Priorities

I have decided to skip a couple of topics (but actually also write something). There is a reason for this - every time I discus politics with my not-so-like-minded friends there is a issue that we regularly encounter, mainly that what I propose in not nice/fair...

We would probably all agree that it would be pleasant to live in a nice happy-fluffy world, but those of us who have some realism in our guts know that this will not happen. For the start we are tainted by (whatever you want to blame) the first sin, evolutionary background or what not. Thats why such a world could not happen at the moment.

Secondly (and much more importantly) there are things more important than niceness in the world like e.g. JUSTICE and FREEDOM. Everyone who has some respect for any other person will agree that stealing is not good and immoral. Neither enslavement of individuals, just because they live in a particular place is just.

This is why I oppose taxes, money should not be taken of people to be given to others against their will. Some of my quite intelligent friends come out then with one of the most ridiculous arguments: but this is a free country and no one is stopping them from moving away. This I would call either enslavement or direct aggression towards others properties.

If people were given freedom and justice, many conflicts would have been prevented, and yes charity is great and I sincerely do support it, a free and just world would in my opinion support such a attitude in the ‘society’, but let it be from ones free will!

Justice

Justice is something that most people would find desirable, at least when its them that would be the beneficiaries; everyone can imagine that a thief would want justice on the murderer of his wife. But how do we decide what is just? Do we measure it by the laws of the state that we live in? To what extend do we follow it, wouldn't it be fine if people were just nice? Should we be only just to righteous people? Who and how should deal it out?

The main principle on which the justice system should be build is private property rights. Freedom was discussed in my previous posts and for anyone to be blamed for anything, he should have done it from his free will (at this point it has to clarified how heroic the martyrdom is of many people who opposed to follow the commands of their oppressors). I shall refer to what our Lord said to Pilate (John, Chapter 19) "You haven't a shred of authority over me except what has been given you from heaven. That's why the one who betrayed me to you has committed a far greater fault." Many people complain about people doing what they do at their job, forgetting that they have a contract with their employer. This means that if a commander of a unit tells his soldiers to bomb that place, they do it and if anyone is to be blamed it is the one with authority. So freedom already gives us a wide basis for defining what is just, but what about state law?

What if the state law tells us to e.g. discriminate the rich or abuse Christians? Obviously this goes against freedom, and those are people often at their land, for which they probably pay the state taxes. I hope most people would argue that just being rich or Christian is not a crime. But what about the state punishing people for littering? If they want to litter on their own property, then that is their business? Justice should be measured by how free we are about ourselves, as there is nothing else that can really be but as a reference.

Challenge for you - because communism ever worked...

Can someone give a example of a communist government that worked efficiently, for the good of people and not breaking any commie rules to a major degree? And I mean on a national level, not some minor communities.

Is change good?

I’ll leave this question open, but many people to whom I speak seem quite keen on it. I think that change is good in the sense of us learning more everyday, in bringing some new opportunities and challenges. On the other hand there is the nice old saying that one should not fix, what is not broken; but the question is whether it can be improved? Are there any large changes that occurred rapidly that were good (coming of the Lord)? Where there any that were bad (commies)?

Quantity and Quality

People seem to like ‘much/many’ nowadays. Everyone is running, to earn much money, have much sex (and there is always the fact of so many divorces... and other issues) or drink loads of alcohol (to be fair in most cases it is all of them). People eat loads of cheap, disgusting food and do not take proper care of themselves. It is their choice and thats fine, but I think they are loosing something from it and I think that we could all gain something if the situation would change. To reference back to the previous post, look at change that could occur if people did their jobs properly (quality), which would obviously result in less of them. There is probably a nice quality to quantity ration, which is most efficient (and most strategies tend to be about making things most efficient, not maximising a certain parameter), but with the wide range of skills different people would occupy different niches in the market. But if people want to do what they are already doing, let them, its their choice.

Alcohol is a other interesting example. Working in different venues across Scotland I noticed that people like to get pissed (apparently I do not get the wonders of not remembering the previous night, hang-overs - though I’m Polish, so I do not have much chance of experiencing them anyway; and vomiting). I prefer fine mead or vodka, enjoying the quality, the pureness, the taste, not even to mention the discussions in fine company (putting good lads aside, fine women are much more of a interesting company than as one of my friends said ‘sluts’). And the same holds true for food (joys of little things in life) and exercise (all those boys in the gym doing semi-pull-ups). The list goes on. And in the end, it will count how you lived your life, not how many days it lasted.

On pride, patience and calmness

A interesting conversation happened just over a week ago, on the topic of pride and I think I can share some of my thoughts. Firstly it seems, as if people lack pride in what they are doing, but on the other hand many have a whole supply of personal pride i.e. a large ego. So you might get the worlds worst carpenter, who will want to start a fight with you if you accidentally bump into him on the pavement.

The ego part, seems to be the case for a long time in history, but the media ‘macho’ vision is possibly aiding its development. The lack of pride in ones art is more of a interesting case, as it manifests itself in the low quality of many products and services (I will also discuss this in my next post). It seems like part of the problem lays in the lack of respect that people people have for their professions, everyone wants to be a manager but no one wants to start from the position of the manual worker (this is widely observed in the population of Non-Educated Deliquents who seem to despise of many jobs, even when un-employed, as they are either ‘jobs for emigrants’ or they want something better - but if you have 0 jobs on your CV it is logical to try to get something on it for a start, isn’t it???). Managers, doctors and lawyers seem to be the only REAL jobs for many people. But society needs good carpenters, as not everyone wants to buy cheap IKEA stuff, but wants the real deal! And how can people do their job efficiently if they do not have any motivation and people who take pride in their jobs, are more likely to pay attention to the details and be motivated to do their best. And as my friend said, a good garbage cleaner is of higher value to society than a rubbish doctor.

Part of the issue might lie in the general notion of lack of patience in modern times. People are in a hurry, as they want more (once more, this will be discussed in the next post); this results in the lack of quality - as there is no time for it. Being in such a rush, we are also unable to see the beauty of the world around us. We can’t appreciate neither the light breeze, nor the sound of the wind in the leaves and the movement of brunches in it. This takes away those small pleasures of our lives, the ones that can fill everyday, but people seem to want big stuff. Big stuff neither does happen often, neither it usually lasts long. Also in this race, people tend to stress, which has negative effects on our health and makes us more prone to mistakes.

The old sages new that patience and calmness are gold. Great knowledge takes time to be gained, great peaces of art take long to be made, they all require patience and calmness and pride in once creation. Such approach improves our everyday experience of life and our skill in it. So go and make yourself a cup of fine tea and bless the Lord for the beauty of the day.

Freedom the flip site of the coin of democracy?

While having a discussion regarding freedom my flatmates friend replied to my praise of freedom and critique of democracy with a question of whether democracy isn't the flip site of the coin of freedom. Now lets do not forget that democracy is just a voting system, it implies nothing about the views of the elected government, neither about the governmental structures... a voting system that got Hitler into power. Even commies had quasi-democratic elections! More interestingly democracy does not predict who will win the elections. What do I mean by that? Well, dependently on the exact voting system and division of constituencies, it does not have to be the majority of the population who ‘wins’. If we take into the account that not everybody is voting, the results of the votes show a even more skewed vision of the nations will, and it is the individuals who will bear the biggest benefits or losses that have the most motivation to go and vote. This rises a point that policies that are massively discriminatory against minorities e.g. extremely rich people have a high chance of being passed. At least for the moment we will put aside the issue of who and why should be voting, if at all anyone should. Democracy has the ability of subduing people in a legitimate way to the the wills of the government. To justify this I will have to at some point write on the relation between freedom, social policy and other abstract ideas like the common good. And one more point: the government elected may not be one that supports freedom, whether economic or social. I hope that I presented a general notion of why democracy does not necessarily imply freedom.