I have been arguing against, well everything, for a while, quite a while, especially human organisation that I am so dependent on. The word socialism being the most problematic for me and I'm sure it's not as I was a child of the 'Red Enemy' era and/nor that I was a 60's hippy. It's just for their to be a social system that people take as a right, things just don't add up.
So post my many arguments against socialist parties I have now discovered an article that supports my view that although a national health system is a must for a functioning society competing for resources, I have no illusions that it is not there for my benefit and I use it at my peril.
In the 19th and 20th Centuries, however, something changed.
Equality became a dominant value in human culture, almost all over the world. Why?
It was partly down to the rise of new ideologies such as humanism, liberalism and socialism.
But it was also about technological and economic change - which was connected to those new ideologies, of course.
Suddenly the elite needed large numbers of healthy, educated people to serve as soldiers in the army and as workers in the factories.
Governments didn't educate and vaccinate to be nice. They needed the masses to be useful.
20:00 It is not the indulgence that is the problem but the need to indulge. Some people are self depricating physically as a way of feeling better by no indulging even where there is an oportunity. I have generally always tried to remove my self from the indulgent path as it has a bad taste intellectually but when I am Rome I indulge. I do not deprive myself of pleasure. What sets me apart from the masses is that I do not tout nor advance the notion that indulgence is a general benefit and to have more is to be more. I am all to away that I do not want more and struggle to cope with all I have and embarrased that I need so little.
19:00 betweent the body and the spirit in the mind and the mind having two direction to look uses two arguments. The body must be cared for so that is is not a demanding child and through freeing it's self from the feeling of needing to care the soul is free to embrace the spirit.
It is nothing other than a function of the mind, should a mnd be sucessful in satisying the body before death away the responsibility then the mind can release the soul from pain and be free to indulge the spirit.
Duality is the only corporate being where there is equality in all dimensions
A body can have a soul or think it has and in doing so create one
The soul of a body can only exist where the body knows the spirit
A legal body, artificially created by a number of individuals or groups, cannot have a soul.
A bodies personality can change into a complex array of demands
A soul can only grow with a decreasing number of demands
As a body ages it's demands end at death and by then the soul may be simple enough that spirit is a conscious reality.
Some say they are a Jain, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Humanitarian, an Eco Warrior; well I disagree with and object to all teachings, so though all are my enemy I am at not at war with any but myself, for I am alone.
Agreements and co-operation are never good, yet without them we don't exist and further more we achieve nothing, which is the bane of god consumer. Together we can consume within our allotted time, alone each will have to feed an immortal soul with only an insatiable desire from an imperfect dream.
Feed on, become food or be free
From some perspective The Law offers comfort and security in the same manner as a house or physical shelter, note the fox and three pigs. However the house can be built to withstand common weather and animal intrusions, but not all.
The law is even more prone to fail in it's perceived protection, if in fact it is suitable for purpose at all. It is evident, by design, that the law only protects from other people not the weather or other animals and yet is basically flawed from that foundation.
The architect of the law considers the threats and yet if a person were to agree to the law and abide by it, through common sense, then their is no need for the law, let alone enforcement. Enforcement is the issue where the law has not been adopted by the actor. So do we blame the weather or the architect.
The architect could surely foresee the failings in their design, that it only applied to those that agreed and didn't need it and labelled all others outlaws.
For the weather and dumb animals do not conform there are processes to bring them under the thumb of the architect, so what of those of little or greater intelligence are they any more independent and free of the weight of the law?
That the law weighs heavy is a sure sign that it at war with freedom.
None cares for The Ecology, yet all those that consume care for Their Environment. Due to the inherent weakness of being a consumer many people band together to enhance the sustainability of consumption.
Once the local environment has been stripped of all easily exploited resources the, largely two dimensional, landscape is ripe for takeover. Only upon meeting other groups of exploiters do we acknowledge the finite limitation of our expansion and deem their to be an ecology that needs to prosper to produce further resources.
That Ecology is limited by the need to exploit it. Ecology in this sense is better termed a sustainable environment for those on the take. All businesses have such an ethical plan, to maximise the profit from a sustainable subset of consumers and given the competitive nature of consumers, the business is always looking at ways to expanse both its customers and suppliers.
The Ecology is a moral view of all of nature, not the sustainability of the human, or for that matter, any particular species. This Earth Bio Ecology accepts the dominance of humans as of their might, yet is not subject to it for this Ecology as any ecology by knowledge is fluxating mix of forms.
For one to care for The Ecology would be to sit back and see how it evolves, something alien to consumers.