Where do the visionary philosophers hang out?

Visionary Philosophy in Action ..... maybe

2009-11-06T15:23:00.015-05:00

When the Premier of Ontario welcomed the public to offer ideas and feedback to our economic problems recently, I piped up with this letter:

March 24, 2009

Dear Premier McGuinty:

I'd like to suggest a long-term remedy to both the present-day problem of effective economic stimulation to overcome this recession, as well as the problem of youth intransigence (and delinquency) within the high-school environment. I believe they share a common answer.

What I'd like to propose is that the general aim of the whole high school curriculum be directed toward having students graduate with basic entrepreneurial skills. Please allow me to explain.

Regardless of the interests and passions of youth, at some point they need to fit into the economy; they will need to hold a job and see a regular paycheque. What I'm proposing is that the whole of the high school curriculum possess components within each line of study that adds to the whole entrepreneurial skill set.

For example, while Grade 9 math may be largely algebra and trigonometry (I'm guessing), there would also need to be a component that focuses on important business skills, like being able to do something as simple as quickly calculating the percentage tax on a purchase, or filling out a tax form.

In English classes, books are read and discussed, but there would need to be a component where students need to author a simple formal letter. In a later grade, another component might be writing a proposal, either business or otherwise.

In Civics/social studies, there would be a component that teaches students how to interface with the levels of government, perhaps even filling out forms like ones for the Youth Entrepreneurship programs offered by various governments.

Even in history classes, there can be a segment that looks at the accessibility of government over the decades, and an investigation of conventional living in the past - pioneer villages are a great field trip to this end. There could be a small component in advanced history classes (grade 11 or 12) that did market gap analysis for early Canadian life, as opposed to modern day life. And these would only be small digressions from world and Canadian history.

Finally, there could be specific classes that addresses entrepreneurial skills directly in grade 12, tying the many smaller components learned over the course of the prior 3 years that lets these kids hit the ground running, EVEN IF THEIR PASSIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS! They will know that whatever they wish to pursue, there is an economic reality tied to it.

The net effect would be that each student would possess the knowledge to fit into the economy at the end of high school, and they'd also understand that gaining still more education (post-secondary) has huge personal economic consequences. Finally, they'll be too engaged to be idle, and those many entrepreneurial eyes will spawn niches and industries that we've never considered.

Interestingly, our provincial government already has a test bed for this kind if schooling, though I don't know the details of their curriculum; it's Scarlett Heights Entrepreneurial Academy. I think their focus needs to become more common among our secondary schools in general.

Is this not what we need?

Thank you.

Now very recently, the provincial government agency overseeing education made this announcement:

Financial Literacy Essential to Student Success, Stronger Economy

November 2, 2009 10:18 AM

McGuinty Government Integrating Financial Literacy Into Curriculum

Starting in September 2011, Grade 4 to 12 students in Ontario will be learning to make informed choices and effective decisions about the use and management of money.

The global economic challenges of the last year have highlighted the need to ensure a financially literate population.

To determine how to introduce financial literacy into Ontario's curriculum, a working group, co-chaired by Parliamentary Assistant Leeanna Pendergast, will provide a report to the Ministry of Education's Curriculum Council in summer 2010.

The working group will seek input from a variety of educational and financial sector experts to:

§ identify the core financial concepts that constitute "financial literacy"

§ develop a list of financial literacy concepts and skills

§ advise how to seamlessly integrate the list into the existing curriculum.
The Ministry of Education will also work in partnership with the Investor Education Fund to develop resources and professional development opportunities for teachers.

Now did I precipitate this with my letter? Don't know, and really, don't care.

There's always a good possibility that this may have been on a to do list, and I simply pushed it up the agenda. Or others were calling for it as well, and I'm the straw that broke the camel's back. Regardless, it now seems to be in the works.

I once wrote about the Visionary Philosopher's mandate that

Finally, you should know that for the lifetime of effort this demands, you are not at liberty to demand compliance; the best you can do is to discuss it with others, and where you are right, try to educate those who have never considered their existences beyond today.

I'm not sure how much credit I can take for this progress, but there is a chance I had some small part to play.

The success of another letter I had written regarding my Generational Debt proposal would be much trickier to witness: I suggested that governments need to fund generational programs more honestly by changing taxation formulas. I'm not privy to the ways and means within a government, though I will be watching for clues.

Social deficiencies in North America in 2009

2009-06-04T08:36:00.006-04:00

What I'd like to present here are what years of meticulous social troubleshooting have allowed me to conclude.

When I first started this blog, I was hesitant to post this list because I wasn't sure how it would be received. Two things have changed since then: first, I've moved into a larger investigation where these predictions are only a subset of a larger project; and second, I'm not sure that there are many who bother to read this blog. So I'm not very worried anymore. Also, I dumped my pseudonym.

Civilization has undermined a primitive motivation for the woman to aggressively pursue her man in order to avoid rape. This balance will need to be re-established. Since legalizing rape is socially abhorrent, the alternative will be for us to evolve a culture where the woman is assumed to be the pursuer;

Family solidarity is seriously stressed because children are viewed as the luxury of the parents, and not as a prerequisite to the existence of civilization (and the economy in today’s terms);

America, to the south of us, was lumbered by poorly conceived articles of incorporation such that their government is largely paralyzed, and the democratic process has been off-loaded onto their judiciary. The greater problem eclipsing this one, is that those same national documents (American Constitution and Declaration of Independence) have set the individual as the priority over the public good, resulting in a systematic imbalance between individual and social priorities.

Romanticised historic reverence has dogmatically made this imbalance national folklore, though decades of progressive bristling has seen some small progress to re-balance. The most telling indicator of this problem is their high crime statistics, particularly for a western democracy;

Public education is not underscored by the primary requirement for an entrepreneurial apprenticeship, which would enable all graduates to know how they’ll eventually fit into the economy, in addition to any passions or interests they may have;

The modern western lifestyle has lowered the daily physical energy usage far below what our bodies need to maintain good health;

Democratic principles need to trickle down into our smaller associations, most notably our businesses. The labour/management rift is a legacy of last-century rapacious capitalism, which progressive societies have identified as tepidly serving the public good, while engaging huge public assets and infrastructure.

While it is universally understood that the entrepreneur who has birthed a successful commercial enterprise is entitled to the fruits of their work, there needs to be evolved relationships within these smaller institutions that doesn’t demand dissonance within the business;

In a manner similar to the social demand made of everyone to serve on a jury at some point in their lives, this requirement will need to be extended to policing as well. We will need to establish what vocations have a socially interactive element to them (like bus driving, company managers, retailers, teachers, etc) and suggest modest police training as a requirement in addition to the primary job.

Also, those people who gravitate towards lawlessness would similarly need to intern as an auxiliary peace officers in order to understand why lawlessness is unlawful. This would be an important part of their community service. This kind of engagement of the public in policing would undermine fears of rising totalitarian state-driven police forces, and would go a long way to reconcile gun ownership, particular in America, Colombia, and other western democracy-aspiring nations with high crime rates due to universal access to firearms.

This is the short list.

The Problems with the American Social Experiment, Part I

2008-08-05T08:25:00.012-04:00

If you read back through this blog, you'll find that I've been wrestling with the peculiarities of America for some time now.

I think I have identified the problems. There are at least two, and they stem from the very creation of America, from the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Feel free to research this event if you're not sure what this was. I suspect that many (most?) Americans know something about this.

The two results of this convention that has had major consequences to American life today are first, the ruling arrangement or 'plan', and second, the Constitution and Declaration themselves. I'd like to look at the Constitution and Declaration first.

The American Constitution and Declaration are a source of great pride to Americans, so much so that they are largely revered and considered flawless, even if Americans wont actually say so. It is a point of pride to announce that in the face of social adversity, Americans seek to defend the Constitution.

But what if there are some manifest 'problems' with the original text, perhaps the original assumptions? From an outsider's perspective, here's a glaring one:

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from the Declaration of Independence

and the Second Amendment to the American Constitution, which is typically truncated to the latter half

".. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While these are actually from different documents, they are central within the American psyche. The problem? Combined, they imply that it is socially acceptable to be greedy at the expense of the social good, and to defend the fruits of that greed with deadly force.

So seemingly, not only has this nation's manifesto declared the individual as the priority over the common good, this assumption has been further entrenched by allowing ready access to a means of defense that would normally be reserved for only those who've demonstrated suitable training and maturity.

It is hard to think of an uglier message to hand the people of a nation.

I fully accept that this is only the most superficial interpretation of these documents, and they also contain many other quotes that should counter this interpretation, however, they don't seem to lend themselves to the same abuse.

Consequently, this 'Constitutionally decreed' freedom to pursue unbridled greed, however shamelessly self-serving, and the subsequent enabling of the deadly means (firearms) to defend the winnings, has set a social tone for Americans that gives rise to the distressingly high level of violence they live with, it would seem.

Religion In Schools

2008-04-24T07:58:00.006-04:00

My religious convictions lie somewhere between agnostic and humanism, if these can be viewed as religious convictions.

So then why am I going to make a case for religion in public schools? Because it is the higher quality education for the pre-teen mind, over the conventional religiousless public school.

If we're looking for the biggest bang for the parenting buck, consider what the Catholic school board demands of kids as compared to the public school with the inclusion of a religion class:

First, there is a supreme all-seeing being. For the purposes of raising kids, this is extremely handy. While kids continually test the limits of what they can get away with, there is no getting around the all-seeing supreme being, God. If they don't behave, even when they aren't witnessed by others, the very least they will suffer is the bad karma from the Big Guy (OK, so karma isn't Catholic...)

Second, having God watch is terrific, but we must now introduce what we generically dub 'morality.' These are the rudimentary directives that set important limits on our behaviour. These are ancient laws, most of which are still true today.

Third, religion is an anchor for most cultures. As such, the parables, Bible stories, etc serve as common points, such that a person NOT knowing the story of Christmas, or Noah's Ark for example, in a christian based nation is viewed as backward and clueless. This is true of all religions within the nations they dominate.

Now then, to recap: given the addition of a religious class in public school or no such class, as a parent I can tell you I want my kids to be well-behaved, and if the fear of God helps, that's great. Also, I want them to know more, not less, and I'd prefer that they know the ancient stories in addition to the conventional school curriculum; there's no virtue in ignorance. For that matter, ignorance is very expensive as a rule.

If I can make my 'visionary' suggestion, I'd prefer to see ALL public schools keep religion within the curriculum, though it could evolve well past the Catholic agenda. Public schools could have an ecumenical class that teaches the fundamental points by visiting all religions, and extracting the most fundamental directives (like the Golden Rule) shared by them. As a Canadian who assumes multiculturalism, this would make our kids culturally richer, and I'm certainly for that.

Religion in this school context is a complex of common knowledge, unlike the single disciplines of mathematics, english, etc. I think that instead of trying to separate religion into rudimentary law, sociology, psychology, theatre, etc, the organic origins of religion serves the young mind better.

As the child grows, s/he will learn many more refinements over and above what they had learned in religion class, and it may eventually turn out that God isn't so fearsome. We need to consider far beyond 'an eye for an eye' if our societies are to evolve.

I'd even go further with this concept and introduce another such multidisciplinary course later in high school: since business and economics underpin any job a student may eventually pursue, I'd like to see a course in the later years of high school investigating general entrepreneurship. This would teach kids who may have peculiar interests that they'd like to pursue as a career, how to fit it into the economy, how to get paid for it, and also, what the market will in turn demand of them.

OK, so now let me consider all the multidisciplines that should probably exist in the public school system, in addition to the single disciplines of 'reading, writing, and arithmetic': kids would start with religion, eventually moving into what is now called social studies, then onto rudimentary entrepreneurship. The inclusion of this line of education would give the graduating student a good basis of 'common knowledge' whereby they could thrive on their own.

I'm not sure I could ask more of the school system.

A Wannabe Visionary Philosopher

2007-06-12T07:55:00.000-04:00

I have a quest.

For over 30 years I've been on an ongoing investigation of the human condition, and I've been the primary source.

I've kept a journal that has investigated every aspect of my life, and with blunt honesty, I've considered every motivation that has driven me. I alluded to this in my contribution to the wikiHow How to Become a Philosopher.

In the course of this, I've assembled a picture of the world and how it works. Please believe that I've arrived at some startling conclusions.

The problem with the claims I may make is that I have arrived at them by use of inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, often with the proofs being inferred instead of being explicit. The problem with this is that I can't make a claim, then provide a rock-solid deductive explanation of how it is I come to know it; I can only tell you that it NEEDS to be in such a way, and I'll do my best to convince you.

Why should I be permitted this luxury? If I'm to consider the whole of the human condition, there is NO WAY that I can supply explicit deductive arguments for every new idea. As it is, the mandate to know everything is already ridiculously large for any one person aspiring to be a Visionary Philosopher.

The problem with having a vision of the world is that it's very difficult to get it out of my head, to present to you. There is a mechanism I'm experimenting with, what I'd call Visionary Fiction. Should I have any success with this, the least I can say about it is that it'll be an interesting read, or so I hope.

Welcome to the Hand Basket

2007-04-18T08:05:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Hand Basket

Are there any reasons for hope?

Anyone? Anyone?

I see none at all frankly.

Now that's not to say that unreasoning hope oughtn't to continue but its important to acknowledge the irrationality.

There aren't really any indications that the anthropogenic destabilization of our planet's atmosphere is going to be addressed with anything even remotely like the urgency required.

There are the same number of indications that the christ-deluded western world is thinking rationally in regards to the mohammed-deluded eastern world. Or vice versa.

On the economic front there's no indication that capitalism's market growth model shows any signs of correcting it's gigantic destructive failure.

Welcome to the hand basket.

[I cribbed this from Dana @ The Galloping Beaver]
______________________________________________________

So what's the plan?

Throw up your hands in frustration? Rant and rail on a crowded street? Abandon civilization and move to the mountains?

Where do we start fixing the world?

First, you'll need to turn off the TV or radio, your cell phone, the iPod, and whatever other distractions you use. Furthermore, you can forget about sports, and you'll only be interested in religion insofar as to understand who needs it and why.

Now that your head is reverberant with the silence, you'll need to take seriously every moment of your life; you'll need to study it to learn how it works and why. You are now embarking on living an examined life.

You are seeking this knowledge because eventually you'll question underlying assumptions that may be patently wrong.

Once you have wrestled with such matters, you'll need to consider better solutions, ones that can be workable. You're welcome to assume that you are 'King of the World' as you consider these fixes, but you must also accept that dictating unworkable solutions is a no-go.

In fact, as your maturation continues, you may be able to take on the greatest challenge that we should all consider: Each of us is personally responsible for the mess our world is in, and each of us needs to consider the longest timeline for these fixes we are capable of.

Finally, you should know that for the lifetime of effort this demands, you are not at liberty to demand compliance; the best you can do is to discuss it with others, and where you are right, try to educate those who have never considered their existences beyond today.

Know that it matters, however small your contribution may be.

A New Church

2006-07-24T15:09:00.000-04:00

I’d like to propose a structure for a new church, a new religion.

Conventional religious doctrines such as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Living Word, etc are part of the legacy, but not an active part of what this new fellowship would abide by.

Instead, the followers don’t actually follow, they are also the leaders. Let me explain.

Where a minister, priest, reverend, rabbi, etc normally address the following with a message, in this new church everyone needs to make a contribution to the message. The fellowship agrees to a concern they wish to focus on, then research that concern until they arrive at a conclusion that they all feel is satisfactory.

There will need to be a facilitator, much like a chairman who keeps the fellowship on whatever track is chosen. This person does NOT preach, but follows the progress the fellowship makes on the agreed-to concern. In this way, each church will have a project.

A project can be to understand about how the family unit is supported within a society. If the fellowship has a number of members who have been through the prison system, then perhaps that church project will be to arrive at a conclusion regarding corrections within that society. Another project can look at how mental illness is dealt with.

… in a society. This is central to this church: The fellowship wishes to address concerns about social mechanisms that govern their community, and instead of relying on expensive government studies (Royal Commissions in Canada), they thrash through these concerns themselves.

A church project can be short or long in duration, and should probably be revisited, particularly if previous members return with new experiences to impart, to update a previous conclusion.

Members can also take on Missions (as Missionaries) to study a concern. For example, a mission might be to learn about how the sex trade is dealt with around the world, and to consider the pros and cons of the many ways observed. A person engaged in any such a mission might spearhead this concern, but others would still be required to investigate similarly, though perhaps not to the extent that the missionary had.

What is implied in this church is that everyone needs to serve an active part, however small, in the understandings and the rules of their community. In some small way, other than simply voting, the members need to say something, even if only to describe an experience they have had relating to the focal concern.

This is all socially evolving, and so this might be called the Church of Social Evolution, but I think there may be other negative connotations associated with this, so perhaps I should employ a bit of spin-doctoring: perhaps this church might be called the Church of Voice, since it wishes to bring out the voices of its fellowship. “Please Speak’ might be a holy credo, since so many people usually don’t dare.

Could this church offer solace in the same way God does in other religions? Is there some form of absolution that might comfort the following of this church? Not sure, but when one feels that they have done as much as they possibly can, what is the point in worrying further? When someone makes a genuine contribution to the discussions within his/her Church of Voice, addressing those concerns that affect him/her, they have engaged as much as they can to see a change that may bring benefits to them, even more so than if they were to address their elected representative.

Does Jesus, Muhammad, etc play no part in this church? Certainly they can. What’s more, though the terms of reference my be many centuries apart, many situations encountered back then still can be seen today. In this way, the ancient scriptures can still play a role, but only a partial role. There needs to be fresh consideration for these matters.

And what of God? Is this a Godless religion? Is God worshipped? No, God is not worshipped. Nobody is afforded fawning adulation, least of all a deity assumed to be all-powerful and omnipresent. Only insecure people require fawning adulation. Our Father who art in Heaven would only want to see His children live decent lives in peace; gushing about His greatness seems far too silly, certainly for such all-seeing wisdom.

If He’s not worshipped, is this a Godless religion? No, there’s no need to be Godless. Many people find great solace in God and that shouldn’t be dismissed for a moment. What needs to be remembered is that God as a psychological mechanism allows our minds to decompress, even in trying times.

In a manner similar to simultaneous equations in mathematics, where there is no way to find a solution to any one problem, but given many similar problems, a solution does exist. To find that solution, we need to assume that an answer exists, and we will start with any number, and work toward the correct one.

Metaphorically, God does this for us; He allows us to believe that ultimately all will be well, we need only find out how to get there.

As for Jesus, the love for his fellow man is a message that implicitly demands co-operation and forgiveness, and will never be diminished in importance.

What of God, the moral conscience for those who don’t possess one? Or God as a means to teach the proud to possess humility? Perhaps this new church is for those who already operate with a healthy degree of balance in their lives such that they dare strike out on their own to negotiate the rights and wrongs and the many shades in between.

Our laws already attempt to do this, but too often the law is best administered by lawyers. However, implicit within Law is your co-operation, because you are expected to adhere to those laws, as are you expected to preside over your peers when asked to serve on a jury. Similarly, ignorance of the law is no excuse for law-breaking; laws are supposed to be self-evident, logical. The discoveries made by this Church of Voice will ultimately be reflected within the law as such discoveries are accepted by more people.

Politicians also try to serve you in this way. The government will have committees and sub-committees to address concerns, and usually those committees will hold hearings to get a sense of the public’s concern. Again, this new church does this without the huge expense associated with maintaining large governments. Furthermore, the public could not become disenfranchised from the social mechanisms of government, law, policing, and even corrections, because they’re now a voice in the process.

Will such a church ever exist? No idea. I’ve tried to make a case for why it should. It may be a very fringe lot who adopt such a social mechanism at the outset, but it could gain momentum, if enough people feel comfortable with it.

And now: ‘Please speak.’

The Noises in my Head

2006-03-16T09:45:00.000-05:00

I wish I could maintain a worthwhile blog.

I have tons to say, but I'd prefer not to waste your time with anything mundane. I think that if you're going to read MY blog, the least I should do is to offer you something fresh.

OK, so what might that be?

I think that I have a perspective of the world that is unique. It is so because inasmuch as I'm able to do so, I try to view the world in the 'Big Picture' perspective: to consider the events I see around me as symptoms of a history, given specific circumstances.

My most recent investigation has been America, simply because the blogoshere is rife with American concerns. So I've been considering what makes up America.

If you care to click on the Next Blog tab at the top right-hand corner of this page, and rummage through the many blogs, you may note the number of political and military blogs posted by Americans.

If you ask about these posts "What is it of itself" and consider what motivated that person to make that comment, eventually the greater picture that I've been able to glean after looking at many such posts, is that America is a military state.

A significant portion of the American tax dollar goes toward either military associated causes, or directly to the military. Furthermore, it could be argued that the military is America's social assistance program, though there is a chance you may be required to give your life to get some of that benefit.

There are many repercussion anyone can observe that come out of this arrangement; if you're required to tolerate the strict regimen of the military for some portion of your life, you'll only voluntarily accept that if you know that once you've done your duty you'll be largely left alone. This has made Americans very libertarian in their civilian lives.

Also, the freedom to keep and use firearms among the general population, specifically military assault weapons would normally represent a complete failure of a society, however since civilian life can be seen as 'R & R' (rest and recreation) to military life, firearms to this day are viewed as necessary for security, be that personal or national.

The freedoms of civilian life don't end with firearms; remarkably, practically anything of a 'social' nature is denounced as 'socialist', which is only slightly less reviled than 'communist.'

Furthermore, since even the American founding fathers were suspicious of government (see my previous blog), Americans in general don't warm to the co-operative nature of civilization. Often enough, they sneer at the whole concept of working within the law and order, and largely dismiss anything co-operative as 'nanny state.'

From an outsider's perspective, I'd suggest that this arrangement has somewhat arrested social evolution within America, such that while it is the world's superpower, certainly in might, population, and economy, they do not have communities to envy living in: None of their cities make the top dozen.

Another symptom of this arrangement is the bellicose nature of American culture. While a trusted American acquaintance has suggested that this has its roots in the Puritanical origins of America (he'll correct me if I got this wrong), I have more reason to believe this military state arrangement is the reason.

Consider: Regardless of the intellectual capacity of an individual, if he hollers 'Those damned immigrants are ruining this country!' for example, are you going to correct him if he's wearing his service beret and tells you he fought for your freedom? Frankly, you're far more likely to forgive his shortsightedness for the sacrifices he has made on your behalf. I'd suggest that this is the origin of the arrogant presumptuousness that Americans are all too often noted for, however unfairly.

Another problem I have encountered in attempting to discuss socially evolving matters, like urban transit for example, is that Americans often aren't on the same page as you would witness in Europe (or Canada. We have a lot in common with Europe). Who gives a hang about urban transit when we have the car? Oh sure, it pollutes, but so what? Everything pollutes, blah, blah, blah... Too often, serious matters are poopooed for the sake of personal expedience.

If you're an American reading this, please don't take offence: I must emphasize that this is an outsider's perspective, and while I've tried to be as fair and objective as possible, I'll admit that I can be wrong. Please don't hesitate to tell me so, but I'd ask that you might give me some idea why.

Thank you for your patience.

A Quote from Thomas Jefferson

2005-11-16T15:24:00.000-05:00

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson

I just cribbed this quote from Oddybobo.

Now I'm beginning to understand where the American predilection to distrust government comes from.

For all the good Thomas Jefferson did for America, to say that Americans will be better off if the government pisses off is flatly shameful. He should have done what I hear from many Americans whenever America is criticized for anything: Love it, or leave it.

As a senior architect of America, he had no business showing such contempt for your federation; for whatever failings it had, he should have had his shoulder behind it. He should have been making Americans feel that while it may be a work in progress, the federation needed everyone's support, not their derision.

Now am I reading too much into this one quote? Is this a rare sentiment that accidentally slipped out? As Americans who've all had some degree of schooling in your own history, you tell me.

The reason why this comes across as such a smoking gun to me has to do with trying to understand America. Put most simply, it's very confusing to understand why the most powerful nation on this planet is NOT the most desirable place to live. Frankly, none of its cities even ranks among the top dozen.

What does Thomas Jefferson's statement and city ranking have to do with each other? In a word: civilization. To make cities work well requires the co-operation among its people. This co-operation has allowed our civilizations to flourish.

When TJ slagged American government, he was dismissing the many millenia of civilization it took to arrive at even the embryonic American federation at his time, and to this day Americans suffer for it. How?

First, those in government must inherently feel like bad guys, so that they do not function as caring, co-operative people serving the public. They would probably see themselves as a necessary evil. Not a very positive attitude to have from those charged with the well-being of a nation.

Also, Jefferson's sentiment is reinforced with many other constitutional mechanisms. The American Constitution identifies 'Life. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' as a national directive, but makes no attempt to temper such unbridled freedoms with some measure of social responsibility (=civilization).

The worst example of how the American psyche has dismissed civilization comes from the Second Amendment. While few people care to argue about farmers, hunters and police using firearms, to suggest that the population at large will need firearms to protect themselves is a total failure of a very fundamental aspect of ANY civilizations.

Civilization by its very nature MUST better the personal security of its citizens. Only the lamest and/or neglected society can't meet this requirement.

OK, so let's assume for a moment that Americans just don't care about society (civilization). What of it?

Then frankly, they don't deserve the fruits of it either.

When Americans wax poetic about the lone hard-working cowboy out in the wild, meteing justice with his guns as he travels, or similarly romantic visions, is it not obvious that without guns, without bullets, without tools and utensils, without clothing, without language, all of which are products of civilizations, that romantisized cowboy would have been reduced to a caveman? Even native Americans had higher regard for their societies in that they lived willingly (co-operatively) by their elder's rulings.

In my previous post I considered this laissez faire attitude toward society as a Libertarian quality, but actually it pervades all of American assumptions. If Americans ever hope to see a general betterment of their lives, this will need to be addressed.

.... or so I conclude.

I know that the antics of some governments don't warrant any trust; I get that sense from the present Bush lot. But could I suggest that the solution isn't to dismiss these people who hold enormous power, but to kick their asses 'til you see satisfaction?

Since I'm not an American, only an observer, I would suggest that this matter may be worth your time and consideration. But then if you can't or don't want to be bothered ...

American Libertarianism and the Co-operative Nature of Civilization

2005-10-12T10:25:00.000-04:00

Here you are reading this blog.

This simple process is one that requires very fundamental agreement. Our symbols, letters, words, grammatical constructs, etc must agree in order for us to communicate.

We have many similar points of agreement: the money we use, the roads we drive on, as we conduct business or trade, how we are employed. Similarly we regulate our behavior so that we minimize the stress when engaging others.

This co-operation usually extends to our childcare, healthcare, welfare and other social mechanisms. We have law and policing to guide and regulate us. We also co-operate with the leadership we nominate or elect in our community.

All told, co-operation serves us very well. It has allowed us to transcend the harsh realities that nature would have us suffer. What we have had to relinquish with this co-operation is some of our personal freedom. This is the price we must all pay to enjoy the benefits of civilization.

Relinquishing some freedom can be viewed another way: we need to accept some amount of self-discipline to make our societies work.

Different societies demand different degrees of self-discipline. Japanese society demands personal discipine that the people of many other countries would find oppressive.

Conversely, a society that makes little demand of its people becomes ruled by tyrants and/or organized crime who victimize the majority as they employ their disciplined thugs.

Also, in any given society, there is a baseline for the personal effort required by the average person to maintain that society. When a person chooses not to do his/her part, or can't be bothered, they either end up in jail, banished, or living on the street.

Now we come to a crutial matter regarding civilization: how much personal effort do we wish to accept for the kind of society we would find desirable to live in?

This is a careful balance everyone of us must make. The first way in which we can choose is with our feet: if we don't like a particular community, we can move away. If even the nation is undesirable, we can emigrate.

We are allowed an opportunity to make small changes when we vote for our leaders. We can choose to be still more active by becoming part of the political process.

This range of involvement reflects the variety of jobs within a social infrastructure (organization).

None of this has come painlessly. Our histories are rife with smaller disciplined bands seeking to rule majorities, usually through vicious force. Wars fall within this.

The social infrastructures (assumptions) that we enjoy today were bourn at the cost of much suffering.

When a soldier's headstone reads 'Fought and died so others may live free', this freedom isn't the freedom that nature allows animals, this is the freedom from oppressive bands of thugs.

We have reached a level in the maturation of our societies where the majority of societies have outlawed undemocratic thug governments or organisations.

Generally speaking, we try to promote this kind of society.

Enter America.

America was born opposing thugs (the British Army). As such, the American leaders of the time, charged with the mission of defining this nation with its Constitution and other documents of incorporation, wanted to instill social mechanisms that minimized the chances that any oppressive regime could succeed in the future.

To that end, they wanted to empower the individual. They wanted to balance the powers of society with Constitutionally entrenched powers of the individual.

While this balance is certainly laudable, there was one small problem with what they were attempting: they were trying to balance social and individual priorities under warring circumstances.

Through necessity, this demands the individual be excessively empowered, at the expense of society, because the society will otherwise always win out.

Thls has had a profound affect on America. This gross imbalance favoring the individual has resulted in Americans largely dismissing the benevolent side of civilization so that anything of a social nature is viewed with suspicion.

This makes for a very schitzophrenic nation. On the one hand they are very proud of their national achievements, but in the next breath they will complain about their government saying how much they don't trust it, and typically denounce anything of a co-operative 'socialist' nature.

The Libertarian philosophy sums up this attitude against society: basically everyone should be free to do as they like, and no one should have to suffer any manner of imposition. Whatever co-operative arrangements that are desirable should take place as necessary.

So what's wrong with this? As noted earlier, our social infrastructures didn't just 'happen', there was a long painful process of social evolution whereby we earned the equitable societies we enjoy today.

Libertarianism, particularly as Americans wish to employ it, would maximize personal freedoms without recognizing the huge debt owed to the countless lives given to making our societies as fair as they are today.

When we can claim today that our best societies are basically democratic, that was no small feat. As anyone in any law-making capacity can attest, our laws are continually evolving and can never be neglected, let alone abandoned in favour of the ad hoc or laisser-faire approach of the Libertarian philosophy.

One group that can find Libertarianism particularly attractive is the Christian Fundamentalists of America. This can be true because their terms of reference, the Bible, is based on a level of social evolution two millenia primitive to our's.

Since Libertarianism largely dlsmisses social evolution, this fits beautifully with the Christian Fundamentalist's idiology: first, dismissing two millenia makes the world described by the Bible more contemporary, which it isn't, and second, the whole concept of evolution can also be dismissed.

Dismissing all manner of evolution is particularly attractive since the similar mechanism of natural evolution is particularly dlstasteful to Creationists, a majority among Christian Fundamentalists.

Is this 'Individual favouring' imbalance such a problem? What are the consequences? What symptoms should we be able to observe?

What would a society look like if there was an imbalance between social and individual priorities favouring the individual?

Since social priorities, like healthcare, education, etc weren't given the attention they deserve, they would be immature, if not altogether arrested in development.

The advantages of large scale financing for expensive benefits like healthcare wouldn't exist, and such concerns would languish.

This would be true except that America has many social mechanisms despite the Libertarian rhetoric. The military, education, medicine, and even welfare are financed through necessity. It would seem that for all the talk about maximizing freedom, it is too obvious that everyone's life is bettered through co-operation.

The most obvious symptom of the imbalance between individual and social priorities can be witnessed in the interpersonal exchanges among Americans. There's an assumed 'every man for himself' attitude that can be seen in many matters.

For example, this 'everyman for himself' attitude promotes the categorizing of people as winners and losers. The winners are rich and good-looking, the losers are poor dorks. Money is everything, the measure of success, and losing or second place is nothing. Bill Gates, Hugh Hefner, and Donald Trump are to be admired, emulated as heros, masters of success.

Yes, it's vain and childish, but it still serves as marching orders for the lumpenprole (typically conservatives), those who've never given their own existence a moment's thought, because if they did, the rapaciousness of it might horrify them.

Never would you hear from these people that they would wish their fellow man the best of luck in their struggles for a bit of success, because that might be wishing them more than they got themselves.

'Every man for themselves' has created tribalisms that could never exist in a socially cohesive society. These tribalisms have created gross imbalances in the American social fabric because 'everyman' is always stronger in some manner of co-operative association, even if it only includes family, or gang, or church.

Addendum 2pm, 10/14/05

The Democrats' uphill battle against the imbalance favouring the individual can be seen in this post.

In an effort to see some serious social improvement, Robert L. Borosage demonstrates how the lives of Americans can be improved. He shows many co-operative mechanisms that would do this however, there is a fundamental matter any Republican rebuttal will include: do we want a nanny state that infringes on personal freedom?

With this, one can witness the unending struggle the Democrats have. It would seem that as a survival mechanism, they have largely ignored this aspect of their Constitution, in much the same way as the Third Amendment is, and probably as they would like to ignore the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the Republicans never allow them to succeed.

So what will have to happen? Perhaps these matters will need to be revisited, and re-evaluated in the light of modern perspectives. That however, will be a rare political platform.

Guest Article: The Urban Transit Guerrillas

2005-08-11T09:25:00.000-04:00

The author of this blog has allowed me to tell you about our movement. I'm a member of the Urban Transit Guerrillas (the UTG) in Toronto.

We are an underground movement that attempts to get people out of their cars. It is a daunting mission. We do so because urban transit needs riders to justify its demands for money, but ridership only goes up once enormous amounts of money is spent.

Toronto's transit system has languished because of this Catch 22 problem, and we of the UTG have decided to force the matter by sabotaging the motorist's experience. We are NOT violent, but we are determined. Typically we make the motorists life HELL.

What do we do?

We capitalize on all those many nuisances a car driver will deal with in the course of their daily commute. For example, some of our members may work on road construction sites, narrowing lanes for work that will only be starting the next day. Others push cross-walk buttons as often as possible during rush-hour.

One of our most popular (and effective) activities takes place along the busy highways running into and out of the city; originally, one of our members managed to talk his buxom stripper girlfriend to walk with him along the median between east and westbound lanes during rush hour. Brother, that tied up traffic for miles!!

She has since left him, but another member has stepped up to the mission; a transvestite who loves the attention. Lately however, we've found that even a bald old poop with a moose-horn hat can snarl traffic.

We also have autophiles among our membership. Many have rare and/or antique automobiles that they argue thay can't enjoy because the motoring experience has been overrun by way too many cars. Rarely can they take their valuable cars for a spin for fear that some snoozer on their cellphone will smash into them.

For awhile, we had infiltrated the nerve center of the traffic light co-ordinating office, and managed to set traffic light timing so that a driver just kept missing the green lights as they proceeded along some of the major streets. Unfortunately our man retired. We're looking for new talent.

We have many honorary members as well. These people are professionals when it comes to souring the driving experience, like all of tow truck drivers, parking police, parking lot attendants, taxis, etc. You get the idea.

Our American counterparts, collectively know as the Transit Rebels, are having a trickier time since Homeland Security harrasses all underground movements. However, they still make headway. They have better success getting their recruited truck drivers to clog roadways.

We recognize the value that the car is capable of adding to modern life, but we also know that excess is NOT best, when the most expensive luxury ladened car is still no more than an noisy, polluting chair that its frustrated occupant has chosen to drag around because s/he wont consider alternatives.

Urban transit is like any other aspect of social existence: it requires our cumulative energies to work. To neglect this because 'I don't want to stand on a crowded bus full of smelly people' means that for all the taxes you pay to live within a city full of conveniences, an inordinate amount will need to go to support the added infrastructure for your car. While some amount is necessary, huge snaking roadways are a sinkhole for cash.

Eventually, urban densities will squeeze out the real estate hogging needs that your ton and a half of metal requires; we can already see that in London, England. Also, there's the matter of those walks to and from the bus stop that your doctor has been telling you you need in order to lose a couple of pounds.

So if you have a bus or subway or commuter train stop close by, but you still insist on driving, remember, we're out to get YOU.

Learning to Ride a Bike

2005-08-09T07:00:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I went to work at 3:30 am. I was home just after noon and I was exhausted. Still, I felt that I should take the time and take my 7 year old daughter with her bicycle and teach her to ride without the training wheels.

I couldn't help wondering how pitiful it was that fatherhood was such a grind. I love my kids, all 3 of them, and I'd like to enrich their lives every opportunity I can get, but far too much of my life is consumed with distracting obligations and I don't get around to them.

As it is, I wont work overtime; while this brings more money, it would make me a stranger in my own home. When I am home, I have too much to do there as well...

Is this normal? Am I a whinny wimp?

We bought a tiny bungalow (800 sq ft) in a suburban community. When my wife was pregnant with our third child, with two preschoolers and a raft of kids she was doing daycare with, we decided that we would need a bigger house. We looked around, but nothing suited us. Since I had overseen other renovations in the past, we chose to renovate.

I was the general contractor for a reno that tripled our floor space. When my daughter was born, my wife had to vacuum out her crib of wood and drywall dust before she slept, in our stud-wall 'room'. For anyone who has done even modest renos to either the family kitchen or the washroom, you probably have some idea how much stress is involved. Doing the whole house was a recipe for divorce.

But we survived it. Furthermore, since our debts had likewise grown, I now needed to finish the basement in order to rent it out. Before I got married my parents had done this for many years, so I knew how to make this work.

I spent the following 5 years doing the evening and weekend work in the basement. My kids would ask me 'Daddy, can you take us to the park when you're finished renobating?' Perhaps now you can understand why I wanted to take my daughter and teach her to ride her bike.

During these last 5+ years, I had to stop doing my 6km runs because I needed the energy when I got home to do the basement. Despite doing construction, the net effect was my gaining 40 lbs, and my blood pressure went up too.

I'm done now, and I've gotten back to running, though I haven't lost any weight yet. I can only tell you that as a parent trying to give my kids as much as I had, its too much work. I'm not lazy, but I can readily see why families break up, even if they don't take on mad missions as my wife and I had.

I have a life long history of documenting and analyzing the events of my own life in order to understand what goes on around me, and I know that society favours having one or no kids. Little allowance is made for the huge undertaking that kids require, and while it is the most rewarding thing anyone can do, it's a reward that can easily crush you.

What a thing to conclude...

Where to now?

2005-06-29T16:48:00.000-04:00

OK, so I'm trying to sell myself as a Visionary Philosopher.

I'm really smart.

Just ask me. I'll tell you.

I wrote an essay about how civilization had inverted the dominant psychological role of the woman in the sexual relationship, making her the aggressive pursuer. Before even the most primitive law and order of early civilizations, the woman pre-empted rape by diving into her man's head in order to predict him, and later control him.

My wife told me to stop talking foolish.