Between Political & Economic Value.

Quickly, my own definitions. Political value is primarily the vote which a citizen of a democracy can cast as freely as they themselves are able. Political value beyond this must be recognised, freedom to publicly dissent and persuade are first to mind. Economic value is primarily the value of a dollar, which may be collected and lost with luck and pluck. Economic value beyond this must be recognised, value of experience and connections. These two things are uneven, there is a restrictive / motivational dynamic to them, one is idealistic and the next realistic.

Economic growth, subsistence and collapse can be manipulated by political means. The first example is of direct political structure, taxation and regulation. 2nd, malicious gossip can sink stock prices and positive propaganda can raise the same.

Political growth, subsistence and collapse can be manipulated by economic means. Direct campaign contributions, costs of advert. propaganda or wine & dining political lynch-pins. Lobby groups clearly function with political experience and connections and could not maintain form without those qualities. Lobby groups are a conflux of these two forms of value.

Basic Democratic political theory gives each citizen a vote. Contemporary democracy gives each citizen of adult age a vote, where in a multitude of places past, votes where limited. Perhaps a point could be made that this increase in votes decreased the worth of each vote, and this diffusion of political value is necessary. Regardless, the modern ideal of one vote represents a deeper social perspective, one that enforces a minimum value to all people. We are all human.

Economics, although not a zero sum game, allows one to rise at the expense of another. This must be clearly contrasted against UN created, inalienable human rights. Maybe a point can be explored that money flows more freely than quality of life guaranteed by human rights. We are not all equal.

Irrespectively, it must be preached that, although we share a minimum standard, this standard is not inherent but desired. So to say it a little peculiarly, some of us work hard and receive more. This is a justice of the marketplace. Some work the same hours, jet set CEO <-> 12-hour tradie, but one gets paid more by luck of position. This is an injustice of the marketplace. Between those moments of reality, none should starve, all should have food & water, bed & blanket, a roof to keep the rain away and medicine to keep pain at bay.

Lewd, Rude & Crude.

Lewd, rude & crude qualities are universal bonding behaviour, and correct use is really quite difficult. They signify an independence from an imaginary neutral citizen. This imaginary citizen is to some extent who we think we should be; a politically correct, caring, trusting type of person. However it resembles a mannequin in terms of personality, and when we want to connect, we want to connect personally. So we upset the culture of politically correct neutrality which pervades public spaces, and reveal some hidden wickedness which, more often than not, indicates our private desires & / disgusts.

This three things can be fairly consistently categorised into three, lewd – sex, rude – everything not in the other two categories, and crude – stupidity. These three things are common areas of shame and so we have a natural instinct to keep them hidden. They are detrimental if held forth in most of our lives, catching a bus and behaving in one of the above ways is likely to get one filmed, uploaded to the internet, and the final coup de grace is mockery on national television. It may be important that these behaviours, although bad, are not criminal and are better understood as cultural mores.

Although there are further taboos beyond the three eponymous here, they are further developed and do not come as naturally to the psyche. It is not uncommon in my life to be asked questions about wage, although questions of savings and superannuations are rare. Briefly on that last subject, I worked, earnt some few thousands in an account and changed to casual work. It all dried up, somehow every morning my money was changed as though it could out earn the 0.016 percent of a dollar of interest and this labour of reassigning my relatively minuscule money  was the justification of the fees which emptied my account. It enraged me and hurt my attitudes towards permanent or institutionally respectable work. Regardless to carry on with the line of thought being made before that brief sojourn, It is a developed taboo and less natural. Fart jokes, being crude, dirty jokes, being lewd, and slapstick comedy are much more universal as a source of laughter & bonding.

Frailty of Language.

The English language is a mess. This might be why it is the global language, tonal languages, Cantonese for example, don’t really permit much accent. Strict grammar rules, such as those of formal Japanese, are limiting to the curious and the lazy learners who don’t worry about tough thorough thought.

It is not clear to me if English is really sloppy when it allows words to be exact opposites and identical in pronunciation or if it is a peculiar quirk to force clearer messages. Whole & hole, for example are pronounced identically, unless your one of those peculiar people who pronounce w’s and h’s, as was Rick Roderick. Want & wont are another example of the same but different type. Routine and retinue are almost there, but as the later has fallen from common usage, we may have avoided a few awkward situations where you don’t quite know if the speaker is saying their friends are dullards or if they somehow found their way onto the British film classification board.

If you change something for having read this, please, please, please, use -t instead of -ed. It sounds like dreamt to the listener, no one dream-ed anything. The toast isn’t burn-ed, but burnt and that’s how my shoulders feel after riding in the midday sun for far too long. If you found this funny, I would refer you to David Mitchell stand-alone comedy, or to his skit shows and Peepshow, but it’s more likely that I’ll be born again tomorrow than you don’t already know.

Refugees May Re-Create Crisis.

Discussion of these issues saturates the media, from Al-Jazeera to ABC or to the other ABC. To some extent this enables the youth to witness what not to do. To some extent it informs those in positions of power. To the rest of us, it gives our imaginations room to roam, to dream ourselves healing benefactors, benevolent dictators, heroic soldiers, suave spies and many more roles. One person may have their depressive attitudes justified, another their hope and a third their nihilism.

The world has problems. Hopefully we can agree on that. Among them are problems creating refugees, and the problems of those refugees. This is about that second set.

The Syrian civil war, where stable government has been lost and there is terrible suffering, was partially caused by refugees. These had fled from suffering in a myriad of neighbouring nations. They caused a burden on the secular government of Assad, which along with a number of other factors, led to the current state of affairs. To some extent, alongside violent, apocalyptic religion, CIA paranoia-inducing actions are also responsible.

The refugees now fleeing Syria, are a contributing factor in future re-creations of the same state of affairs elsewhere. This awareness is overblown in certain communities. Appropriate responses are unknown and will only be clear in hindsight. Discussion of economic deals to give a decent job to refugees in Jordan, are a part of the solution. So to are efforts by MSF to supply a level of medicine. A paltry effort has been made by EWB, though no public notice from them on plumbing or bridges. Some talk as though refugees should be distributed throughout the world by GDP, others by capita and more still hold ignorance as their bliss. Have good faith, things gets better.

Demand Their Life.

Australia has a problem with suicide. Guyana has a problem with suicide. I wrote Australia first because my care and attention goes to those most immediate to me before those distant. Writing is a very healthy method of developing ones own life. It assists regulating by labelling emotion, clarifying plans, clarifying failure, and many more subjective returns on investment. This is an end product of a process which has helped me.

Diarrhoea kills 1.26 million (ish) each year (which is half the toll of two decades earlier), so having said that to balance the scales, allow me to continue.

Should the desire to die, be the only reason to die? Is that an aspect of modern life that should be kept constant as the globe moves into the future?

A persons life belongs to them, first & foremost. A persons life & death will always effect others. Suicide could be called a waste of life, of the deceased and of the energies expended by others to maintain them prior to their fatal act. It is a burden to be in conversation with one who has focussed their mind on death.

Anger is an important emotion to keep about yourself when confronted by such a conversation. Anger is a powerful emotion and second to love. However unlike love, it is much easier to keep about oneself to protect one owns emotional state as well as being easier to induce in another, to try and realign their emotional state.

Attempt to listen without judgement or pity. Push the conversation to that which is consistently good. Ignore their selfish focus on their own depression and try to move that same selfish focus towards some kind of satisfaction. Hook that satisfaction to an action, first of conversation so lay a forewarning mechanism for the friends and family but also hook it to action so that it will become clearer that productive labour or creative pursuit are worthy.

How does one demand a suicidal person live a life the community desires? That their own future self deserves?

I believe that creative pursuit or productive labour are two things which can offer satisfaction to any person, as well as being cogs which offer traction to maintain our global civilisation.

Letters or Numbers?

Which would you hold forth as the most important for modern civilisation, numeric or literal systems? (Imagining for a moment we have the ear of  a Divinity who is about to click its fingers and annihilate one form or the other)

Surely it must be numerals. Without them the hard sciences; engineering, physics, IT, and others would not function. Numbering predates written language, counting days was a first duty of religion and one which could be taught by mouth without written reference. In fact, counting was a much more common skill for most of history, whereas reading was restricted to an small intellectual class for the early and middle history of humanity.

Literacy communicates of distance and time in a way numbers cannot. Without it, there would be very little historical or cultural study, for what that is worth. Long distance communication would be slowed to the pace of the pedestrian and many types of warnings would need a person in place of a signpost. Written language is used to augment numerals, as shown by university textbooks with descriptions alongside calculation demonstrations. Poetry and literature are a much more appreciated form of beauty than mathematical forms, and our community would be the worse for the loss.

Number is a fixed data form, 1 is always 1. Words are an unfixed data form, Wednesday once meant Wodan / Odins day. The inconsistency of language allows inconsistency essential to being human to take exist; youth can use a slang to independent from adults, minorities can speak in a patois unknown to the majority. Consistent data has served humanity better than inconsistent data, and attempts to take language as consistent have been harmful. A moral code has never been expressed by number and expressions of morality by letter which have been taken to be consistent have harmed humanity. Inability to relinquish the first interpretation of earth is having a foundation (in the sense a building does) passage of the Bible lead to the well-known debacle between the Catholic Church and Galileo.

Punitive Bare Necessities.

Imagine a community with a prison system. Should the community guarantee the bare necessities of life within that prison system?

If the community does, it recognises a need for whatever these bare necessities may be. Should they be supplied at a cost (labour, dollars, good behaviour) to the convicted prisoner?

If they are not given freely, it could result in a state of affairs where-by a prison sentence is a death sentence as the convict by choice or circumstance is unable to pay the cost required for the bare necessities. Therefore, one at risk of a prison sentence (not only the guilty), who is unable to pay the cost, can reasonably perceive arrest as the first stage of a slow execution.

A novel method of manipulating the bare necessities for good behaviour arises from the USA. Some prisons supply a certain type of  food (grue) for misbehaviour. Nevertheless, convicts are fed.

However, if a prison system does supply the bare necessities without cost, a macro-perspective requires that the same standard be supplied outside of the prison system. A person who cannot earn, or otherwise receive, the bare necessities as a freeman will be aware that the prison system supplies them.

Alternatively, one may perceive this persons thought thusly; I can be fed for the rest of my life by the worth of a single, sufficiently criminal, act if, I accept the restrictions of the prison system (visitation, goods, services, etc).

Should any society exist so that a day of murder guarantees the bare necessities of life for longer, and more consistently, than a day of labour?

Towards Utopia.

Utopia, heaven on earth. Who has the keys to this kingdom, where are they to be found?

First, I believe that some facets of modern life are ideal. A key to utopia is to deliberate upon which facets of modern life are ideal and able to be consistent with other changes planned. A necessary risk of change is that unforeseen consequences may occur, so the intelligent mind will consider contemporary ideal facets of modern life and how much they may change in the efforts towards utopia. Modern plumbing, as found in England, is near to ideal. Well, perhaps plumbing shall need to be overhauled for a future revolution, maybe to install an underground tunnel system for near instant travel.

Second, utopia maybe realised by removal of negatives. The above example of plumbing, specifically sharing this public service globally, exemplifies this. Currently some of the world lacks acceptable plumbing, there are regions without running water and more without efficient sewage networks. Recognising problems with known solutions, then applying the known solutions is a method of moving from the present towards the perfect.

Third, if we can imagine and realistically describe a utopia, it should be possible to move backwards from the dream. Again let us use the above example to continue the discussion off of, an underground tunnel teleportation system. Holding this dream in mind when developing a city, in the minds of the citizens voting, specialists designing and economists bartering, holding this ideal in mind shows us how to move towards a utopian aspect which does not exist at all.

Utopia can be more fully realised by maintaining whichever contemporary standards are perfect, by resolving solvable problems and by working backwards from the dream.

Sexual Equality & Restriction.

Sex in public, train stations or popular parks is crime. It is so because sex triggers strong opinion, most salient of which is morality. Even sexuality which is consistent with the witnesses own, may still lead to rage, disgust, discomfort or other negative emotion. It is a crime, public sex, because it may imprint upon a youths developing sexuality in a way which is unacceptable to the youth-in-questions family, friends and moral guardians. It is a a crime because it is unhygienic.

Above is an example of legal restriction of sexual expression. Other common restrictions of sexuality include sex as work, paedophilia and homosexuality. These are centres of intense emotion, debate and of arbitrary limitation, such as 18 being consistently appropriate for coming-of-age to adulthood. Public space should be mostly neutral for co-existence between chafing diversities. Sexuality of private individuals & communities are allowed a much greater freedom of sexuality & restriction.

Sexuality has legal boundaries of which transgression incurs penalty. The most basic of these boundaries are held to be universal, and additional boundaries are only relevant to the public space. Restriction of sexuality, should burden all legitimate forms of sexuality equally. Criminalising public sexual intercourse inhibits hetero- & homo- sexual public sex equally. A mild counter example may be a homosexual couple kissing in public who hear pedestrians cast insult, which a heterosexual couple do not. Verbal expression of internal emotional states is valid, however, this hypothetical example demonstrates a move against public equality as a moral ideal.

Value systems which draw their scheme from a belief in a Divine Being, or which otherwise de-value equality are a deeper discussion, which leads into what should be the universal restrictions of sexuality. Hopefully it is agreeable to you that public spaces should be neutral, and to that end you recognise equality as a great boon. Does proper management of public space mean orienting it to suggest movement towards the ideal of the manager – should the government restrict sexuality to suit its own purposes (more families –> more people –> more tax –> greater financial power)?