Property Rights and Academic Titles

Aside

All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

Advertisements

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:aristotle

Aristotle

I always thought the reverence people had for ancient Athens and Aristotle represented a lack of genuine insight.

Ancient Athens is no example of direct democracy.  When women aren’t given the right to vote and slavery is a common staple of society, it’s still just elitism masquerading as liberalism.

Aristotle, himself, tried to find excuses for why slavery was justified for his own self-convenience – nothing more.

On top of that he engaged in the constant fear-mongering oppressors always use against the people they victimize.  The British fear of the East Indians, the fear European settlers had for the Native Americans, the fear Westerners have for Middle Easterners despite using their industrialized militaries to slaughter them in large numbers or various tactics to destabilize the region.

This mentality is pathological (in a way that makes it even more evil.) Here’s a perfect illustration: Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist

The Spartans were likewise “terrified” of the Helots, whom they had enslaved.  Aristotle compares the Helots to “an enemy constantly sitting in wait of the disaster of the Spartans”. [1]

Lying for the oppressors says everything about a person’s true character and, at the end of the day, character is all that truly matters in terms of alleviating human suffering and building a truly peaceful global community.

For me, Aristotle is like Orwell. I agree with many of Orwell’s observations and assertions and often make use of his ideas.  Nineteen Eighty-Four illustrates very well the use of a constant threat of enemy attack to justify endless, mindless warfare.  However, if Orwell were alive today, he might also be engaging in mindless fear-mongering and Islamophobia and would most likely have supported genocide in Gaza.  People become very different when it comes to power and easily do everything they originally purported to oppose.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Christopher Hitchens

He rather command a military – any military – than have no influence at all.


The prophet Muhammad had many struggles when trying to spread his teachings.  One of the biggest challenges he had to face was that men who liked to consider themselves worldly and educated didn’t seem to care much for anything that wasn’t somehow associated with weaponry and power.

Centuries later, nothing has changed and Hitchens is the perfect example.

He is highly attracted to military might and the power of the United States.   It goes to show that most men and most intellectuals rather be on the side of influence and support unjustified war than feel they are helpless or having no influence whatsoever.  They want to be apart of that which “calls-the-shots” rather than left out of the “somebody’s” club.

He was wrong, just like the writers of The Economist, about the ethical justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Hitchens and The Economist writers (whoever they are) love wielding weaponry.  There is almost no other point to their existence.