Logic and Facts

To establish the truth, there are 3 essential steps. First- is the argument logically valid? This can be broken down into the questions of- Are the premises required contradictory?
(note that a contradictory statement is not invalid- it is meaningless. If (contradiction) then Y is ALWAYS true. It is, as such, incapable of providing input. IE, a test that always comes up positive is no better than simply declaring the statement true without any measurement. IE in any designation of C->Y is equivalent to 0=0. This principle ignores scale- it's like multiplying a final product by 0, all information is lost if any link is invalid. It should be noted, that autorepair routines are a valuable asset, in that YOU can yourself, fix a target argument such that it becomes a valid argument. Even the best scientists often make mistakes especially in long and convoluted math. Sometimes these mistakes are easily fixed, and the argument does not need to be sent back to its source for maintenance.)

Are all statement transformations done such that they lead to equivalent results?
(IE, take the statements of X->Y and ~X (not X)->~Y. These are NOT equivalent. IE, assume X is true if the tested variable is a hawk, and Y is true if the variable is a bird. In all cases wherein X is true, so is Y. However, a dove is not a hawk, but it is a bird. Any argument wherein we start with the premise of X->Y and derive a statement such as ~X->~Y is logically invalid. This is, once again, due to the fact that given any derivative from which the original truth table is changed, I can obtain any result from any premise. As such, the truth of the premises has no relation to the truth of the final statement.)

Once these routines are complete the second step is- Is the statement mathematically valid?
This is when outside information is first factored into the issue. Each premise is measured against additional known information. The validity of the premises is based on how much outside information would have to be rendered false for the the premise to be declared true, vs how much outside information would have to be rendered false for the premise to be declared false. A strength level is assigned to each premise. Note the difference between a premise and a variable. IE "If cattle exist the so does the sun god." is a premise. The existence of cattle and the existence of the sun god are both variables. The RELATION is the premise. Since there are many scenarios that include cattle but not a sun god, I can call this premise into question. It should be noted, that it is impossible to render such a premise impossible (any such design would already be logically invalid.) but it is possible to assign probabilities to each premise. As some premises drop below a certain threshold I can furthermore declare the effort involved with further exploration to be not worth the benefits derived thereof, thus setting a virtual 0 to the premises strength.

Finally, the issue turns to the variables themselves. It should be noted that in many arguments, rendering one or more variables false will not destroy the argument. For instance- X or Y->Z. Even if Y is false Z (the variable I care most about) is still true, given that X is true. That said, it becomes necessary to, with a similar approach as before, judge the strength of each variable. It can be stated that the probability that Z is proven (be careful not to dismiss Z just because a false proof is given. IE "given that oil continues to be used to generate electricity, then we will be nuked. Oil will continue to be used to generate electricity, so we must prepare for a nuclear attack with a nuclear defense shield." Note that the starting premise is weak (that using oil will necessarily lead to getting nuked) but the conclusion is not necessarily a bad idea. At least, many better arguments could be given for that same conclusion.) , given a statement such as X or Y->Z is equal to- The probability of the premises being accurate multiplied by the probability that any set of variables that leads to Z is accurate.

So, this leads to the issue, of what tools to use to asses the probability of the premises and variables. The first, and most obvious is direct input. For instance, one does not need expert advice to know that the sky often displays a blue color. Any variable that requires the sky to lack its color in order to function requires the complete dismissal of all input throughout your entire life, and thus becomes abstractly improbable. This method is, however, limited. Especially when dealing with variables. Oftentimes, events can avoid contradicting personal experience even if you know a good deal about a subject. IE, say there was a statistic that said 2% of females aged 16-28 in town X get raped every year. As a resident female who lived her entire life in town X and hasn't been raped, you must realize that according to the statistic provided, this scenario has a nearly 77% chance to occur. As such, the personal experience of living in town X and not getting raped is nearly worthless in terms of judging the issue.
This is when you turn to aggregate data. So long as the collection method is valid and the source is trustworthy, statistics are the best and only way to answer questions upon which you lack data. Any amount of individual data points can be averted by declaring them a coincidence. However, by aggregating them, they become much stronger- facts are like sticks. Breaking one is always easy, but breaking them all at once is astronomically harder.

Sometimes, though, you will inevitably run across issues which fall into one of two categories- the statistics behind the premises are so astronomically convoluted that you can't understand what they mean or the data is so lacking that it's impossible to use a amalgamated mass. This is when the opinions of outside analysts become important. IE, a biologist can declare that his data indicates a coming epidemic, that requires immediate action to avert. The reasons for his declaration can easily be absurdly arcane, but if the other biologists around him agree that his data means what he thinks it means, and if he is a person who has successfully predicted 3 similar events, his data is probably valid. Alternatively, say a murder occurred and the murderer is confirmed to have destroyed all video evidence and left no dna evidence. However, he didn't know that his target's child was hiding in the closet and saw the entire thing, leaving a good enough testimony to identify him from amongst all the people who could physically have achieved the act. One must judge if the source would want to mislead you, or have some sort of vendetta against the presumed murderer, or if it is more like that the child is simply telling the truth. Oftentimes, these questions are actually very easy to make, but sometimes a very confusing situation arises- one in which 2 valid sources come to opposite conclusions. Since this method is a step within the process of judging argument validity, presuming that any given argument has not already been judged true or false, it WILL inevitably be reached. (assuming data exists. Even so, when faced with a unsolvable problem, people tend to pull in their friends, coworkers, etc. to help them come to a conclusion.) As such all problems are supported by one group and opposed by another, and the constituent strength of the groups supporting and opposing the argument must also be factored in. Note that group size is of minimal importance compared to other factors. IE, 10 doctors telling me that my symptoms are caused by disease X is more meaningful than 10000 non-doctors saying the same thing. Although popular opinion can be used as an indicator, it is often caused by such things as "going with the flow" or by the conclusion simply being the most obvious, even though anyone who really knows what he's talking about knows 10 proofs that make the conclusion false. (Often, 1 way hash arguments, wherein the true argument is thoroughly proven, but the proof is so long/difficult, that the average person cannot follow it, either due to willpower+available time or simple intellect failure. Note that lack of will to follow an argument is not necessarily a bad thing, and is in fact a mathematical necessity. By definition, listening to one argument requires that you are not listening to another. If you just start listening to every available argument, you will soon find that there are STILL far more that you haven't listened to.)

If, Then, Else

So, we've decided that an ailing economy is solved by producing jobs, and demand. This is achieved via government spending. So, given that this procedure works, what else must be true?

Firstly, that people in their latent state are not productive. IE, that rich people will not use their wealth in a progressive manner, and that poor people will become more productive once given a job. (The issue of poor people facing starvation or simple deprivation could easily be solved by immigration control and charity. It is assumed that we cannot afford charity for the entire world, so there must be limits to who can get this charity.) The jobs given to the poor are NOT currently productive. Producing a single job is far more expensive than giving a single person enough money to sustain a middle class living. IE, any job given to the poor must be judged as an investment, not a product.

So, this splits current economics into two questions- is 'idle' spending more effective than forced spending and does a person, after working for a certain period become an effective member of the economy? Current assumptions say that upon such a time as a person runs out of obvious beneficial activities to achieve he will enter into an idle state and cease partaking in useful activities. The answer to this syndrome is thence to force economic advantage gain for less useful activities visible to the government but not the economy. In theory these activities can be intuitively seen easily, but due to the lack of financing for those who would benefit, they are invisible to the economy. So, we must look then at the nature of the economy's vision- IE what makes an activity visible to the economy vs what hides such an activity. Simply, an economy repeatedly distributes money back to those who produce the greatest amounts of wealth. A miner gathers ore. The ore is sent to a refinery and eventually becomes steel. The steel is sent to a car factory. The Car worker trades his money for a house, that was built from wood gathered by a lumberjack supporting all the people up the line. Presumably the workers demand as much as they can get and thus each receives the maximum amount that a company can pay them and still make a profit (IE the wealth they produce is directly returned to the worker. Note that this doesn't really happen, because some people are better at fraud than others, so some workers make way more than they're worth through clever trickery, most of it legal. Of course the reverse is also true, and plenty of workers are screwed by clever companies. Such activity should however, be viewed merely as corruption, and should be stomped out where plausible.) Some people are not in the direct line of work, for instance, venture capitalists. However, they are in the same positions as the workers, in that the only way to start a car factory is for someone to judge that a car factory needs to be opened even though there is no proof, and for him to provide the capital. This is a very difficult job that only a few people can do, and those who do it well are provided large amounts of wealth due to their importance to the economy. From an economic perspective there is little difference between company/customer and employee/company. When A provides a service B responds by returning wealth.

So, what's curious is this- what happens when the worker at the car factory is replaced by a computer, and where thousands of factory workers used to be paid, instead a couple hundred engineers handle everything. The factory worker can no longer produce a surplus of wealth, and thus becomes invisible to the economy-(note also a equivalent scenario: that a lot of people move to cities creating a large demand for houses. For a period, any uneducated bum can be a valuable economic resource due to the necessity of houses and lack of alternatives. However, as the demand decreases the incentive to employ the bums disperses until such a time as it is no longer profitable.) IE the natural response of the economy is to kill him off. (remember that our objective is to improve the economy. Such issues as starving unemployed persons can be handled by charity instead of by handing out jobs.) It can be argued that the worker will simply learn a new skill and do something useful elsewhere, but this merely delays the issue. IE Given that the variables necessary for production change, the persona of the worker base must also change. Given that said variables shrink to a smaller field (for instance, those with a higher IQ, or greater amount of experience) people who were previously productive members of the economy will be dismissed from the economy.

By current economic standards, this method of dismissal is a disastrous inevitability of any unplanned market. This process creates depressions. What must be asked then, is what is a depression? As part of a natural business cycle, it is formed when people finish getting what they want. Once people can drive around for free, and everyone has a house the workers get fired and the companies go out of business. IE a depression does not involve the disappearance of wealth. Indeed, wealth is freed up during a depression. (note that yes investors will be screwed by a depression, but that's because they're not doing their job right. Investors are paid to tell us if a economic activity will be useful in the future, and if their predictions are wrong they will be fired.) So where does the money go?

Here is where the very rich come in. The money ceases to be in an active state and enters an idle state. Note that money, if not spent translates into deflated prices. IE no matter how rich you are, to be noted by the economy you must partake in economic activities. IE idle money is not money that is not spent. It is money that is translated into activities that produce no direct economic benefits. This can be classified into two fields- investments and luxuries. Investments are to be defined as anything that may, in the future give a profitable return. Luxuries are activities that in all probability will not return a profit. As such, the entirety of modern Keynesian economics henges on whether the money will be placed in investments superior to employing workers or if the money will be wasted on luxuries during a depression.

Or, another way of putting it is this- do the very rich become richer or poorer at the end of a business cycle? IE after the economy recovers, do the very rich also recover? If the very rich are reduced in wealth every cycle then it can be assumed that they spent their assets on luxuries or poor investments during the depression. If however, the rich become richer, then it can be assumed that they merely turned to more far sighted programs.

However, the business cycle has, throughout history, been increasing the economy. The nobility was in the 1500s-1700s extremely productive. They set up the industrial revolution. Simply put, business cycles are too frequent for a upper class to remain on top indefinitely without responding profitably too them. Upper class individuals with way more wealth than they need do not tend to fritter it away in parties. They either hold onto it (thus not getting in the way of the rest of the economy) or take extremely far sighted actions to increase their wealth. This is why they are so rich. IE, the problem addressed by current economics (a loss of demand, and thus no way to find useful ways to spend money.) is incorrect. What needs to be addressed is this- that the economy will not always find everyone in it useful, not even everyone who has been useful in the past. Rather than giving these people jobs, which provide the people only a small amount of money compared to how much is spent to produce the jobs, they should be given their wages without the work involved. Then the saved money can be turned to farsighted goals. (such as scientific research, or power plants that can produce cheaper electricity (note that demand for electricity can be fully met, but if the electricity can be produced cheaper, then people who could not previously afford any electricity will start buying whilst those who could afford what they really wanted can buy even more, even if all they do with it is leave the lights on while they're out. IE demand will scale to supply.)

One should ask, what makes these far sighted goals so bright that they outshine nearsighted goals? The answer is simply that they are more economically viable. There's no reason to continue turning trees into houses when no one will trade any resources for the house. However lesser demands, such as my demand for a quantum computer can still be addressed. It's not that these people stop providing products- it's that they start providing products that can't be immediately delivered. These include everything from free food and electricity to spaceflights. A depression starts when my demand for a quantum computer outstrips your demand for a bigger house. It's that simple. Competition for limited resources.

So we ask, do I have a right to a quantum computer when you still want a house? The answer there is this- that we are only different than other species because of our scientific progress. We are the only species that demands things that we can't get. A wolf never demands a gun, and thus is still stuck hunting with fangs. Sure, if a wolf pack hunkered down and started producing more advanced weapons, many wolves would suffer or even starve while the pack worked out its more effective weapon. However, do we really wish we had acted like the wolves way back when, or do we thank the sacrifices of our ancestors? That said, are we really so selfish, that we wish to stop here, reap the rewards and fuck the rest? Given, we shouldn't have to give everything to those in the future (if everyone did that, no-one would EVER actually get to enjoy their wealth.) but a few depressions here and there aren't so bad if it helps those who come later.

Inherent Nature

Imagine that you at 16 meet your daughter from the future, and she informs you that 20 years from now you are going to be a great inventor and charismatic leader. It is obvious enough that she would treat you as her father, and as said great leader, and that you would treat her as your daughter- Even though you share no history with her, nor do you have any achievements at said time. IE, the merit held by a great inventor/ect. is not born from the achievement but is instead a inherent attribute. Similarly, bonds of friendship and family are not built upon actions but upon inherent traits.
Many would argue that the past persona isn't relevant to the future one, due to lacking the experience that he will receive in the future. That would surmise that the person is unimportant and his experience is what matters. However, this runs afoul of a peculiar fact- that many people try the same things, but very few get results. If experience were all that mattered, then the schools that we funneled absurd amounts of money into would succeed, everyone who came out of a university would have equivalent results in the field, and people like Steve Jobs could be output like clockwork. In truth, we find great thinkers who dropped out of high school and incompetent buffoons who have a phd.

We live in a 4 dimensional world- A achievement in the future is no less meaningful than a achievement in Russia. As such, the only objective reason to withhold proper respect for a great inventor of the future is lack of information. At this point though we run afoul of quantum physics- from Schrodinger's Cat we know that any unknown state can be accurately depicted as a superposition of all of its possible states, and as such, a probabilistic cloud. However, this effect need not only be applied forward in time. Any point in history can be framed as a point within a giant tree, a series of parallel time-lines based on the various choices made by the universe. So, to loop backwards, we can say that anyone who CAN make a great invention should receive the same respect as someone who DOES make a great invention. On one hand this seems intuitive, but it also seems demeaning to the accomplishments themselves- This need not be the case however, if the accomplishment itself is given proper respect for itself. A gymnast who achieves a performance that she can only pull off once in a hundred tries feels proud OF HER PERFORMANCE, and rightfully so, because that block of space time is special, a precious existence. IE great achievements can make a better universe, even though they do not improve the achievers. It is sheer folly to declare that Darwin was not a great thinker before he thought of evolution, or would not have been a great thinker had he not thought of evolution. Even so, the theory of evolution is, in itself, important.

That said, as a society, it becomes necessary to uplift not only the already successful but also those who are alike to the successful. It is sheer folly, that a person can spend 30 years of his life being considered by society as worthless trash, then, suddenly when that person becomes a multi-millionaire, society turns around and act like it thinks so highly of him. This methodology discards everything holy about wealth and respect, and turns society into a pitiful beggar who will scamper and bow to whoever has power at the moment. In the past, nobles were known to execute enemy knights who would not fight for their own side, even if those knights sided with the very nobility that won the war. The behavior shown by modern society is unbefitting to a virtuous entity. Its methods are designed to empower the society of the moment. It does not serve its people (except those with power, and those with resources.) nor does it lead to a superior future. It panders to those with current power, disregarding the difficulty it lends to their peers or the pain it brings to others. It is a system purely focused on the present.
Of course, that is the expected nature of any system in which status can move quickly. When those with status are always in fear of losing their status, and those without status are always dreaming of receiving it, it means that their value is being judged only in terms of immediate environment. (Note that in America's recent history, extremely rich people and important scientists have been reduced to poverty (bank failure, farm destruction, lots of ways esp in the great depression.) and beloved, successful politicians have been rewritten into vile fiends (Warren Harding))

Others suggest handing out love to all. This sounds good until you realize that the system values a rapist thug on the same level as a olympic gold medalist. IE- in any system of value there must be some method of discrimination. Anything else is just avoiding the question or declaring morality moot. So, ruling out capitalism and communism, one might ask what is left- This forgets that before either system was created we used many other systems. Status can easily be based on character. In the past, this was judged based on how well people could adhere to various rituals and based on lineage. In the modern day we can do better. IQ of course, and other testable personality traits, but that doesn't go far enough. Thus, we must go into the art of character judging. This is, unfortunately, not straightforward. If you just go out and pinpoint people who are like-able and seem cool, you'll end up with a bunch of machiavellian scum. What you can do, is take people who do well in some field (like people who can play a game really well, or can discuss complicated subjects) and equate it to all other fields. Achievements occur when a threshold of power is applied to a measured field. In our modern credential based society, getting even one achievement can take as long as 20 years. This is because we measure a very small range of endeavours- specifically, tasks that have direct relevance to the present. If we expand this range to include irrelevant activities that are equally difficult, we can encompass millions of people who would otherwise fall off the radar. Fortunately, even if we cannot pin G down well, it still exists. People who hold weight in one field will also succeed in a wide range of other fields.



In a ideal nation, the people within should be patriotic. They should love their country because it is good. However, a country is its people- IE, for a patriot, it is not about simply loving a system, but about loving the RESULTS of the system. A successful system, is then one that causes the individuals composing it to be people with value.
So, what then is a valuable person? One need only look at the meaning of value- A valuable person is joyous, glorious, knowledgeable, understanding, powerful and secure. Namely, a beautiful and intelligent girl who is kidnapped at a young age and forced into a prostitution ring is not a valuable individual. She is not joyful, she is not glorious, she knows nothing, she understands nothing, she has no power and is not secure. Such a person should not exist- EVEN THOUGH, by definition, she is a good person.

So I ask, what does America offer? The much proffered slogan is that of freedom, but what does it mean? Are the doctors free, while they treat patients that caused their own injuries and could not in their wildest dreams afford the health care they receive if they had to spend their own money? Are the landlords free, while they rent to occupants they know will trash their homes? Are the teachers free when they bow down to the government in order to receive a job, and the resulting food and housing for themselves and their children? Are the taxpayers free while half their work goes to support a government that they did not create and do not condone? Are the children free when they are forced to go through their rituals for the sake of the public and their desires? Can someone be called free when so many of his actions serve only the purposes of others?
Some would say America is free because everyone has a say in the government. What then of those who do not support anything proffered by either party? Or of those who desire aspects of each party? A vote cast into the abyss of third parties is merely laughed at, whilst a vote given to either party can often be as harmful as beneficial- It's a false choice. There is no answer.

Others would say that America is free because everyone has opportunity. Here, one must take a second look at the meaning of opportunity- that, in the world today only so many people can succeed. One person's success is another person's failure. In a natural economy, this causes the best and most able to defeat those around them, and claim the reins of power for themselves. IE within a natural economy, very few people have opportunity. In order to convert this into a economy wherein everyone has opportunity, you must deny the natural elites the tools that they use to achieve their status. This reduces economics to a simple roulette in disguise. If not by merit, victory must be achieved by luck. Is freedom then, equal opportunity? Is it so frivolous that we can take two people, choose one at random and have him be a master and the other a slave, and declare them both free, due to their level playing field? In essence, a free environment is a fatalistic one, that those who are superior will be superior and, by definition, those who are inferior will be inferior.

Status is, by its nature, relative. By declaring one person better than the other, you also declare the other person inferior to the first. This happens many times, creating the stratification known as class. In a ideal nation, one expects even their worst criminals to be superior to the denizens of other nations, or at least to easily outclass those nation's criminals. As such, a patriotic individual can love his entire people, even while noting that the rapist is inferior to the scientist. In essence, what we need to do is not to eliminate status, but to acknowledge it. Each person should know his place, and should love his place. People should not be exploited because they are weak, nor because they are strong. They should understand their power level, and live harmoniously with their society.

How can this be achieved? Via true freedom- wherein everyone is given enough money to live off of (to include children), in which the nation acknowledges that each person is a part of IT's plan, such that they are all valuable. People who do not have to work if they don't want to, people who are beholden to no-one, that is a free people. However, what is also necessary is not just that people are not forced to take actions, but that they are allowed to fulfill their own wishes. This means, that society must provide a economy wherein people can seek jobs and grant them without foreign interference.

It can be stated that in such an environment, one subgroup could out-compete and destroy another. The evolutionarily superior group will take over in any natural environment- Evolution is, however, not morality. It is not even power. It is only a measure of security within the current frame. As such, a free people, should not be beholden to evolution either. One might expect that the requirements for the above destroy the necessities below. However, this is unneeded. Simply put, people born into this world, do not choose to enter it. They are forced in. By their nature, they force others out. IE, the decision of whether a person should live in a nation, is by its nature, not a free one. A person who only reproduces, forces all the people in the future to follow his will. IE, by doing a evolutionarily superior tactic, you perform violence on society. As such, the evolution of a society must be decided by that society.

However, this would seem rather unfree- Once again it need not be. If a society is not built upon a cross-section of humanity, but is instead designed for a particular populace, everyone within can share in society's dream. Better yet, given appropriate controls for immigration and enough different societies, people can simply move to a society that supports them. IE true freedom is only achievable in harmony with one's nation.

As such, society should be designed, such that everyone is respected as part of the system, wherein anyone can show his true form and be seen within it, and such that power is routed so as to achieve the future dreamed of by that society. Functional actions should not be confused with moral actions. A person who cannot exhibit any use-able skill, but can achieve feats impossible for anyone else, should receive equivalent respect to a great ceo/inventor. He should not, however, receive giant research grants and a business to run.
Note that respect is not just some piddling thing that can be created via ceremonies. Respect is not about fulfilling rituals. It's valuing a person. It's caring about them- not just empathizing with their pain, but in loving their joy. Looking at it that way, it becomes obvious that such a person would not be thrown out of his home and left to starve, nor denied a fitting job, even if it cost society overall.
(even here, such a society does not need to be expensive. 7,000 per person per year would cover all their expenses, and an additional 3,000 per person per year would more than handle military and miscellaneous expenses. that's a little under a fourth of the gdp, and much smaller than the current government. All we really would have to do is drop social security and medicare and distribute the wealth within evenly.)

The Nature of Diversity

In the modern age we receive all sorts of blessings from diversity. While jews teach us to be objective in stories like Atlas Shrugged and Firefly, the Japanese supply us stories that teach us of values and heart, such as Code Geass and Nanoha. With the power supplied by jewish ideas and the purpose ascribed from Japanese ideas, we take the concepts learned from white games such as Heroes 5 or Magic and use them to transform power into results. Diversity isn't just derived from genetics though: just watch Harry Potter in a room air-conditioned by German science, with French made food to observe the power of Culture. Diversity is a valuable resource, and this is to be expected. After all, evolution itself is powered through diversity. Multi-cellular life, and sexual reproduction, the most important milestones in evolution's history, were both designed only to increase diversity.

So, knowing that diversity is a valuable resource, we must next ask just what is diversity and where does it come from. Diversity is not some mineral one can pull up from the earth, nor is it data which can be transmitted freely. It is a enumeration of modes of operation. IE, a diverse AI is one that can change tactics fluidly and come at a player from a multitude of directions. Similarly, if we as humans seek to be a diverse species we must be able to approach a given issue from a multitude of directions. The concept is not difficult- In a game of Megaman, each boss is weak against one weapon and will almost certainly lose if that weapon is used against him. As such sticking to your most powerful weapon will almost certainly lead to defeat, whilst randomly pounding him with a variety of weapons, then letting the one weapon that actually works handle the rest, (even if that weapon is by all standard measurements pathetic) is a far superior tactic. So, as to where it comes from- Genotypes and/or Phenotypes. By definition. It can be expected that it will be impossible to predict all important events over the next 100 years. As such, the only way to have a ideal society built around handling whatever event chain does occur, is to have a ideal society pre-built for each possible time-line. So we back off again, toward the question of just what makes a society.

The answer here is that a society is built upon people living their way of life based on their philosophy. It is to be expected, a computer program that never runs may as well not exist. As such, in order to have the program, one must supply it with the necessary CPU cycles. In the case of societies, it means that the people in it must have control over where they spend their money, how they do their work, how they treat their criminals- IE their government. Diversity is only born from distributing power to multiple groups, not by holding power over multiple different groups. If a white, a black and a jew are forced to work together, they will each have their own interpretation of how the work should get done. As a result, they must come up with a new methodology. Note- A new methodology. Where once the same work would've been achieved in 3 different manners, it will now be completed in one particular manner, IE in a manner that is a compromise between the white, jew and black. This principle extends to national issues- IE if you start with a white, asian, jew, and a criminal X you will find the asian wants criminal punished, that the victim may enjoy having final justice over the perpetrator, the white simply wants to make sure he isn't the next victim, and the jew will want to overlook the crime, and pay the price of having criminals rather than hurting mr. X. Each of these approaches has their merits, and within their own nations would've been implemented into multiple competing systems. However, together the asian will insist that the criminal be punished and the jew will insist he get let off. In the end the criminal will be tortured (for instance, put into a jail cell where his "fellow" inmates will then rape and beat him) (thus making him less viable for civilian activity and more reliant on crime as a way of life) and then released back into the public (with maybe a short delay in order to placate the white.) The asian will not have his justice, the white will not have his safety, nor will the jew get his warmth and love. NO-ONE wins.

It is not unexpected, that if you place two groups in one sphere, there will be one group after a period of time. Genotypes will be weeded out through interbreeding, or by one group out competing the other. Phenotypes will be similarly conglomerated through the natural human processes of tribalism and conformism. (Humans are naturally opposed on an emotional level to anyone who disagrees with them. For similar reasons we naturally fear going against societal norms or holding beliefs that no-one else is willing to recognize.) So one must ask, how we obtained the diversity we enjoy today in the first place. The answer turns out to be physical barriers. Blacks exist because of the Sahara. Asians exist because of the Himalayas . British and Germans have a separate existence because of the English Channel, and other environmental factors. For every genotype or phenotype their is some physical barrier that separates them. Of course with modern technology, these barriers are virtually moot. Those that aren't (such as African disease barriers that whites cannot go through.) will be overturned as technology improves. As such we are steadily moving into 1 shared sphere of influence.

In order to hold onto our cherished diversity, it is thus necessary to create new virtual barriers in lieu of the old ones. It is to be expected that we do not want to overturn the very benefits that we receive from diversity, by cutting off trade, or taking other economic action or by cutting off information flow between groups. That would be like trying to stop global warming by reducing carbon emissions. As such it is better to preserve the barriers we can preserve- IE the governmental ones. Controlling immigration and not giving votes to foreigners is the most obvious application thereof. However, a less obvious one is this- That once two cultures come into conflict, there are only two options: Eliminate one culture or end the conflict. Understand this, that conflict is not only carried out through war. People constantly try to destroy each-other through economics, politics or even sheer reproduction. To end the conflict, each of these issues must also be addressed. Splitting the two groups into two governments, is the most viable answer that addresses these issues- Economics is pacified, since services must be accomplished by the group within its own nation, and since the nation gets a monopoly on its own land and resources. Politics is handled since the voters of one nation cannot effect the citizens of the other nation. Reproduction is settled, since the nations are mono-genetic and mono-phenotic. That said, it is to be expected that between a random X and Y either X will be significantly larger than Y or the reverse. As such, when two nations are split, this almost always means that one small nation is succeeding from the larger whole.

It is to be expected that even with careful border control and political rules, foreign influences will penetrate any group. Since these existences are all geometric (or, another way to put it, is that any non-geometric process will quickly be swamped by exterior forces, only geometric existences can be seen on a four dimensional stage. Anything else, no matter how large in the third dimension, is too small for the naked mind.) the rate of expansion will determine group size in the end. What this means is that the only way to sustain a perpetually diverse environment, the people within the environment must be periodically sorted into their respective groups. The only viable way to achieve this is a right to succession. Larger groups must not be allowed to use force to overpower smaller groups that wish only to be left alone- Even if the smaller group resides within the territory of the larger group. So long as the physical difficulties of supplying the smaller group their required land, resources and military defense can be addressed, nations should slide to their smallest available size.

An ideal government

Democracy will not work. It does not work and will never work. Specifically any voting system is subject to Arrow's Impossibility, and democracy cannot violate any precept thereof without destroying itself.

To be a dictatorship is to not be a democracy, so I can safely ignore the idea of a democracy that is a dictatorship. That said, states such a Stalin's Russia or Saddam's Iraq tended to be highly corrupt and inefficient, and if you constantly keep people sated with fake security they will not secure real security for themselves. Of course if the individuals under the government do not protect the government, the government, being the group of individuals under itself, will also be unable to protect itself.

Next off, a democracy without Unrestricted Domain. This again is split into 3 distinct clauses I can violate. IE-
A democracy that does not take into account all individual preferences. In other words, a democracy with a limited vote, similar to America's original vision. The main flaw of this system is that people with power will use their power. IE, it is implausible to expect that you will be able to indefinitely keep the vote from being used by all groups. People will naturally vote, that additional voters who agree with them should also be able to vote. By compromising and giving various special interests support and various causes in return for extra voters, they will be able to expand to fill all limits. Those left out of this expansion will be completely unrepresented by their government and will thus be disloyal, hateful and in pain. As the unrepresented populace grows it will use progressively larger quantities of force in order to seize power. A strange alien government could probably repeatedly genocide such groups, but, as humans, we are naturally empathetic and kind, and cannot bring ourselves to build such a government. We could design a government that secretly carries out its genocides, (like Russia) but once again, a government without oversight will immediately fall to corruption.

A democracy without a complete ranking of all issues, IE a democracy wherein the government does not compare all options. The problem here is this- that on all issues a choice must be made. IE somehow, someone or some group must make the choice. In essence, what is proposed is merely a tiered democracy in which votes are located on different planes. X can be compared to Y, but not Z because Z is located in another castle. We can see some of this in the idea of division of powers/check and balances. The supreme court handles some issues while the president handles others and the congress handles others. Unfortunately this achieves very little if each branch is generated from the same group, and faces the same problems above if they are generated by separate groups (think house of commoners and lords from the past.) Of course you can generate certain policies via local populations and others via global population- thus ignoring the preferences of people unrelated to any given issue. Unfortunately people will tend to push an issue upwards until it receives support- IE if the city doesn't want X then you can still ask the state to mandate that every city build X. Fundamentally, if votes determine the government, then everyone will have an effect on every issue, regardless of cup games and vote shuffling.

The third axiom I can violate to avoid universality is to have a system wherein a person's votes do not necessitate any given result, IE the senate of the Roman Empire. Unfortunately there's a reason we call the Roman Empire an Empire- it was not a democracy.


Secondly a system that does not maintain independence of irrelevant alternatives. At first this seems very different from the original axiom, but fundamentally it's not. Instead of allowing a few people to vote on all issues you're allowing everyone to vote on a few issues. IE, your restricting the vote to the few people who care about the issue. Here we see many of the antics of modern American democracy- For instance, imagine a candidate as a conglomeration of issues. One candidate supports abortion while the other opposes it. Thus any person CAN vote for or against abortion. But, imagine that the same candidate who supports abortion also supports higher taxes and more spending. Note that a voter restricted to the two candidates will soon realize that due to caring more about economics, he IS NOT ALLOWED to vote on abortion. This will result in subsets that care heavily about an issue always winning any debate on the issue. (IE a teacher cares a lot more about schools than anyone else and will only support candidates that propose more spending on teachers. The teachers then push through smaller class sizes, higher wages, lower standards that are more specific to the teachers that exist to keep out competition by stopping the removal of the old and restricting access to the new.) Such a system can only result in larger government each voting cycle. As such, if you lack independence of irrelevant alternates then you are part of the communist system.

Finally we come to Pareto efficiency. IE a society in which preference of A over B does not necessarily lead to A being chosen over B. This is interesting, and assumes some sort of automata that can intelligently come to a conclusion given data. What we have here is not decisions being made by voters- it's decisions being made by the system, a amorphous object granted sentience by the votes fueling it. Note that such an automation need not be technically advanced- a machine in which black and white stones are placed into a box, and then a number are removed at random, would display a certain level of intelligence. While ignoring Pareto efficiency we can easily drift away from democracy to systems such as- Everyone votes, then a super intelligent robot decides on a fitting society. It's not a dictatorship, because the robot has no opinion, it merely takes votes and gives results. Everyone votes on everything (the robot could even simulate votes using its super-intelligence by predicting voter behavior without actually having to ask the voter personally) so all individual preferences are used. Since the robot is just a highly sophisticated program it will give the same results from the same vote every time. Assuming the robot chose each issue independently it could avoid being affected by irrelevant issues. This however is nowhere near a democracy, and any similar system inferior in amplitude is inferior to the max amplitude super robot. So, that leads to -Democracy as super robot, IE a system that is designed to be the closest thing we can build with modern technology to our super robot.
What we must understand about such a system is that in it we are already entrusting ourselves to a foreign intelligence- IE, if we are willing that an automata make our decisions for us then that automata has no advantage over any other decision making body besides that of the quality of the decisions made. Imagine then the alternate super robot- A super intelligent machine that contains its own motive power, and designs society to suit its predefined precepts. Any nobility, should be, in essence, our highest tech attempt at designing said super robot. As such, for our democratic super robot to succeed it must be superior to our noble super robot.

So we come to the question of- Just what is our democratic super robot? Answer- The bill of rights and representation. We compile a list of preferences, then throw out ones we don't like. Then we categorically link answers we do like to answers we like on issues wherein we received answers we didn't like. The problem here, is that it gives too much power to the representatives. With this power the representatives can influence the very votes they are supposed to be processing. Soon enough, we receive a system that is non-democratic, wherein the government feeds the populace lies, and the populace then turn around and say whatever is asked of them. The decisions are then made from the top down- Even though they are not enacted until the decision moves from the bottom up. IE just because a decision is approved by the bottom does not make a system democratic. The people in the Soviet Union were very supportive of the Soviet Union- Even as they did everything within their power to escape the lives produced by the Soviet Union. We cannot afford to trust our politicians because once trusted, they will abuse said trust. (Even if the politicians originally given said trust were trustworthy.)

So here I present my noble super robot- Wherein a group of people are selected via intelligence and personality testing. By scientifically designing the test and putting it through millions of test cases and simulations ahead of time, we can give it a high degree of accuracy. It will select people who are honest, intelligent, ruthless and kind. They will not hesitate to protect us in war or against criminals, but will not seek out enemies in peace. They will defend the environment without destroying the economy. They will enrich the poor but will not harm the rich. They will do everything every lying politician has declared he'd do during every election- Because he would be mentally suited to the task. However, the most important thing that the test could measure is this- That the selected nobility would not destroy the system. The chosen participants would not take their children who are mentally distinct from them and put them into power even though the test said they were ineligible. They would not extend federal powers into local disputes, nor would local nobility seek to elevate themselves to federal positions. Such people do exist, but we will never find them through democracy- a democracy will only elevate people who claim these properties- Only science can sort people based on who actually has such properties.

Economics, Property and Government

The market is a virtual construct. There is no such thing as a "free" market- the market is controlled by humans, and exists under laws. Property rights are communally decided constructs- IE when someone digs up some coal and it then becomes his is not some divine self evident reality. It's just basic settlement by a bunch of humans. Had that person not dug up the coal, than anyone could- by digging it up and claiming it, he's merely redistributing wealth to himself. More particularly if a person walks in, claims some empty land and then charges the next person who comes (who likely didn't even exist when the land was originally claimed.) he can easily produce nothing and do nothing, but still be bequeathed with magical wealth for no reasons except legal technicalities. The reason a person can't just walk in and start using a random piece of owned land is purely based on legal processes. Simply put, property rights are, like government, a communal creation- A virtual reality that is based upon the real world, but not a part of the real world.

It can be expected that a person's efforts should support his own vision. First off, people are unlikely to try hard to make someone else's dream a reality. Second off, it is practically infeasible to manually control everyone's activities such that they fulfill a utilitarian greater good. Thirdly, it defies the entire purpose of being multiple people if one person controls another- you'd be better off with one person with twice the brain size. IE, a well designed economy must fulfill the role of providing the benefits of each person's action to the person who takes those actions. That said, a economy is a designed construct. There is no natural economy, and a failure to design an economy will only result in a randomly constructed economy. It's like building a house by putting stones on top of each-other rather than relying on brick and mortar.
So, once again, what makes a well designed economy? The short answer is one that provides results- one wherein everyone is as rich as possible. One wherein people can do jobs and actually produce products and services. One wherein jobs are done by those most fit to carry them out. That of course leads to the question of what economic model actually achieves these goals.

The answer there is somewhat difficult, and there's no real way to declare that some system or other is the peak of economic reasoning. That'd be like declaring that we've reached the end of physics and there's nothing more to learn. However, there is one thing for certain- systems of economics that have been tried and have failed will not succeed. Economic designs that don't compile won't work. Amongst these economic designs there are certain ones that repeatedly pop up, and receive vast support regardless of how many times they've failed.

Number 1- declaring oneself rich. It looks good on paper and is certainly the methodology that will get everyone the most money fastest. The problem is, without a link between money and wealth, money loses its value. Money is just a measurement. Trying to generate wealth by printing money is like trying to heat a room by increasing the mercury content of your thermostat. Of course, printing money is not the only way we generate imaginary wealth- Conjuring wealth in the present with some imaginary connection to production in the future is still just conjuring up wealth. You cannot be in debt to yourself. It is physically impossible. You cannot lend more than you have, nor can you lend the same wealth to multiple people. Wealth is a finite resource. Only one person can have it at a time. Any time one tries to defy the laws of physics with his economic policies, the only things he will change are the measurements produced by his devices. A physicist can easily simulate a process that reaches any result from any starting condition by controlling the rules of the simulation, but only by adhering rigidly to the rules based on reality can such a physicist build a plane that functions within reality.
Breaking the tools by which we view the economy will not spare the economy underneath. If we cannot tell who owns what, than resources will be quickly be consumed by the overwhelming masses of people who could somehow take some advantage of the resources, regardless of how small the advantage would be- not to mention masses of idiots who are simply too stupid to understand how to use the resources properly. If we cannot tell who produces what than we cannot discern between valuable workers who do their job and useless junk that should be routed to a better location where they can do more or dropped from the workforce altogether. We can't tell what services are necessary in the modern age and what services are obsolete refuse of the past.
Number 2- Relying on measurements besides those given to us by the economy. In essence, an economy is a set of variables used to measure the activities of wealth. They are your measurements. When they don't give you the results you want, you can't just use some other tool. It's like a scientist who turns away from his top of the line electron microscope and uses a obsolete microscope instead because the results given by that microscope coincide better with his theory. This is why the economy cannot be improved by redistribution of wealth. If a economic activity is useful, a well designed economy will tell us so. If something looks useful on the surface but the economy tells us it isn't, then it's not. When you walk into a room that looks safe, and your geiger counter tells you there's a lethal level of radiation, you leave. Fast. The same is true of a business that tanks. The economy is telling us that that business isn't working. Sure we can prop it up with subsidies and other nonsense, but it still will not make the business actually work. That said, economic success is not everything. For example, polluting the hell out of the environment may well lead to economic success (as demonstrated during the industrial revolution) but it will lead to a decreased quality of life. For this reason it is sometimes a good idea to redistribute wealth- But those who do so must always accept that they're hurting the economy. To gain a benefit, you must pay the price.
Number 3- Allowing economic exploits to replace economic activity. The fact of the matter is, no matter how fancy your telescopes are or how advanced your radiation detector is, instruments fail. Optical illusions and mechanical failure plague us all, and identifying these failures is a constant struggle. However, in economics we often find it attractive to cover up our instrument failures because the results given by the broken instrument are favorable to some group or look better in terms of long term results. The thing to remember about faulty data is the expected results will not happen. As such the instruments must be replaced or repaired as soon as possible whenever they break, lest they lure us deeper into miasma. We cannot allow a company to succeed just by shuffling money around (not to be confused with companies that invest cleverly and give important guidance to those of us around them.) A company that sells insurance and then uses technicalities of the agreement to avoid ever having to pay their customers is not an asset, even though it may succeed within the market. A company that patents as much random crap as it can lay its hands on and then acts like it was somehow involved in the production of various technologies that are related to these patents is not an asset. Worst of all, is when companies start popping up that sell services such as advising companies on how to avoid touching other's copyrights- It's not that such a company is a bad thing in and of itself, but that when a problem is so bad that you have to support both the problem and an anti-problem, then that problem is taking up a geometrically large part of your economy. (For instance, to get medical advice you must pay a doctor, who then gives part of his money to a insurer, who then takes a portion and gives it various lawyers and law firms that argue out various nonsense. We have to support 4 times the amount of people than the ones who actually do the job, not including taxes and other connecting expenses. Also note that the lawyers are powerful and smart, they're not just random people off the street. They're easily as capable as the doctors, and in a different environment would probably be doctors themselves.)
Number 4- Fearing the orders our economies give us. When a useful economic activity presents itself, the economy will jump on it, and there will be a boom. Inevitably, if replacing copper wire with optical fiber, the economy will surge while all the copper is replaced with optical fiber, and when the copper is finished being replaced the surge will end. When people have nothing to spend on they will invest, and as their investments bear fruit, the investors will spend on that fruit. (saving is a form of investment. From a larger perspective, if a person produces wealth, but does not consume an equivalent asset, than they are increasing the available pool of resources for everyone else in return for a future claim on the production thereof.) When work becomes useless people will stop doing it, and as the pool of available workers increases new and risky business enterprises grow more viable. Inevitably, some of these enterprises succeed and grow while most of them fail. The successful enterprises expand and pick up the resources made available by their failing siblings and then grow until their purpose is also rendered unnecessary. Just because incomes, spending or even production are decreasing should not lead to the inference that the economy is somehow failing. An economy is failing when potentially productive individuals are doing worthless jobs. An economy is failing when resources are squandered on overly expensive projects that give no results. An economy is failing when corruption out competes their non corrupt compatriots. There are danger signs of a failing economy- they're just not the indicators people are used to looking at. When you see bridges to nowhere and total incompetents on top of authority structures, that is the sign of a ailing economy.


In short, the economy is a set of measurements, an instrument through which to see the world. Not using these instruments is like trying to win a war without using guns or bombs. As such, what we should aim for is not precisely a free market- all markets are controlled in complete form by government/society, but a pure market. A market is like a radio, and will prosper when the signal to noise ratio is favorable and will fail when the noise grows so loud that the signals no longer make sense. As such a well designed economy is a clean one- one where the rules do not stop investors and entrepreneurs from finding capital and employees while the corrupt and manipulative do not out compete the honest and productive. In essence, a economy where we can see the true nature of our leaders and providers, and can as leaders see our followers and resources.

The Nature of Objectivism

I hereby define objectivism as using all available information. To reach the best, most powerful conclusions it should be expected that you must use everything available to you. Finding out the truth is no different than designing a building or winning a war- To bridge the longest gap one must take the strongest materials and put them together in the most advanced ways. To defeat a powerful enemy one must use his best strategies and forces, and find a path wherein victory is possible. In bridges and war anyone can tell that if one side uses superior weapons or materials it will come out ahead. It is surprising then, that people think they can get by in philosophy without using the best possible equipment.

During a game of chess you can't afford to grow lazy and stop analyzing the board for new threats and opportunities. However, people have grown lazy about philosophy- after all, whatever philosophy one takes, the primary effects are averaged into the "pool" and dealt with communally. Environmentalists still get to use the electricity they would end up destroying, and communists still get to use the economy they would wreck. These are the looters- those who leech off of the philosophic input of others while tearing down the world around them with their foolish ideas. They often think they are productive citizens, that whatever goods or services they supply will somehow make up for whatever costs they inflict on those around them. However, the truth is not so easy. Under a good philosophy, a company, a nation, a world, will succeed, almost completely ignoring extraneous factors. Under a bad philosophy the same will fail, completely ignoring extraneous factors. The largest impact a person has on his nation is that of his philosophy.

Some people are under the miss-impression that certain information is "dangerous" or "radical" and should not be used. Information is information. Like chess pieces, information can be stronger or weaker, but every piece aids in eventual victory. First off, "dangerous" information- this is a long running debate, and it centers around the idea that some things are evil and anything that supports them should be eliminated. Things are not evil. Things are empty until given a space time location. This is relativity- that reality is based on what surrounds it, both in the third and fourth dimension. Although I would hesitate to ask the American government to use torture for practical reasons, their is no reason not to torture a terrorist if this torture would save a US troop from a worse fate. Such is math, that no matter how terrible X may be, if increasing it in one place lowers it somewhere else, there is no loss. It is obvious that an ideal world would not contain death or pain. This does not allow us to pretend we are in such a world- there is death, there is pain. Ignoring it will only make it worse. America's founders understood this- that is why they created the first amendment. It's also why it's the first amendment.

The general lack of understanding when it comes to "radical" information comes down to the lack of understanding of two principles- Probability and Change. Information that has a 99% chance of being false is still valuable. Say a scientist declared that a giant meteor had a 1% chance of blowing up the Earth unless we act immediately. It's pretty obvious that we should act on this information, weak as it is. Why then, when these same scientists say that their is a 1% chance that the government blew up the World Trade Center do we ignore them? It doesn't require that we treat a 1% chance of a evil government conspiracy the same as a 100% chance of said conspiracy. We're constantly given a false either or, and end up doing nothing. When presented with a 1% chance of a conspiracy, we should do things like- Set up laws that give the government a higher level transparency. Allow more room for independent investigation, and more access to important evidence by third parties. If everything the government knew about the world trade center was released, and a policy put in place banning the scrapping of possible evidence then we'd be in a much better position when faced with future possible conspiracies. Such is probability, that even the improbable is possible, and must be acted upon.

Change however is a even more curious principle. Another way of putting it is this- All throughout history we have held beliefs, the vast majority of which are now understood to be absurd. However, a multitude of people today think that beliefs held in the modern day are solid and cannot be overturned.

Already holes are being bored through such fundamental ideas such as preservation of mass/energy and the lightspeed limitations. Scientists will either have to patch up their theories or invent new ones- and they work every day to do so, and come up with better answers than their competition. And yet, when holes show up in philosophic issues people often think they can just ignore them, that over time they'll just go away. When a scientist presents a claim that contradicts commonly held scientific principles there is a scramble to replicate his experiments and to pull his data into the lattice of scientific principles. However, when a philosophic claim is made, it is ridiculed, ignored and ostracized. While people should be seeking verification they resort to vilification.

The current age was not handed down to us by god, and our current beliefs are no more precious than the ones we discarded hundreds of years ago. Just because certain information goes against the tides doesn't mean that it is not information. However, some information isn't going with or against the tide- It sits out in the darkness, alone.

In a given situation, we must use what we have- even if it's very little. Issues don't go away if we don't address them. People often complain about prejudging immigrants upon whom we lack proper information. Yes, it would be nice to know more about illegal immigrant X, but right now, all we know is that he is a Mexican. Knowing that he is a Mexican, and that if we flood ourselves with Mexicans that we will be like unto Mexico, our best plan of action is to reject him. The possibility that he is a 150 IQ genius that will do vast good for us is a possibility, but if we accept him without truly knowing his nature, than we will have to accept with him 100 pathetic average Mexicans. Hindsight is all well and good, but the fact that we should have accepted a random African here and Arabian there does not infer that we should accept anyone about whom the only knowledge we have is that he is a African/Arabian/etc. Seeking more information and acting on a more solid foundation is always a good idea, but while we lack such knowledge issues still present themselves about important topics, and we must still give answers.