The Old Puzzle

The Old Puzzle

Honestly, this, if anything, is general proof as to how most people really aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed.  In fact, this points out how most people are really, in fact, just tools for the exploitative system that we have in this country that we’re exporting around the world. The only way that you get equality of opportunity is through a relative redistribution of the wealth within the society.  More well to do people have substantially better opportunities to advance themselves and their children’s well being than those who have lesser means to provide for children and themselves.  The poorer people have fewer networking opportunities, fewer resources with which to educate their children, less time and energy to interact with and enrich their children’s minds and generally live in more physically and psychologically precarious positions in our actual world, all of which, contributes to a lessening of the quality of life that their children can realize. From talking with Libertarians and conservatives (who support the laissez-faire market system for wealth distribution), they seem to be under the impression that government would be an ineffective tool for redistributing the wealth, owing to a bias against government as a functional institution on behalf of society.  While it may be true that our present governments are staffed with sub-par people (and suffer many of the same problems that our top corporations are plagued with as a result of human error), I will never be convinced that government itself is an inherently dysfunctional institution, even though there is a very long stream of ineffective and dysfunctional governments and government actions that have taken place over the century (mainly, again, due to human error and a lack of sense on the part of those who were in government at the time of the dysfunction).  To think of it in this narrow method is to discredit the whole for the sake of a biased, ideologically driven perspective of the whole.

One can think back to the Marshall Plan, or the effectiveness of the American mobilization for World War II as examples where our own government has done well.

What I am advocating for is that it is in the interests of the government members to be as effective and efficient at taking care of their people throughout all times as they are at mobilizing and executing the very best planned wars.  Ideology and opinion (as an ideology and my own opinion) plays a nothing role in determining the decisions and courses of action that any government takes.  As a statesperson, it is in one’s own interest to look at the situation based on facts and qualifying details of facts, such that you’re getting the most useful and accurate view of what’s happening/going on in society (much like a doctor tries to get the most accurate view of what’s happening within their patients, in order to successfully diagnose their condition).

From there, it is in the interests of the statespeople to develop and execute the most effective treatment regimens for those empirically present conditions, such that the most amount of tangible good is realized at the lowest amount of harm done to all individuals within society based on, not the creative genius of the statespeople alone, but on the natural laws of the society, culture, economics and environment in which the society is founded (much like a doctor only develops treatments that do the most amount of good at the least amount of harm, based on the individual’s biology and environment that is present before them).

There is no room for opinion and there is no room for skewing facts in order to justify a preconceived notion of what “should” be based on any rationale that anyone can have on the subjects that are at hand.  There is only what’s there, and there is only what actually works for society and the environment as a whole (which, in turn, is what historically has always worked for those who hold political or private power in society).

Those conservatives, Libertarians and liberals who only see their ideological perspective should, ideally, not participate in the governing process, owing to their persistent (and sometimes willful) disconnection with the lived reality that is around them.  Policy and politics, when done for the interests of the State and its members, has no room for prioritizing one’s own psychological gratification over their physical health and well being.  Such individuals, whose psychological gratification method don’t jibe with their physical needs ought to be considered mentally ill and discredited by society as viable political candidates, in spite of their appeals to the general public.  Pragmatism, realism, empiricism, truth, love and care all, I hypothesize, are the best possible perspectives for viewing the world, for the sake of political leaders, and all other people in society, because those are the lenses that allow one to actually act in accordance with a certain degree of predictability and empirical effect on the world, much like science is the only lens through which we’re able to figure out new ways to actually function on this plane of existence.  It is only through obeying the natural laws that are around us that we’re going to be able to do anything.  These laws apply to each of our societies, cultures, economies and environments, not just to our physics and biology.  To deny them or to ignore them is to lead oneself and the species to death.  To follow them is to provide some degree of stability and sustainability from which we can grow, develop and, hopefully, thrive on the physical and pscyhological level.

This isn’t going to be perfect or a cure-all for our problems.  We’re still going to have human error, we’re still going to have limitations of knowledge and technology, we’re still going to have new issues and conditions thrown at us from time to time.  The universe evolves separately from the government’s actions, and it is up to the government to evolve and adapt to the new conditions and knowledge that becomes present in our world, such that its members are doing the best that they honestly can, for the sake of all members of society.  This will not be perfect, I will say this up front.  But, I hypothesize that these methods will be better than what we’ve had in the past at times and can, hopefully, more reliably deliver positive results for the sake of society (which then leads back to the sake of the government and its members who, presumably, wish to stay in their jobs).

On the design floor of policy, there are only a few models and decisions that actually will work for the sake of the people (and, therefore, will work for the politicians).  If there be a psychological difference, then leave it to a majority decision, for better or for worse, or let those who will not psychologically abide by the new principles to leave the current society and form their own State and society separate from that which works by what is empirically more correct.  Let the two sides: the delusional and the right-minded, test to see which model actually works on the empirical level, and to what extent do they work.

My guess is, is that those on the delusional side will not do as well, even though, they will most likely be loath to admit it.

Silly brains.

Think about it.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: