Direct Democracy

Aside

Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves.  Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.

Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall.  If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson.  Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.

If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide.  However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care.  Such things must be formally indicated.

If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc.  A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves.  People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.

Advertisements

Selfishness Destroys Capitalism

Standard

Everybody is always naturally taking themselves into account without even thinking about it at the deepest level. We unconsciously assess what will allow us to survive.

However, some people help others to help themselves (though they are not consciously thinking about it that way, which is normal.) Others are programmed on the deepest level to hurt others to help themselves or to pretend to be altruistic when they are not. This latter form of selfishness which seeks to hurt others to get ahead is the one we pretend is actually a good thing that will benefit humanity when, by definition, it cannot.

The type of selfishness that hurts others to get ahead is (inherently) never a good thing and will always be considered evil. Even in competition, there must be rules of fair play. Immoral selfishness seeks to break the rules of fair play and then brainwashes humans into thinking that it’s a good thing to break such rules.

Capitalism requires fair competition to work properly. It’s best if customers know which retailer is selling a product for the cheapest price right away. Would the government ever invest in a website that lists the lowest prices so customers can get the best product for the lowest cost, forcing less efficient businesses to change?

Of course not • because that would encourage fair competition and fair play and very sinister pathologies do not like that. They want an unfair environment that only benefits those who argue for the necessity of unfairness under the guise that it will benefit humanity in the long run when (by definition) it will not.


Levels:

Altruism: E.g. I help a feeble, elderly man walk to a destination.

In the long, long run, I do benefit from this kind deed but not always on an easily or immediately detectable level. (I don’t need to consciously think about it this way either, but it doesn’t hurt. The true mechanism granting benefit is so advanced, Buddhists refer to it as receiving benefit for good karma.)

Fair competition: E.g. A race to the finish line.

This is the type of competition that would ideally drive a properly functioning capitalist society.

Sinister selfishness: E.g. Taking a crowbar to somebody’s knee before a competition or giving myself a head start while pretending people who didn’t beat me just didn’t work hard enough.

This is the type of selfishness that people argue will still be beneficial. It won’t. It messes everything up and only results in elitism and a nobility willing to maintain such sinister backward logic.


The only capitalism I favour is High-Efficiency Capitalism where nobody is poor, inequality is always capped, and people compete for RELATIVE rather than absolute wealth.

And, NO, feeling good about doing good for others does NOT negate an altruistic act. That positive feeling is what maintains altruism in many cases. There are deeper levels of sacrifice that are more painful, but on a deeper level, even these acts are rewarded (though on that level, very few consciously think about it that way because reward may only be granted in an unforeseeably distant future.)

Thinking Challenge

Standard

Is Samantha Power the fabled Beast from Revelations?


That something as rotten, evil, and shifty as Samantha Power exists is nearly unfathomable to the normal human mind which allows her to get away with exploiting genocide to justify further military aggression.

Someone like her would have done very well during the British occupation of India and today probably wishes she was working under Putin.  It would have been a much better niche for her.

Keep one eye on…

Quote

Keep one eye on decency while focusing on your life.

That’s it. That’s all a person really has to do in my opinion. Anyone who wants to be more sacrificial (on a genuine level) is more than welcome (and such sacrifices are commendable,) but I think the above idea is already more than fair, especially because it doesn’t involve exploiting others in the name of “helping” them.

Britain and the US …

Quote

Britain and the US like to prove to the World that “democratic” states can be more wicked than autocratic ones and they’ve succeeded with flying colours!

Again, the discussion needs to shift to direct democracy, not totalitarianism.  This makes supporters of imperialistic democracy angry.  Why is that?

Objectivity

Ögyen Jampalyang
Standard

The idea that there is an objective truth or reality outside of our experience of such things and the intellectualization of these concepts (which is so beloved in the Western tradition) often results in a dissociation between man (or woman) and truth where people no longer internalize what they expound and speculate upon. It basically allows for people to discuss one thing and behave incongruently, in my opinion.

As I’ve stated before, I feel humans can only approach or experience the objective nature of truth subjectively the way the Indian mystics and sages did.  It’s why I feel someone like Friedrich Nietzsche didn’t hold a candle to someone like Gautama Buddha.

Buddha (if I’m recalling things correctly) always discussed how people must achieve enlightenment for themselves so they can see through enlightened eyes.  Such things are a realm beyond pure intellectualization/conceptualizaiton and can only be achieved through internalization and experience, in my opinion.  Someone like Neitzche and many of the “enlightenment” philosophers of Europe seemed to think all truth could be enscribed {neologism: set down into writing}.  Perhaps one day this might be true, but acknowledgement of our current limitations (which is part of truth) is always important to maintain.  At our current stage, we are no where close to being able to transcribe truth into pure intellectual reasoning.  Thus, people are still required to practice as they preach because there is no perfect formula for human decency (as of yet and who knows if there ever will be.)