theres a line between advice and command. so while we take financial advice from a moneylender, we simply execute commands as enforced by law, the key difference being that for the latter, there is no opt-out. and when looking at the motives of both types instruction coming from a figure of authority, a clear distinction is made that we are given options to improve our lives, but for decisions that could/would degrade the lives of others, free will is taken away.
it is sufficiently clear here for me to conclude that since a governing body is in the business of being in everyone else's business, that they only pass and enforce law that protects people from each other--not themselves. a nanny state to me, is an absurd concept which muddies with arbitrariness the clear waters of what would be a transparent set of civil regulations.
it becomes extremely problematic when a government overreaches itself and tries to lay cultural, financial, social, etc frameworks and then coerce the inhabitants to conform. in such a way, the governing body has overstepped its boundary of sovereign security handling, into the realm of domestic dollhouse mishandling. where the word democracy remains in the name of any particular government, it is no longer in the spirit of the name itself when such a government masterminds decisions for the electorate when instead they should merely be the executors of popularly voted constitutions.
the following is true: people dont really care for much of politics, except for the fact that they want to be able to do what they want to do, what they dream of doing, be it making a name, making a living, or making a family. so when the time comes they collectively realise (by education or advances in comms tech) they have been denied this right, entire regimes collapse overnight.
all because personal freedom was not a priority, and the government wasnt doing the job it was supposed to be doing.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Sunday, December 11, 2011
zero sum
when people talk prosperity, more money, more things, a bigger house, a faster car--these are improvements that come over time as living conditions in a region improve over time. if we take a period of 50 years, or maybe even 20 years, most if not all regions will see some sort of financial prosperity.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
but according to the way most people in developed countries see it or want to see it, prosperity isnt an increase in purchasing power from what they used to have in the past; prosperity is an increase in purchasing power over their peers at the present. in this sense, a communist governing system can issue a directive which increases the food distribution for everyone by 5% with a corresponding increase in quality of life, but net 0 increase in level of prosperity as each person sees it. after all, everyone sees the same increase. ok maybe communism isnt such a good base to start an analogy on relative prosperity.
thankfully, people in most parts of the world have their right to own and purchase property/goods/services, etc, and so they do. so what happens when the governing body slashes the sales tax or value-added tax by a couple points? more people get what they want--an increase in life quality no doubt, but is this a measure of prosperity? no: a blanket tax like a sales tax or vat affects the entire economy equally, and so an increase in purchasing power across the board will inevitably cause an increase in prices across the board, a result that negates the move. thats just how markets work...this is why blanket tax cuts will never happen. even the most socialist government will only inject wealth to a partial sector of the economy, most likely the poor or middle class, or both, because as mentioned, giving help to everyone is giving help to no one.
and so we finally touch upon the meat of the issue...wealth discrepancy. prosperity cannot be increased, it can only be shifted around. the recent and impending implosions respectively of the greek and italian economies are merely antipasti to the primo which is the usa deficit shitfest. without pointing fingers for whos to blame, all business bubbles are traceable to the root of evil, which isnt money, but the greed for money. the unfortunate truth is that whether the bubble is growing or recently popped, capitalism leaves in its wake a scorched earth of unequal wealth distribution. to be honest, it isnt capitalism's fault, its just a fantastically convenient term to place upon the preference for "prosperity", or growing that wealth already possessed. the best position for money to be placed is upon the poor, where utilitarian ROI is best realised. this economic system (free capitalism), is ipso facto a tool which generates a need for wealth faster than the wealth itself.
this is why we work over 44 hours a week to be able to owe the banks for 35 years. because those who designed the system designed it in a way to keep themselves out of it. such an outcome, which if, as outrageous as it is, has not caused violent civil war, i would say is perfect show of capitalism, or euphemistically "meritocracy" in the government. 44 hours and 35 years. that is the yardstick that every layman wakes up and goes to bed on, telling himself one day he will do less than 44 for less than 35. that is how he judges his level of prosperity--marking himself against the average. the sorry fact is that he is likely never to do better than that, and if he does, it is only possible if participates in making the rich richer, and making the poor poorer.
enjoy your noble dreams of prosperity and your noble dream profession.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
meaning of life part neuf
i too wonder what is the purpose of knowing things if that accumulation only ends in me. the fact that i am mortal is proof enough for me that self-interest, rational or not, is not something i want to place my life efforts in.
ive found that the burden of intelligence is the need to align the life toward something greater than the self...be it a righteous cause, a religion, or another sentient being, be it a dog or a person. it is a necessary burden..not even a nihilist can escape it.
im looking to materialise my life's effort into things which will serve as evidence of my existence even after i am gone. if i were the last human on an island, i would build a structure that i know will outlive me. but im not the last human, so i figure my righteous cause is to build a lasting structure in others' memories, "having an impact on the world's people" is what some might say. even they too are mortal, it just beats building a statue on an island. it's the reward of knowing your intelligence has purpose shared with other intelligences like yours. being an introvert just means im comfortable with creating memories with just one other person.
i believe this is an Fi thing, which apparently i have no interest in eliminating to "make myself sharper", but rather am keen to develop to make myself rounder.
ive found that the burden of intelligence is the need to align the life toward something greater than the self...be it a righteous cause, a religion, or another sentient being, be it a dog or a person. it is a necessary burden..not even a nihilist can escape it.
im looking to materialise my life's effort into things which will serve as evidence of my existence even after i am gone. if i were the last human on an island, i would build a structure that i know will outlive me. but im not the last human, so i figure my righteous cause is to build a lasting structure in others' memories, "having an impact on the world's people" is what some might say. even they too are mortal, it just beats building a statue on an island. it's the reward of knowing your intelligence has purpose shared with other intelligences like yours. being an introvert just means im comfortable with creating memories with just one other person.
i believe this is an Fi thing, which apparently i have no interest in eliminating to "make myself sharper", but rather am keen to develop to make myself rounder.
Monday, October 31, 2011
easy targets
male and female--these are the internal identifications of sexual identity, of which on its own we cannot come to a reasonably accurate estimation of which sex a particular self-identified individual is attracted to. hence we have additional modifiers for sexual preference: gay & straight. further compounding layers upon the issue are the existence of bisexuals and transsexuals, and the queer heterosexuals (dominant females and effeminate men). this apparent complexity which evades understanding is unlikely to be as one might say an obscure puzzle, but a simple phenomenon looked through a blurry lens occluded by false assumptions.
there may be many terms to sexually self identify and then claim a second identification of preference. but if for a moment we ignore the established practice associating the penis with aggressiveness and risk-taking and the breasts with nurturing and submissiveness thereby separating phenotype biology from emergent anthropological behaviour we find that many problems of understanding sexuality is a result of the false, yet rampant belief that males should be masculine and females, feminine. no doubt, one reason for the perpetuation of this belief is the fact that the respective words themselves originated in the same root. "why should we believe that males shouldnt be masculine, when the word masculine itself means of the male?" simple. because the existing belief impedes understanding of the phenomena. the removal of this belief brings focus into what is occuring, even if one still wishes to see the events as things which should not happen.
from where does the assumption come that a man must behave a certain way to be called a man, or a woman, to be called a woman? who is the judge that says you do not deserve your penis because you behave like those who have breasts? how is this judge special that he may ever deserve to be placed in such a powerful position? does he not have either the penis or the breasts? is he or she not the same as you or me?
we all have a psychological identity and a biological identity. sometimes, a person may end up with two psychological identities, or in some cases two biological identities. who is to say that these two rarities cannot end up in the same person? now if hermaphroditic bisexuals exist, who can say that a male psychological identity cannot exist from within a female biological identity? who can say that nature intends for all males to behave masculine and all females to behave feminine, without now appearing to be a fool spouting wasted words?
if one truly wishes to understand the phenomenon, one must discard preconceived notions of what the term nature's intention entails--this requires the belief that nature itself is an all-controlling entity which appropriately determines each human's representation in the sociosexual sphere--a logical fallacy in itself. first of all, there is no Mother Nature, only a cool name by which we can anthropomorphise the outward universe including everything single thing we have yet to find a way to explain. secondly, how can one expect the universal laws of cosmology to converge upon human beliefs of what is socially appropriate? Mother Nature is an entity which allows for the convenient attribution of blame for when we experience things we cant agree with, eg "wow that guy is queer. Mother Nature must have really screwed up at his birth."
many times the criteria which man has used to determine right from wrong is itself, wrong. we determine something is abnormal simply by identifying a minority from within a majority, which to me is veiled stupidity. so sorry, until you prove that this guy doesnt serve a purpose to at least one other human being, there is no screw up.
a "normal" person who marginalizes and attacks an "abnormal"--that's a screw up.
there may be many terms to sexually self identify and then claim a second identification of preference. but if for a moment we ignore the established practice associating the penis with aggressiveness and risk-taking and the breasts with nurturing and submissiveness thereby separating phenotype biology from emergent anthropological behaviour we find that many problems of understanding sexuality is a result of the false, yet rampant belief that males should be masculine and females, feminine. no doubt, one reason for the perpetuation of this belief is the fact that the respective words themselves originated in the same root. "why should we believe that males shouldnt be masculine, when the word masculine itself means of the male?" simple. because the existing belief impedes understanding of the phenomena. the removal of this belief brings focus into what is occuring, even if one still wishes to see the events as things which should not happen.
from where does the assumption come that a man must behave a certain way to be called a man, or a woman, to be called a woman? who is the judge that says you do not deserve your penis because you behave like those who have breasts? how is this judge special that he may ever deserve to be placed in such a powerful position? does he not have either the penis or the breasts? is he or she not the same as you or me?
we all have a psychological identity and a biological identity. sometimes, a person may end up with two psychological identities, or in some cases two biological identities. who is to say that these two rarities cannot end up in the same person? now if hermaphroditic bisexuals exist, who can say that a male psychological identity cannot exist from within a female biological identity? who can say that nature intends for all males to behave masculine and all females to behave feminine, without now appearing to be a fool spouting wasted words?
if one truly wishes to understand the phenomenon, one must discard preconceived notions of what the term nature's intention entails--this requires the belief that nature itself is an all-controlling entity which appropriately determines each human's representation in the sociosexual sphere--a logical fallacy in itself. first of all, there is no Mother Nature, only a cool name by which we can anthropomorphise the outward universe including everything single thing we have yet to find a way to explain. secondly, how can one expect the universal laws of cosmology to converge upon human beliefs of what is socially appropriate? Mother Nature is an entity which allows for the convenient attribution of blame for when we experience things we cant agree with, eg "wow that guy is queer. Mother Nature must have really screwed up at his birth."
many times the criteria which man has used to determine right from wrong is itself, wrong. we determine something is abnormal simply by identifying a minority from within a majority, which to me is veiled stupidity. so sorry, until you prove that this guy doesnt serve a purpose to at least one other human being, there is no screw up.
a "normal" person who marginalizes and attacks an "abnormal"--that's a screw up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)