While the three topics I covered in the first part are clearly my top concerns, ranking becomes difficult further down the list. I have actually tried to rank the issues I’ll write about in this post according to how important I feel each is, but after changing them around several times I had to give up. They’re all below the top three, but that’s as far as I can go with the ranking. They’re not even above all of those I’ll write about in part three.
I believe in full personal freedom as long as you don’t cause unjustified harm to another and that democracy is no better than dictatorship if you’re in the minority. And everybody is in one minority or another, at one time or another. Nobody should choose for anybody else, and people shouldn’t be protected from themselves.
I think people have an unquestionable right to do whatever they wish with their bodies and their lives. This also includes the right to die, and there should be clinics where one can go and ask to be put to sleep if they wish it but can’t do it themselves. Nothing is wrong as long as all those involved fully agree to it, knowing what “it” is. Keeping yourself in a drunken stupor is ok, going out in public in that state and aggravating everyone around is not. Using hard drugs yourself is ok, slipping some in the drink of that hot chick who wouldn’t give in to your advances is not. Ending your sick friend’s suffering when he or she asks you to is ok, cutting the life support of a hospital patient who wants to fight to the end is not. Practicing a religion that strips away your dignity is ok, forcing your child to do the same is not. Starting a relationship with somebody you just met is ok, ending the one you are in while your partner is still madly in love with you is not. See where I’m going with this?
Harming another who doesn’t deserve it should be avoided and, when it can’t be avoided, you should go back at the first opportunity and heal the wounds you have caused. But when somebody harms you or someone you care about without just cause, they fully deserve to have something similar happen to them and often you’ll find that karma needs a helping hand, so why not be that hand yourself? And there’s one more situation when harm is justified: When it is the only way to prevent a significantly greater harm from happening.
Of course, these rights also come with responsibilities. Each is fully responsible for their actions, even when somebody else was holding a gun to their head. If somebody tells you to kill another or they’ll kill you and you do as they ask, you weren’t forced to do it, you chose to do it because you considered your life to be more important than that of your victim, and the only question is whether or not you were right in assuming that. Same goes for alcoholics or drug addicts, for example. Good for them if they want to quit, but they have no right to ask the government to provide facilities for them out of taxpayers’ money.
Sure, many can’t choose the right thing and will go down, but the world certainly doesn’t need everyone! It’s not right to restrict because, while most certainly do some things because they don’t fully understand the risks, some do the same things just because they understand the risks all too well. You alone can know what’s right for you. If you don’t, it’s your problem.
I believe age has nothing to do with a person’s maturity. No fairy will whack you over the head with a wand when you turn 16, 18 or 21 and suddenly grant you all the wisdom you had so far lacked! There are some who can make very mature decisions at 13 and many who can’t make them even at 30. That said, I think there should be “adulthood tests” to determine each person’s maturity level and all rights and responsibilities should be given according to their results. Gave a great deal of thought to this matter, but now I’ll try to sum it up in a few paragraphs.
I’m thinking there should be three tests: The first to determine if you’re aware of the consequences your actions may have on yourself, the second focusing on the way you affect those around you and the last dealing with your impact on the whole world. There could be two options for the last test, a simpler one that everyone will be required to pass in order to be considered fully an adult and a more complex one which will only be required in order to be eligible for a position of authority.
This next part will seem very harsh, but we simply don’t need people who are a danger to the others, so here goes: Each person has the right to try each test three times until they reach a certain age. If they either fail all three attempts or reach the maximum age without having passed the test, whichever comes first, they will be sent to self-sufficient reeducation camps where all efforts will be made to make them see all the possible consequences of their actions and take them into account before deciding. Once there, they will need to find ways to support themselves and the staff, keeping what they need out of what they produce and sending the rest to be traded in exchange for goods and services they can’t provide themselves, so the taxpayers won’t need to support them. Anybody sent to such a camp will have the right to retake the test they have failed once every two years, a right which they can choose not to use if they don’t feel ready. However, each will only get five total attempts to pass all the remaining tests, and if they fail all of them they’ll have to spend the rest of their lives in the camps.
Another way to get sent to such a camp is proving you cheated on the test. The tests try to determine how you think, but they might be fooled if you’re on your best behavior during the testing process and if you have studied as much as possible for the areas where there are right or wrong answers. However, life can’t be fooled. So, while everyone deserves a second chance and most even a third, those who will repeatedly cause unjustified and avoidable harm to others or to the world as a whole, will not do their best to fix any damage they couldn’t avoid causing or will simply prove to be acting without fully understanding what it is they’re doing, will have their “adulthood ranks” removed and end up sent to the camps as if they would have failed the tests, then being treated as any other person there. (The violent or vicious ones could be kept separate, however.) Exactly which test they’ll need to retake first depends on what they did to be sent there in the first place.
Age could have a role in determining who can take the test and when, but people should be allowed to try earlier if they feel up to it. At least one year must pass between two attempts, though there could be two testing periods each year. I’m thinking the age range for the first test should be 12-17, for the second it should be 13-20 and for the third it should be 15-25. At the end of the range, anybody who hasn’t passed the respective test ends up in a camp. However, as I said, each should be allowed to try taking each test once even before the start of the range. There could even be some advantages if they try this and succeed, but there will also be penalties if they try it and fail: They will need to wait one more year after the start of the normal age range in order to try again, so a person trying to take the first test at the age of 10 and failing will only be able to try again at the age of 13.
Don’t care if it seems harsh, that’s just how I see it. And I’m sure the camps will see no shortage of people for a long time, but someday if this will be kept going properly there will start to be less and less need for them and the world will be better and better.
I believe people are not all equal and that affirmative action is just as bad as discrimination. Of course race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, gender and so on don’t matter, but memory, logic, strength, speed, resistance to disease and so on do!
Everyone should be evaluated by taking into account all the abilities that concern the position they are being evaluated for and ignoring all those that do not. It’s equally immoral to deny somebody a position because of their race (for example) as it is to award it to them for it. It is also very wrong to offer somebody a position simply because they wouldn’t fit in anywhere else when another person would be more suited for it. Doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it by granting a person more or less chances, you’re setting them apart either way and that’s a bad thing.
Affirmative action actually fuels discrimination when the members of the majority group see that minorities obtain positions despite ranking lower than some of them who were denied those positions. Plus that, knowing they have certain “reserved” positions, members of minority groups might underachieve despite having all the necessary abilities to be among the best. Or, of course, it could be that there are less positions reserved for a certain minority group than members of said minority who would have obtained one if they’d have not been judged separately. Instead of being a solution, it only worsens the problem. Actually, the simple idea that all should find a place for themselves only worsens the problem. When people see some being chosen, or not chosen, for certain positions for reasons other than their actual merits, they tend to lash out. Besides, putting someone in a certain position when someone else would be better suited for it only hurts everybody in the long run.
What I’m saying here would also apply really well to nepotism, accepting bribes and so on, wouldn’t it? Well, it’s pretty much the same thing. Different causes, but the same effect. So how about we stop creating new problems and focus on fixing the existing ones, making these irrelevant differences less visible instead of putting the spotlight on them? And, in doing so, let’s also start focusing on the differences that do matter, letting people be where they can do the most good!
I believe the state’s duty is to provide opportunity, not charity. We should wean people off the government’s teat and teach them to take care of themselves. That will only make them more responsible and will improve both their lives and the lives of those around them.
Instead of increasing taxes in order to provide social security, how about lowering them so people will have more of their own money available to them and be able to secure their own future with investments and deposits? Instead of pushing companies towards creating more job openings, how about making it easier for people to go into business themselves and become self-employed? Instead of giving money to the poor, how about helping them learn crafts and skills that would help them stay out of poverty in the long run? See where I’m going with this?
And there are also other things. For example, the state shouldn’t offer compensation to those who were uninsured when they lost their homes to a fire or a natural disaster, but should instead regulate the insurance industry so all those who were insured when such a tragedy happened will be compensated in full and able to rebuild their lives. Another example would be that the state shouldn’t offer retirement benefits, shouldn’t even require people to choose a private retirement fund to invest in, but should instead regulate investment funds to ensure that those who choose to invest in one will get their money’s worth when the time comes while at the same time allowing those who choose other methods to do as they please, including not saving anything if they don’t plan on reaching the age of retirement.
This actually ties in quite well with the first issue I wrote about in this post, freedom and responsibility. If you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your life and then be held accountable for it, that freedom and responsibility should refer to all aspects of your life. The state’s duty should be to make sure the stairs you’re climbing are in good condition, that there will always be one more step to climb if you have what it takes to climb it and also other stairs around you if you want to choose a new path. The state’s duty is at the same time to protect you from those who wish to push you off, but it shouldn’t hold your hand so you won’t stumble and fall on your own, nor should it put cushions at the bottom in case you do!
I would just set one limit here, a maximum amount of money a person can keep or spend for themselves. It would be a really high limit, so extremely few will be affected by it, but I think it’ll help fight against corporate greed by making them either distribute more income to their employees or invest their excess profits into projects that benefit all. Otherwise, encourage development, new ideas, creativity and thinking outside the box. Help the best become even better and give those who want to try something different a chance, since without trying something different you can never find a better solution. Treat everyone fairly and let them choose whatever path they wish in order to be the best they can be. Then let them either enjoy their success or wallow in their misery, depending on exactly what their “best” is.
That’s it for now… I know some things weren’t exactly clear, but it’s the best I can do, especially considering my current mental state. As last time, more will follow if I’ll still be around long enough…
