Existence....

Power...

Little emperors....

Not many people know, that America used to issue charters for people to start businesses, which could be revoked if those companies engaged in less than reputable activity. We need to enact this on a global scale. How much control could we have on climate, pollution, and other massive issues of our day if we could just threaten to revoke the charter of the culprits.

Let's start our own, virtual global nation....

Super car...

If I had the money to buy a cool car like this, I'm sure I'd feel guilty, but I don't think that would stop me. There's all kinds of philanthropic causes the money could be better spent on, but I just can't shake the feeling that without some kind of birth control system, redistribution of wealth is futile. Wherever you shift the power, procreation will increase, and ultimately absorb that power, in the end, annihilating the initial redistribution making the whole process futile. Of course, a very real difference is made, on an individual level. Maybe I'll just rent one. I will buy a nice place for my family to live though, and I wont question that.

On to greener pastures....

Civil Simian...

Think about citizen profiles, in which any laws can be voted on at any time. Throw out election cycles. Let the system change organically.

Coins! Coins! Coins!

Universal Human Rights....

Hedonism...

The Three Apple Problem....

I'm calling this The Three Apple Problem. This is where ethics begins. Ethics develops between two people, that's the absolute minimum. You can develop some kind of ethics between you and your environment, or other animals, but, a pure human ethic will take at least two people, and the most simple example is limited at two. So that's what I used. The apple represents human necessity for one person.
One Apple Problem: Two people want one apple. If I allow the other to have the apple, I will die for sure. Therefore, the only way I can survive is to fight for the apple with the other. This is a state of war.
Two Apple Problem: Now I've got two apples, and two people. It's pretty straight forward. If you value life in itself, then it's one apple for both people. If you value only your life, you may have no problem letting the other die, even though the means are there for them to live.
Three Apple Problem: This is the larger human problem. Once everybody's necessities are met, how do we distribute the surplus?

Now, as a planet we are stuck between the one apple problem, and the second. Some people are talking, and have been talking about the 3 apple problem for hundreds of years, but it's just speculative because we can't seem to convince some of the people to move away from the one apple problem. In refusing to elevate from one apple to two apples they keep the world in a state of conflict and war. A humanist understands that in order to value life itself, at a minimum we have to respect and solve the two apple problem.

Because I understand how Humanism works from this perspective, I'm not tied to historical category, or generality. I can look at a complex issue, and tell whether the person, group, or even state is caught at one, two, or three. Never allow yourself to fall below the two apple equilibrium. If the resources are under your power, there are ethical implications. We are part of a limited system. This implies a conscious morality.

The brain...

No more relativity....

Life has relativity in it, but it is not relative. Everyday, you wake up, you are you. You don't wake up an elephant, or in a strange house, or a lottery winner. Given past repetition, and projected probability, you can make judgments about your future. Yes, it's not a guarantee things will, or wont happen, but this mistake of relativism, "Oh, we don't know what will happen, so lets just not pay attention to any of the obvious probabilistic indicators. We don't KNOW, right, so let's definitely not look at the clues either. Let's just live in the moment." Hedonism. Lack of responsible attention. That is what that is. Look, I'm a hyper contingency planner. I'm always looking at possibilities, and probabilities, and creating contingency plans. Yes, many of those plans may not materialize. But, when contingency plans are needed, who do you think is more likely to be ready to deal with a situation? Even if I haven't got a contingency plan, who is going to be more likely to be able to come up with one on the fly, than a person who's always generating solutions? Look, we as humans seem to have a problem with fathoming the respect life itself deserves for billions of years of pattern repeating contingency. We are so focused on our "freedom" we fail to realize how ridiculous that idea is. You're not free. You are absurdly limited by nature, by yourself, by external contingency. Life is not relative, you are not free. The real question is how are you determined. Once you understand that, then you can move on to evaluate how you are free, THEN you can set about to being more free. This idea that ignorance sets you free? It doesn't, you just go around, stepping on people's toes, then pretending it didn't happen. It's over.

Human priority....

Government types....

Totalitarian-Under this type of government the state has complete control over all aspects of public and private life.

Authoritarian-This type of government is similar to totalitarianism except there is an illusion of some power in the hands of the people.

Dictatorship-Rule by one. In this form of government one person creates all the rules and decides how, when and if they are enforced.

Monarchy-Rule by one. Similar to a dictatorship except the monarch (king or queen) usually claims the right to rule by “the divine right of kings” which is the premise that kings or queens are appointed by God to rule the people.

Autocracy-Rule by one. An autocrat has absolute control over the people. Although an autocracy is basically another word for a dictatorship the term autocracy technically has no positive or negative connotations.

Oligarchy-Rule by a few. Oligarchies are typically ruled by one or a combination of any of the following; wealthy families, families of royalty, owners of extremely large corporations, and military leaders.

Plutocracy-Rule by a few. A plutocracy is a specific form of oligarchy that by definition is ruled by a wealthy group of people.

Aristocracy-Rule by a few. An aristocracy is just another blend of an oligarchy where the leaders are typically the most famous citizens.

Military Junta-A military junta is a government that is composed of a committee of military leaders. They take power by force and do not hold elections.

Theocracy-A theocracy is a government that is ruled by religious authority. It can be ruled by one person or many different people. The laws of a theocracy are modeled after the particular beliefs of a religion.

Titan teach meme...

Tautology club...

Intergalactic peace....

Ancient Greek Earth...

Commodified....

Don't read this, I'm just pissed: Humanist ethics today, is based on human need. People need food, water, air, shelter and healthcare. All these necessities take money to buy, but we acquire money by providing services to a larger system that dictates demands. Basically, what we say today, is if you can't find a way to serve the system, then go and die. Then, we fight for a bunch of minority protections, and we make the less fortunate beg, and we treat them like lower life forms. I was just talking about a guy the other day, who is out there teaching Buddhists to "do for themselves". If they come up short, they are to pray about it. It's quite convenient this same guy happens to own his own company is quite well taken care of. That whole idea can be broken down to, "I don't want to pay taxes. Leave me alone. I got mine, because I'm special. You aren't, so go and pray for your God to help you." My answer to this is fuck you. At least in America, that's the shitty people some of us have become. We don't respect human life in itself. We're always looking for its "service worth". Before I die, I will use every ounce of my effort to convey the idea, that we as men have not forgotten the worth of life in itself. You can push that money relativism all day on to me, and I'll still go home knowing that I have a superior way of thinking because I understand life is beautiful in itself without acquiring things, and I'm aware of what part of a man can never be commodified and sold.

Existentialism solved...

I really think the problem of being, in existentialism, stems from the unintentional, and unarticulated expectation that ideas can be objects. The focus on the “ being “ of ideas. What is YOU is basically the particular image you have of yourself, generated by the perceptions of the body and held in the mind to reflect back upon itself. The problem is, the “ being" in that equation is the body, a priori, before experience. The body is the vehicle to act, and be acted upon by ideas. The body is the tool of ideas, and the creator of ideas, but the physical body is the being in the core of the idea. The problem of existentialism is generated when one can't understand the idea of the body, is never supposed to take place of the actual body. Existence precedes essence.

Humanists....

Life analogy...

There's an analogy about life I've been using for about ten years or so, and it's worked great for me. There's a couple different methods key jangling, tool owning men have to apply force (for this analogy). One is pliers, another, a vice. With pliers, you attempt to use all your current strength, in the moment to accomplish the goal. You only have the power of your body, in one shot. With a vice, you compile many turns into one powerful press. As far as power pressure goes the vice wins every time. In their lives, everybody is born with the power of pliers. They build up their minds though education, then they attempt one shot power moves. After some understanding of process development, the power of the vice is unlocked. Pick a goal. Pick a goal that is seemingly impossible. Put that possible, and highly improbable outcome waaayyy off till your autumn years. Now start taking the many thousand small steps it takes to get there. You will know, when you are lucky, and when you are controlling the outcome. If you jump forward, you will feel the larger order conspiring with you. If you get knocked back, it could just be bad luck. Maybe you're pursuing an impure goal. Maybe you're pursuing something that's not TRULY top tier. As you move toward the larger goal, you can look behind, and see the distance traveled. You can feel the vice power building within you. You still have the power of the plier type press, but it's not desirable anymore. Now you search for quicker ways to use the vice method. Congratulations. You are now process technical.

Benevolent tyranny....

Look, as private industries automate and liquidate jobs, whatever equity they create should somehow be split with the people. As time goes on, more and more jobs will be automated. There will be less opportunities for employment, but the systems themselves will be producing more widgets than ever. Who's going to buy them? If there's no wage, there's no demand. So what? Are we going to push automation off, to preserve labor to preserve the system? But if automation moves forward, and wage disappears, are we going to let all the wealth generated transfer to a few? This is just an idea, I'm not the only one talking about how automation has only served privatization, as far as wage goes. I may have nicer gadgets than the rest of the world, but if I lose my job, I'm on the street. That's not the equity we deserve.

Meritocracy.....

Great Men Series

Don't be apathetic...

Quantum Physics....

Disclaimer....

Disclaimer: I wanted to take this time to say, things I post on this page from time to time are hyperbolic and exaggerated. The reason why I do this, is, essentially, is to disturb status quo thinking. People tend to think and do what everybody else is thinking and doing around them. The powers who set the status quo couldn't be happier with this. I like to shake, and burst this bubble as much as possible, and I use tools like hyperbole, and exaggeration to do this. I'll use taboo associations, like masturbation, which in my opinion, is a fair use of the word when I use it, but I understand the taboo power behind it. I use shocking language strategically. I'm also not afraid to get angry. Most people are hedonistic. They essentially want happiness. Can one be happy, and concerned at the same time? Happy people are apathetic. That's a generalization, but is an example of the type of associations I'm likely to make on this page. I use ideas like that to burst the status quo, masturbatory hedonistic happiness, and generate concern and focus, and then directing that power to alter the current global system to a system for the people, rather than a system for the system. We may try to generate a bit of a utopia though in the process, searching for new ways to shatter old thinking!

Ominous Money Meme

Money itself is essentially benign. It's represents power. A symbol of time. Gaining money is everything when lack of it causes suffering, and breadth of it causes bliss, or 1st world problems anyway. Money is not likely to ever go away. Its function is too effective. It quantifies an ephemeral power, necessary for direction. But money itself has nothing to say about what men OUGHT to do. Money is like fuel for a machine. What the machine becomes, and the identity and truth value money takes is up to us. Using money, to generate more money for private interests, who's goals only coincide with the people's needs when there is money to be made, hasn't created a responsible equilibrium.Though we are not way off course, we could become so if the system becomes too large and uncontrollable. A good example of this is the military industrial complex. Once you have spent billions of dollars on military equipment, if you want to deplete those assets, so you're equipment doesn't become obsolete, go start a war. Business starts wars. Unchecked detached quantitative bean counting starts wars. The global population has to rise up against this.

Good guy Mandela....

Life is a test........

Suppose for a second that this life is a qualitative test machine. Some larger order is ferreting out essences with less desirable characteristics, and absorbing the gems. In that scenario, the design of the mechanism, to function properly, would include the imposition there is only one chance. Only one life. As soon as the essence becomes aware of an extended existence, their test becomes non-effective because every decision becomes a rationalization against a later opportunity. Life could be nothing more than relative. Since we're faced with this ominous mysterious death, facts say what is YOU only exists in this way now, one time. This imposes the possibility of certainty. A clean imposition of one chance, one opportunity. No dithering. All these relative doctrines out there, they are not even first level relativity. The first step is to play ignorant of the obvious, then, masturbate away. You are completely detached. This is your opportunity. But, you ignored the truth, top tier. You're not kidding me. I just laugh. The measure of a man, is a man. You can't hide from it. Stop trying. It's old pathetic thinking.

Flag Twist: American

Stop thinking money is the only way....

Explain like I'm 5..........