Customer Choice Vs Bureaucratic Monopoly.

Customer Choice Vs Bureaucratic Monopoly.

The choice is whether you have better capacity to spend on what you need, or need to be taxed more to ensure that you do. It is essentially an individual choice between how you spend your money or the government spends it for you.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."—Immanuel Kant. Would it be more desirable to live in a society in which the government makes economic decisions over your family's well-being from your earnings, or would you rather bear it yourself? If the government were to provide all social goods, it is self-evident from the failed communist and social experiments in the past, that it ends in disaster. If we apply Kant's maxim we would realize how dangerous it is, if the whole world depended on bureaucrats.

We must understand incentives. Government bureaucrats are not motivated by profit, or by the possibility of losing their jobs; however inefficient and inconvenient, it is shouldered by the taxpayer. The government ends up costing more because it either inflates by printing currency to cover its costs, or by higher taxes from its citizens. However, business owners must be efficient and provide value, to stay in business.

It is becoming a choice between the invisible hand that Adam Smith used as an abstraction; to describe the cooperation and prosperity, that emerges out of individuals serving their own self-interest, via serving others with labor or products. This actually creates value, whereas value is lost by incompetent government bureaucrats through the magnanimous size of the invisible costs of government.

The alternative costs of government could have been spent to better a person's life or property. Every dollar earned is an opportunity to invest or spend. The government is incentivized to spend exuberant amounts, and it benefits from them. However, the taxpayer could have used that funding to improve his family and by extension the society. They won't lose their jobs if they don't perform. The private sector must be efficient to survive, governments do not

It boils down to whether the government has a monopoly to acquire and distribute taxes for whatever causes. We either entrust our well-being to bureaucrats who have usurped their power, to get paid by lobbyists who have been pursuing aggressive military intervention in foreign countries. As well as not balancing the budget, and leading to a 34 trillion dollar deficit. A bubble that hasn't burst, because the dollar is the reserve currency, for the whole world.

The dollar was originally backed by gold. Currency needs to have an actual commodity or services that add much needed. Now, it is simply backed by the faith of those who are willing to accept it in exchange for a good or service. Therefore, resulting in persistent inflation. The more money is printed to cover government expenses, the more the dollar loses value. Oddly enough, only government services can stay open even if they are not profitable.

The consequence of the government having control of the money supply, which isn't backed by any services or goods, is that taxation isn't the only mechanism governments can spend the public's money. The Treasury can just print money. Here is the dilemma. Let's say a good is ten dollars, and then let's say the government prints 20 dollars and hands them out, through one of their wealth distribution mechanisms. Unless the amount of goods increases with the money supply, the price of the goods will increase, without having to add any value because many people have added purchasing power, but the amount of goods has not increased.

This creates shortages, and also the dollar loses value because you will need more money for the same good or service. These are some of the consequences of government monopoly, the quality of goods or services does not improve but the public servants get wage increases. Since government services are not facing any competition. There isn't much incentive to be efficient, but they have a mechanism to lobby for wage increases through unions. However, in the free market, if a good or service isn't needed, it's not bought, and the company holds on to what sells,  and may discontinue what is not. Saving costs and resources.

Inflation is theft, slowly and steadily. The people in power, print money to cover expensive pursuits. The government spends plenty of money on munitions, and the military budget is large and does not have restrictions. Companies such as Raytheon are raking in billions. That is why, spending should be left to the individual and for the providence of his family. Also, many do not agree with wars and foreign military or political intervention, it does not benefit the average working man.

Therefore, it is only rational that consumer choice should take precedence over government spending on goods. Instead of taking higher taxes from people's wages, and using that money for pursuits that don't benefit any persons or their property, but deprive them of their life, dying for wars funded by taxpayer money, lobbied by the military-industrial complex. I believe that people are better at choosing what they need, over the government's provision. Instead of adding more government services through higher taxation, there should be lower taxation and smaller governments.

This way, companies in the private sector can grow to meet those services, and this opportunity is affordable, but primarily the competition in the free market; results in increases in productivity and a higher yield in value. Taxpayer money should not be spent on subsidies either, or exuberant contracts governments give to certain industries. As well as providing jobs to people, for things people actually want. The only way a business can stay afloat is if it provides a commodity or service that is profitable. The problem with the government is that the lack of competition from the monopoly of the administration results in lower services and goods that are mediocre. Consumer choice is tantamount and utterly in dissonance with government monopoly. Consumer choice is greater than government handouts, and services.

Crony Capitalism Isn't The Free Market.

Many on the left proclaim that capitalism doesn't work because of inequality and wages. However, wages are agreed upon by the employer and the employee, no one forced anyone to take a job; at least it is voluntary. However, I will admit corporatations have misused their wealth, to gain advantages that otherwise they couldn't garner.

Corporate personhood is something I disagree with completely. The idea that the corporation is a person, because they can be penalized is ludicrous. Merely because you can fine an institution such as a corporation, but you cannot jail them, such as you could do an individual. 

If we abolish corporate personhood, then people would personally be held responsible for the actions they perpetrated with their corporations. With people knowing they would personally be held liable, corporate abuse and other absurdities they commit would decrease as people would be subject to the consequences of their actions directly, not just their businesses paying fines.

Alot of those C.E.O's make their money, and when their company gets caught doing whatever illegal endeavor, the company is fined and pays penalties but those individuals don't pay out of their own pocket books and rarely go to prison.Ultimately it's the investors in the market whether rich poor who burden the loss.

Many would be surprised that a lot of billionaires have amassed their wealth working with government contracts. We complain a lot about how government should fix inequality; whereas they are producing most of it. Raytheon among other companies are paid billions in tax payer money to be funded and manufacture munitions.

That is why wars are perpetual. In order for these companies to keep profiting billions of tax payer money. The American war machine must continue indefinetely. If they are to make a profit, we must be involved in some conflict some where; as you have noticed most of those intitatives have nothing to do with us or our property.

So why should we put our persons and property in constantly propagating war? If it brings no benefit to us, and most Americans would rather be at peace than in be at war. Not only is it costly, but it has cost so many families their dear ones life. Many more trillionares have amassed their wealth by guaranteed government contracts even for years, at ridiculous costs at the tax payers expense.

So to suggest that the same mechanism that prevents people from getting wealthy, and allows others to get wealthy; is the same one you will use to reduce inequality is ridiculous. We all know that lobbying exists. A lot of politicians cater to their donors and those donors must be wealthy enough to influence politicians, thus they amass more wealth than they would through the market.

Unless we can decentralize more power to the states, and disenable lobbying; the federal government with its special interests cannot be the mechanism to achieve more prosperity or equality. A lot of their economic policies harbor special favor privileges to those wealthy donors that funded their campaigns. The fact that people think this same government, can create actual income equality whereas it is causing it, is illogical to any reasonable person.

Subsidies are also another mechanism the government benefits one business over the others. Why should tax payers money be used to keep afloat inefficient businesses? If they are not making a profit, it means people are demanding less of what they have. To reward them for it, does not make any sense. To make more of what less people want, isn't economical.

Also that labor and capital that has been proven to be inefficient to the market in that particular industry, could be used in other sectors of the economy. Those people would have to seek other forms of income, thus the standard of living of society would rise, due to the rise of capital brought in by these people. Either through labor or even creation of new businesses.

The last point I'd like to emphasize is barriers to entry. They make it more complicated and expensive for smaller businesseses to start, by creating an unnecessary and costly expense just to start a business. If such barriers would not exist, many businesseses could be established and compete mostly locally.

Capitalism has eliminated poverty more than any other system we have ever practiced. However to throw away the whole free market because a few have abused it, is not logical. What we must do is examine the law, or even lessen it; so it won't be able to be misused to profit the already wealthy. The inequality between the super rich and the people wouldn't be as big, without government. What we have is crony capitalism, this truly isn't the real free market.

Horrors Of The Abstraction of 'Government'

Government does not exist in the same way an indvidual does. However an individual can commit atrocities via government, we do not say  that person in particular committed murder, they reason that specific individual didn't kill somebody but the government of that region did the atrocity. It obscures the reality of individuals acting in the name of government, and therefore eliminates accountability.  

Positive rights are a misnomer, it is a way the government obscures it's tasks. You have the right to govern; from persons and their property but you do not have the right to people or their property. There is a difference; individuals acting under the authority of the government are not justified acting contrary to that maxim.

The free market via voluntary exchange and the profit initiative, can create cheaper and better goods. It should be the mechanism of use. The government costs more than the private sector, a good example would be the existence of administrative costs and also it's tendency to become more inefficient over time.

If businesses become inefficient, they go out of business; if government agencies poorly provide services they are kept afloat by the tax payers. One has an incentive to create value as to gain profit, the other has the incentive to maintain their beuracratic position, even if it does not add value to the society. 

Most wars would not happen, if people were not forcefully mandated to fight in wars through drafts or those who serve to go fight wars that go against their values. War is mostly a confluence of people fighting for the elitists agendas. Millions of people have died under this collectivist abstraction, and billions have been stolen.

The problem is that people are not held accountable while in office; they merely commit mass attrocities and wars and simply leave office. In a state of nature, there's potentially 100,000 people that could harm your person or steal your property. However, they have an incentive to protect their own persons and property, thus we made government to protect persons and property.

 Beyond that, government actions are unjustifiable. However, the problem with government is that, whereas it's unlikely that among thousands of people, maybe one or two may harm or steal from you. However, instead of having 10,000 individuals acting on their own; you have ten thousand soldiers acting under one man's objective. It becomes clear that if this person is despotic, it will wreck havoc and history has shown us repeatedly, that this is the case.

The average working man is not terribly concerned with foreign affairs, and neither should he be subjugated to involuntary servitude via the draft unless if it is to protect his people and their property, nor should he be economically forced to pay for wars, that don't involve any of his affairs.

We have poor people living in tents that are veterans. Instead of helping Americans suffering, tax payer money is used to help fund wars overseas that have nothing to do with us. If the government activity does not protect persons and property, but endangors and misuse them in foreign agendas. This is beyond the scope of what government should do.

The free market is the real path to making wealth honestly and reducing poverty. The free market requires the production of a commodity or service or value, that will benefit, both the producer and the customer through voluntary exchange.

When the abstraction of government is expanded to the point that it interferes with voluntary exchange via high taxation or creating barriers to entry through regulations and mandates, it becomes an impediment. It's job is merely to facilitate the voluntary exchange of property, not take more of it or distribute it.

Government is an abstraction that allows the populace to absolve themselves from personal responsibility. Such as colonialism and imperialism, as these individuals under the title of government; stole both property and persons with slavery. As a matter of fact American policing started when they rounded up slaves that escaped, under the fugitive slave act.

Government is defined as the institution that has the monopoly of violence. Just because we get to vote, it does not change the nature of it. Most of us function in our daily lives perfectly fine without government. Usually when the government is involved there is an issue at hand.

Socialism and communism fail, because "the people" is an abstraction, there are only individuals. It becomes even more of an abstraction when a few people, are concidered or consider themselves the voice of all people. The danger of marxism, is that you are replacing one elite with another, and giving them authority to take people's property or even lives under the justification, it is for 'the people'.

Thus delegating decision making to the political elites, who use it to subjugate all those who oppose them, and enrich themselves on others coerced labor, and property is not logical. In a democracy, we could just call that higher taxation and inflation, because of government spending.

You can't hold entire countries accountable for genocides and such, if it's the military doing it. You can't jail a country, no such accountability exists.There lies a paradox, the people won't take the accountability for bad militarisitic actions but would celebrate incessantly if it benefited them. This abstraction is able to kill and steal, under the banner of authority of 'the government or 'the people' but this is only an abstraction, society is composed of individuals.

 Individuals can be held accountable for attrocities through fines and jail and other measures, whereas we can't jail the government and even if they are fined, they will have to take it from the people. We have to realize collectivist ideologies are abstractions, there are only individuals and everybody is personally responsible for what they choose to do.

The Hidden Costs of 'Social Justice'

Social Justice warriors arrive from the proposition, that they are the oppressed; be it by color or sexual preference, or whatever class can afford the endorsements to promote their cause, regardless of how small of a minority they may be. It is Marxism repackaged in a modern form.

The narrative is Marxist by nature, though Karl Marx attributed to the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeoisie (the people that own those means of production). They call profits surplus value and justify that this should be equally distributed to the workers.

This sounds like it makes sense, it has good intentions but has inhumane outcomes. 'Tax the wealthy goes the maxim', but we forget the simple fact that incentives motivate behavior.

Higher taxation results in the exiting of businesses from where it is no longer profitable. Thus consequently places with lower taxes attract more business and eventually collect more money, than they would if they just unjustly increased the cost of current businesses.

In the name of social justice, businesses that provide employment, goods and services are destroyed. Out of an outrage of race or sexuality, this ends up being injurious to the people that live in the area. The businesses leave, and people are forced to resort to welfare. Riots destroy businesses and don't further the cause either.

We are so far from the ages of slavery and even from Jim Crow laws, that race is still being propagated as an issue to be addressed by legislation. I agree wholeheartedly that laws should provide equal opportunity to every person, race, sex, or whatever based on competence and not arbitrary superficial demographics.

I agree with laws that stop discrimination and provide an equal playing field. However, I would not give certain people priority over others who may be more competent. Most of us just want equal opportunity, not quotas or privileges. We are privileging the few, at the cost of the many.

Social justice is often a ruse for redistributive justice, you see equal opportunity does not necessarily mean an equal outcome. However, people will use outcomes, as proof that a race is being discriminated against even if given the same opportunities 

Redistributive justice requires higher taxation, to be able to fund the bureaucracy that will be doing it, thus discouraging businesses from those areas. The more the government steps in with welfare programmes, and then demands higher taxation; the more businesses leave, those people are left to poverty and resorting crime, especially in the states where welfare exists the most.

In conclusion, we must stay clear of this social justice phenomenon. It is merely Marxism as one labels themselves a victim based on race, sex, or whatever arbitrary distinction and society must pay for it, in one way or another. 

The truth is, nothing we do, will be enough for these plunderers; there's always more and more to take from people who earn their living honestly. Reduce taxes for everyone; for higher standards of living benefit everyone equally, not just the upper class or the middle class; so down with social justice, it is divisive and costly.

Why Race And Identity Politics Destroy Us.

It is unfortunate that we have fallen to the Marxist idea of the ploteriate and the bourgeois; yes, it is true that some people produce the labor, and some people own the companies. However, to claim that because labor produced the profit, the return of investment should be equal to the one who owns the franchise. The risk essentially validates the reward. The unfortunate thing is that identity politics especially targets white straight Christian males, because many have authority in business or politics. However, the majority of the population is white, therefore it is indicative in the situations. I can't say this always the case, but often the case.

Well, for obvious reasons we know that, it takes money to start a business. It is a massive investment that potentially could not pay of. The owner is rewarded for taking that risk, by the profit that he gains. The laborer neither provides the machines or the building, he gets to earn a living by the investors self interest.

People arguing for ridiculous wages, because they feel they deserve more or because they feel they are being discriminated against, must evaluate the situations rationally.Perhaps get more education or learn a trade, and earn more. I am not saying that discrimination does not exist.

Despite the portrayal of the media, who subsequently are the ones dividing us through identity politics, we have more values in common than we differ. Most Americans agree on the virtues of hard work, common decency, voluntary trade and association. Honestly, this is all that is needed for a society to progress, without the impediment of artificial government policies.

Do you know, near misses between planes are now happening more often, due to airlines restructuring and their mandates to diversify. Air traffic control has had more issues than it ever has, since it hired on diversity but not competence.What's wrong with diversification you might ask? Well, it's obvious.

You don't hire people based on their sexual preference, race, or any other superficial distinction but based on what they can actually provide in labor or services. We want competence, not necessarily diversity. It's also insulting to say, people of color cannot make it without government assistance. 

Martin Luther King wanted a day, when people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Promoting certain demographics of people, in favor of others goes against that whole principle.

Yes, there are bigots out there, but it's the exception and not the norm, and they reap the consequences of that compacensy especially today. No one should get an upper hand, in terms of opportunity. Policies that promote hiring based on race or sexual preference or whatever other mechanism, are disregarding that the function of business, is to have competence and profit.

We can't really claim to be an equal nation, if any group whatsoever gets an upper hand in college or the work force, not because of the content of their character but by their superficial characteristics. The irony in all this, is that by promoting programs that are supposed to help only to help minorities; you are establishing government dependence on those communities.

That is the reason, heavy sets beuracracies in mostly democrat states with heavy welfare, and programmes for the minorities. Are most ridden with crime, corruption and still the poor exist in multitudes. Heavy taxes discourage businesses from those areas, thus not providing adequate means for people to earn a living.

The rioting and looting of businesses, in response to some racial outrage. Is one of the stupidest things I have seen justified by the media. You are destroying the businesses of the people, who provide your neighborhood resources and for some a livelihood, in protest of one individuals actions? Yes, anyone who violate the law should be prosecuted.

That is why the law should apply equal to everyone or it is despotism. No law should favor one citizen over another, or stop a more qualified individual from getting a job, because of diversity quotas. Despite the common understanding it's merely victim mentality.

Identity Politics and race biters, need to stop embracing the victim mentality. The idea that any form of financial or societal problem I face is merely a consequence of my race or sexual preference. Sometimes your just not good of a worker, or not qualified. We can't abandon objective standards, for diversity quotas.

The Blank Slate Deception

It is important that it be clarified, what is meant by a blank slate. It is the erroneous idea that people are born as blank slates. Therefore the solution provided, is controlling the population, via public schooling and through the media.Exposing this blank slate deception, is critical in understanding, how the world has become so absurd.

 Apparently people are born as empty vessels, and it necessitates that society fills the vessels, with whatever is popular..Most woke ideology stem from this understanding, is what leads to people attending to attempt to legislate morality or convict those who don't accept their norms.This idea is dangerous because it ignores reality. This is the tyranny of the majority, but truth is truth even in the majority of one.

 The idea necessitates the elimination or suppression of speech. Due to the fact that any speech if misinterpreted,is capable of making another person uncomfortable. According to these form of reasoning,the public is to blindly accept whatever the so called experts and authorities narratives about everything.

We have reached a dangerously toxic level of self deception.These have dangerousy crept into our universities and public opinion. It is simply the idea that society creates what people become, and thus altering the norms of society would inevitably lead to a different even better type of individual. 

I am not against society becoming better, but we must stick to our principles nonetheless. People masquerade sinful and debauchiaries, justifying that the reason for their erroneous behavior, it's because they were raised under a toxic environment.

Instead of taking accountability for their anger, you blame your parents for being around you, as an example. Claiming you do the despicable things you do because you were raised that way. Yes, this has an element of truth to an extent, yes we are affected by our environment but we can also affect the environment.

To say that all human behavior is merely a product of social construction, is rather fallacious. The irony is that the idea of a social construction itself erroneous, and is bound to fade into obscurity. People employ blank slate reasoning to justify indoctrinating children to their agendas.

To the point people are literally ignoring biology. Today in public discourse, we are incapable of having a civil discussion of what's the difference between, a boy and what's a girl. The simplest backed scientific fact is that a female, is one who has the organs that allow them to give birth.

However people have denied the biology behind gender among under things. The government is stepping is overreaching unconstitutionally, into our capacity to speak freely. You can get arrested or face some consequences for not using the right pronouns.

Unfortunately this idea amalgamates into every facet of our society. Especially in regards to the difference in equality of property. Since every one is merely a product of social construction, it bares to this reasoning, that merely changing the social circumstances would change the individuals' economic predicaments.

It is primarily a mechanism of denying accountability. People blame their society for their lack of success; whereas many haven't endevored to learn new skills, get better education or worked enough to raise their own company. 

So they would rather blame their predicament on their choices but on society. For example, a feminist woman may be angry that she has not had a raise in her job and blame it on the patriarchy; whereas it would just require a change of attitude. 

It goes further, some would even argue that the women are discriminately being compensated less, for the same tasks. In fact in restaurants female sevors make more for the same tasks, yet we fervently  and demand equality.

 I wonder if there would be as much fervor, if they wanted equality in people in prison, homelessness or committing suicide, which is mostly men. Not everything is a social construction, different genders are more likely to pick different professions and be better at different jobs. 

It doesn't mean one gender is superior to the other, but that, they are better at different things. Denying that is denying basic biology, thus the influx of men dominating women's sports. The irony is that, those advocating from that are eliminating top women competitors from having a shot.

This is accommodated by the blank slate idea that people are born like a blank page and society has the right to write whatever on their minds, and we can alter even biology just by changing society. True insanity. Society is not just what determines who we are, we have biology and instincts but most importantly free will and that comes with accountability.

This has led to many abandoning their core principles, their institutions and their traditions.Some roles are not because of oppression.The man providing and the women taking care of kids is not oppression. I understand the society has changed. It is critical to elaborate that our physiology affects our psychology.

All of this is a product of the blank state idea that we are simply a product of our environment. Therefore government should not enforce social norms, those should be a consequence of voluntary exchange that best facilitates the functioning of a society. Not arbitrarily, enforcing and pandering to whatever the current popular mob demands. Human nature is real, not just a social construction.

My Christmas Miracle

I was lost, travelling all alone,

I could fill this emptiness in my bones,

I thought I was going to be all alone,

But then you became my home,

I don't feel like I knew what love was,

Internally I was disturbed and at war,

More anxious and depressed than before,

I felt this alienation to my core,

Then it just happens you came my way,

Everything changed, I was in dismay,

You turned my world, from grey,

I was feeling down, now I feel okay,

My affection for you is uncontainable,

You appeared to my life, it was a spectacle,

My love for you burns and is unquenchable,

You are truly my special Christmas Miracle

The Danger of Socialism.

Some ideas refuse to die, even when it cost millions of lives. I am not just speaking of the death they imposed via violence but the death imposed via impoverishing the nation. It is startling that 40 percent of Generation X supports socialism. It has now come under the guise of "Social Justice".

First, it's important to discuss socialism before we apply it's implications to our current state. It's scary to think Bernie Sanders could have been president, and Alexandria Cortez won her office. The problem is that good intentions, does not necessarily mean good outcomes.

People have to understand that government is not a producer in the economy. It's services come at the cost of higher taxes, debt or inflation, or in some cases all three. You say, what's the problem with the government providing services for free. 

The thing is, nothing is free. Someone will have to pay the bill. I am sure a lot of us are not really comfortable for paying for peoples degrees that don't actually add value to society. A lot of people with degrees, work regular jobs that don't require degrees. We shouldn't all be forced to pay.

The government not being a producer, it is a deception that government spending is included in G.D.P. When consumer spending goes up, it means people are making money. Both the people to be able to afford the product, and the producer making enough to pay wages and earn a profit. However, government spending comes at a cost, most people would probably disagree with.

The problem of government is that it requires the mechanism of force and coercion to achieve its objectives. Whereas, it is more rational to be in favor or free trade and voluntary associations, as compared to inefficient government services with a tax forced upon everyone.

The problem with socialism, is the problem of incentives. Whereas the business man has to serve society in a benefitial manner for his business to stay afloat. The politician just had to compromise his morals for campaign funds, and it's astounding that people keep voting for these same parties and individuals, regardless.

The problem also, is that who regulates, the regulators? People secretly want to be ruled, it absolves them of the responsibility of accepting their point in life as a result of their own choices. So often it's blamed on a popular demographic, such as the right or any race that is succeeding. However, the goal is to increase the size of the pie, not forcefully get it from someone and distribute it, while keeping a share to yourselves. 

This is essentially what government does when it provides these so called services. They are not incentivized to serve but to protect the beuracracy that sustains them. Whereas a business man has to rely on voluntary exchange and actually producing goods that add value to society. That is why it is fallacious, to explain that the economy has expanded whereas it is merely more government spending in some aspects.

We can all see there are serious issues in our world. However, we have to accept that we cannot legislate our problems away. The problem is, the people have convinced themselves that their rules are a part of them since they voted for them. This couldn't be further from the truth, the further the power structure is, from a locality; the less accountabile to it's citizenry will be.

There is also the problem of human nature. By making things public, it doesn't mean that the people now own those things. This involves taking property from a person whose earned it, and then "nationalizing" it; meaning the state will be the primary benefitiaries. The problem is that these politicians don't care to "the people" this imaginary collective. 

Those industries fail ultimately, or put countries in ruin like Venezuela. They took oil away from responsible owners and made "public", eventually it's only the political elites that benefit from such maneuvers and the populace is left to scramble for scraps, in the name of rations.

As a matter of fact, the media is a machinery as to which the top authorities influence the people. By consistently promoting agendas consistently through these mediums. It would be a bad idea to make the news "public" like the socialist would like to do. The media is bad enough. Making things public merely means expanding government power.

The other aspect is that we live in such economic insecurity, that we perceive that we need something to land on, when life befalls us. However, making the government more responsibile for our lives, simply means making us more dependent on them to survive. 

The other thing is that even if good intentioned. These things arent free, it will come at a cost. It is blanketed under the term equality. I mean who doesn't want equality? However it is rarely asked what these socialists mean by equality.

You see, equality of outcomes is impossible to achieve. Even if you give beuracrats control of private companies in the name of "the people". People have inherent different capabilities, skills and interests. This variety is actually what makes society works.

What determines the value of work, is how in demand it is and how much it is perceived to increase the value of the prospective buyer. Demanding higher wages from jobs that don't produce much value or profit, will merely run them out of business, or it could be nationalized and stay afloat at the expense of the tax payer.

Just remember the bigger the state. The bigger the portion of your property or wealth, they will entitle themselves to. The states has to survive. If it means imposing quotas, setting up unreasonable laws and tax codes; all of those are done to generate revenue. 

Remember, the government isn't a producer in the economy; it's a consumer of your taxes or purchasing power. Thus the socialist idea of increasing the state to provide equality is ridiculous. You are merely empowering the political elites. 

Despite all the historical economic failures and death that have resulted; this collectivist ideology has re-emerged as people seek equality in pay; despite providing less value, or lacking skills or the education. This is just one, among other unreasonable demands.

People admire, yet simultaneously hold contempt for the rich. I am not in support of those who use scrupulous means and exploit others for their riches. Real businessmen provide more help, than phylanthrophists. The former creates jobs and creates independence of consumer choice, the other creates dependency, and temporarily alleviates a problem.

However, this is not surprising.This is a consequence of a culture that encourages self entitlement. The newer generation thinks they deserve things, just by  existing. However the reality is you have to earn what you own. It is not the government's job to provide, but to govern.The price of freedom is difference in prosperity.

My Italian Princess

The world was falling apart all around me,

It was a miracle that you found me,

Nothing seems like it used to be,

You make me feel so free,

Your affection soothes my soul,

Your adoration is my goal,

You are perfect for my soul,

Together till we grow old,

You are so soothing to my heart,

You are the muse of my art,

if you left me, that would hurt,

I never want us apart,

I love those sweet kisses,

I would love for you to be my missis,

It's none of their business,

I love my Italian princess.

The Language of Reality.

 If God spoke the universe into existence, then it follows that reality is a language of some sort. Perhaps we are made in the image of God because we can have an objective understanding of this language via human mechanisms.

If you truly think about it our senses, report information to the brain and then it is perceived in a certain manner. The brain does not interact directly with the environment, it is within the skull; yet it projects the reality we encounter, based on electrical information from our senses. So it relies on the senses, to relay information, which is perceived as reality.

If you think about it our senses, report to the brain and then it is interpreted in a certain way. The brain does not interact directly with the environment, it relies on information from the senses; that structured information is a language. A person who cannot see does not know the information that is color, or visual beauty; it is a language he cannot speak, so to speak. So our brain relies on the senses, to relay information to be perceived as a certain reality.

This is not similar to the new age belief, that you can manifest something just by wishing and hoping; unfortunately, the language of reality, dictates you have to earn things, and no one deserves anything they didn't earn. Expecting success without work is contrary to how the language of reality reads. Neither is it a claim to say that reality lacks any objectivity, and the lack of understanding of this language, leads people to believe whatever they do is right; which ends badly for it goes against the structured language of existence.

However, it is important to clarify that what is being portrayed is that the brain receives information; the world is composed of information, in fact, entire video game worlds are built on information. What is being portrayed is that the brain receives information, that is translated into feelings, thoughts, touch, smell, and whatever gives the brain information, and our brains give context to this information.

Reality could essentially be described as environmental content, given context with minds. Similarly to content and context, reality is the content, your mind contextualizes it and it gives you the reality you are perceiving. Information is perceived by the mind. If there were no living things, there would be no one to perceive reality or to observe.  God is the great mind, that spoke this existence through his powerful language. 

The human DNA itself is a form of language. It is a code that the body how to build itself. As far as language is concerned in biology, D.N.A. is the language of the physical structure of living beings. Physics is brilliant, for it explains the universe through mathematical principles. Physics is the language of the physical world. Many other fields express different aspects of the same language of reality.

By language, I mean structured information that conveys meaning. This by itself, invokes that meaning is inherent within the structure of the universe itself. We are made in the image of the author of life, it is fascinating we can understand the language of God, so to speak.

This does not mean we are all authors of different realities. However, perception matters for you to receive information from the environment and filter it through structures of belief and previous understanding. Therefore education is critical, cause we filter the world through the structures the information we know has created; these are perceptions. Therefore by gaining better information, one can act more according to the language of reality, and prosper. The closer we align to reality, the better off we are.

A good example would be computers. We perceive information about video games perhaps as an example. We perceive information of reality, through codes of bits of 0's and 1's on our computers. However, it is amazing the reality those binary codes have created. The very software that it rests upon is a code that gives us the perception of reality.  Virtual reality moves this process even further.

Similarly, reality is a code, and just like we use the computer; we work within the perimeters of software which is the code, and just like we use the computer; we work within the perimeters of software which is the code. Just like computers are based on a code, reality is based on a code, a language so to speak. A language we may not understand but still have to experience. Reality is an objective language that contains information from the senses to the brain.

Reality Is God's language. Whenever one ignores reality or goes against its principles, consequences follow.  However, a Christian such as I, believe Christ is the "word'. God the Son became flesh, and "the word" became flesh. God the Son is a part of the Godhead, in Genesis God said, let us create man in our image. The universe was made through him; God spoke, the word, created the created the universe. Jesus is the word.

Therefore biblically the universe is spoken by God, our reality is a consequence of his language of creation. Reality is composed of information, be it the number of molecules or merely what we perceive through our senses. Unlike God we cannot write the codes of reality, they have already been established. Therefore just like gaming, you have to play within the perimeters of the software, reality is similar we must be prudent in dealing with the language of reality. 

Morality is a way to govern actions. The language of reality acts upon your senses, then based on the perception you act. Morality is a way to organize this information in a positive way that is not selfish. people without morality are just reacting to the language of reality, without dissecting the consequences that follow from violating this physical language.

Thus man has language, he can write or speak or other mechanisms. It is this language that was written with paper, that led to the innovations that we use today. We build from God's code of physical structures, then merely given a different context to fit our needs. Just like we have twenty-seven letters in the English language, there is grammar to the structure of the language.

Reality has its precedents, like 26 letters. One of its precedents is gravity, the laws of the universe, and its structure. All we can use is the 26 letters of language, to create thousands of words, plans, music, and literature. We are made in the image of God, but we must work within the perimeters of reality. Man cannot speak reality into existence, he can only work within its perimeters.

Just like we use language to convey what we feel, think, and act. In a way every living to survive, has to deal with information to survive, information on predator or prey. Some have even developed ways of communicating, some vocal, most not, but it is a language of some kind. Information is the standard of all living mechanisms.

Just like we use letters to convey language, reality is a language that exists already to convey information to our senses, that we eventually perceive as reality once organized in our minds. Reality is a premade language that already exists, and that we must work within. Pay attention to what people say, what your senses are telling you, what your mind is telling you etc the language of reality is always speaking. By simply paying attention, one gains insight. Thus to be blatant, wisdom is mastering the language of reality.

<amp-ad width="100vw" height="320"

     type="adsense"

     data-ad-client="ca-pub-9017032654830278"

     data-ad-slot="9251263937"

     data-auto-format="rspv"

     data-full-width="">

  <div overflow=""></div>

</amp-ad>

The Death of Morality

In the West we live in a moral Vacuum; Ever since the introduction of evolution, it caused a significant abandoning of Christianity as well as other faiths. Religion and philosophy, have been critical since towards ethics. It not only clarifies objectives, but it is the mechanism of deciphering what is right and wrong. Science does not offer morality. It is a mechanism in which we analyze evidence, statistics, and experiments and then deduce a hypothesis to explain the data. This does not tell us how to live, and neither does it tell us what is morally right and wrong. Western civilization rests on Christian morality as a foundation, once we abandoned this. The moral Vacuum was created. Moral Relativism thus emerged as a consequence, whose to say what is right or wrong, or whether your right is not my wrong, and your wrong your right. This is a very stupid argument. If we truly believed this, we would not have courts or prison systems. We have this institution because we believe in right and wrong, and punishment where it's necessary. Therefore the idea that right or wrong is merely personal, goes against the whole concept of justice. To argue right or wrong is merely an opinion, is to argue that justice is just an opinion. Eastern mysticism slowly came to fill the void. And this Western mysticism was born. Concepts repackaged such as "The secret". The idea that you manifest your reality, through your thoughts. Belief in astrology became prevalent, even though the stars have moved, and our astrology is based on stars that either no longer exist or no longer exist where they were projected to be. Hundreds of years ago. Astrology was born, from pseudo-astronomy. Whereas astronomy, delved into evidence and painstakingly sought out the truth about the mechanisms of the stars and galaxies. A pseudoscience emerged, of people attaching human personalities to stars. Where no such connection has ever been made. Yet in a moral Vacuum people would rather believe their fate is tied to the stars, than God. Extensively blaming their behavior on their horoscopes. One of the most appalling behaviors of lacking self-accountability. The stars do not determine your behavior, stop it. The stars do not determine your and your partner's compatibility, stop it. It only does when you believe this pseudoscience of astrology affects your actual understanding of reality. Media agendas also contribute to the decline of morality. Catering to certain demographics that may even be immoral to portray to kids, is marketed regardless to sell merchandise. The media and immoral music that sells, is also marketed indiscriminately. Whereas it affects the youth and is destroying
society. Whatever sells, supersedes what is ethical. Materialism also perpetuates the neglect of ethics. We replaced God with money, which essentially rules our lives as we let it. Humans idolize because we inherently are aware that there is a power that supersedes our own convictions. Many have let go of virtues, principles, and even families for money. Ironically those people are miserable, they have no sense of morality. Some are perpetuating divorce and exploiting workers in poorer countries. The nuclear family is under attack, coupled with the depopulation agenda. Government programs eliminated the man as the provider. I am African American myself, it astounds me that people don't know that the Democratic party was the party of slavery and the KKK. The new deal offered opportunities to the less disenfranchised, which essentially replaced the Father, who was to instill discipline. Children who were fatherless populate prisons, are involved in violent crime, and have the highest rate of juvenile delinquency. This is marketed to us as independence. The so-called I don't need a man mentality. I agree, you don't but don't deprive your kids of their father. Promiscuity is rampant and unconstrained. I suppose this is the sexual liberation we fought for. Thus most will be born out of wedlock and arbitions will become more profitable. Families with fathers, mothers, and children might become things of the past. The men are getting raped in divorce court, and marriage doesn't seem appealing. Especially to the men who are established, not just their wealth but by an accusation that will be taken as truth like Johny Depp lost his Pirates of the Caribbean franchise because of an accusation. Men since history have handed down ethics and principles. These are not intended to make you feel good, sometimes we sacrifice now for a better return. Unlike what most believe there is a right and a wrong. Living in a society that does not even acknowledge this, is resulting in lost children. Social media has also been a part of the conundrum. People are comparing their regular lives to people's highlights. What socially is right or wrong is whoever garners the crowd around them, truth is truth even in the majority of one. The truth is not a democraphy, it is merely reality.

<amp-ad width="100vw" height="320" type="adsense" data-ad-client="ca-pub-9017032654830278" data-ad-slot="9251263937" data-auto-format="rspv" data-full-width=""> <div overflow=""></div> </amp-ad>