5 APR 2000


What I want to know is...

WHEN DO WE GET TO VOTE FOR TRYING NEW FORMS OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS?

For THAT matter... when do we get to vote for/against new systems... that make it easy for new systems to be test-driven?

When do we get to vote for new forms of government?

You know the answers to these questions. You know that we live under the "protective umbrella" of a government system that never self-evaluates. Is it true that if a system "works fairly well"... it should be left alone?

I think the Communists had the right idea... but they kept "the emphasis on the first" syllable. It was pronounced com'-mun-ism. But there is another word spelled exactly the same. It means something completely different, or maybe just more honorable and altruistic. Go look up the word altruism if you haven't lately. In short, it means "the emphasis is on the second"... just like the word com-mun'-ism.

I don't study government systems very much. I do study heirarchical problem-solving, and can ponder how a highly structured software package could both help in our governing tasks, and allow greater participation and visualization by the voters. The problem with the com'munist system primarily involved greed and corruption in the upper echelons of the system. This was likely a direct result of a lack of altruism within those rank, and within all ranks. Greed is really the opposite of altruism, so I suspect moving the emphasis onto the second... will alleviate that problem. Let's check it out... commun'ism... yep, looks much better, comes out of your mouth differently, sounds friendly as hell, and emphasizes the second. I like it.

I believe... one of the early mistakes we made as a nation, and as a way of thinking... was to say that competition is "good" or "healthy". I believe this is wrong. Competition, other than in its absolute fun-lovingest, innocent form, is an undesireable action. When the emphasis is on the second, it is quite impossible to compete in a way where the opposing team or person is degraded, or hurt, in ANY way. The emphasis is on the second, not on the first. The losers are the winners. The losers do the TV interviews, and warrant the big money. The poverty-strickened are the ones who get the most money, the sick get the most healthcare, the unhoused get housed first, the lonely get company, and the unloved get love. ComMUN'ism!

If we ever WERE to try a system like this, it would probably require participation from the entire world. Companies could no longer compete with each other... they must cooperate and take care of each other... emphasizing the second. There is only a slight difference between the basic structure of a free market economy, and a com'munist economy. The free market economy essentially gives permission for EVERYONE to exercise greed and "harvesting" in their business ethics... and not just the upper echelons.

I believe, with a splash of commun'ism (altruism-emphasis on the second)...

and a dash of unconditional love (but LESS breeding)...

the planet would be a much more enjoyable place.

According to my graphs, the people of the planet are slowly growing unhappier. I don't make up the graphs and numbers, I just tell you about them. Actually, there are no numbers at all... I am speaking from opinions based upon observation... which certainly doesn't hold much statistical merit. Yet many of you will agree with my statement, because you have observed diminishing happiness in people as well. There are many complaining and feeling "beat-up", and folks are isolating themselves from each other. Therefore, not many are celebrating, because celebrating requires fun... and even fun itself has been labeled as frivolous and unnecessary by our "let's get down-to-business competition" societal thinking. We need to compete to survive! Or do we?

Wingy's Homepage
Wingy's Scribblin's