The American governments at all levels and in all places are going to have to come to terms with a few things. The first set of things are their own anti-social, repressive, oppressive, and anti-democratic tactics and methods and policies that they have enacted towards the general public. The American people cannot and will not voluntarily be marched into a neo-feudal serfdom without some form of resistance springing forth. Worse still, the people who will be behind such a resistance will also be the least qualified, least able, and least willing to establish a functional and effective new order from the ashes of the old. The second set are the anti-social, anti-progress, moronic, baboon-like group of radical right wing personalities and people whose anti-social, anti-progress, and anti-democratic tactics are what have brought us to the point where one is dead at NSA headquarters. These are the fat cat millionaires and radical right wingers who are sitting in our Congressional delegations, posing as bankers and businesspeople, making a mockery of the American spirit and the nature of Americans throughout all levels of society. We can either be cleansed of these people by ignoring them, voting against them, and by defending ourselves with lethal force if necessary. Or we can continue to sit around and do nothing while they dismantle our entire society and environment in the name of profit, control, and some abstract notion of liberty that they've never questioned or seriously examined.
I've always suggested that we turn our attention towards ridding our human societies of these conservative elements and the more pragmatic economic elite who fund them. The shooting at the NSA should be taken as a wake-up call for all Americans to unite against the growing right wing despotism that is threatening to erode our nation's core integrity and to disband the dysfunctional and ineffective establishment "left" in favor of a new progressive state in America that relies on science, evidence, and the well-being of all people, not just the rich, as the benchmarks for good policy and good policy-making. Financial wealth for wealth's sake should not be the end all of a society's goal, nor should we condone or accept those who can't get that through their heads.
A government and its members are never self-sustaining entities. A government and their members rely on the legitimacy, acceptance, and authority that is granted to them. These are things which can be revoked with disastrous consequences to follow for all people, including for the governments' members, when and if they are revoked. Governments can fail; their existence is not guaranteed. Best to continue working with the general public in a dialogue for the sake of improving the quality of life for people rather than act as if there are no consequences for your actions. The sooner our governments in the United States and throughout human society get this through their heads, the sooner we'll all be better off. We need to eliminate the right wing by allowing them to eliminate themselves, and the world will be that much closer to being reasonably settled, even though it will never truly be settled in the long term or short term. This will never be a utopian world; some problems will continue, old ones fade away, and new ones will rise. What we can change is how we live, interact with, and respond to the changes and common reality, first, by acknowledging that there is a common reality where all opinions, hypotheses, and perceptions are not equal and should not be given an equal light if they prove to be unfounded and without evidence to support them. The second thing we need to do is learn about this universe as thouroughly, deliberately, and accurately, specifically with regards to ourselves and to our own place within it relative to all other things on the individual and collective level. The third thing is to apply the lessons in our daily lives, policies, laws, programs, and actions, such that we can live healthier, happier, and more sustainable lives as individuals within the context of our environment and our societies. We can follow these three steps and all the subsequent steps and implications, or we can all collapse as a civilization and ruin ourselves and the world around us in the name of senseless greed and baseless ideology. These are the options. What side will you be on?
A society derives its characteristics from the collective behavior, attitudes, desires, hopes, dreams, wishes, and aspirations of every individual who lives within it. Every society has a different way or logic about how they go about their business in government and in society, just as every person has their own strategy to achieve their own desired goals and outcomes. Sometimes they're in alignment with the universal laws of humanity and of human society. Sometimes they're optimal, or more optimal than others. Sometimes, they're less optimal or less helpful than others. Sometimes, it's just a question of luck that they succeed or fail, with no control over what went wrong or what went well for them. The trick then is to work out what is significant for the general public's well-being (which is also the leading powers' well-being), and what isn't. We can only ethically encourage governments and leading societal figures to change what is significant for their own benefit at the very least (for the public's well-being at the very most). We must then work to accept those things that are insignificant for the public's overall well-being. We must either respect the diversity of the societies of the universe, or we will forever be miserable and dragged into conflict, bitterness, and hatred trying to change that which will not forcibly be changed as well as that which is insignificant, irrelevant, and maybe damaging for a society to experience in their turn. I hate to use this buzzword, but there must be synergy across cultures, societies, and peoples, if we are to achieve better social, economic, and technological conditions for our own selves, at the very least, for all others, at the very most. The constant goal needs to be health, well-being, sustainability, and adaptability for ourselves and for the peoples of the world collectively. Otherwise, we will kill ourselves seeking out the irrelevant, the non-existent, and the self-destructive. The societies who are best able to pursue these goals while maintaining and adaptive and defensive edge over others will undoubtedly be the longest surviving societies with the most enduring social, cultural, political, and economic institutions. May the best societies succeed. May all others revert backwards or become extinct in their present or desired form.
I know that I'm closed to some things. But it's just silly to be open to everything. Honestly, why should we take the opinion that the Earth is the center of the universe seriously, or that 1+1 can equal anything other than 2? The same principles apply in our social, political, economic, environmental, and government worlds. You make one configuration in government, in policy, and in funding, you get a series of possible outcomes, depending upon all the other conditions that the government does not and cannot control for. But, if you make a different configuration in government, policy, and funding, you get a different set of probable outcomes which may or may not actually be better for all of our social units and the entirety of the universe. Utility is a subjective thing, that is true. But, as far as human beings go relative to all other life in the universe, there seem to me to be some things that are universal, objective, or both for life as we know it and for human life relative to all other life in the universe. Water, H2O, is one of those things that I can think of. The presence of one thing that fills this criteria proves that there may be other things which also fit this criteria. It doesn't matter what your brain believes or what your brain thinks should be done.
It is possible to look at objective truths differently. You can look at the sum of two integers equaling 9 in many different ways (9+0, 1+8, 2+7, 3+6, 4+5, or the reverse for each of these values). But these are the only whole numbers which can sum to 9 and in those specific combinations.
Thus, I'm left with the image of a universe wherein our brains and neurological systems are in charge of sensing, interpreting, perceiving, and working with reality first (before you make any choices that will change that reality for one way or another). Our brains may or may not be healthy and functional relative to common reality, and to ourselves relative to common reality. Some brains and neurological systems may be pathological to the world (for example, people who persist and refuse to acknowledge common reality and choose instead to invent or produce their own mental image of reality based on their personal motivations and preferences). The root of all human activity should, normatively, be directed at trying to understand reality, accepting that which holds up to scientific testing and falsification, and rejecting that which actually does not hold up to scientific testing and falsification. If there is no evidence that is provable for something, why should we simply accept that personal version of reality over our common reality?
Now, there are many ways to see reality that are accurate, just as there are many ways to add whole number integers to equal 9. If you want to get even more complex, there are an infinite number of ways to sum partial numbers to equal 9. But even then, there only the appropriate combinations of these partial numbers will equal to exactly 9. The first number determines what the second number is going to be, and vice versa, such that you're again, not able or technically free to add whatever combination of partial numbers that you'd like and try to get 9. You can't add 4.5 and 3.32 to get 9. That's just an axiomatic fact. Therefore, while a plurality of perspectives is likely the desirable conditional set, it must be recognized that there are some opinions, beliefs, and perspectives which simply don't match with common reality. The template is reality; the authority is the universe itself. No human may abridge, alter, or influence the discovered laws of the universe, as far as we can tell at present. Furthermore, if we do end up being able to affect common reality through the altering and shifting of natural laws (as per natural laws that are subtler and deeper than the laws we’re working with), we must be extremely careful not to alter those laws in such a way that our very existence becomes untenable or self-destructive as a result of our tampering with them. We could, in such a hypothetical situation, wipe out all of existence in our present form if we were to tamper with certain laws in certain ways, just as we may wipe ourselves off by killing off certain species in our ecosystems or altering the conditional state of our ecosystems in such a way that our own existence may be put in jeopardy.
Therefore, in my mind, we get a view of the universe that is highly complicated, complex, and interconnected discretely and across boundaries. We are bound in this universe, as such, that we technically and normatively should not tamper, alter, or destroy certain aspects of the universe. We are never, as it were, free from altering the universe or ourselves in the universe without consequence. The same rules apply on the physical and quantum levels of the universe, so too does it apply in our social, economic, environmental, and political levels. You are, to begin with, not able to conceive of everything that you can do (thus limiting what you can or may do). You are not physically or mentally capable of doing everything and anything in the universe that is beyond your abilities to handle, even if you are able to imagine or conceive of those things. Finally, even if you are technically, physically, and/or mentally able to do some things in this universe, there is a wide range of things that you should not do, from the perspective of preserving your own health, safety, and well-being on the individual and relative levels. There are right and wrong answers in this universe; better or worse solutions to complex problems. There are correct, better, and worse assessments of problems and situations, just as there are correct, better, and worse solutions to those actual problems in our universe and for our actual well-being. There are criteria for our utility, health, and well-being on the individual and social levels which are relevant and some that are not, in actuality, relevant at all.
Now, I’m never going to say that I have all the answers to all of these problems or the solutions to every problem that we are experiencing or can possibly experience. No human can be 100% correct 100% of the time. All that I’m asserting is that these points are correct 100% of the time in our universe, and that we can experiment with them ourselves to prove that they’re actually true. What I am proposing and advocating for, is that we switch over to a sustained, systematic review and exploration of our social, economic, political, environmental, cosmological, and integrated reality, such that we can make better individual and collective choices for ourselves in the universe relative to all other things. Those opinions and desires which aren’t right and/or are unhealthful should be treated as such. The real sin isn’t having an incorrect belief, but persisting in that belief when it’s been conclusively proven to be likely or definitively incorrect or unhealthful. That’s all that I’m saying, that’s all that I’m advocating for, and I’m 99.99999999999999999% sure that this is axiomatic for the entire universe as we are able to know and comprehend. Ignorance is what should be wiped out, and those who won’t or can’t come to grips with reality are the ones we should be labeling as those possessing pathologically formed neural systems. The solution for these people is optional rehabilitation, if they’re not posing an immediate threat to themselves or others, and care. I could be wrong too, very easily. But I’m not going to persist in a belief just because I think or feel it to be right, if it is demonstrably the case that my opinion and belief is actually incorrect or mostly incorrect. Again, the real sin is persisting in ignorance when it is revealed, not being ignorant in and of itself. Some people are more able to be correct than others; some people are less able. It’s only a bad thing if you continue in an incorrect view.
Such is my view of reality. Such is the reason why I am closed to certain beliefs, opinions, and people. I hope this clarifies my logic and ways of thinking for you all. Thank you.
If you're going to govern over a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-cultural territory, I think that you're going to have to do one or more of three basic things.
The first, would be to make a common denominator that everyone shares; a singular touchstone of identity that everyone can feel apart. This cannot be a top-down given thing, but requires communication amongst the whole population (meaning, all peoples from all populations) in order to arrive at that common denominator that cannot be determined in advance. This is most similar to what the United States has done successfully over the years and least like what is happening in France or other Western European countries. You need people to be one people. Just because you may give up something as the host, doesn't mean that you can't preserve the essence of your society in a more general and less specific form.
The second is to include people into the political and economic systems, such that you don't have people alienated, helpless, and potentially angry at whomever they have chosen to live with. Just because new people have chosen to live in a given territory and are given a hard time within that territory by the native population, doesn't mean that they're necessarily likely to go back to wherever they came from. Again, the American society has done this fairly well over the years relative to others, while we look at other societies with marked social divisions leading to economic divisions and political divisions. These social, economic, and political divisions are toxic to maintaining health and happiness within a society, as we can plainly see when looking at societies, such as Nigeria or Iraq or Turkey, where exclusion or forced assimilation are the defacto policies of the society and the government.
The third option, is to part ways outright and to divide land with the recognition that violence only exacerbates negative economic, social, and political conditions for all sides. It usually is more costly to fight and hold onto land that doesn't have your people occupying it than it is to let the land break off and form its own sovereignty, for better or for worse, depending upon how all involved handle it. People tend to demand agency and, when that agency is denied, it tends to make things worse for all parties who are involved in the conflict. We can look at cases, such as India and Pakistan and Bangladesh as ways to not divide territory and societies, while we can look at the Czech Republic and Slovakia as ways to divide territories.
These are the principles that seem to be generally at the heart of international relations, political science, sociology, and human psychology. To neglect these concepts is to spark war, tension, and economic collapse between two or more collective consciences of humanity. We see this in Ukraine at the present time, as well as in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. It boils down to two basic options. The first is to welcome people into a society, develop a bottom-up approach to building a national consciousness while including people in the political and economic systems. The second is to part ways, hopefully amicably, and let the two national consciences be apart with less territory. You can't force a people to be someone or something they're not, anymore than you can force a single person to be someone or something they're not. It just doesn't work out, and tends to increase net suffering while decreasing net well-being in the process. This is based on personal observations from history, cultural geography, sociology, political science, and human psychology. These have not been statistically tested in practice, nor do I think we can test them with the present data that's available. However, our consciousness of the past is growing all the time, and our awareness of world events can already happen at the speed of electricity. We can either use the general information to guide us as best as we can while we collect and model data to make our conclusions more solid, or ignore the information that is already present from these different disciplines and from our world, and simply continue trying to fit the square peg in the round hole. We can do a much much much better job at handling our public affairs with the knowledge and insights that we can have at present. What in Hell are we waiting for?
In some respects, the United States is more like the Soviet Union because of the influence of Capitalism and Capitalists than anything else. We have a shadow group of wealthy people and interests calling the shots behind the scenes to both political parties who sit in our government. The Soviets had one political party calling the shots to their government behind the scenes via the Politbureau. Both groups of people and their ultimate philosophies and practices lead their societies to the same results and likely to the same conclusions. Our Capitalist elites extract wealth and relative power from us, the Soviet elites did the same to their people. Both of our governmental systems and staff neglected to listen to the signs of their social and environmental ecosystems. The Soviet Union collapsed politically and fell apart into traditional ethnic territories. The United States is also likely to fall apart if nothing significant substantially changes, albeit, it'll likely be into ideological and cultural camps.
By my reckoning, the solution to at least the American problem is a commitment to democratic principles and a social logic for our economy. Workers should be paid according to their profitability and, when there aren't enough jobs available in the private market, the government should buy up the extra labor and put people to work with living wages and provide job training and education while they otherwise mark time in between jobs and demand cycles. Living conditions could be improved where people live with surpluses produced by productivity, based on demonstrable needs and evidence based practices. We could probably eliminate Medicare and Medicaid in favor of a universal healthcare and reduce medical costs as well through negotiation with the healthcare providers. We could maybe even go as far as to nationalize health research (which has already effectively happened), giving profit for health problems that are solved rather than leaving health to the private markets for them to ignore public health in favor of profits. Same could be said for national defense. Why should anyone be allowed to derive profit from war (which is an anathema to a healthy economy) or to have a substantial portion of our workforce tied up in pointless weapons manufacturing?
All the while, our governments can start to coordinate amongst themselves for the production and delivery of services. Experiments with organizational practices to improve inter and intra governmental communication, as well as attention towards creating fora for dialogue with the public on local and party levels could also take place, such that our government officials can know what the public actually needs and wants. The delivery, implementation, and interface of these functions can also be experimented with on the local and party levels in order to create a lasting link between governed and governing that can only be broken at both parties' expense.
In the end, the United States is exhibiting the same anti-democratic, anti-social, and anti-environmental symptoms under Capitalism that the Soviet system exhibited under their definition of Communism. Our government officials and political parties don't seem to truly care to put in an effort to create a two-way dialogue with the public and amongst their own levels and layers. They also don't seem to care to have in place the necessary tools, mechanisms, and practices to preserve their own legitimacy and authority or to increase their personal and institutional longevity. Our legislators, administrators, chief executives, corporate shadow government officials and interests don't seem to be thinking or feeling beyond the next election or the next quarterly report on profits. It is myopic, stupid, idiotic, cruel, callous, and predictably destructive for themselves to continue on this present course of action without appropriate, significant, and substantial changes to the way they think, feel, and work with the larger world that is also them. Meanwhile, you the citizen will pay either for your complacence in doing nothing appropriate to make momentum against these people happen or your ignorance in your tacit or outright support for them and their practices. We live together or we die together. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people out there, young and old, rich and poor, who are actually opting for death, as far as the impacts of their choices are in common reality. The United States will rot from the inside out, due to chronic mismanagement by law and policy makers and practitioners. We, as the whole American society will pay the price for our choices to be either apart of the solution in common reality or to be apart of the problem tacitly or overtly in common reality. It all of our choices whether we succeed or fail. I for one though am not seeing many positive signs amongst the citizenry or the elected and appointed officials who can actually do something for us though. A perfectly preventable and predictable end for those who actually probably deserve it. Oh well.
We need a group who will run for offices, will expect only the effort of votes and support, will use the science of psychology to get their messages across and will use the science of governing to lead and make choices for the public over the wants of the private. We need a group who will play the long game, not taking into account just the next election cycle; who will stand for the truly American principles of inclusion, prosperity, pragmatic sense, and a basis in reality rather than hallucinations and beliefs.
If the conservatives wish to make other stabs at eliminating economic and social democracy, we should get organized into decentralized, organized bands and make ready to fight if necessary to get our governments to work for the American people. I am not going to be willing to subsidize someone elses' second luxury yacht if it comes at the expense of our schools, health, environment, technology, and overall prosperity. We should not be robbed of the wealth that we produce through our labor, nor should we be denied the right to live as human beings and pursue happiness in according to our needs, tastes, and desires within the bounds of safety, sensibility, and others' happiness. I am sick of being told that my work isn't valuable to an organization. I am sick of someone far away telling me how I can non-destructively live my personal life. And I can't stand the amount of willful ignorance and logical contortions that the conservative opposition comes up with to continue to justify their poorly chosen stances and priorities.
It is time to govern with science and through facts and evidence as to how things are rather than how we think things are or want them to be. I am done being nice to the conservatives and the ideologues.
Getting youth development right has never been more pressing. Countering narratives of grievance, along with offering a better vision of the future, is the job of development. The question is how to do it.
Eli Levine's insight:
There are many reasons that motivate people to take up arms and fight, sometimes against improbable odds. Many of our present government leaders seem to believe that people fight against the strong because of economic want or ignorance on the part of the volunteers. Indeed, this narrative puts the onerous on the rebel factions and leaves no culpability or blame for the powerful and those who seek to have and take power and resources from others.
However, this study shows that, as you scratch beneath the narration that is applied to the stories of the fighters by the powerful, and listen to the stories of those who are actually fighting against the powerful in their own words, one finds that there is no actually correlation or real connection between their economic and educational status and willingness to fight, kill, and die. The words from the actual fighters are that they're angry or feel like someone or something was taken from them by the powerful. This is then what fuels them to be willing and able to risk their life and take others'.
Contrary to the logic of the people who sit in halls of power, especially those in the halls of power in the West, the fighters are not entirely motivated by economic want or out of ignorance. As a matter of fact, they may be sacrificing relative economic prosperity and/or be highly educated even by Western standards and still willing to fight, kill, and die.
What this then means, from the point of view of the powerful, is that their actions are what are causing the violence and resistance against themselves. When you consider that human beings around the world had social logic and feelings long before (and in more neurologically powerful areas) than modern economies and notions of wealth and education, it should come at no surprise that as you put someone down that they're going to find ways to dissemble, sabotage, and perhaps outright attack those who are causing perceived or real harm to their perceived sense of self, dignity, and well-being. It may mean waiting for a long period of time for weaknesses to become present and apparent, or dying in the process of fighting against what are intolerable and unacceptable conditions imposed on them by domestic or foreign powers.
In short, while fighting itself can be perceived as an economic choice, it must be remembered that there are sometimes non-economic reasons to fight for humans. Again, money and modern notions of wealth and education are newer concepts to our species than is pride, dignity, in-group solidarity, revenge, and these other non-material emotional causes to violence. If our leaders and our societies experienced what they/we put others through just because we have an ability to do so, they'd be fighting against the repression, oppression, corruption, stolen dignity, and lost life too. Far from a call for division, this is a call for the recognition of other people and peoples as people like ourselves and whom we consider people. This is a call for effective selfishness and a path to sustainable and real power, not a gift that needs to be given. This is a call for the creation, maintenance, and preservation of real security for ourselves by recognizing how our faults lead to our problems. This is a path to marginalize, crush, and eliminate those who would want to stand against us from within their own societies. All it takes is kindness, comprehension, acceptance, and acknowledgement of sentiments. When there aren't economic motivations to fight, there are no amounts of gifts that you can pay to make the violence go away; no amounts of educational and narrative manipulation. The people who think in these ways are incorrect about their assumptions on power, human beings, and human motives relative to common reality. It shows in their inability to hold land and people for what should be an eternal relationship on Earth and everywhere else.
It's not difficult or large changes that I'm looking for. Not really.
A powerful tool. The key to growth, it seems, is to keep innovating and to provide conditions that are conducive to innovation, change, and growth. Government policy can help foster this and policy can help foster what kind of growth is achieved (you know, for if we want to consider social and environmental health and sustainability).
Pope Francis appoints 20 cardinals at a Vatican ceremony, boosting the number of men from developing nations in the group that will elect his successor.
Eli Levine's insight:
While I believe that Pope Francis believes in what he says, one has to wonder about what the motivations were behind the cardinals who elected him to office. Regardless, this is an excellent template for how to bring about positive changes within organizations. It requires bottom up demand, followed by an internal change at the top of the organization in logic or in perspective, with actions flowing from the top of the organization leading to the actual changes in personnel and attitude that is needed by the general populace whom the organization serves.
In the case of the Catholic Church, it seems that the leadership recognized an opportunity for their organization to rise again above the fray of scandal and poor management. If an organization is to change, there has to be a demand for that change on the bottom and the top has to be willing and able to acknowledge and work with that demand in order to make it happen. The plane cannot fly if it violates the laws of physics and the designers must design planes in accordance with the laws of physics in order to get them to fly. Likewise, organizations of humans have certain natural laws about them, and policy makers and leaders must obey those social laws in order to preserve, support, maintain, and grow the society in healthful and sustainable ways. Otherwise, the society collapses, and the leadership becomes out of a job, if not their actual lives.
Therefore, I think that the actions of this Pope have been masterful at bringing the organizational logic of the Catholic Church more into alignment with the natural laws of humanity and human society. He's using his authority wisely and effectively to steer and encourage the people beneath him in the organization to fall into line and regain the legitimacy and acceptability of the Catholic Church amongst the general population of the human species. All that is needed is for the Church to not go over the line when they have succeeded in regaining the trust of humanity and fall back into a pattern of cyclical abuse and apologies. That is, arguably, the greater challenge, since no present individual will have the ability to control that development and growth once they are dead or removed from official office.
If only our own social leadership could and would take these kinds of actions to create a happier, healthier, and more sustainable and functional society.
The first step to governing is to understand and pick what your priorities really are. It's ok to be honest with yourself, even if you're going to be dishonest with others. Your priorities will show through and be made apparent regardless. Be careful of what you choose to prioritize, as it will have repercussions for your own self in the present tense. It should be noted that survival needs to always trump financial profitability and health and well-being enable us to thrive much more easily and naturally than the pursuit of purely personal financial profits.
The second step is to comprehend, accept, and abide by the natural laws and conditions of society, the environment, and the physical universe that is us. As of yet, this body of knowledge is incomplete and would require some resources committed towards fleshing it out with evidence and honest analysis to comprehend this in order to make better choices in the society, with the society, and for the society.
The third step is to carefully experiment and design remedies to common problems in our society that can make information comprehensible yet not simplistic enough to distort the message that data and observations in the society can tell us about it. This is best done these days through computer modeling and, again, spare resources should be committed to developing better tools for modeling the socio-economic and environmental complex in which we live in order to produce, again, better solutions for our society through a better understanding of this complex.
The fourth step is to apply the lessons that are learned from this research into the practical world such that the governing members can achieve positive priorities for our society while neglecting negative priorities and dysfunctional ways of going about achieving the positive priorities. All specific polices and programs are subject to changing times, conditions, perceived and desired needs of the public.
These steps are just the first set of stepping stones towards making this world somewhat better for ourselves in spite of its constant and predictable inclination towards self-destruction and recreation. With any luck, the awareness and acceptance of these natural laws will always be carried on by our consciousness ad infinitum and beyond, in spite of all the changes that will occur along the way to ourselves and our comprehension of the universe. The essential truths and laws themselves are universal and absolute, even if the solutions to the problems that we face are not. Each of these steps must be tailored to each unique society and social condition. The policies and priorities that work in one area of the world will not likely work in other places, cultures, social contexts, and historical settings. Adaptation and flexibility are the names of the game. It is not one ism or another, but rather a collection of isms that are reflective of and based in common reality used appropriately and effectively at the right times that ensures survival, health, well-being, and the ability to thrive. I would argue that anything short of these specific priorities will lead to the ultimate and premature destruction of our species and our human societies.
If the governing members wish to earn the respect and legitimacy of the public at the very least, they must emphasize the priorities that lead to positive results and avoid those that don't while ignoring the sub-optimal methods for their given society and social context. If they wish to do well for their people simply because it's a good thing for them to do, then they'll also be bound to the same basic logic and the same basic steps in order to accomplish their respective ends.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all nations and all national "leaders" have been behaving extremely childishly and foolishly vis a vis the ongoing war in Ukraine. The West does not recognize Russia's need for a buffer and seaport, and Russia does not recognize that it is antagonizing an already tense situation further by proactively aiding rebel forces in the east. I said this a long time ago: the West, for our part, should have advocated for dialogue amongst Russian-Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Ukrainians in order to quell the ultra-nationalists in Ukraine and cooperate with the Russian-Ukrainians on what are mutual problems of economy. The EU should not be trying to take on another broken economy in its present state and NATO should remain on the other side of the Ukrainian border, regardless of who is governing in Ukraine, as a gesture of good faith to the Russians that comes at NO cost to ourselves over here. The only people who have been destabilizing global security are the people who were chosen for us to be elected by us in the West and Mr. Vladimir Putin. I do not know how to put the situation in any other way and I defy anyone to say that this should not be taken as a marginalist, zero-sum game where everybody has to lose. In the end, the Ukrainians from all walks of life need to acknowledge that Ukraine cannot be repaired from its present state without Russian and EU assistance. Therefore, wouldn't it seem logical to do a concert of both working together towards a common goal that all three can benefit from rather than participating in this war that is costing everybody everything? Ukraine: you can't live on national pride. Russia: you need to be more circumspect with what's of value to you. And, America and EU nations: never have I ever seen a more brazen and destructive attempt for marginal gains that are strategically unnecessary for us than I have seen here. Your actions are not only incompetent, but also downright dangerous, aggressive, and hypocritical to what you allegedly stand for as democracies and as sensible strategic leaders of your peoples.
At present I have no reason to want to work for these leaders of the West and every reason to want to see them removed from office by the democratic will and force of the general public they claim to represent. Only inconsequential people have liberty and only inconsequential people can and should be allowed to live away from truth, reality, and the substance of human existence. What we've got instead are a collection of reality TV wannabes who think that the substance of the universe is negotiable and that they are at liberty to do what they'd like when they'd like just because they won the lowest rated popularity contest in their country (seriously, American Idol polls higher than a US General Election, even when the Presidency is on the line). What good is maintaining the pretense of "democracy" when the democratic will of the people is not to maintain democracy in substance?
War costs. Pollution costs. Excessive wealth concentration costs. Excessive power reaching costs. Infectious diseases costs. Poor management costs.
All of these things eat away at the power, viability, and sustainability of a group of peoples' ability to remain in power. We have chosen these people to lead and make choices for our society. They have not lived up to their minimum requirements, and we will all pay for their ignorance, stupidity, and capriciousness. The world of making policy is not an art form where you are at liberty to do as you will when you will and receive positive results for your liberty. It is actually a cold, cold science at its roots, with very real and grave consequences for not abiding by the natural laws that are present within our societies and economies. You do x bundle of policies, you get y results within the society, which then has the power to change, shift, and move on you independently of the policies that you enact. It is better for those who are in power to know the laws of society, economy, ecology, physics, psychology, and the entire natural universe that is larger than the sub-atomic, yet smaller than the cosmological. Unless we have this comprehension and acceptance of natural laws and conditions in our world, we will never really break free from the cycle of boom, bust, and decay with a chance of making it back to a positive rebirth.
We cannot abide the ideologues, the delusional, the warped in thinking and feeling, and the clinically anti-social in our governments and in our places of power, consequence, authority, and responsibility. We cannot abide their anti-social, the deranged, or the delusional from being in power, nor should we accept their sub-par leadership for the sake of their personal ego. We'll be the ones paying for their ability to be in office. And, quite frankly, privilege of being in office, in my mind, does not outweigh my right to live a free, decent, and happy life.
How do you feel about this?
Seriously, we will die for the sake of their pathetic ego.
Perhaps our real problem as a species, from an economic perspective, is a poor definition and a poor cognizance of our actual utilities, given our biological, sociological, and environmental needs. Would anyone say that the French or Russian or Chinese or Iranian aristocrats truly maximized their utility when they took so much from their societies that the societies themselves rose up and eliminated them? I'm not inclined to say so. I think we're headed on a similar collision course with history of our corporate and political leaders continue on their same near-sighted, artificial, and narrow definitions of success and utility maximization.
Utility is going to be different for each person and position within a given society. It is also something that is partially constructed socially and partially experienced endogenously within ourselves. Just because something amasses you more material or financial wealth doesn't mean that it is you're actually "winning" at anything. Just because several people or society itself may have told you what you wanted doesn't mean that it's really good for you as an individual.
A business person's motivation to maximize financial profits and material wealth is contradictory and, sometimes, mutually exclusive to maximizing their actual organic, sociological, and environmental needs as living beings. Yet through a combination of genetic, socialization, and psychological factors they choose financial wealth over their own physical, social, and environmental health. They seem to clearly mistake and misunderstand their own self interests relative to the larger social, economic, and environmental picture of the universe that is around them.
A governing member of society's motivation can be found in maintaining, preserving, and extending their relative power and influence within the given society. However, we see here again that these governing members frequently mistake temporary relative power over people to long term longevity and a lasting positive influence on peoples' lives. Without this positive influence on peoples' well-being and quality of life, they then preside over relative hovels of societies or else, get removed from office all together in more proactive societies. Again, the key to achieving utility maximization is misunderstood, even in the public realm where traditional notions of utility maximization aren't present.
In short, maximizing relative power and influence, along with pure financial profit are not keys to maximizing human utility on any planet. They should not be used in determining those things which we need to crave for our health, well-being, and quality of life in this universe within the context of our larger society, economy, and environment. Those who don't see it like that are probably suffering from some sort of socially induced hallucination that could be an enabling factor in allowing them to fight, kill, and even die for the sake of things that we don't really need and shouldn't really want as human beings. How does the maximization of utility in these traditional senses lead to true utility maximization if they ruin lives, well-being, and whole economies and societies?
The economy is much more complicated than the businesses that occupy it. While it is important to understand how businesses and businesspeople respond to external factors in the economy, based on internal preferences and desires, it is also important to bear in mind the relative value of financial profit relative to environmental, social, and economic concerns. Since businesses and businesspeople are too preoccupied with monetary gain and profits, it behooves the society, businesses, and businesspeople alike to turn over final authority over the economy, at the very least, to the society under the trust of the government in order to preserve the businesses and business interests non-monetary concerns. The beauty of an effective and efficient democratic system, free from the constraints of businesses, businesspeople, and general social elites, is that the government is more likely to be corrected by the society and the people living in the society than if it were left to the oligarchic manipulation by the economic and social elites. Working people benefit from being protected from businesses and businesspeople attempting to take advantage of them and their labor. Businesses and businesspeople benefit from maintaining a relative environmental and social homeostasis in which they can best operate to make money within the constraints of society, the environment, and technological know-how. Without this combination of factors, it is impossible to maintain a society in which people can live or make money over and above the financial costs that are required to maintain such a system.
"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind." - Prologue, Code of Hammurabi.
Eli Levine's insight:
These are the principles for which I stand. Like Hammurabi, I submit myself to the conditions and workings of the universe (read, God) as discovered by scientific investigation and analysis, not by revelation and opinion. I am just a human. I am not likely to do much in this world for the sake of others, nor will I likely be successful at communicating these concepts to the leading classes of the world and to the working underclasses whom the upper classes have such scorn and disregard for. I will always, however, be throwing myself in calculated and adaptive manners at the wall isolating humanity's conscientiousness, for the sake of humanity. We should never rely on written laws for constitutions for our guidance, but only on the discovered truths of the universe in which we live and must make our living. There are an infinite number of possibilities for actions we can take, limited by practicality and feasibility. These remaining practical and feasible options are then limited by what is actually healthful for us, which is then limited by what is optimally healthful for us. The trick now is to experiment with methods of organization and political games, such that we can fine tune our society's politics, such that the needs of the general public becomes the central focus of our political leaders, not the perceived needs and interests of a particular population or group of populations. This is how you're best able to maintain a system; this is how you're best able to preserve your office, your institutions, your legacies, and, perhaps, even leave a positive memory amongst the people once you inevitably depart from this lifetime. If you don't truly want to be happy, healthy, successful, and able to be in office or have a lasting, sustainable, and perpetual institutional basis for society, how then can you expect to survive in office or ensure your own health and well-being, let alone, the health and well-being of others? If you truly want to be happy, healthy, successful, and able to be in office and have a lasting, sustainable, and perpetual institutional basis for society, then why would you take actions which actually leads to the destruction and degradation of your office and institutions for any reason whatsoever?
I therefore testify to the world that there is a common reality which has natural features to it with unwritten, yet at least partially discoverable rules of cause and effect to them which we can partially manipulate for our overall improvement or our overall detriment as a collective and individual species. The trick to staying in office is to follow, learn about, and abide by these natural laws, and then apply them for the general well-being of the public through adaptive, dynamic changes in policy, programs, at the absolute expense of the particular interests for the sake of the absolute and relative interests of the general whole. There is no need to rely on the lawyers or merely eloquent arguers of opinion who don't, and likely won't, accept the natural laws and conditions of society. The trick to dialogue and debate is to discover truth, in its most subtle, complicated, and simple terms. That is how you preserve a society. That is how you preserve institutions of society, formal and informal. That is how you, as a policy-maker and decision-maker keep your seat and make it easier on yourself to justify your positions and get re-elected in the short term, which then condenses into the long term. I for one have no more use or interest for the incorrect and unfounded opinions of others. I think that, given a comprehension of the bad, while allowed to have tastes of the good, will help guide society as a whole to the same general conclusion in the long term, which then collapses into the short term all too soon.
I will stand for these principles and these facts from now, until the time that I physically die in this form, and throughout all time and space, for my own absolute improvement, or my own absolute detriment in this lifetime and beyond. I stake my life, liberty, and happiness on this being actually the truth. Let all challengers come to knock it down. I will continue to stand by it honorably until it is actually and conclusively knocked down by someone more adept at perceiving the world as a whole than I am. I will then, at that point, humbly alter my opinion to bring it in alignment with the new understanding of common reality and cease to support it. That is how science works and I am only human.
We will not have an global governmental system of any sorts until we first recognize the communal nature of all human societies and respect the sovereign right of all peoples to self-determine and make their decisions on a national, regional, and global level. There can be no central leader, no cabal of powerful nations or people to rule over all. Such a model is impractical and infeasible, and will likely be undermined in time by the many smaller nations, or else, fall prey to its own stupidity and purity of thought and reasoning. The first practical step to creating a global civil society that has legitimacy on the bottom levels of human society would be to eliminate the veto power of the 5 Permanent UN Security Council Members. The effect of this would be that all nations would have a say in whether to intervene in a given area, with defacto power and influence being turned over to the regional, national, or intra-national levels, such that the locals can have ultimate control and say over what happens to them in their own territory. We all have a stake on this planet to mediate disputes in such a way that they that it works for the people who are in conflict and to resolve common problems for all of humanity, such as resource consumption and environmental impact. You cannot have a centralized, singular, and conscientiously homogenous body in charge of the diverse planet. Rather, the world must be regarded as a community of peoples, not unlike neighborhoods within a city or clusters of people in an apartment building, with reasoned respect given for all person's privacy with collective action being taken only in instances of severe violations of common human dignity and well-being. Corporate private interests must be subsumed for the sake of the collective well-being and, in that check to personal ambition and prowess, the individual is better able to survive and be well on this planet.
So, my suggestion would be to eliminate the veto power of the Permanent UN Security Council Members and for the great nations of the world to scale back their meddling operations to recognize the sovereignty and dignity of each human being, at the absolute expense of corporate and financial interests, for the relative gains to having those supreme egos checked. This is my conclusion based on my observations of history, human psychology, and sociology. We cannot continue to afford to bully or act unitarily and capriciously against our own perceived threats, nor can we counter popular resistance in its home territory. This is my general prescription for logic in International Relations, not firmly in any of the schools of thought. This is a new synthesis based on the old schools and at least my own observations and interpretations of facts. Test it, shape it, mold it. In the end, it is always going to be power backed up by kindness and legitimacy that wins, rather than power backed up by pure force alone. As it is on the personal level, so as it is on the collective.
What progressives and liberals need to recognize, is that they need to go down with their honor and dignity in tact. The United States is, and always has been, an essentially progressive nation, where inclusion, equal opportunity, and human rights, the essentials of liberalism, are put on pedestals while monarchy, aristocracy, exclusion, and the corporate pretender wannabes, the essence of conservatism, are shunned and vilified in popular culture and sentiment. We want leaders who are accountable, responsive, and genuinely concerned with the well-being of ourselves as leaders. Why would we vote for anyone who doesn't fulfill these things for us on a practical level?
The progressives in their present form need to pull back, reorganize, go underground if necessary, and cede to the conservatives and Libertarians all the power and influence that they want. The leadership should be prepared to get out of the country and find safe haven overseas while maintaining lines of communication inside. We need to prepare for war, make friends overseas, and prepare for combat if necessary against the conservative and Libertarian forces. Let the people eat the dog shit provided by the wannabe corporate aristocrats, and they'll more than likely grow weary of it. They'll long for a return to what their government was meant to be about. This is the United States of America, not the play pen of some inbred pseudo-nobles. I think that, if given enough rope, and provided that the progressives avoid being condemned as a group by the public, the conservatives will hang themselves or be forced to evolve on the terms and lines of the progressives. Conservatism in government is little more than an abusive, unfeeling, and uncaring relationship with the public. Only the public can make the ultimate cut with the conservatives. The progressives, for their part, must get themselves ready to out campaign the conservatives on the grassroots level, and possibly fight a popular guerrilla war against the bankers, the corporate executives, and the establishment union leaders and entrenched interests. It is time that our leadership should recognize their true interests relative to the public.
I call this the Obi Wan Maneuver. "Strike me down, and I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
This could be one of the most significant tools for organizational and social management. Imagine a direct feedback loop between administrators and managers an the general public of their organization. Imagine people being designated to speak and choose on behalf of everyone rather than on the few who are able and willing to turn out to vote. Imagine a responsive, evidence driven government aligned with the general needs and desires of the public. Imagine what we, as a society, could do with this technology, insight, and incentive structure.
You don't have to join a rebel movement in order to play an effective role in supporting it. Shelter can be provided, misinformation for the opposing troops, food, disguises, safe passage, etc, all can be provided by civilians. If the movement is popular enough, it will be impossible to get rid of it with this kind of support. Force will only alienate the opposing army from the public, making their situation all the more untenable. People see through deception in time, and there will be no end of random volunteers and loosely organized forces to stand against what can be technically more advanced and numerous troops. Never underestimate the power of narrative, being reasoned and reasonable in your positioning and dialogue, followed up by genuine action with sincere desire to do what's right by everybody, sometimes, at your own absolute expense.
It's called maintaining a good relationship with people. I think it's the only effective way to maintain power, consequence, position, and authority in any given human society. It involves listening, caring, and sometimes putting the needs and desires of others above your own immediate or short term wants and hopes. That is, from my experience and observations of the past, the best way for power to preserve and earn itself.
The World's Constitutions to Read, Search, and Compare
Eli Levine's insight:
While I believe that the only constitution that truly matters is the one that gives rise to natural laws, it is interesting to look at how each society and given political unit (which does not naturally correspond to a society necessarily) determines what is right for them in their particular situation and cultural condition.
There is a consequence to every written law that gets produced that is independent of the intentions and desires of the individuals who crafted it. There are, in fact, universal laws which apply to societies, economies, and environments. However, in addition to accounting for the universal, natural laws of each given society, it must also be reckoned that there are particular natural laws for each social unit that are socially constructed and, therefore, apart of natural law as a sort of customizable appendix of customs. I think that it is this wiggle room and diversity that we have within natural law that gives us, as a species, our greatest strength. Rather than be limited by one way of looking at the universe, we can look at it in different ways and receive different correct answers that compose the whole of our universe. There are right and wrong answers and hypotheses. But it is through synthesizing all of the different perspectives that we can get the most accurate perception of our universe, just as insects have compound eyes to give them a more accurate interpretation of the physical world around them so they can manage to fly safely and avoid predators and problems. Add in the other senses, known and unknown, and we flesh out and push the limits of our abilities to work with the universe for our own health and well-being and our own survival. Remember, if you don't have the appropriate functional nerves for something, you're not going to perceive it (just as we can't taste with our hands or smell with our feet). By accurately synthesizing the perspectives of all people, accepting what is there while eliminating that which isn't really there, you enhance our ability to perceive, work with, and live in this universe amongst ourselves and our cosmological cousins around us.
Therefore, the preamble to my universal constitution would be "In accordance with the discovered natural laws of the universe and with the utmost respect for the particular laws of each society, for the sake of all living beings in the universe, we hereby institute this government for the sake of improving, maintaining, and sustaining all of society and all living beings within it." We are, in fact, one society. We're just made up of many different societies and many different individuals within those individual societies.
Contemporary complexity theory has been instrumental in providing novel rigorous definitions for some classic philosophical concepts, including emergence. In an attempt to provide an account of emergence that is consistent with complexity and dynamical systems theory, several authors have turned to the notion of constraints on state transitions. Drawing on complexity theory directly, this paper builds on those accounts, further developing the constraint-based interpretation of emergence and arguing that such accounts recover many of the features of more traditional accounts. We show that the constraint-based account of emergence also leads naturally into a meaningful definition of self-organization, another concept that has received increasing attention recently. Along the way, we distinguish between order and organization, two concepts which are frequently conflated. Finally, we consider possibilities for future research in the philosophy of complex systems, as well as applications of the distinctions made in this paper.
Self-Organization, Emergence, and Constraint in Complex Natural Systems Jonathan Lawhead
We are naturally constrained by many natural laws in our universe. Our governments are likewise constrained by physical laws of nature as well as the natural laws behind people, societies, economies, and ecosystems. Where the constraints came from in nature, I don't know. But what I do see, is that like the natural laws of the universe, societies impose other constraints upon our actions, behaviors, perceptions, chosen courses of action, abilities to frame issues and topics, abilities to define conditions within our social systems. Governments can likewise make and define constraints for behaviors or willingness and ability to behave on the part of the citizenry, either by offering incentives to get people to behave in a particular way or to penalize and possibly limit some actions and chosen patterns of behavior.
It should be noted that the laws and chosen constraints and incentives of the government on this level of existence can only be as good as the people who sit within them and make choices. They are also limited by the physical laws of the universe and the natural laws, conditions, desires, and motives of the general public that composes the whole of society in aggregate and as that which is greater than the aggregate; the combined whole of human thought, behavior, and sentiment.
These human-made constraints (created by governments and social authority figures) are also imperfect in their ability to contain and constrain the society, since the society and its members have autonomy from the government. Humans and human societies are more constrained by the natural laws and the limitations of knowledge and perception that are present in our brains and neural systems. Therefore, it can be said that human-made social constraints are less important than the natural ones that exist amongst ourselves and within the universe that we are apart of.
Therefore, I think that in order to continue to advance humanity and contribute to our potential to survive, endure, and thrive, we should be constantly and safely pushing at the constraints of what we already know and can do as individuals and as a species. Our government(s) should focus on studying the universal natural laws of societies, economies, human behavior, and environmental functions in addition to the particular laws of their own societies, making laws and legal systems that work better and better with the natural laws of their own societies and amongst all human societies. We should capitalize on our differences of perspective and opinion, sifting out those that don't fall into line with discovered reality while using that which is accurate to complete the puzzles of our universe in order to produce something greater than what we've presently got and to continue to advance ourselves safely and in accordance with what is actually helpful, healthful, and ethical for all sentient life in the universe. Study, research, observation, and exploration are what will make tomorrow better than today, even as the natural laws and some conditions remain the same. Health, well-being, quality of life, sustainability, and the ability to thrive for all are what we need to prioritize and produce as a society over financial profits and short term economic gains for a few. Some constraints can be pushed, some can't, and some really shouldn't from the perspective of health, well-being, quality of life, and the ability to thrive for all. Welcome to nature.
By targeting the executives and leadership cadres of the energy, finance, public, and media sectors at all levels, we can institute real solid changes to our world for better or worse. These four, I believe, represent the main axiomatic core of our American society's power structure and, indeed, the world's power structure.
Specifically, what we need is clean, renewable, inexpensive, and effective energy, socially and environmentally conscious finance and investment, socially oriented and cooperative/collaborative government, and media platforms to shut down the ignorant, delusional, and malevolent. By making small changes in each of these sectors in terms of logic, perceived interest, and chosen courses of action, we can truly revolutionize the world.
The ultimate battlefield is in the hearts and minds (specifically, the brains) of each individual living person in human society, to go either towards either progressivism, adaptability, and grounding in reality, or conservatism, ideology, and delusion. Once these four pillars have been converted to what are scientifically ensured methods of survival and well-being, the rest of society can fall into place. The main challenge will be from those persisting in darkness and confusion but, with these evolutionary changes in these places, they should prove to be just an unpopular nuisance. If done correctly, these radical right wing and Libertarian elements will self-isolate, alienate the rest of human society, and ultimately consume themselves in a maelstrom of self-destruction, possibly aided and abetted by the new power elements in society. They'll make themselves irrelevant and invite people to ask for them to be possibly put to death for their agitation and violence.
We have the game. The game is either going to be won or end entirely. No more middling.
One of the biggest problems with governing is that there is no consensus about what is the actual thing that government is meant to do. We can look back at the past and see many many examples of what governments (and government members) should not do. We see a constant pattern throughout time and space that indicates that cheating, theft, lies, failure to uphold standards of behavior, tyranny, economic mismanagement, and environmental mismanagement, ie, bad government, has tended to lead to catastrophic social, if not environmental, collapse. The government and governing entities themselves pay a price for their inability or refusal to abide by common sense, pragmatism, and reality. We also see that society itself, and all people who live in societies, pay a price for the mismanagement of social, political, economic, and environmental capital by the government. The government and its members are to blame for this mismanagement, chiefly because they are the ones who are directly influencing the policies and choices that are being made, not the general public who elects them in democratic systems. What then is the role of government in light of these constraints on their ability and interest to accumulate wealth, power, and prestige?
My proposal for such a mathematical and practical function of government is as follows: The goal of the government and its members, acting within the constraints of what is feasible within this universe, is to maximize societal utility (not profit) while minimizing the costs associated with the production of that social utility given the financial, environmental, physical, psychological, cultural, historical, social, and economic, (the list can go on) constraints that they are faced with. Social utility is first defined as survival, and followed by health, well-being, and the ability to thrive. This is taken as an aggregate of all utilities throughout the human species within the range of what is feasible, known, and healthy for the individual. Excess utility by some leads to negative utility for others (thus, making it possible to create a net loss in spite of one person or group of people reaching a higher utility level). The goal of the government, from the perspective of its own self-interests, is to maximize these utilities throughout the entire population of the universe within the bounds of financial, environmental, physical, psychological, cultural, historical, social, and economic, (and so on) constraints upon it and its members’ abilities to act. It borrows from the profit maximization logic of the private, for-profit market and the cost minimization logic from the not-for-profit sector. The government, in short, when it is acting on behalf of ITSELF and ITS MEMBERS is balancing between costs and benefits that can be empirically derived through the same techniques used in marketing research, psychology, social-psychology, neurology, and sociology. It’s job is to understand what the needs and desires of the people are and then to, within reason, feasibility, and all other constraints, deliver those needs and wants through the writing, structure, enforcement, and adjudication of written law. All of these written laws must then be derivatives of the natural laws of society, economy, environmental science, physical science, and technological development, for these are the constraints that bind us all regardless of preference, choice, desire, hope, opinion, belief, or action to make it be otherwise.
A society needs a government to ensure a degree of predictability, order, and justice within the society. There are no human societies without one or without an otherwise extremely powerful governing ethos that controls, constrains, and regulates their actions, behaviors, choices, and ways of living. These smaller scale societies, without governments, require these governing ethics from the perspective of providing themselves survivability, health, well-being, and the ability to thrive within the context of their social, psychological, economic, and environmental constraints. I, for one, do not believe that we have the ability to be perfectly free, if we have freedom to begin with in actuality. All I would like is for the human species to stop killing itself off through poor, uninformed, and delusional decision-making based on irrelevant or inaccurate readings of information around them. There is a better way forward for this life and this universe. I think that I just happen to know it better than many other people, quite frankly.
Prove me wrong humans. Make better choices with your societies, governments, and own personal selves. You’re going to die no matter what. It’s just a question of when and how.
All societies may not have formal governing structures. Those that don't still do not live in complete anarchy, as they are frequently bound together by very powerful social customs, taboos, and moral codes that the members of society go to great ends to enforce. It should also be noted that those societies without governing structures are frequently very small in comparison to our present day societies (the units of these societies may have at most between 80 to 120 people in them) and survive in environments where nature provides their needs without the need for agriculture or anything more advanced than the bow or harpoon. If you'd truly like to live in a functional society without a government, I would recommend moving to Namibia and Botswana to live with the San people of the Kalahari, or the various Inuit tribes in the arctic. But bear in mind, you will not be at liberty to do as you'd please, nor will you have access to modern technology, nor the ability to develop technology at a faster pace than the resources that you have or the people's willingness to adopt the technology.
If you really believe that a society is better off without a government then please go and move to these places where they already have things established. The other option is for you to strike out on your own and produce a new society of your own. But, I warn you, you'll take the baggage of the past society and your own self with you. You will not be, as it were, at liberty to do anything beyond what you were able to do at present, and it will be doubtful as to whether or not you will survive in such a state of nature where you are more acutely beholden to nature's law as opposed to the written laws of our given social units.
So, to my Libertarian friends, I will agree with you that a better functional and more ethical government is better than one that's not. I will argue that it is in the government's interest, at least in the United States, to abide by the people's needs and to be careful and circumspect about when and how it intervenes in the society to address societal problems. I will also point out that this does not mean that I think a government should sit idly by while its people are being exploited under the pretense of an idealized market that does not exist and will not function properly were it not for the income and wealth of all people living in it. A rising tide rises all boats only when the benefits are proportionately spread throughout the economy and the society. That means that when a bosses feel they are able to take $5 million in bonuses for themselves, they should, by law, be required to share out those profits to the people who put in the day to day blood, sweat, toil, and labor to produce that $5 million in cream. That means that when companies go under, it is the base of society that should be reinforced while the superstructure gets re-done, because without that base, there cannot be a superstructure, let alone, a better handled, and better governed one at that.
To the people who are conservatives, I will agree with you in principle that there should be concepts and principles that ground us. However, I will never agree with your apparent belief and desire for an unchanging universe that is petrified in time and ultimately stagnant and devoid of the original life force that made it move. News flash: you are going to die. All of your friends and family members are going to die. Your entire world is going to die, especially if it no longer serves a helpful or useful purpose relative to our ever evolving knowledge and conception of common reality. I say to you all that you are truly the most foolish of individuals, who are both standing in opposition to the principles and values that make any society thrive and be great, and that it is your specific actions that cause societies to crumble artificially as opposed to the natural flow of births, deaths, and rebirths. It is your work that causes societies to retard and decay and it is your failure to accept death that causes you and yours to die prematurely and in the worst possible ways, as opposed to quietly moving on to a peaceable rebirth in another time and, possibly, in another place. I have nothing but pity for your poor selves, and I hope that we out evolve your nonsense. I wish you and yours nothing but love and death (yes, those two can go together), such that you and yours pass on to a world that is more conducive for your enlightenment and education.
Therefore, everyone governs in some way, and those that lack formal governing structures are not going to be growing much or doing much, and can be more repressive collectively than a highly centralized and authoritarian state. It's perfectly natural, perfectly normal, and much better than living in a state of anarchy or on small scales with collectively enforced codes of ethic. As a matter of fact, the governments of our world can do phenomenal things for us, if their members would only recognize the benefits for themselves in doing those things effectively and often.
Governments need data. Without understanding what they're doing and how they're impacting the world around them, they are at a loss. Money gets wasted, people get upset or hurt or killed, and it becomes harder to justify the presence of the existing government members along with the existing institutions of government themselves. It is in the existential interests of a government of any type or order to get their work right. Therefore, we need to know what data to collect, what data is relevant to society's well-being, and how to generally model societies and economies through data relationships and networks of connectivity. Above all, we need comprehensive models of societies' working parts; the anatomies of societies and economies in order to understand how they work and how they are connected to the base units, which are people like yourself. We then interfaces with our environment, which then interfaces with ourselves, one influencing the other.
Therefore, it would be wise if we devoted more of our societal resources towards understanding how societies, economies, and ecosystems work and how we can operate as individual human beings, such that we can understand how we work as societies and how we move and change depending upon our internal and external conditions. I see a massive push for research in these ares involving historians, statisticians, computer scientists, economists, sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, neurologists, and government officials. This would be step one towards making a coherent comprehension of our societies and economies and ecology, such that we can make effective policies, laws, and programs in accordance with the natural laws and conditions of our world.
It should be noted that the government would have to be the one producing this public good, since there is no apparent interest or desire from the free market to birth this knowledge. There is no immediate financial profit to it, and therefore, the market will not likely pursue this knowledge other than for a business perspective. This has to be done though in order to crack the puzzle of perpetual power, sustainability, and positive social conditions that can make lives able to be better for all of us.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.