the initial speculation, presumption the consequential disposition, arrogance, disrespect thus disregard the eventual manifestation.

So it follows, the objective of each and every action disregarding dissent is to inculcate, manipulate, regulate, confiscate and/or perhaps terminate others’ person, propensity, prerogative, preference, purpose as well profession, purse, possession and property (see Proem & Poem No. 176). The action however holds more potency than mere Disregard even simple Disrespect, for Arrogance certainly aroused and of course emboldened, unavoidably preceded and encouraged by Presumption, yet the weed ill rooted, the seed badly planted, the rot at core if you will, have always been, of course always is, therefore shall always be Covetousness!

---

Thus the scorn, sackcloth torn, coals and ashes upon shaven heads
So, damn the talking heads to a particularly made hell, stones instead
Piled as postwar rubble, their only memorials, no prayers offered
For proffered they as whores, “All lies the truths!” bay chaos’ authors

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Saturday, June 6, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 224

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 224

~ Qui Tacet Dissentire Videtur / 2nd Reprise ~

Again, commonly accepted the notion and phrase silence implies consent or better known in Latin qui tacet consentire videtur, however it is covetous, presumptuous, arrogant therefore unethical to make such a broad conclusion. For to appropriately contrast and rightfully contend, so must state the logical, consistent, ethical alternative, dissent implied by silence, or to appropriately translate in Latin qui tacet dissentire videtur until explicitly consented.

Consequently to propose and define logically, consistently hence ethically; violence is one’s action directed towards then against another’s dissent explicit or dissent implicit per consent unexpressed. It matters not the former person’s intent, objective, benefit, nor office if politically empowered, else station or status if socially, financially endowed, neither the latter person’s error in judgment or resulting detriment in so dissenting; violation thus violence nonetheless! The point of course Dissent should always be one's assumption of another's posture, until the latter individually, explicitly consents. This is observably, logically, consistently, ethically so for all matters!

For those who argue in favor of various politics, governmental systems as well social contracts, to contend that silence implies consent or silent/noncontentious participation implies consent as often argued conveniently so to support the aforesaid, then unavoidable, inescapable the covetousness and presumption preceding as well arrogance and violence proceeding.

And so, what are both considerations if harmful or injurious but actions or activities against explicit even implicit dissent therefore perceived as harmed or injured the individual’s person, propensity, prerogative, preference, purpose as well profession, purse, possession and property. To simplify, only the individual’s conclusion on the matter thus dissent versus consent, determines the harm or injury versus no harm nor injury. To reiterate, only presumption and arrogance well rooted in covetousness would object to such a method of determination regarding social contracts even constitutions, governmental systems, political isms and more save one; Individualism!

---

Ergo subtle nuances, so it goes, snakes in pile, calm or riled
Good portends, while Evil pretends, as sanity slips into exile
To Patmos isle, upon insanity’s bile, to flirt in foolish mirth
Misanthropes de trop or not, tho’ hoping of one logical firth

Logic insofar Boolean thus seen, it seems, in forms algebraic
Rhymes of recent times while archaic and Aramaic upon mosaic
Gates, tables, expressions as codes scribed, inked then finessed
Till hammered and chiseled Romanesque, white as marble tress

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Thursday, June 4, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 223

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 223

~ Qui Tacet Dissentire Videtur / 1st Reprise ~

However, it is necessary if to advocate for both social contracts or constitutions, to do so along with qui tacet consentire videtur or silence implies consent, for upon establishing the perquisite for government’s formation per any-ocracy (yes, including democracy) and/or any-ism (save one), then well enabled the prerequisite for government’s expansion.

To tangentially yet duly note, United States’ Founding Framers else Schemers perhaps intended the sort of expansion aforesaid, although the Anti-Federalists wisely suspected thus the latter’s ardent retorts and counter papers. Alexander Hamilton too although Pro-Federalist was concerned even troubled by the ten amendments to the scheme, citing the Bill of Rights’ mere existence would encourage the trampling of any right not specifically enumerated (see Federalist Paper No. 84).

The historically prudent would be correct to notice among the earliest of events, during the earliest of administrations the transition from the originally accepted constitutional interpretation whatever not written not allowed to the covetously manipulative, constitutional interpretation whatever not written quite allowed. Thence set in motion the incremental then exponential expansion of government powers therefore intrusions upon the individual’s privacies and freedoms.

So it follows the inevitable aforesaid outcomes, for the first few steps included of course the willingness, eagerness even covetousness for conveniency and expediency per the ideologue qui tacet consentire videtur or silence implies consent, cleverly adorned with Democracy’s raiment, the Constitution as crown and scepter, United States then well equipped, enabled then eventually evolved as the Neo Roman Empire. Clearly, the observable, logical, consistent thereby ethical preemption; qui tacet dissentire videtur!

---

Elitists’ jollity although drollery, as commoners prance in line
Dance in kind per trance like-mind, askance, constant, till benign
Bovines stilled, canines reeled upon the Pavlovian convenience
The usual expediency, insomuch the subsidy unto obedience

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 222

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 222

~ Qui Tacet Dissentire Videtur ~

At core of arguments favoring social contracts is the matter of consent not by each and every individual, rather as a presumed societal whole. Rarely proposed as ethically fundamental is unanimous consent, for conveniently, expediently promulgated the combination of consent explicit as well implicit, tacit hence participation noncontentious; qui tacet consentire videtur or silence implies consent.

At this juncture, it is imperative to point out the human paradox. For if arguments for particular social contracts and/or political isms are unbearable, intolerable even unfavorable, undesirable then hairs on back of neck rise involuntarily else immediately ever defiantly, while the mind determines instantly, logically the necessity for unanimous consent at most, at least one’s own consent.

However if arguments for particular social contracts and/or political isms are desirable, favorable even tolerable, bearable then hairs on back of neck remain undisturbed, relaxed, while the mind carries on toward secondary thus subsequent concerns.

In the former case, it is irrelevant whether one explicitly communicates to others, for dissent nonetheless the opinion, posture, preference, sentiment, emotion even passion. The noncommunicant or silent person is neither without thought ever changing nor opinion ever altering per his/her peculiar ability to reason ever evaluating. Consequently to assume a person’s noncommunication or silence as equaling to a particular conclusion such as consent, cannot be anything other than presumption, arrogance motivated by covetousness.

---

Force; the covetousness perfectly bloomed in colors of blood
Introrsely the presumptuousness upon the impassioned floods
Clouds o’er reddish mud, aft’ fiery pillars then smoky plumes
Per society’s killers onto the twilight-dance in polity’s ballroom

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.