Winter Queued

Touching my skin & whisper aloud,
An emotionless motion that never is bound.

Surrounding my vision & warming my bones,
My nearest lover that I cannot yet hold.

Shackled below & birth is its' ploy,
They give me life and freedom and joy.

Freedom Tactics: Patience Without Sacrifice

Today, we start a new series of articles about the strategies and tactics for freedom.

Freedom, in its most basic meaning, is the ability to take care of ourselves, without the intervention of others. This definition can be applied both to individuals and to groups. Self-care ranges from basic needs, such as food, water and shelter, to mental needs, such as company, expression and safety.

Strategy is the result of designing or planning a flexible set of operations, for one or more specific goals. Each operation is composed of different tactics that reflect the options available to us. This entire process is very flexible in its creation and very fluid in its operation, but it is always defined, as a reference, so as to avoid as many unwanted actions and unexpected results.

Moving onto the topic of this article...

Without patience, there is no way to plan our responses to existing and possible problems. It is when we feel hopeless and see no future plan that we choose to make sacrifices.

With patience, we are able to calmly review and resolve. We need not make unwanted sacrifices. We can choose how we respond and spend the resources we find most suitable. Once it is a choice out of many, it is not anymore a sacrifice; it is only a price.

It is impossible to make any choice, without taking the time to consider. Freedom is a choice. Without patience, there is no freedom, at all.

Comment below and say, what you agree with and what you disagree with in this discussion of freedom and choice!

Replace Plastics & Metals With Plants

It is my personal dream that someday, soon, all our useful and brilliant electronic devices will be made from organic materials, from fresh plant sources that do not harm the environment. A biological computer that resembles its' current predecessor, without any relation to the horror movie notion of a man-eating computer-brain monster, if you will.

Step One: Replace oil-based plastic with (fresh) plant-based plastic.

Is it possible to make plastics from fresh plants? Yes! Apparently, using plant starch will let us create bio-plastic, which can have different properties - just like regular plastic does - when mixed with different materials. There are loads of information resources online for this, so you can find different plants (potatoes, corn, others) and different methods (stove, oven, microwave!) for your needs.

Step Two: Replace mineral-based materials with bio-plastic materials.

Is it possible to make electromagnetic devices from plastic? Yes! Sadly, the topic is shushed by the big corporations, due to its' extremely lucrative nature. The first reported discovery of a plastic polymer (mix) with magnetic properties came from America in 2001. Soon afterwards, another report came from England in 2004. Remember that magnetism and electricity go together, so when this competition is over with, we should see a market boom of electric devices made entirely from organic polymers (bio-plastic), with all the benefits of the material.

For some textual specifics, you can check out the Wikipedia page about this.

The Sacred Science [Free Movie]

This ain't some hippie documentary, but a rather investigative review.

We all endure sickness and hardship. It is evident that there are many plants that help us cope with life, and even heal from specific problems, by introducing them into our minds and diets. As an added benefit, spending time in natural, lush and comfortable environments, helps us see things differently, and feel better about our lives.

I quite envy the experience that these adventurous people had, and aim to, someday, enjoy it myself, as well.

Try The Amish

I would like to take this opportunity, and try to learn from the Amish, about social organization and human nature.

The Amish Endurance!

I find it interesting that small communities can have very specific rules, but still be enjoyable to their members. Even now, people choose to enter (and leave) the Amish communities, and other such similar close-knit and strict groups, around the world. Is it possible that the best way for people to organize is in an array of different strict small communities?

The idea that we should all have almost no social rules in our free lives, and that we should all live together in great cities, might not be the best direction for us. Since the dawn of time, people have lived in small and very organized communities. Occasionally, some would change communities and move about. Often, it was due to a marriage or a great need, but sometimes even due to disagreements and conflict.

I wonder if in a truly free world, would people just return to this most basic and simple method? Small groups with very strict local rules that immigrate and exchange with other such-like groups, in other places.

What do you think?

Responsibility VS Ownership !

All human conflict derives from the ideological conflict between responsibility and ownership.

Responsibility is the measure of how much a person is willing to give, time or resources or even risk, in order to support his ideals. A natural example is that of investing in a child. The child is given his needs from the parents, because the parent idealizes, to a degree, the importance of their child.

Ownership is the attempt to control the ideas of other people. In order for a person to own anything, they must convince others that they (the others) have no power, over the choices of the owner, in regard to the owned object. For example, the only way in which I can own an apple, is if other people accept that my choices about the apple are superior to their own ideas about the apple.

It is possible for both ideologies to overlap:
1. Own & take responsibility, over something.
2. Not own, but take responsibility, over something.
3. Own, but not take responsibility, over something.
4. Not own & not take responsibility, over something.

The greatest conflict of interests is when one person or group decides to take responsibility without ownership, while another person or group decides to take ownership without responsibility. I first tackled this issue over at the FDR forums, here:
http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36950-responsibility-versus-ownership/

I propose that this is best solved by acknowledging that responsibility is a higher ideal than ownership. I do not propose, however, that ownership does not have a right to exist. Only, that in the case of dispute, that side which proves the need for taking responsibility, must be allowed priority, over the side that claims ownership.

First, we recognize the fact that being the owner of something, for example a tree, does not mean that you would always have all the rights to it. If the owner does not take care of the tree, so that it is rotting and might fall on others, then it is fair for others to take responsibility, and cut the tree down, for their own safety. This is in the case of the owner not doing so, beforehand.

Second, we realize that it is not enough to simply disagree with the owner's opinions, but that actual proof is required, for intervention. If it is not evident why intervention must be required, then no intervention should exist! When an owner and an interventor (someone who wants to take responsibility) go to court, in order to resolve a dispute, then it is up to social rule to dictate the result.

This is why we talk and argue our ideas. So, that we can imply what is right and what is wrong, in society, as a whole, and so be able to trust our fellow peoples' decisions.

Eventually, I wanted Stefan Molyneux's opinion in the matter; him being a person I share a lot of views in common with and who is able to debate well, and so sent him an email and received this response:

"I think that everything that is enforced rather than inflicted is superior, [so] I think we agree."

I conclude that he, and many on the forums, sum this idea into, 'we either have a contract or we don't.'

This is my final conclusion, which I consider the most practical:

In order to enforce conflict resolutions, we must decide which person has the higher moral ground. The ideals of the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership are insufficient for the resolution of conflicts, without proper investigation into the facts and nature of each conflict.

Only when there is no doubt that one side has a clearly higher moral position, over the other, then that side must enjoy the support of the community, as a whole, and of us as individuals, in private.

"We" Does Not Exist

There is one substantial difference between the self and the group. The self always exists as itself, while the group is ever changing; to the degree that at different times, the same group can consist of entirely different individuals.

Every time someone says or writes "we", or any derivative of it, a red light illuminates in my mind. It goes something like this:

- "Who are the individuals referred to, exactly?"
- "What are the definite and consistent properties of the group?"
- "Am I part of that group or of any similar group?"
- "What interest does that person, or the people who compose the group, have in being generalized?"

The principle of my suspicion is the threat of being generalized to the extent that I am no longer represented, or that I gain an unjustified bias against another. In any of those cases, the result is prejudice and conflict.

So, while there are fair situations, in which many individuals can be represented in a group, such as the case of a family unit , there is the most common and abundant danger of misrepresentation!

Not seeing the trees for the forest.

Debt Is Bad

I mean, seriously. How can anybody think "debt" and see it in a positive light.

I have been seeing more and more people, coming out and saying that 'if we just handle debt this way, then we can...' blah blah blah. Economists. This is just plainly wrong. It is like excusing a mistake, by saying, 'Hey, what if we try to make it seem more positive?' That does not work.

Click here for some debt advice from Finance Dais' blog.

Just think about it. "Do I want debt?" No. The answer is no. Nobody wants debt. People used to go into debt, because they would starve, otherwise. So, there is no excuse for anyone to go into debt. Our social structure cannot be in debt and work for us. This is evident in modern day life.

So, stop treating debt, as if it were just an empty word, or some complicated economic term that none of us understands. We understand it. Treat it like it should be treated. Like a scourge!

How To Design A Vegan Village

[Click here to scroll to the Vegan Village example, if you already read the original thread.]

I recently enjoyed a thread about Non-Hierarchical Permaculture Designed Community over at permies.com. The thread discussed the idea of designing a new village, in a way that attracts and keeps the most wanted population at any given time, so that it reflects the will of the designer(s). The conclusion, for me, was the following illustration:

It's sorta like from ground to horizon. How neat is that?! :-D

Basically, the point here is that some parts of a village are very fluid, so they should be regarded as "experiments". Other parts are quite static, so we can design them to pretty much be, what we want them to be. And finally, some things are just so random and wild, that we should only design to cope with them, and not for specific results.

The purpose of such a design, is to define, in advanced, what we want built-into the village. It is very hard to decide on how we want our village to be, when we are not even sure what is relevant for the design process.

In this case, I suggest that we design for three goals:
1. Limitations on private experimentation, so that we get people who are either more or less adventurous.
2. Limitations on public experimentations, so that we get people who are either more or less social.
3. Limitations on shared resources, so that we get people who enjoy a life style similar to our own taste.

The focus is the village's intended population and the village's intended functionality. Naturally, this is all in regard to Permaculture ideals, so it will not answer the wishes of many, who do not take interest in bold new ways!

For example, could we design a vegan village?

A vegan diet (or life style) denies two things: animal produce and the preparation of animal produce. Animals, as in husbandry, generally require access to the Stable section of the village, for grazing and happiness. The preparation of animal produce, generally requires in-house equipment and storage, which is under the Private Experimental section.

It is unlikely to be able to design any denying mechanism in the Private Experimental section, because a person's home is "their fortress." That is fair enough. On the other hand, for serious meat eating, beasts need proper grazing. If we design the Stable section, which includes all the shared land around and between the houses, so that it is inhospitable to beasts, then we can design the village to be utterly offensive to meat farmers. That would be enough to disgust a prospective buyer that has any ideas about growing beasts for their products.

A vegan vacation! It's vegelicious!

In this very penetrating case, we come to the conclusion that while no one can be forced to be a vegan, in their privacy, by design; it is still possible to design a village, so it discourages meat farmers and meat eaters, away.

Not to mention, we can design a lot of vegan propaganda into the public Experimental section, so that it feels like a horrifying cult to non-vegans, who first see the design. :-P

Watching Violent Movies For Education

We watch action flicks for the heroes; not for the violence or the destruction. How dare I claim such an all encompassing conclusion? Let us break it down:

People watch movies that have conflict without having violence in them. For example, dramas, comedies, adventure films, non-violent children shows and more. Conflict itself is the interesting thing! We all have a strong inner need for education, so we seek the conflict between others, to learn from their experiences.

The Martial Arts
Probably the best example of learning from conflict,
on daily basis.

While we may not actually take interest in which side wins any conflict, or in the result of it, at all, we do want to review the successes achieved in the conflict. By mimicking and understanding the victories, we learn how to defend ourselves and win conflicts ourselves. It is as simple as that! Monkey see monkey do, so monkey want to see.

So, the next time anybody dares claim that we learn 'how to be violent' from movies and games, make sure you remember that it is a false notion! Remember that we learn from all conflicts, and what we learn is how to handle and come out well from conflicts.

Updated Blog Design & Images & Feed Links

Here, here, for the update of my pretty blog!

I have changed the blog's layout from two columns into one column. I felt that it was time to give more space to both the content and sidebar. By removing the left column, I added a bunch of good pixels to both, and now there is more space for the posts aaaand for the important sidebar images and links.

Enjoying the friendly Google Blogger system.

Also, now there is a widget with RSS feed links for different providers, if you scroll below a little. I added the buttons manually, because I could not find anything pre-made. Took me a while to get it all going nicely.

I hope Real Stories! Amazing Adventures! is more readable, now. Do comment and tell me how you feel about my current design and how you would improve it!

Friendly Local Permaculture Talk

Peter Bane - How I'm Preparing for the Local Future: Permaculture

I really enjoyed watching this talk about how they prepare for the future, by having a small plot that they work on, part time. From water cisterns to small animals, fruit trees, and growing veggies for summer and winter. Really a down-to-earth easy on the ears talk about doing Permaculture sensibly.

How Do Bullies Rule Society?

New South Park episodes out!

Who is a bully?

A bully is a person that forces themselves on others, because of their fear of being ignored.

Bullies are the people who are most attracted to positions of power over others, because of their fearful nature.

Why should we be most cautious of cowards?

Bullies, which are a sub-species of cowards, are the greatest threat to us all. It is not the strong and self-confident person who bothers to manipulate those around them. Such a person relies on their ability to cope with problems, and understands that manipulating others would be a waste of valuable time. This time is better used to invest in oneself, rather than attempt to control others.

Oppositely, the bully is not willing to invest in themselves, and therefor is always anxious to find prey. Such prey is their human meat shield against dangers. Those who accompany the bully, the minor bullies, are the first to get hurt, when a conflict arises.

Society can be looked at as a larger scale village. In this village, that counts to the millions and billions of people in our age, cowards will always attempt to take over the rest of us. It is hard to miss that the most control-hungry and cowardly people among us are those in politics, generally. Politicians are those people who invest most of their time in manipulating the lives of others.

Politicians work under the false pretense that they represent others.

For any person to represent me, under any normal circumstance, they would have to hold my recorded consent for representation, and even then it will be a limited consent. No other person can represent me completely, ever.

Lo and behold, today, we are all born into a state of society that lets those strangers, those bullies in politics, to represent us, without our consent, at all. As teenagers, young adults that are already responsible for their own actions, we have no word about who legally represents us. As young adults, over the age of legal adulthood (18+), we are the minority group, and thus cannot democratically have proper representation.

Our generation is even less in Europe!
~160mill' People 34+ > ~70mill' People 18 to 34.
More than twice our generation are still forcing their opinions on us!

This is how bullies rule our society. This is how bullies have always operated. Only those of us who take a stance and insist that only they, themselves, represent themselves, will ever make a society that is not ruled and run by bullies.

How To Have Grit

It pisses me off to read non-critical criticism (I know...) from old moronic slaves, who dare pretend to represent other people. Today, I ran into the title "Young lack the grit to get jobs." In other words, here's another person blaming the children on the mistakes of adults.

This critical article from News Frames, said exactly what I thought, but did not say what I feel. I feel cheated.

I feel cheated by the previous generations; those who are still alive and working to harm the younger generation. Our parents and our grandparents. They have cheated us out of our natural liberties and choices. They are cheating us out of our happiness and wishes.

My young generation, and the one to follow, suffer the tyranny and abuse of previous generations. The excuse we hear, of course, is that they "were treated badly, so nothing else could be expected" of them. If that is so, then...

The round table of law must sit the wise among our young,
instead of the durable among our old.

If we cannot expect anything good out of our formers, then we cannot trust our lives into their hands. All governing bodies and the ruling intelligentsia must be replaced by our generation, without an overlap period. After all, training under those who are inherently wrong, will only harm the fresh minds of the young.

The generation that does not suffer war, poverty, hunger and idiocy, must take charge and responsibility. Only those who are not broken can help repair this mess we call modern culture.

FacePlus? GoogleBook? What?

I have recently decided to become more active on my Google Plus account.

Originally, I started with Facebook, like most people, and had enjoyed it thoroughly. I still do, actually. It is a great website to keep after old relationships, global friends, share photos and meet strange people in regard to strange personal hobbies. I like sharing with people and talking about life! :=D

So, what is up with Google Plus? Am I supposed to copy everything from my FB account over to G+? That does not make sense. So, I did not.

These days, I use my G+ account for more professional, business-like relations. For example, I make connections with people who do similar work to what I do. Blogging, writing, eBook authoring and general brave entrepreneurship. It is fun!

But, I still use FB for my more general hobbies, such as trolling (for humor! not for the actual badgering of people!), personal friends and random bits of philosophy. It is sort of like my practice ground, before I dare publish odd things into this blog, for your respected eyes to read.

Well portrayed... I'd give kudos if I knew who is the artist!

So, what is the deal with all those socializing websites?

The Case For Responsibility

I personally feel that the most important and practical debate of the Twenty-First(21st) Century is that of Responsibility.

What is there to discuss about Responsibility?

Responsibility, as an ideology or idea, is horribly misrepresented in modern culture, all over the world. I suspect that the number one cause for all harm and discontent to people, today, is the misunderstanding of Responsibility.

Responsibility is the amount of interest a person has towards anything that can be defined, including objects, people, events or ideas. The content of such responsibility is subjective and ever changing.

Responsibility is only relevant when there is conflict.

Conflict can be inside of the person or between people. In any case, when there is conflict, then it is immensely valuable to figure out who is responsible for what, exactly.

The process of thinking that follows, is such that asks the following questions:

Why is this important to me?

How important is this to me?

What can I lose if I do not take care of this?

What can I lose if I do take responsibility for this?

Who else is responsible for this?

What am I willing to do to take responsibility for this?

What can I gain if I take responsibility for this?

And more.

The results of not taking care of our Responsibilities is horrendous.

Either, by letting the wrong people take over our own responsibilities, or by neglecting to take care of them ourselves, or by not realizing our responsibilities, or by wrongly evaluating the importance of our responsibilities, we bring about results that are bad for both ourselves and others.

An example from one end of the scale is that of the government. Having a governing body take care of responsibilities that are our own, leads to dissatisfaction and conflict. Eventually, it leads to having those governors force us into compliance, simply because we were not willing to take responsibility for our own. Giving a stranger power over us and then arguing that they are abusing that power is illogical. It is simply our fault.

From the other end of the scale, there is the example of personal neglect. Instead of taking care of ourselves, mentally, physically and socially, we blame conditions and others for our problems. It is evident that self-care, such as exercise and education, is a personal responsibility. Nobody wants to be liable for the personal development of another person, who is not their child, except when they accept payment for it.

Responsibility is a subjective, personal, private experience, which is reliant on personal characteristics that change all the time.

Just as it is impossible to directly force an emotion on another person, so it is impossible to directly force responsibility on another person. While it is possible to manipulate another person into feeling an emotion or accepting a responsibility, it is not a direct action, but rather a costly and risky manipulation.

However, responsibility is very flexible. We can share responsibility and enjoy cooperation. Or, we can have negating responsibilities and endure competition.

To clarify the practical uses of responsibility in our daily lives, let us take two situations. Each, with its' own degree of responsibility.

If I were to have a child of my own, then both me and the mother would be responsible for the well-being of that child. Normally, parents feel very strongly towards their children. This means that we will both feel great responsibility towards that child. Also, this will mean that any inability we show in taking care of that child will reflect very badly on us in society.

On the other hand, responsibility can be a very minor and personal issue. If I were to plant an apple tree and let it be, and another person would have an apple fall and hit their head, then I could be considered liable for that incident. Obviously, such a minor incident would not bring public attention to me, nor would that person have a strong case against me, for having that apple fall there and then.

To conclude, our priorities reflect our responsibilities. Whenever it seems that our situation is lacking or wrong, then it is evident that our priorities are somehow not correct, and so we are simply not taking responsibility where and when we should.

This is the first of many notes I have begun working on in private. For my next post on this, I will discuss Responsibility versus Ownership, as ideologies and as practical thinking strategies. It will be very relevant to all freedom lovers! Beware, Libertarians and Anarchists!

Science-Fiction & Fantasy In Contemporary Life

Popular Animated Modern Fiction Is Often Creepy,
But It Certainly Ain't Depressing!

Have you ever felt like reality could benefit, a lot, from all those fiction stories surrounding us all?

Surely, many fiction tales touch the dread in our hearts that the future may come and with it an unstoppable horror. Stories like 1984 and I, Robot raise both interest and worry about the inevitable.

But, whoa there just a minute! How come those far in between and few stories get all the rap? While, every fiction lover out there knows just how much more vast and meaningful non-moralistic fiction stories are in modern literature. I mean, most fiction stories tell us of legions of good ideas for the future, regardless of ethics.

Definitely, they too have conflict in them, as this attracts the mind and thus the reader. Beyond having the common story-telling tricks, though, most fiction stories do not predict a 'Hell on Earth' - or outside of Earth, for that matter.

For example, stories such as The Foundation series by Isaac Asimov and Have Space Suit—Will Travel together with Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein, tell us of mesmerizing pseudo-futures without bowing down to nihilism or to fatalism. The list of fiction stories that demonstrate, in our imaginations, the endless possibilities of the future, are that part with greater mass, in all readers' minds and hearts.

This concludes my rap about the real vibe of fiction books.

You Grok That?

HIS ENERGY LEVEL IS AT FIVE THOUSAND!!!

Woohoo, my rather cutsie blog has finally reached the 5k unique viewers mark!

Celebrations do apply... *ehm* So, do send me a tenner(10$) and email me for a topic of your choice for the next post! The sending by Paypal option is on the left, by the way.

Happy dawg is happy!

Only The Wise Person Is Good

And the stupid person is bad. Let us clarify!

I have always liked the infamous quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Other versions go something like this:

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works." - Variation

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs." - Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

"Facilis descensus Averno." - Virgil's Aeneid

What does this mean?

If a person's view of what is good or right is such that it ignores other people's views, then by necessity, that person will harm those others. This is, because being considerate of other people requires the use of empathy and sympathy based on information. When a person bases their feelings on personal opinion, then their actions ignore the will of others.

In other words, a person who is ignorant of the will (even opinion) of others, is bound to create conflict between themselves and those others, eventually and often.

How can a person take others into consideration without knowing what they think?

No person can take others into account, without knowing them properly. It is true that some things seem easily generalized. Noticeable examples would be the need for food and water, hygiene and the company of others. Never the less, beyond the very basic needs, without proper communication, there is no way to avoid the conflict of wills.

This is why we have the Golden Rule in its' variations:

"己所不欲，勿施於人。" – Confucius

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Laozi

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

Do notice that I take only the versions that use negation. I do not think that a person who chooses to harm themselves should harm others, likewise.

Pittacus would agree!

Freedom Versus Liberty

Am I free to do as I wish?

No. The answer is always no. There are degrees of freedom to every person, and these are defined by natural and social pressures. A person cannot be completely free, and just the same a person cannot be completely without freedom. We always have a choice, even if that choice is not to our liking.

What is liberty, then?

Both words mean freedom, but liberty is used in connotation with persecution and defense. To have liberty is to be without persecution. To have no unfriendly forces putting pressure on your choices. We can either be with liberty or without it. Unlike freedom, liberty has no degrees. A liberated people have no enemies forcing their choices.

Can I be both free and liberated?

Yes. While we cannot force our enemies into surrender, and thus changing their opinions of us, we can find ways to make their efforts not worthwhile. Being liberated from external social forces, by design, now we maximize our freedoms. Being free means to feel that your most important choices are your own; including daily actions, social interactions, professional work and self-care. A liberated people can continue to design their environment, so that not only liberty is kept, but also that individual freedoms are enhanced.

How can a people enhance their freedom, then?

Just as we would put a fence (a physical negative incentive) to keep aggressors at bay, we would also put social rewards (a social positive incentive) to encourage non-aggressive behavior within our friendly circles. The former, making unwelcome outsiders feel that handling the fence is not worthwhile the catch beyond that fence. The latter, making valuable friends and family encouraged to behave positively by rewarding them constantly - not by agreement, but by emotional reward.

A romantic fantasy...

Free to live as you wish with all that you need,
while kept Liberated from aggressors in a remote and inaccessible place.