The city government would deal with the production and distribution
of utilities, such as electricity, water, steam, compressed air, and natural
gas. There may not be any city that distributes compressed air, but this
department would have the authority to implement such an option. For example,
they might create a "factory complex" so that similar factories can be
near one another, such as those that use compressed air. The government
could then provide pipes of compressed air the factories. Each factory
would need only a few empty tanks to serve as buffers for the compressed
air. Although this requires us to run high-pressure pipes to the factories,
that burden may be offset by the advantages. One advantage is that it allows
the city to replace a lot of noisy, inefficient air compressors with a
smaller number of larger, quieter, and more efficient compressors. Another
advantage is that having fewer, but larger, compressors makes it easier
to to recycle the waste heat from the compressors.
It would also be possible to provide a group of businesses
with pipes of cold water for air-conditioning or refrigeration.
As with the distribution of compressed air, this allows a city to replace
smaller, noisier, inefficient units with larger, more efficient, and quieter
units, and it makes it easier to recycle their waste heat. This concept
is especially important for apartment buildings. It is ridiculous to provide
each apartment with one or more air conditioning units that stick out of
If everybody in a city can control their consumption of ethyl alcohol,
then a city could pump cold alcohol to factories for air-conditioning,
refrigeration, and freezing. Although high concentrations of ethyl alcohol
are flammable and dangerous, there might be some situations in which it
is better than ammonia, isopropyl alcohol, and other options.
In a free enterprise system, factories are independent businesses, and
they are scattered about haphazardly, and there is no way to coordinate
them, but when the government is in control of the economy, we have a lot
of options available to us, such as designing them to more efficiently
use their waste heat. For example, imagine if the building in the image
below is a part of a large factory complex. It would be similar to a shopping
mall, except that it would consist of factories. The government would need
only one large air compressor and one large refrigeration unit for all
of the factories within this complex. It would be easy to use the waste
heat from those units to warm the buildings during the winter, or to warm
the water that cascades from the fountain into the pool so that the employees
have a warm swimming pool for recreation at lunch. Water from the pool,
or from the lake, could be used for cooling the equipment in the factory.
Many cities have fountains or ponds, but only a few of the
ponds are intended for people to use for exercise and recreation. If we
put our transportation system underground, and if we put apartments, offices,
and factories in large clusters, then there will be lots of surface area
available for parks, bicycle paths, ponds, and gardens. Why not design
some of those ponds for exercise and recreation, and design others for
warming or cooling the buildings, plazas, and pathways?
The image below
shows a proposal for an Army residential complex in Iran. We currently
build ponds only for their visual image, and - as in the image below -
bicycle riders often share the same path as pedestrians. We ought to consider
designing separate paths for bicycles, and designing ponds for recreation.
If the buildings in the image below were offices or factories, and if we
provided a longer lunch to the employees, then the employees would have
time to go swimming, bicycle riding, kayaking, walking, or jogging. Why
not use some of the ponds rather than
just look at them?
We would not want children to swim in the decorative ponds,
responsible adults will not ruin a pond by swimming in it during
their lunch break, or rowing tiny boats or kayaks. If a lot of the adults
enjoy playing in the mud, then the city could provide special ponds for
them, such as Redneck
Resort in Tennessee. The adults who are too obnoxious, irresponsible,
and inconsiderate to properly use the bicycle paths, ponds, and escalators
should be removed from society.
Our options are limited only by our imagination. For example, the city
could put factories that produce carbon dioxide near some greenhouses so
that their exhaust can go into the greenhouses. This assumes that plants
grow faster with additional carbon dioxide. Or maybe the carbon dioxide
could be used to kill some of the insects in the greenhouses.
The Communication Department of the city government would design,
produce, and maintain the telephone network, Internet, radio, television,
and the city's computers. They will have tremendous options available to
them. For example, instead of providing people with desktop or laptop computers,
they could provide everybody with smaller desktop and laptop terminals
that connect to the city's computers. This would provide us with higher
speed processors and virtually unlimited amounts of memory, storage space,
software, and data. Our terminals would not need hard disks, DVD drives,
or CD-ROMs. We would never have to install software, either. The city computers
would have lots of software, and we would use whatever we pleased.
Of course, it must be noted that this particular option requires creating
a government of truly honest people so that we can trust them with our
computer data, and it requires a law enforcement agency that is capable
of standing up to corruption in the government.
The Communication Department would also allocate radio frequencies.
In a free enterprise system, there are so many hundreds of businesses broadcasting
radio and television shows that we are running out of frequencies, but
it would be better to design a city to send television signals through
cables. In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit by sending television
through both cables and radio, but when we are in control of the economy,
it is idiotic to provide both methods.
The Communication Department would also make decisions about how many
radio stations the city will operate, and what those radio stations will
broadcast. In a free enterprise system, there is so much advertising money
available that businesses can afford operate a radio station that is broadcasting
virtually the same music as several other stations in the city, but when
the government is in control of the economy, every radio station has to
justify its existence by showing that provides a benefit to society that
is worth the burden that it imposes. It is conceivable that a Communication
Department decides that radio stations are not worth the burden, in which
case the people would be told that if they want to listen to music or audio
shows, they must download whatever they want to an MP3 player. By eliminating
copyrights on music and other entertainment, everybody would be free to
listen to whatever they please.
The Communication Department would maintain the city's telephone network,
but the world government would be involved with telephone design
and production because it would be best for every city to use compatible
telephones and communication equipment. This would allow cell phones to
work everywhere, and the telephone equipment would be mass-produced for
the entire world.
We should also design the new cities specifically for modern telephone
systems. This will allow us to place cell phone towers in appropriate locations
to reduce the power requirements of both the phones and the towers, and
to increase audio quality. It is also possible that we don't need to bother
with a separate telephone network. Now that we have the technology to put
Internet, telephone, and television signals on one cable, we may not need
a separate telephone network. The cell phone towers could also offer positioning
signals that are more accurate than the GPS signals from satellites. It
could provide extremely accurate three-dimensional positioning data for
robots, drones, animals, and equipment.
In a free enterprise system, the cell phone companies want to provide
coverage everywhere, but is there any sensible reason to provide cell phone
coverage outside of the city? People might enjoy that feature, but
we should not do what people enjoy. We should do what makes the most sense
for society. Is the benefit to having cell phone coverage outside of a
city worth the burden of providing that service? I don't think so. The
people who go outside of the city for hiking, kayaking, camping, or other
recreational purposes do not need chat on a cell phone. Those people would
only need a radio transmitter in case of an emergency. They would not need
the radio for chatting.
If we don't provide cell phone coverage outside of the city,
then every train station outside of the city could have a supply of radio
transmitters that people pick up as they go out of the city, and drop off
as they come into the city. These train stations could also have boxes
for people to drop off their cell phones, shoes, books, delicate clothing,
purses, or whatever else they did not want to carry with them. If the city
can keep its crime levels to extremely low levels, nobody would work at
these locations, and none of the boxes would need doors or locks.
As I mentioned at the end of Part 7, I don't expect many women
to be interested in becoming government officials, or qualifying for the
positions, but I think they should play an active role in society,
primarily the social activities. I think we should create a division of
the government that is specifically set aside for women. The Women's
Issues department would be open to all women, but not to men.
Unlike the other government agencies, the Women's Issues department
would not have any direct authority over anybody. They would not have any
authority over factories, schools, hospitals, farms, or businesses. Furthermore,
none of the women who work for this agency, other than the top leaders,
would have to make any commitments. They would participate only when they
want to. From the point of view of the women, it would be like a casual
social club. The purpose of the division is to make it easy for the women
to get together for meetings so that they can:
1) Play a role in the culture of the city, such as designing social,
courtship, recreational, and entertainment activities for children, women,
couples, retired people, and families, as well as getting involved with
the decorations and art of the city.
2) Develop their complaints and suggestions into proposals that they
pass on to the other government officials.
Since there are too many women in a city for all of them to get together
in one meeting, some of the women would have to be willing to organize
meetings. They would discuss whatever they were interested in, and pass
their ideas to the top officials.
Since the women would only discuss their complaints and develop proposals,
all they need to accomplish their work is some rooms for them to hold meetings.
Every city has lots of banquet rooms, auditoriums, theaters, and conference
rooms, and most of the time they are vacant, but the free enterprise system
does not support the concept of sharing buildings. In most cities, only
a few churches and public libraries offer free use of their meeting rooms.
However, when the government is in control of the economy, then the government
owns all of the buildings, not the businesses, and that allows all of the
buildings to be shared. This allows the women to schedule meetings at any
vacant room that is large enough for that particular meeting.
I mentioned in Part 8 that many of the activities in the city could
be shut down while people are working. The restaurants, for example, would
be open briefly for breakfast and lunch, but most of the day they would
be closed. This would allow the banquet rooms to be available for the women.
Likewise, the auditoriums would not be putting on shows while people are
working. Therefore, the auditoriums will frequently be available during
the day for the women to use for meetings.
Furthermore, the conference rooms in
office buildings would also be available for the women. The city
owns all of the buildings, and the businesses merely work in the buildings.
The city would maintain a publicly accessible database that keeps information
about vacant office rooms, warehouses, conference rooms, auditoriums, and
banquet rooms. The city officials want the buildings to get as much use
as possible rather than letting them sit vacant. Therefore, if a business
is not using a conference room during a particular morning, or if a restaurant
has a banquet room available during one particular afternoon, or if an
auditorium is empty during one particular day, then the women would be
able to use any of those rooms for their meetings.
|If the women in a city are responsible, they could
share meeting rooms with both government agencies and businesses.
I will once again remind you that this level of sharing would
be possible only if society consists of truly responsible and considerate
people. If you work at an IBM office, for example, imagine different groups
of women coming in on a regular basis to use your conference room when
you were not using it. Or, if you work at a restaurant, imagine groups
of women coming in on a regular basis to have meetings in your banquet
room when it is vacant. This type of sharing would not be practical with
women who leave trash on the floor, lipstick on the furniture, or a mess
in the bathrooms. It would also be impractical if the women wanted to bring
their pet dogs or children to the meetings. If the women wanted to bring
dogs or children to a meeting, they would need the sense of responsibility
to arrange the meeting where dogs and children are acceptable, such as
at a city park.
The Women's Issues department would not need a budget because they would
not need their own buildings, supplies, or equipment. They would not need
to worry about finances, accounting, or salaries. All they need to do is
schedule meetings, discuss ideas, and produce electronic documents.
It is conceivable that the women's division would not need their own
computers. If we can create a government that is so honest that we can
trust them with computer data, then most people would not need a standalone
computer. Instead, we would have terminals that connect to the city's computers.
This would allow the Women's Issues department to keep all of their data
on the city's computers. They would have to put restrictions on which of
the women have permission to edit the data, but all of the women would
be able to access the data at any location in the city.
The women's division would need some type of hierarchy, and so they
would have to vote among themselves for leaders, but their leaders wouldn't
have any authority over any of the women, so the women wouldn't have to
worry about abusive leaders. Their division wouldn't have a budget, so
the women wouldn't have to be concerned about embezzlement or other financial
The lower-level leaders would be responsible for organizing and arranging
meetings, and the top leaders would be responsible for looking over the
ideas that have been created by the women and passing judgment on which
ideas to reject and which to develop into formal proposals that they give
to the other government officials.
This women's division may seem silly or even insulting, but it is a
more advanced, more sensible version of what women have been doing for
centuries. Specifically, women have been getting together on a regular
basis to discuss issues, arrange for social events, and give their ideas
and complaints to the men. For example, during the 1880s, a group of women
with wealthy husbands got together in their leisure time and decided that
Santa Barbara needed a hospital, and so they presented their proposals
for the Cottage Hospital
to people in the city. The women did not build the hospital. Instead, they
convinced the men that the city needed a hospital. A few years later some
other wealthy women created the Santa
Barbara Women's Club. As with the Cottage Hospital, the women came
up with the idea, but men did the construction of the buildings.
By providing the women with their own government division, it makes
it much easier for the women to get together, develop their ideas into
proposals, and pass suggestions and complaints to the other government
divisions. Furthermore, and more importantly, by having a special division
of the government just for women, a woman's influence in society will depend
upon her talent rather than her wealth.
The Cottage Hospital and the Women's Club were created by women with
wealthy husbands. In America, the wealthy people have much more influence
than the rest of us. By creating a division of the government for women,
woman has the opportunity to get involved in society. When they have their
own government division, a woman's influence has nothing to do with her
husband, father, or wealth. Her influence will depend entirely upon her
ability to create proposals that other people are impressed
Unlike other government divisions, none of the women would have to commit
to any particular schedule or duties. They would attend meetings only when
they were in the mood, and only for the issues that interested them. Some
women might take a very active role and participate in lots of meetings,
and other women might go to a meeting only once a year.
To understand how this division would work, imagine if a group of women
want to arrange a social event, recreational activity, or music concert.
Or perhaps they want to complain about some government official, or some
government policy. They would begin by discussing their ideas at one or
more meetings. Their goal would be to develop their ideas into one or more
proposals that they present to their top officials. Those top officials
would pass judgment on which proposals need to be altered or rejected,
and those that are accepted would be submitted to the appropriate government
division that is responsible for dealing with that particular type of project.
Proposals for social activities would be sent to the Social Technology
department (described later in this document), and complaints about government
officials and policies would be sent to the Quality Control department
(also described later).
Unlike the Women's Issues division, the Social Technology department
would be like other government agencies; namely, dominated by men who have
to qualify for government positions and who are under scrutiny. That group
of men would handle the task of arranging for the labor and resources to
carry out the women's suggestions. The women would not have to be concerned
about labor or resources. They simply develop the ideas. For example, if
the women decided to have a particular musical concert on a Saturday afternoon,
they would send their proposal to the Social Technology department, and
that department would arrange for the auditorium, musicians, and whatever
else is needed. The women could offer to assist the Social Technology department
with the musical concert, but the women would not be required to participate
in arranging it.
The Social Technology department would try give the women whatever they
asked for. This department will be described in more detail later in this
document. For now consider the department to be a government agency that
is responsible for the city's culture. They would have the authority to
arrange for the labor and resources to support social events, and they
would maintain a website that shows the upcoming events. They would also
offer email notifications of events. This would allow people to be notified
of certain events so that they could either participate in the arrangement
of the event, or participate in the event itself. For example, the people
who register for notifications of musical events would get messages every
time a musical event was planned, and that would allow them to decide if
they want to assist in the arrangement of the event, or become one of the
By not giving the women's division any authority, the women don't have
to worry about finding leaders who can supervise teams of people, or who
need any particular technical skills. Their leaders only need to be capable
of organizing meetings and developing intelligent proposals. The other
government agencies would be told to give the women whatever they asked
for, unless they had a valid reason to reject their proposal, in which
case they would discuss their complaints with the women and work out some
type of compromise.
The Women's Issues division would be able to use a very simple hierarchy
because all they do is have discussions. It would essentially be only three
levels of the hierarchy. At the bottom would be the individual women, and
above them would be the "event organizers", and at the top would the three
officials. It is conceivable that the women get so thoroughly involved
with society that they create more proposals than the top three officials
can handle, in which case they would need another level in their hierarchy.
The "event organizers" would create, arrange, and supervise the "events".
In some cases, the events would be simple meetings in a conference room,
but some women might want more entertaining or complicated events, such
as a group of women who are trying to develop a new recreational activity,
and who get together at a park to experiment with the activity. Some of
the events might be a combination of a meeting and a lunch. It makes no
difference what the event is. The women are not under any obligation to
do anything in particular. If all they want to do is have a meeting, then
they would arrange for a meeting, but if they want to mix the discussion
with a lunch or a recreational activity, they can do so. It would be similar
to what women do right now, which is get together to talk, except that
they would be doing so for the purpose of how they would like to influence
society rather than to entertain themselves.
Any woman could become an event organizer, even if she only wanted to
try it once. None of the women would have to make commitments to the job.
It makes no difference how many events a woman organizes. Some women might
be willing to organize one event per year, and some might want to do it
on a weekly basis. The Women's Issues division is simply a method to help
the women influence society, so they only need to organize events when
they want to do something. They would not have to create events according
to a schedule. They would create events only when they had something to
complain about, or some suggestions for society, or when they wanted to
discuss some issue.
A woman would become an event organizer by herself. She would not need
to get permission from anybody. She would first need a purpose for her
event, such as to create a social activity, or to complain about a government
policy, and then she would pick a date, place, and time for her event.
If all she wanted to do was have a discussion, she would pick an available
conference room or meeting room from the government's list of available
rooms, and if she wanted to combine it with a lunch or dinner, then she
would schedule it at a restaurant or picnic area. She would then put her
event on the website where all of their events are listed. If other women
came to her event, then she would supervise the discussion and try to develop
her proposal, possibly having additional discussions at a later date. When
she had a proposal that she felt was worthy of passing on to the other
government officials, she would send it to the top officials of the Women's
Issues department. If she wanted additional help with her proposal, she
might have more meetings, or talk with some of the other event organizers
to get their assistance.
The women would participate in an event only if they were in the mood.
The Women's Issues department would have a website that would announce
which woman was having an event, and when, and for what purpose. The women
would be able to look through the events that are coming up, and they would
decide if they want to go to an event based on the woman who was giving
it, and its purpose. There would be no requirement that any woman attend
an event. Some women might want to attend events on a regular basis, and
some might want to do it only once a year merely to observe what is going
At the top of the hierarchy I would suggest three directors. They would
look through the proposals and make decisions on which ones to authorize
for sending to the government agencies that will implement it, and which
should be rejected, and which should be sent back for modification or clarification.
By having three directors, they would never have a tie when they voted
on proposals. As with other government agencies, the three top officials
would have to post responses when they reject a proposal so that the other
women can see which proposals were rejected, and why.
It is conceivable that the top three officials receive only a few sensible
proposals each month, in which case they would authorize every proposal
that they receive, but it is more likely that they will occasionally receive
some that they consider idiotic, detrimental to society, unrealistic, or
too expensive in terms of resources or labor. They are also likely to receive
some nearly identical proposals from different women, and which case they
would reject all that one of them, or they would tell the women to combine
the best features of their proposals into one proposal.
The top officials would not want to be "nice" to the women by authorizing
all proposals they receive because if they sent a proposal to another government
agency for implementation, and the other government agency rejects it as
stupid or absurdly expensive, then whichever women authorized it will have
that listed as a failure. The women want the proposals that they authorize
to be accepted by the other government agencies so that they don't look
like idiots and have to listen to complaints that they are incompetent.
Although the top three officials wouldn't have any authority over the
women, they would be able to provide guidance and inspiration. The women
would compare their top three officials according to their ability to provide
guidance, and according to the proposals that they are reject and approve.
The women would be expected to regularly pass judgment on which of their
three leaders should be replaced so that some other woman has the opportunity
to be a leader. One method that they could use for selecting a replacement
would be to schedule meetings in which the women discuss the candidates,
and only the women who participate in at least one of those meetings would
be allowed to vote.
When we allow voting to be secretive, then we need equipment, security
procedures, and security people to conduct the voting, and there are lots
of opportunities for criminals to cheat the process. I suggest that people
exert the self-control necessary to vote without secrecy. In such
a case, voting becomes a simple procedure that can be done with a computer
or cell phone. In the case of women, every eligible women would be listed
in the voter's database, and the software would allow each woman to vote
one time, and they could even be allowed to edit their vote up to the deadline.
Everybody would be able to see the results. There would be no way to cheat.
The Social Technology department would be responsible for everything
that we would describe as "culture". Since no government has yet been involved
with social technology, the people in this department will not be able
to look at history to get ideas on what to do. They will have to use their
imagination. They will truly be on a journey into the unknown.
Giving the government control over culture provides us with phenomenal
options. For example, this department can determine whether we have any
holidays, and if so, on which days, and what the holidays are for. They
can also decide if we will follow the same holidays every year, or if the
holidays change once in a while. Furthermore, holidays don't have to be
on specific days. We can design holidays that "float" according to the
To understand the concept of a floating holiday, imagine that the city
decides to eliminate Christmas and replace it with a floating winter festival
that is somewhere near the end of December. The exact day will depend upon
the weather. If the holiday depends upon snow, then during the final week
or two of December the city officials would begin watching the weather
predictions for a pleasant, snowy day. If one evening they find a prediction
for appropriate weather on the next day, then the city would update its
website to show that the winter holiday has now been scheduled for the
next day. As weather forecasts become more accurate, they would be able
to schedule the floating holidays farther in advance.
America already has some floating holidays, such as Thanksgiving, which
floats to the fourth Thursday of November, and we have other holidays which
float to a Monday, but instead of having holidays float to a calendar date,
it would be more sensible to let them float according to the weather. In
such a case, a holiday would be on a particular Monday, unless the weather
was inappropriate, and which case it would be rescheduled for Friday, or
the following Monday, and so on.
The city officials could design a notification system that people could
subscribe to. Everybody would designate an email address and/or phone that
they want messages to go to, and everybody would receive a message from
the Social Technology department that the weather is now appropriate for
the floating winter holiday, and rather than go to their job, they are
invited to participate in the holiday celebration.
The advantage of scheduling holidays according to the weather should
be obvious. In the world today, we are restricting ourselves to holidays
that fit the calendar, and this can result in us working on days when the
weather is wonderful, and having a holiday when the weather is inappropriate.
The businesses in a free enterprise system would probably resist holidays
that float according to the weather because they would be a scheduling
burden to the management, but we should change our philosophy towards life
from doing what is best for businesses, to doing what is best for humans.
Private social events, such as weddings and birthday parties, could
also float according to the weather. Rather than pick a particular day
or evening for the party, we could give an approximate date and pick a
particular type of weather. People would be notified when the date was
The Social Technology department would have
Almost everything an organization does does can be described as consisting
of three phases: 1) The design phase, which is when people are thinking,
discussing, and researching in order to develop a proposal; 2) the
phase, which is when some labor and resources are allocated to implement
the proposal; and 3), the review phase,
which is when some people analyze the results of their work to determine
if they need to make any changes or improvements to it.
In some government agencies, the three phases can be accomplished by
the same group of people, but for the Social Technology department, it
might be best to separate the people involved with the production from
the people doing the design and the review. The reason is because the government
would encourage everybody - including pregnant women and elderly people
- to participate in the design and review
of social activities, but some of those people would not have the physical
ability, experience, and/or knowledge to implement
their proposals. For example, a lot of people have the ability to design
or review a plaza or a footbridge, but they do not necessarily have
the time, ability, or experience to create such items. As a result,
I would separate Social Technology agency into two primary divisions:
1) Design and Review
||This agency would be responsible for designing and reviewing the culture
of the city, such as such as hobbies, clubs, holidays, city festivals,
sports, courtship events, music concerts, parks, gardens, museums, clothing,
canals, and lakes. The agency would create proposals by themselves, and
they would accept proposals from other people. They would design activities
for the entire city, and for specific groups of people, such as children,
elderly people, and pregnant women.
This department would also make policies for tourism, such as
how many and what type of hotels the city should provide for tourists,
which also sets the maximum number of tourists that the city can handle
at one time. Unlike the cities of today, these cities would be able to
control both immigration and tourism. Each city would decide how many tourists
they want, and whether they want tourism all year, or if they want to prohibit
tourism during certain times of the year. Every city would also be able
to maintain a list of people that they don't want entering their city as
tourists and/or for business purposes. Each city could also decide if they
want to provide tourists with activities or tours, or if the tourists are
on their own to entertain themselves.
This department would also decide on what type of hotels they want to
provide. It is possible for a city to provide "minimal service" hotels
in order to reduce the number of "peasant jobs". The guests would be told
to pick up bed sheets and towels on their way into their room, make their
own bed, and put the sheets and towels in the laundry when they leave the
hotel. The hotel would only provide basic cleaning and maintenance services.
This department would also have the equivalent of a "travel agency"
for their own citizens. They would arrange and design trips for their citizens
to visit other cities or destinations.
This agency would also decide how to deal with the issue of friends
and family members in different cities who want to visit one another. In
the world today, hotels are expensive, and transportation is difficult,
so people prefer to have a large house with a guest room so that their
friends and family members can stay with them when they visit. In the city
I prefer, the homes and basic necessities are free, and none of the apartments
would have a guest room. Guests would stay for free at hotels. Since every
city would have a slight excess of apartments to allow people to easily
move around, and to deal with fluctuations in the population, guests could
also be allowed to use the vacant apartments.
It should be noted that the only way it would be practical to provide
"minimal service hotels", or to let guests use vacant apartments, is if
the people have a certain level of responsibility. It should also be noted
that we cannot use laws, jails, or Bible studies to force people to reach
that level of responsibility. Creating a world of responsible people requires
reproduction to the people who are naturally more responsible and considerate.
All of the cities in the world today have areas that are filthy, frightening,
ugly, and/or disgusting, and so everybody avoids certain areas of their
city. However, we could design cities that are attractive everywhere.
Factories could be beautiful, and all buildings could be surrounded by
parks and bicycle paths. Even the warehouses could be designed with attractive
architecture. In such a case, we will occasionally enjoy being a tourist
in our own city.
Therefore, this department would design tours for their own residents
to visit different locations within their city, such as tours of the forest
surrounding the city, or scuba diving tours in a lake, or tours of a factory,
scientific lab, farm, greenhouse, hospital, or museum. In a free enterprise
system, most businesses are too secretive to allow tourists, but when the
government controls the economy, the businesses belong to the public. If
people enjoy visiting some of the factories or farms in their city, then
the city would arrange for such tours.
Once again I should point out to you that allowing tourists to go through
businesses, factories, and hospitals requires a more responsible group
of people than what we have in the world today.
This department would also handle the design of television programs.
However, this department would not have dictatorial control over the programs.
Instead, they would encourage people to get involved on a part-time and
temporary basis in the design of television programs. By having lots of
people participate in television programs, we reduce the chances that a
small group will dominate television.
Of course, this system requires that a certain percentage of the population
occasionally get involved with television programming. If everybody
is an apathetic sheeple, the system will not function properly. The concept
of getting involved with discussions of what type of television programs
to produce may seem like a burden on your life, but participating in society
is difficult only when you are one of few humans among the horde of apathetic
sheeple. If a lot of people are willing to get involved, nobody has to
do very much work.
For example, imagine 10,000 adults in the city are willing to spend
one evening every year on the planning of television shows for the upcoming
year. And assume that they 50 new television shows every year. In such
a case, the city could arrange for 200 of those people to have a meeting
and decide upon one television show for the upcoming year. The next day
another 200 people have a meeting to create another television show. This
goes on until all 10,000 adults have participated. This would give the
city 50 different shows every year, each designed by a different group
of 200 people. Nobody would have to work for more than one evening a year
in order to provide themselves with 50 different television shows each
year. More importantly, by having lots of people involved, they would provide
themselves with a wider variety of shows compared to what we have in America
right now, which is a small group of Jews who make all of the decisions
It is not difficult to participate
in society, and it doesn't require much of our leisure time, either. It
simply requires people who have the ability to discuss issues and compromise
on policies. Public discussions in the world today are likely to be worthless
or break down into fights - sometimes physical fights - because our societies
consist of people with radically different mental abilities and desires.
However, we can fix that problem by changing our attitudes towards life
Every society currently promotes the philosophy that everybody has a
to influence society, and that we all should have equal
influence, and as a result, public discussions are contaminated with people
whose brains are not functioning very well. Business executives are not
so foolish as to invite every employee into a discussion of what to do
with the business, but we are foolishly allowing every citizen to influence
the future of the human race.
We must stop pretending that all people are equal to one another, and
we must stop promoting the philosophy that everybody has a right to influence
society. It would be more sensible to say that everybody has a right to
food and a home, but nobody has a right to influence society. People who
want to influence society should earn their position by showing signs of
above-average intelligence, a concern for society, honesty, an ability
to handle criticism, and an ability to research issues and compromise on
We must pass judgment on who among us has the appropriate mental qualities
to influence society, and who should be told to keep their mouth shut.
This is not going to be an easy job, but we cannot be afraid of difficult
tasks. We already allow schools to give students a rating in regards to
education and intelligence, and we can pass judgment on who among us is
qualified for influencing society or having a leadership position.
Some people have the intelligence we want for a leader, but they are
emotionally unsuitable. The most obvious examples are the criminals,
some of whom are above average in intelligence. Henry Kissinger is above
average intelligence, but that does not qualify him for leadership. The
people who influence society need more than intelligence. We must pass
judgment on which of them has the emotional qualities we want for leadership.
We must look for people who have a concern for society, who can be trusted,
who can inspire us, and who work with us rather than eliminate their competitors.
Another group of people who are emotionally unsuitable for leadership
positions are those who are religious.
During prehistoric times, the people were religious because they were so
ignorant, but in our era, people are choosing religion for
reasons. Some religious people are attracted to the fantasy of heaven,
and some are attracted to the fantasy that a god will forgive them for
their sins, and some are attracted to the fantasy that a loving god is
watching over them and protecting them.
An adult can only be religious in our era if he never bothers to think
for himself, or if he allows his emotional cravings to distort his thinking
so that he gets the results he wants despite what the evidence shows. In
either case, these people should be classified as unfit for leadership
positions. Religious people are similar to the people who are so oblivious
to what is going on around them that they never noticed the evidence that
Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, or, they were shown the evidence
but are ignoring it because they prefer to believe a fantasy. In either
case, those type of people should not be in a leadership position.
Occasionally I notice a religious fanatic becoming upset that scientists
are promoting a theory that cannot properly explain something. For example,
I've seen some religious fanatics become upset that evolution cannot fully
explain bees or ants. How did bees and ants come into existence? Why do
ants and bees sacrifice their lives for a queen? Why don't the individual
ants and bees do what is best for themselves?
I would describe ants and bees as the "cells" of the "body" of the queen,
except that unlike our cells, which are attached to one another, the ants
and bees can travel a certain distance away from the queen. The range that
they can travel defines the "size" of the queen's "body". The ants and
bees will sacrifice themselves for their queen for the same reason that
our body produces sacrificial white blood cells and skin cells. Evolution
does not work on the individual cells in our body, or on an individual
ant or bee. Evolution works on "reproductive units", not on the building
blocks of the unit. The molecules and cells of our body are the building
blocks of a human, and the individual ants and bees are the building blocks
of an ant colony or a bee colony. The cells in our body are a "team"
that create a human, and the ants and bees are also teams. Evolution can
work on a team, even teams of different species, such as lichen, or humans
that form a "working relationship" with wheat and horses.
Some religious fanatics will complain that people like me are promoting
theories that we admit are vague and imperfect, but our inability
to fully explain the universe does not justify religion. These religious
people are essentially saying, "You admit that you
do not have the answers! Therefore, my religion is correct." These
religious people should be described as mentally incompetent.
article mentions that some scientists have discovered that evolution
can go in reverse with dust mites. However, there is no direction to evolution.
It cannot go forward, reverse, sideways, or backwards unless you want to
define the words in such a manner. A living creature is just a group of
atoms that have chemical and electrical reactions with one another. It
is entirely possible for a creature to evolve in such a manner that it
appears to be oscillating between two, different configurations, or even
I think a lot of people have the intelligence necessary to understand
evolution, but they don't have the emotional ability to accept the concept
that they are just some mindless chemicals, and that all of their emotions
and thoughts are just complex versions of the same chemical reactions that
bacteria experience. Many people also want to believe that they have a
"soul", and that when they die, they will start a new life.
The human mind doesn't care about reality. We want to believe what our
emotions are most attracted to. As a result, we prefer to believe that
the universe is under the control of some intelligent, loving entity, and
that everything makes sense, and that we are being cared for. This attitude
puts us into the role of a child who is held in his mother's arms. In order
to fully accept evolution, we must have the emotional ability to get out
of our mother's arms and become an independent creature in a very big and
confusing universe. If you accept evolution, then there is no entity to
forgive you for your sins, or to pray to. You are on your own to take care
of yourself and be responsible for your behavior. The concept of evolution
also requires you to accept the concept that your death will be the end
Incidentally, if you like science fiction, imagine what could happen
once people figure out how to assemble DNA into creatures. We could create
some truly bizarre creatures, such as combining some of the features of
bees with an animal. For just one example, we could design a creature in
which some of the cells inside the nose are constantly producing special
cells that have tiny wings, and as the creature breathes, those cells fly
out to gather nectar. Then they fly back into its nose, do a crash landing
into the mucus, and are swallowed and digested. Although such a creature
would be artificial, once it was created, evolution would work on it just
like a natural creature.
Getting back to the issue of participation in society, by restricting
the public discussions and leadership positions to people who have earned
the right to influence society, the discussions will be productive, and
they would also sometimes be fun for the participants by giving them the
opportunity to meet other people and listen to different opinions.
In addition to allowing the public to participate in discussions about
television and other cultural issues, the Social Technology department
would also be designed to review proposals from the public. Individual
citizens, groups of friends, social clubs, and businesses would be allowed
to submit proposals for any cultural issue they can think of. People would
be able to submit proposals for new holidays, or to alter an existing city
festival, or to add some new bicycle paths, or to change the artwork at
a park, or to arrange for a musical concert.
For an example, somebody might propose a musical concert in which the
musicians are replaced by these
animated musical instruments. The proposal would describe the computer
screen they need for the concert, the amount of labor required to create
the animation, and the type of theater they need. The government officials
would analyze the labor and resources necessary for the proposal and pass
judgment on whether its potential benefit is worth the burden, and if so,
they would experiment with it. They would then observe the results to see
if people were indeed enjoying that type of concert. If, instead, the officials
did not like that proposal, then they would either reject it, or they would
tell the author to submit a revised proposal.
As with the other government departments, the department of Social Technology
would not be allowed to operate in secrecy. People would submit a proposal
by posting it at their website, and that would allow everybody to see which
proposals they have received. The government officials would be required
to post a response to each of those proposals. Everybody would also be
able to see which proposals have been accepted, and which have been rejected.
We would also see their reasons for rejecting proposals. This would allow
us to pass judgment on which of the officials we want to replace. For example,
if an official turned down the proposal for the animated musical concert,
and if later another official approved the concert, and if, after experimenting
with the concept, the general consensus was that these type of concerts
are both beneficial and affordable, then the government official who rejected
it would have that failure listed in his database.
If another government official had suggested revising the concert to
make it in 3-D rather than two-dimensional, and if his idea turned out
to be the best of all, then he would be credited with a success. If another
official suggested adding human singers to some of the concerts, and if
that was also deemed to be a success, then he would also get credit for
The citizens would not have the authority to replace government officials,
but this government system would be designed to regularly replace the worst
performing leader, which would have a similar effect, and citizens would
also be able to send complaints about officials to the Quality
Control department, which I will explain later.
This system encourages people to look for ways to improve society, and
it penalizes the government officials who either do nothing, or who are
After the Design division has approved of a proposal, they pass it onto
the Production division. The Design division doesn't actually do anything
other than make proposals, and possibly build scale models of buildings
or bridges. They don't have any authority to implement any of their proposals.
To continue with the animated musical concert example, the Design department
would submit that proposal to the Production department, and the Production
department would be responsible for putting together the necessary computer
screens, audio equipment, and whatever else is necessary.
||This division could be described as "workers". The Production department
would have the authority to allocate resources and labor to construct new
buildings; modify existing buildings; install decorative LED strips along
bicycle paths; create murals or tapestries for the inside or outside of
buildings; produce decorative statues for gardens or fountains; create
tiled or stone plazas; make colored windows for factories or office buildings;
build bridges; and create artificial lakes. They would also supply and
maintain the equipment and materials for the social clubs to do arts and
crafts, scientific research, and other hobbies. They would also be able
to allocate people and resources for festivals, holiday celebrations, musical
concerts, theater, and whatever other entertainment people asked for.
Although the officials in this department have the authority to create
things, they do not make decisions about which projects to implement. Their
job is to implement whatever proposals that come to them from the Design
division and from the Women's Issues department, unless they cannot do
so because of a lack of resources or technology. If they cannot implement
a proposal, then they have to contact the group that sent the proposal
and work out some type of compromise, or cancel the proposal.
Since government agencies need checks and balances, this agency would
be able to reject a proposal that they considered to be absurd, but they
would have to justify their reasoning. They would not be able to operate
in secrecy. All of the proposals would be posted on their website, and
if they rejected any, they would post their reasons. This would allow us
to see which proposals they rejected, and why.
For an example of how these checks and balances would work, imagine
if the Design department submitted a proposal for the statue of Marilyn
Monroe that is near the middle of this article. That proposal would be
posted on their website, and some officials might vote to accept the proposal,
but others might vote to reject it as "toilet humor". Regardless of what
their final decision is, we would be able to see how each official voted,
and why. Each official would accumulate a "voting history". We would be
able to use the voting history to pass judgment on which of them we want
replaced. As mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, the citizens would not
have the authority to replace a government official, but the citizens would
be able to send proposals to the Quality Control department that advocate
replacing a government official or reversing one of his policies.
Although the people in the Production department have the authority
to allocate labor and resources, they would not have the authority to create
their own projects. If one of them had an idea for a project, he would
have to submit it to the Design department for approval just like everybody
else. If a woman in this department had an idea for a project, she would
have the additional option of submitting it to the Women's Issues department.
Incidentally, since both the Women Issues department and the Design
department can submit proposals, we might give us some additional insight
into the differences between men and women by comparing the proposals that
are designed by women to those that are designed by men.
The Design department, Production department, and Women's Issues department
would be equal in authority, so none of them would be able to dominate
the others. The three departments could vote on issues when they couldn't
agree on something, and there would never be a tie with three of them.
This purpose of the Social Technology department is to encourage
people to look for ways to improve life for all of society. The
people in the Design department wouldn't follow any traditions or rules.
Instead, they would experiment with different holidays, sports, recreational
activities, and other affairs. They would not be concerned with making
profit, pleasing religious groups, or even please the majority of people.
Rather, they would be experimenting with culture in order to make life
more enjoyable for the entire city. They would not necessarily give us
what we want. Rather, they would try to create the overall best
life for all of us.
The Design division would not have many, if any, full-time officials.
I think it would be best if most of the officials in this department were
working on a part-time and temporary basis. Unlike some government agencies,
which require specific technical skills or experience, the officials in
the Design department are simply experimenting with culture, and it is
not yet possible for us to say that some people are more qualified to do
this type of job. Therefore, it would be better to encourage a lot of people
to participate in this department, even if it's as seldom as one evening
each year, so that we get a lot of variety, and to reduce the possibility
that a small group dominates our culture.
When we are looking for a plumber, mechanic, or dentist, we look for
specific skills, but how do we determine who should be an official of the
Social Technology, Design department? What do we look for? How can we say
who is better with the design of social technology?
The officials in the design department would spend their time discussing
and creating proposals to experiment with. The only way we can pass judgment
on which of them is doing an appropriate job is to prevent them from having
secrecy so that we can see what their decisions are, and then we have to
pass judgment on whether we approve of their decisions. We have to pass
judgment on whether we like the way their suggestions for city artwork,
recreational activities, and holiday celebrations.
If it seems bizarre to pass judgment on somebody's tastes in culture,
consider that businesses are doing this right now to a certain extent.
There are people in some businesses who arrange for anniversary parties,
Christmas parties, artwork, decorations, holiday celebrations, furniture,
flower arrangements, the pattern of the carpeting, the type of vegetation
that is in the front of the building, and other "cultural aspects" of the
business. Those particular people could be described as officials of the
"Business Culture Department". It should be noted that many of those "cultural
officials" have full-time jobs doing something else, and they get involved
with the business culture department only occasionally, such as when carpeting
needs to be replaced, or somebody has an idea to change the Christmas party.
It should also be noted that the executives and employees of the business
regularly pass judgment on whether they like their tastes in business culture,
and if enough people complain about them, they will be told that they can
no longer influence the business culture.
If the employees and executives of a business are so apathetic that
they never complain about the officials in the "Business Culture Department",
then those officials will be able to decorate the building in any manner
they please, and they will have whatever style of vegetation in front of
the building that they please, and they will create whatever type of Christmas
party they please. If those officials are as psychotic as the leaders of
communist nations, then the employees would be told to put photos of the
officials on their wall and refer to them as "Dear Leader", and they would
authorize giant statues of themselves for the garden in front of the building,
and they would authorize their office to be furnished with absurdly expensive,
goldplated items. The employees and executives of a business should participate
in their business culture.
These concepts apply to an entire city. The Social Technology department
would experiment with culture, and it is the responsibility of the citizens
to occasionally take a look at what those officials are doing and pass
judgment on whether they approve of their decisions. This requires that
we prevent the government officials from operating in secrecy so that we
can see which proposals they approve of, and which they reject, and why
they made their decisions.
The Design department wants lots of participation
It is important for the citizens to get involved with their city's culture.
Since the Design department would be responsible for developing culture,
the citizens need to get involved with that department. There are different
ways to allow the citizens to participate in the design of their culture,
such as allowing them to participate in the discussions that the Design
department officials are having, allowing citizens to submit proposals
to the department, and allowing citizens to work part-time and temporarily
in the department.
By comparison, the Production department
does not develop culture, so it is not important for citizens to participate
in this department. The people in this department are analogous to a group
of construction workers, factory workers, and maintenance workers. They
must have specific skills and talents. As a result, it is not practical
to encourage citizens to participate with this department. Only the people
who have certain specific skills and talents should participate with this
department. However, there will be some tasks that do not require any specific
skills, and in those cases the Production department would have the option
of encouraging citizens to participate in order to reduce the burden on
themselves. For example, a lot of people would be able to participate in
the construction or placement of decorations for a city festival.
To summarize the differences between these two departments in regards
to participation of citizens, the Design department encourages participation
in order to get more people involved with the culture of the city, and
the Production department encourages participation simply to reduce the
burden of their own employees.
You might wonder why somebody would want to spend some of his leisure
time helping the Production department. Why would somebody choose to work
when he has the option to lounge? As I have pointed out in other files,
if we create a city in which we enjoy the people we live with, it would
feel as if we are living in a big family, and in that type of environment,
we will sometimes want to get out in the city with our friends and neighbors
and do something as a group that we all benefit from.
The Production department would provide guidance
Since the leaders of the Production department have to organize and
supervise teams of people, allocate resources, and create things, they
need the ability to analyze proposals so that they can estimate the labor
and resources each project needs, which in turn allows them to pass judgment
on whether the proposals are realistic. Their job is to implement proposals,
but they are not submissive slaves. They should play a role in checks and
balances. It is likely that they will occasionally receive proposals from
people who have little or no understanding of manufacturing, construction,
ceramics, gardening, and other issues. They need to provide some feedback
to those groups on when they are asking for too much, or when they should
ask for something more complex. When people don't understand manufacturing
or construction, they can easily make mistakes and assume something is
difficult when it is actually easy, and assuming something is easy when
it is actually difficult. Therefore, the officials in this department will
sometimes have to provide guidance and advice to the people who are providing
them with proposals.
For example, somebody might give them a proposal to build a decorative
footbridge so that they can walk over a creek, and the Production department
might point out to them that creating all of the CNC programs and fixtures
to cut the wood, rocks, and other items that they are asking for is going
to take so much time that it would be silly to make just one, small bridge.
The Production department might reject the proposal and tell the people
to consider whether they can find locations for at least 10 more bridges
so that they can create the bridges in a more efficient manner. The design
team might also be told to provide subtle artistic differences between
the bridges so that they are not identical copies of one another.
If you wonder why people in the Production department would consider
rejecting a simple proposal and asking for a more difficult, more complex
job, which adds a burden on them, put yourself in their situation. They
are not doing their job for money. Their purpose for going to work each
day is to implement the proposals that come from the Design department
and the Women's Issues department, and their goal is to improve life for
everybody in the city. When they get a proposal, they will not consider
it to be a profit opportunity or as a successful sale. They see it as a
potential to improve life for everybody in the city. They will therefore
wonder how their efforts are going to benefit other people. When they get
a proposal for a project, they will have to analyze the labor and resources
involved, and they may have to put a lot of time and effort simply into
the preparation for the job. If they like the proposal, they they might
prefer to find a way to expand the project. This will put a burden on them,
but they and everybody else in the city will benefit. Their incentive is
to provide advice and guidance to improve the projects so that everybody
benefits from their efforts. They want to help
the design teams rather than profit
In a free enterprise system, people do whatever makes profit, even if
the job is worthless or detrimental. For example, the people who create
advertisements to manipulate children are doing something that is detrimental.
When we take control of our economy, we can pass judgment on which jobs
are truly beneficial. We can eliminate the jobs that are detrimental or
only mildly useful, and this will increase the number of people who have
job satisfaction. We will focus on the value of a job rather than its salary.
More people will want to do a good job because they will realize that people
are benefiting from their work. There will be fewer "circus seals" who
do their job only to get a paycheck. In a free enterprise system, people
work for money, but when we control the economy, we work for society.
The citizens must get involved with government
The top officials in the Social Technology department will
have tremendous influence over the city's culture. They will receive proposals
from citizens and other government officials for sports, festivals, city
decorations, concerts, and other cultural issues, and they will also be
able to create their own proposals. How are they going to make a decision
on which proposal to authorize and which to reject? Look around the world
right now and notice how different people are in regards to activities.
For some examples, some people want skateboard parks; some "Goths" want
graveyards to play in; some people want onion eating contests; and some
people in Venice want a gondola
race through the city canals while the people are dressed in historic
It might seem nice to give everybody what they want, but that is not
possible. The leaders of this department will have to pass judgment on
whether a proposal should be accepted, rejected, or modified. Unfortunately,
there is no way to prove that one proposal is more sensible than another.
Every social activity will seem idiotic to the people who do not enjoy
it. Since the officials are going to have their own personal bias, most
of the citizens (other than those who have been classified as unfit
to influence society), should approve of their bias. We need to ensure
that the people in the city are reasonably compatible with one another,
and we must observe the leaders of the Social Technology department and
pass judgment on whether we like their decisions.
People should not be passive observers who whine about government officials.
We should encourage citizens to observe the issues that the Social Technology
department is dealing with, and get involved with the agency on
a temporary and part-time basis whenever the department is dealing with
issues that are of interest to them so that they can participate in the
discussions. When lots of people get involved in the discussions, we not
only end up with a greater variety of ideas, but we also get to observe
other people's leadership skills, which can help us figure out who we want
to put into the top positions.
As you read this document, you might find yourself wondering, "How
are people going to find the time to participate with so many government
agencies on a part-time basis?" To answer that question, just look
at what people are doing right now in their leisure time. Some people are
spending hours a day on collections of stamps or glass bottles, and others
spend hours a day watching television, getting drunk, playing with their
dog, or painting their fingernails. There are not many people who couldn't
spend a few hours a month getting involved with society. Most people's
leisure time activities are pointless, and it would be better for them
and everybody else if they got together once in a while with other people
and became an active participant in influencing television shows, recreational
activities, educational materials, holiday celebrations, or other cultural
Furthermore, consider that all of us will have more leisure time
if we switch to a society that provides us with free food and other necessities
because we will not have to waste time shopping for food, paying bills,
fixing meals, figuring out which items to purchase, or cleaning up the
If we also switch to living in apartments, then we don't have to waste
any time with yard work or home repair, and if we don't have private automobiles,
then we don't have to have to waste time maintaining automobiles. If we
also reduce crime to extremely low levels, we won't have to provide security
for our children or waste our time on security-related issues. If we are
willing to live in dense apartment complexes that are connected with high-speed
trains, we will waste less of our time traveling to and from our jobs.
The more efficient our society becomes, the more leisure time will have,
and that makes it easier for us to spend some of that leisure time getting
involved with society. Many of us who have no desire to work with society
today would enjoy doing so if we were living in a more pleasant society
and enjoyed the people we lived with. For example, a person who likes to
collect items might want to occasionally get involved with the Social Technology
agency that is responsible for museums. He might want to participate in
the Design division of that agency so that he could get involved with proposals
for new museums and modifications to existing museums, or he might want
to participate in the Production division so that he can participate in
the work of creating and maintaining the museum displays. People who like
to do arts and crafts might want to occasionally get involved with the
Social Technology division to participate in proposals for artwork for
the city, or to participate in the creation or maintenance of the artwork.
The idea of people volunteering to work with the city might seem strange,
especially to Americans. Most Americans do not want to volunteer to do
any work for their city because they don't feel an emotional connection
to their city. Most people feel as if they are surrounded by strangers,
weirdos, and criminals. We spend most of our evenings inside our home,
or at a friend's home, rather than the city. Our cities are dangerous,
especially at night, and there is not much for us to do in our cities because
they are designed only for business activity. We consider our homes to
be sanctuaries within a dangerous city. However, if we lived in a city
that was attractive, free of crime, and full of free restaurants and activities,
and if we enjoyed the people we were living with, the city would feel as
if it was an extension of our home, and the residents would feel as if
they were friends and family members rather than strangers or criminals.
Who would want to sit at home every evening and weekend in that type of
city? We would enjoy spending time in the city, and as a result, it would
be fun to occasionally get together with other people and do something
for the city.
Although the Social Technology department has to deal with issues that
have no right or wrong, they will analyze proposals from the point of view
of their value is to society. They will not judge an activity solely
according to whether people enjoy it. They want people to enjoy
the activities, but they also have to consider whether the activities are
beneficial. It is very easy to design an activity that people like but
which is destructive or wasteful. For a simple example, young children
enjoy activities that allow them to throw food at one another. An activity
should not be judged solely according to it's popularity. We have to control
our emotions and take into consideration whether the activity is beneficial
in the long run.
The Social Technology Department
The officials in the Social Technology department would analyze
holidays, city festivals, birthday parties, weddings, and other activities.
The officials would not be able to force anybody to do anything, but by
passing judgment on what type of activities the city will support, they
would indirectly dominate us.
For example, if they decide to completely eliminate Halloween, then
the city would stop providing Halloween candy, Halloween masks, and other
Halloween items, and therefore, if some people wanted to continue having
Halloween, they would have to create their own Halloween supplies. This
would make it impractical for people to continue the same style of Halloween
that we have today. They could still have Halloween, but it would be a
much simpler version.
For another example, if they decide to remove religion from the Christmas
holiday, then there would be no production of religious products for the
holiday. The officials might also decide to encourage people to develop
variations of the Christmas songs that remove the references to Jesus and
God. Songs about the Jesus, such as What
Child Is This, could be changed to be a song about the birth of a generic
child, thereby making it a song that every parent could relate to. When
the city has a Christmas Festival, they would sing non-religious versions
of the Christmas songs. The people who want religion in their Christmas
would have to do so in the privacy of their home. They would not have the
support of society.
This concept also applies to sports. If the Social Technology agency
decides they are tired of supporting javelin throwing, then there will
be no javelin production, or any support for children to practice the sport.
The people who want to continue such an activity would have to create their
own javelins, practice during their leisure time, and hold their own contests
You might be concerned that this type of society would break down into
different groups of people, each of whom is practicing their own versions
of Halloween, Christmas, and sports, but in reality, anybody who tries
to break away from society and follow their own culture would become a
social misfit, and there would be tremendous pressure on them to conform.
The end result is that the people in the Social Technology department would
have tremendous control over the city's culture, but indirectly. The officials
would not force anybody to do anything, but social pressure would force
people to conform to the official city policies.
For another example, the government would be able to influence the behavior
of the audience at social events, such as musical concerts and
sports. The custom in America is for the audience to applaud very loudly
and scream before, during, and after a performance. My personal preference
is for the audience to
keep quiet. I find it especially annoying
when somebody behind me is applauding or screaming at a very high audio
In a free enterprise system, businesses pander to the audience, but
when society is in control of the social activities, every city can set
rules of etiquette for the audience. We already provide rules for the people
who are giving performances, so why not the audience also? For example,
many years ago the American football players were told to stop their "dances"
in the end zone when they scored a touchdown. This rule was created because
the players were doing increasingly elaborate dances, and if nobody had
stopped this behavior, the dances would have evolved into even more time-consuming
and elaborate performances, and they might eventually get to the point
at which some of the players are are setting off fireworks during their
The issue of football players doing increasingly elaborate dances brings
up an interesting issue that I have mentioned
before; namely, men have a craving to compete with one another for status,
and if we mindlessly follow our emotions rather than think about what we
are doing, we can easily get carried away. A man's natural tendency is
to compete with other men and try to outdo them with something even more
impressive. This can lead to some ridiculous and even dangerous competitions.
For example, when a man proposes marriage to a woman in a manner
that women find exciting, other men will be stimulated into competing with
him and trying to make their proposal even more exciting than his.
Some men are now making their proposals a public spectacle, such as
proposing while on television or at some public affair. The men are not
simply proposing marriage. Rather, they are competing with one another
for the imaginary title of "Most Spectacular Wedding Proposal". This competition
to titillate the women might seem harmless, but it can get to the point
at which it becomes annoying, and the proposals along the side of
the road can be a
distraction to drivers. Furthermore, we can be
certain that some men will not have the sense of responsibility to remove
their signs and clean up after themselves.
Recently a group of motorcycle riders in the Los Angeles area momentarily
one lane of a highway so that one of them could make a proposal to his
girlfriend. In America there are over 2 million marriages every year, which
is over 5000 every day. Imagine if every day there
were 5000 public proposals at restaurants,
sports events, public beaches, and schools. Imagine if television news
reports, press conferences, and other televised events were being interrupted
every few minutes by a marriage proposal. Imagine highways being blocked
every day around the nation for wedding proposals, and imagine how much
smoke would be created if they were all burning tires as those motorcycle
Furthermore, imagine if this behavior spreads to other
activities. For example, imagine men making public displays of their request
for a job, or to ask their wife for another child, or to invite people
to their birthday party. And imagine people making these proposals while
on television, riding the train, and at public events. And then imagine
children doing it, also. And, finally, imagine it spreading to even more
bizarre activities, such as a man making a public spectacle of asking his
wife for anal sex.
There are a lot of activities that we tolerate when they are on a small
scale, but which would be irritating or disgusting on a large scale. We
should continuously watch over people, especially
men, and pass
judgment on when they are getting carried away in their competition
to feel special.
Professional sports have referees who pass judgment on when the athletes
are behaving inappropriately, but there is no nation yet that has the equivalent
of referees to control the behavior of "ordinary" people. We have police
departments to arrest people for committing crimes, but we don't have referees
to stop people from doing legal but irritating activities, such as abandoning
food at a supermarket, or proposing marriage in a public area. Every nation
follows the philosophy that the majority of people are innocent, honest,
and wonderful people, and that we should tolerate their irritating behavior.
We allow the ordinary people to do virtually anything they please, but
I think the behavior of the ordinary people is often worse, as a group,
than the athletes. The athletes of a professional sports event, for example,
are almost always better behaved than their audience. The audience is constantly
screaming, throwing food, getting drunk, making a mess of the bathrooms,
and sometimes fighting with each other. Even the hockey players, who seem
to enjoy violence, are better behaved than some of the people in the audience.
We have to face the reality that the majority of people are
just "ordinary", and half of them are substandard. We set rules
of behavior for athletes, but we have a tendency to let the ordinary people
behave in any idiotic manner that they please. If an "ordinary" person
fights with the police or runs from the police, the police are supposed
to remain calm and control their temper. If the passenger on an airline
is irritating other passengers or the stewardess, the stewardess is supposed
to remain calm. The police, stewardesses, retail store clerks, teachers,
and other people who are in contact with the public are supposed to behave
better than the public. They are supposed to control their temper regardless
of how badly behaved the public is.
We could describe this as a "double standard", or as hypocrisy, or as
irrational. The citizens are allowed to behave like crude savages, but
at the same time, they are allowed to vote, have babies, and influence
society. It would make more sense to set standards of behavior, and put
restrictions on the badly behaved people. Why should we allow crude savages
onto our airlines or in our restaurants, for example? Why not restrict
air travel, restaurants, social clubs, and schools to the people who can
behave properly? Why should we tell the airlines and the retail stores
to tolerate a mixture of humans and savages?
By putting the government in control of culture, we will be able to
set standards of behavior for the ordinary people at sports events, musical
concerts, and city parks, and we can also pass judgment on when the people
are getting out of control with their wedding proposals and cell phone
usage. We can also pass judgment on when they are getting out of control
in their displays of love for one another. The "Love
Locks" are an example.
At many entertainment and social events, a recorded message will play
over the loudspeakers to ask the audience to turn off their phones. Do
we really need to play such messages? Imagine a more ridiculous situation,
such as, "The performance will start in 10 minutes.
Have you gone pee-pee yet?" It would be more sensible for the officials
in the Social Technology department to create rules of etiquette for cell
phones and other aspects of society, and let everybody know what those
rules are. Friends can remind one another to turn off their cell phones,
or whatever is appropriate for the situation.
We should set rules of etiquette for audiences. Do we want people in
the audience to eat food? How about chewing gum or eating candy? How about
taking pictures with flash bulbs? When the President of the United States
gives a speech to Congress, the congressmen and Supreme Court judges applaud,
scream, boo, and hiss every few seconds. They also frequently stand up
while making these noises. Is this how we want government officials to
behave during a speech?
When the government is in control of culture, each city can decide how
they want the audience to behave at sports events, musical concerts, and
other events. My personal preference is to stop the applauding, hissing,
booing, and other noises, but if I am in a small minority, then most cities
will encourage such behavior. One city might prefer foot-stomping instead,
and another might prefer whistling.
I would not give a government the authority to force people to behave
in a certain manner, but the government would have the ability to pass
judgment on when people are deviating too far from their standards of behavior.
The people who misbehaved would be treated differently depending on why
they are misbehaving. People who forget to turn off their cell phones would
simply be reminded of the rules of etiquette, but the people who showed
an inability to control themselves could be restricted from certain events
or areas. For example, the people who had trouble controlling their craving
to grab at flowers and plants in a botanical garden could be prohibited
from entering the garden. This would allow the garden to provide people
with direct access to the plants without fear that they will harm the plants.
Some casinos in Las Vegas supposedly keep a list of people that they
don't want in their casino, but most businesses, gardens, sports events,
and social events would be afraid to maintain such a list. Many businesses
would also be afraid to prohibit children. However, there is nothing wrong
with restricting some museums, musical concerts, sports events, social
activities, or restaurants to adults only, and there is nothing wrong with
prohibiting the adults who don't behave properly. Once we get control of
culture, we can experiment with whatever we please.
sports should become more entertaining
The Social Technology department would be able to exert a lot
of influence over sports. For example, consider the Olympic events. Cities
spend an enormous amount of money to host these games, and the athletes
put a tremendous amount of time and effort into preparing for them, but
their performances last only a few seconds. Most of their performances
are never noticed by more than a few dozen people. If an athlete makes
a mistake, all of time and effort he put into preparing for the event was
I recommend that we change our attitude towards both amateur and professional
sports. Instead of intense competitive battles for trophies, I think
sports should become more entertaining and recreational.
The sports events today are such intense battles for trophies that the
athletes frequently risk their health with drugs, and occasionally they
are caught sabotaging one another. The athletes are focusing almost entirely
on the trophy. The spectators are focusing on the
battle, not the performance. As a result of focusing on the battle
rather than the performance, people want to watch sports events that are
live, rather than recorded events from the past.
I think sports should become more useful if we put less emphasis on
the winning of the event and more emphasis on the athletic performance.
For example, I remember watching Terry Bradshaw throwing a football to
Lynn Swann, and I was amazed by the two of them. I don't remember or care
which team won those games. Even after many years, I am still impressed
by their athletic talent, not by their collection of trophies. Likewise,
when I watch gymnastics, I don't care which of them has the most trophies.
I am only impressed by their abilities.
If a particular athlete has an interesting performance, I don't care
whether I watch it live or recorded. The abilities of a talented athlete
of previous generations are just as impressive today as they were years
ago. The only problem with the old events is that the video quality is
low compared to today.
My recommendation for sports is to consider athletes as being similar
to musicians, singers, and actors. All of these people should be considered
as artists, or as entertainers, but in the case of athletes,
their performances are physical. An athlete entertains us with "athletic
art", or with an "athletic performance".
When athletes perform a sports event in front of an audience, we should
expect them to make mistakes rather than make critical remarks about their
mistakes. Athletes should also have the option of doing what musicians
and singers do, which is to perform in front of cameras in a studio so
that they can create edited versions of their performances, with slow motion
video, and with video from different angles. They would also be able to
out of the video and create some interesting entertainment.
The rhythmic gymnasts, especially when they perform as teams, are moving
so quickly that it is absurd to watch them live. How is it possible
to watch five gymnasts at one time?
Their performances have to be recorded and played back in slow motion from
different angles. Their performances would be even more interesting if
they were not in competition with each other, in which case, they would
not have to follow rules. That would allow them to design their performances
purely from the point of view of entertainment, just as if they were a
team of dancers or musicians. Eliminating the competition would allow the
athletes to become "athletic artists" rather than as "competitors".
The same concept applies to dancers. Although it is enjoyable
to watch dancers give live performances, I think that the dancers who are
exceptionally talented should occasionally perform in front of a high resolution
video camera with a high frame rate. This would allow them to provide us
with a more perfect version of their dance, and we would be able to watch
them from different angles, and we wouldn't have to be bothered by an audience
that screams, coughs, and applauds.
With a high frame rate, we would be able to slow down any portion
of the video without the frames becoming blurry. For example, although
dance is slow, I think some parts of it would be interesting in slow
motion, and this dance
is so fast that it is much more appropriate on video that we can replay
in slow-motion. If those two had performed some of their dances in a studio
in front of high-quality video cameras, the video might be enjoyed centuries
Being able to watch a video in slow-motion requires a city be able to
provide television with high frame rates, which is not available today
through either television or the Internet. In other files I pointed out
that a city could provide recreational centers with high-resolution television
monitors, and I suggested that instead of always watching television in
your home, you go to one of these recreational areas. These television
rooms do not need windows, so they can be placed in the portions of the
buildings that we don't want to use for homes or offices.
Imagine living in a city in which there are lots of small television
room scattered around, with most of them holding between 4 and 12 people,
and some of them holding a few dozen people. When you want to watch video
in high quality or in slow motion, you would go to one of these television
rooms. These rooms would have much higher-speed video connections, and
they would provide you with much higher quality monitors and audio equipment
than would be practical in your home. Also, they would all use the same
remote control unit so that you don't have to deal with the incompatibility
of different brands.
If people are living in large apartment complexes, it is also possible
for a city to go to the extreme of not bothering to provide televisions
for home use. Instead, high quality television rooms that hold 4 to 12
people would be scattered throughout each apartment complex and in the
city so that everybody is within walking distance of several of the rooms.
In that type of city, the apartment units would be small, and people would
spend almost all of their leisure time outside of their home. Or, the city
could provide the homes with small, simple television monitors and tell
the people to go to a television room when they want to watch high-quality
Getting back to the issue of sports, when people sing, play music, dance,
or do any type of theatrical production in front of an audience, we expect
them to occasionally make mistakes. We don't let their mistakes bother
us. We also allow them to perform in a studio so that they can create a
higher-quality, recorded version of their performance. We allow them to
edit the recordings to remove mistakes and add whatever they think will
make the performance more interesting. The edited versions of the
performances of musicians, dancers, singers, and actors are usually more
than the live performances. When artist is talented,
nobody cares whether his song, painting, movie, or music was created yesterday,
40 years ago, or 400 years ago.
Why not apply the same concept to athletes? Why not consider
athletes to be "artists"? Instead of having intense competitive battles,
let them give us performances for entertainment. When they give performances
in front of an audience, we should expect them to make mistakes,
and in some cases they can just start over and do it again. They should
also be able to perform in a studio when they want to create more perfect
versions of their performances. Their studio performances could provide
us with slow-motion video, and video from different angles. Some of their
studio recordings might be so interesting that future generations enjoy
People are still enjoying music that was created by Mozart, and they
are still enjoying paintings that were created by Michelangelo. If athletes
and dancers were creating spectacular performances in a studio, and doing
them for entertainment rather than for trophies, they could provide us
with spectacular performances that might be enjoyed for thousands of years.
When athletes are treated as artists, then their edited performances
become "timeless". If Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swann had created some videos
of their athletic abilities, including slow motion, people centuries from
now would be entertained by them. By comparison, people in the future are
not going to be interested in watching hundreds of hours of football games
merely to see a few brief moments of Bradshaw and Swann.
You might find it interesting to imagine what singing would be like
if we treated singers the same as we treat athletes. Imagine if singers
were not allowed to create edited versions of their songs. Imagine
if all singers had to participate in competitive battles for trophies.
Imagine them being judged on their singing ability, not on the artistic
value of their song. Imagine a group of singers going on stage one at a
time in front of a panel of judges, and singing according to some arbitrary
rules. Imagine television commentators making critical remarks about
their performances. Would you enjoy singing if it was a competitive battle
for a trophy? Would you want to listen to judges make critical remarks
about their performances? Would you want the singers to follow some arbitrary
Judges are valuable for people who are training,
in which case the judges can provide constructive criticism and advice,
but the judges in the Olympic sports events are not providing constructive
criticism. They are trying to determine who should win an award, but all
of the athletes are talented, so what is the benefit to making them compete
for awards? Athletes are competing in events all throughout the year, and
they do this year after year. Who among us is benefiting by having them
compete for thousands of awards? Sports competitions with judges are useful
to determine which athletes are the most talented, but once we figure out
who the most talented athletes are, they should do something more useful
than compete for awards.
If we were to treat sports as athletic performances rather than
competitive battles for trophies, we would discover that some sports are
extremely boring, and we would notice that some of the athletes are wearing
drab clothing. The women in rhythmic gymnastics are always dressed in interesting
outfits, and the military drill teams wear attractive uniforms, but many
of the athletes are dressed in dreary outfits or bland uniforms. Some athletes,
such as automobile races, wear clothing with corporate logos.
|The rhythmic gymnasts are not afraid to wear an incredible
variety of colors and patterns. Why can't other athletes be visually
entertaining, also? And why not provide ourselves with interesting
clothing for social affairs and holiday celebrations?
The solution to these problems is to eliminate the boring sports,
and modify the other sports to make them more interesting. The athletes
should become "athletic artists". They should impress us with their
ability to use their body as a piece of art.
In a society without copyrights, we would have access to all of the
music that has ever been produced, and free of charge. The music would
be kept a publicly accessible database, and it would be categorized. We
would be able to listen to rock 'n roll from the 1960s, or jazz from the
1930s, or disco from the 1980s. We would be able to listen to recordings
that were made in studios, or watch live performances on video. We would
be able to download any of the songs to an MP3 player. If that database
existed right now, almost everybody would occasionally listen to some of
the music, and many people would listen to some of the same songs more
Without copyrights, we would also have access to video recordings of
all of the sports events that have been produced. We would be able to watch
college football games from the 1970s, bobsled competitions from the 1980s,
and 400 meter races from the Olympics of the 1990s. We would be able to
watch high school basketball games from the 1950s, professional tennis
games from the 1960s, and Olympic pole vaulting from the 1970s. However,
I don't think a database of sports events would be as popular as a database
People around the world are regularly listening to recorded music, even
if it was recorded centuries earlier. Sometimes people listen to the same
song dozens of times during their life. By comparison, there are very few
people, if any, who are watching video of old sports events, and even fewer
people are watching the same sports event dozens of times during their
life. Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes by selling music, television
shows, movies, and books, but how much money would they be able to make
from "iSports" in which they sell us video of old NFL football games, Olympic
javelin tossing events, or bobsled competitions? How many people would
be interested in purchasing recordings of old high school or college basketball
People around the world have posted thousands of songs on the Internet,
but most of the sports events are never posted. This is not because of
copyright issues. Rather, it is because most people do not want to watch
sports events of the past, and almost nobody wants to watch the same sports
event twice. Most people only want excerpts
of sports events, such as the crashes of the auto races, or the spectacular
passes of the American football games.
We should face the fact that most professional sports are boring,
and the aspect of the sport that people enjoy is the competition,
not the performance of the athletes. Only some professional athletes are
entertaining without competition, such as the Harlem Globetrotters, and
some of the gymnasts, ice skaters, and dancers.
When we take control of our culture, we are going to have access to
all of the information about sports, such as how much money we are putting
into Olympic events, and how much money is being put into training of children
for various sports, and how much medical care the athletes need for different
sports. This information will allow us to have intelligent conversations
about the burdens and benefits of different sports.
I think it would help us set policies for sports by categorizing all
professional sports as being either a competitive sport or an entertaining
sport. These categories can help us analyze our sports and figure out how
to design them.
1) Competitive sports
A competitive sport sets up a battle between two or more teams. When
we design a competitive sport, we should focus on designing a competition
that we find entertaining. A competitive sport does not need expensive
equipment, dangerous stunts, or prizes. A competitive game of golf, for
example, doesn't become more exciting simply by increasing the expense
of the balls or clubs. Auto racing is an even better example of this concept.
There is no evidence that the people who watch the expensive auto races
are having more fun than the people who watch the inexpensive races. A
soccer game doesn't require expensive equipment, but people can enjoy the
competition just as much as with an expensive auto race.
The competitive sports should be designed to be simple, inexpensive,
and safe. The athletes and the audience should focus on the competition
between the rival teams rather than focus on equipment, prizes, or risky
2) Entertaining sports
Some athletes do not need competition in order to be entertaining.
They entertain the audience with their athletic performance. Examples are
the gymnasts, ice skaters, and dancers. Some of them put on performances
that are so entertaining that we enjoy watching the many years later, and
sometimes more than once. These sports do not benefit from competition.
Actually, competition inhibits their entertainment value by forcing the
athletes to follow arbitrary rules, which in turn limits the artistic freedom
of their performances.
The entertaining sports should be designed to show off the athletic
of the athletes rather than be designed to put athletes into competitive
battles. The athletes should be artists, not rivals. These
sports do not need winners or losers to be entertaining. Actually, all
of the athletes can be considered winners because all of them put on an
entertaining performance. When people watch these athletes, they should
focus on the athletic performance, not on a competitive battle.
Basketball, football, and other competitive sports can be transformed
into the entertaining category simply by having the athletes entertain
the audience with their talent, as the Harlem Globetrotters did, rather
than competing with one another.
To be accurate, the athletes in this entertainment category are
actually in a competitive event, but they are not competing with one another.
Rather, they are competing for the attention of the public. This is a more
complex competition. These athletes do not know how successful they are
until many years after their performance. If they are very successful,
they will discover that people are continuing to watch their performances
many years later, and sometimes more than once. The athletes who are truly
phenomenal will be impressing people with their performances for centuries,
just as Mozart is still impressing people with his music.
How many full-time athletes do we want?
No nation yet is doing much of anything to control professional sports
or the number of people who become professional athletes. We are letting
free enterprise make these decisions for us. By letting the government
get control of society, we can discuss these issues openly and make decisions
about which sports to support, what their rules will be, and how many people
we are willing to support as full-time and part-time athletes.
Modern nations are supporting thousands
of professional football players, basketball players, hockey players, and
other athletes, and we have thousands of expensive stadiums, golf
courses, and racetracks for those professional athletes. We are putting
a lot of labor and resources into these sports, but what is the benefit?
Is it worth the burden? Furthermore, do we really enjoy all of the sports?
How much of the popularity of sports is because we enjoy the sports, and
how much is due to other reasons, such as loneliness or boredom?
I suspect that if we could create a more pleasant city for ourselves,
we would notice two changes in regards to sports. 1) There would be a decrease
in the interest in professional competitive sports and an increase
in the interest with professional entertaining sports. 2) More people
would become interested in participating in sports and other recreational
activities rather than watching other people.
Another issue to consider is whether we want a particular athlete to
be working full-time on his sport, or only part-time. In a free enterprise
system, a person can become a full-time athlete simply by finding a way
to cover his expenses. Some athletes do this by getting sponsorship from
corporations. When the government is in control of society, businesses
do not advertise themselves or provide sponsorship to anybody. The government
will be in control of sports, and government officials will make all of
the decisions about who is authorized to become an athlete, and which sport(s)
each athlete will be supported for, and which athlete will be a full-time
athlete and which will be only part-time. The government officials would
be in the same role as the military leaders who must set policies for the
military employees who play musical instruments or sports.
A person would have to be very talented to justify becoming a full-time
athlete. It would be easier for a person to be authorized as a part-time
athlete. In a city that does not have a peasant class, we need a lot of
people to share the work that needs to be done, and so a person would have
an easier time becoming an athlete if he did so only part-time, and his
other part-time job was something that more directly benefited society.
In addition to doing "ordinary" jobs, such as factory work, engineering,
plumbing, or farming, the part-time athletes might be ideal for the jobs
that are related to physical activities, such as arranging recreational
and exercise activities for children and adults; working at exercise or
medical centers to help people monitor and understand their health; and
arranging for activities at city festivals or schools, including activities
that people participate in rather than merely watch.
In our free enterprise system, the athletes and the businesses are encouraging
us to sit in front of a television or sit in a stadium and watch other
people play sports. I think it would be better if more of the athletes
were involved with society in a leadership role. Many athletes could take
a role that is similar to Chris Powell on the television show Extreme
Makeover Weight-Loss Edition in which Powell is helping obese people
to get some exercise and lose some weight. That television show is only
for entertainment, but imagine if athletes were doing something similar
for normal people, such as arranging for physical activities, such
as hikes, bicycle rides, snorkeling, sports events, and rowing. Their role
would be to provide motivation and inspiration. It might even be
beneficial to have some of them occasionally visit a business at lunch
to encourage the employees to get outside and engage in some physical activity.
You might respond that sending somebody like Chris Powell to a business
at lunch would be treating the employees like babies, but we should
face the fact that humans are sociable animals, and that we have
a tendency to become physically inactive when we don't have to do
anything, so we benefit from the emotional encouragement to get some exercise.
Military personnel sometimes chant songs while they exercise. That might
seem silly, but we should face the fact that we do not like exercise,
and exercise is boring, so if we can figure out how to keep ourselves
in good mental and physical health, then we are being smart, not
An interesting experiment would be to have some athletes visit businesses
at lunch to inspire the employees into getting some exercise by playing
volleyball, square dancing, or riding bicycles, and then the business would
compare the mental and physical health of their employees to those who
are not involved with such a program. We might discover that a society
benefits by having some athletes who wander around the city to encourage
recreational activities during lunch, evenings, and weekends.
Professional athletes are perhaps the most physically active of all
people, but even they benefit by having somebody motivate them, such as
a coach, their teammates, or their family members.
We should experiment with society in an attempt to figure out what is
best for us. We want to sit in a chair, listen to praise, eat excessive
amounts of food, win awards, and watch other people play sports, but that
is not necessarily what is best for us. It might be better to tell the
athletes to inspire us to get out of our chair, put down the food, and
get some exercise. In that role, the athletes would be doing something
useful for society rather than merely entertaining us.
There are a lot of businesses providing us with a variety of activities,
but most of what they provide is entertainment.
They offer is what we want, not what we need. They provide
us with Disneyland, summer camps, and vacations to other countries, but
most of their customers remain physically inactive and eat excessive amounts
of unhealthy foods. The businesses in a free enterprise system cannot put
any pressure on their customers to do anything. Businesses are in a submissive
role, and they tend to pander to their customers.
By comparison, when we put the government in control of society, then
we can alter our culture, business activity, city design, and social activities
to give us what we benefit from even if it is not exactly what we want.
For example, we can set a work schedule to provide us with enough time
during our lunch breaks so that we can get exercise, and the city can be
designed so that the businesses are surrounded by grass fields, bicycle
paths, and swimming areas so that the employees have easy access to exercise
opportunities. We can also arrange for part-time jobs for athletes and
dancers to inspire people into getting some exercise during lunch, evenings,
and weekends. The people who enjoy working more than eight hours might
be more productive with two lunch breaks.
The people who are physically active should use their talents for something
more useful than fighting for trophies, such as inspiring employees to
get exercise, and arranging hikes, snorkeling trips, bicycle rides, and
other activities for both adults and children. With equipment for medical
analyses becoming increasingly more advanced and simple to operate, some
athletes could learn about medical issues and help people use equipment
to monitor their heart rate, blood pressure, kidneys, hormones, lungs,
and whatever our medical devices are capable of monitoring.
Incidentally, the typical way of measuring a person's temperature is
by putting a thermometer in their mouth, but almost every person is maintaining
the same internal temperature. It might be more useful to measure the temperature
of people's skin or fingers because if a person is having trouble with
circulation, or with the production of energy, it might be easier to determine
that they have a problem by measuring their skin temperature. Also, it
is so easy and safe for us to measure skin temperatures, that we could
be doing it on a regular basis. If you had a graph that showed your skin
temperature throughout your life, you might be able to notice subtle changes
that signify a medical problem.
When athletes get involved with arranging activities for us, and helping
us to learn about our health, they become much more useful for society
compared to when they fight for trophies, and they will be doing jobs that
they can do even when they are over 40 years of age.
In the world today, there are so many professional sports events occurring
every week that nobody sees more than a tiny fraction of them. I doubt
if anybody even knows how many professional sports events are occurring
every week. Many people are profiting financially from these events, but
how does society benefit? Each sport requires a certain amount of labor
and resources, and we should seriously ask ourselves such questions as,
Which sports provide enough entertainment to justify the burden they impose
on society? Which sports should be modified to be more entertaining or
less of a burden?
The competitive sports encourage people to focus on meaningless competitive
battles. It is possible that the best policy for a society is to eliminate
all competitive, professional sports and support only the entertaining
professional sports. With this philosophy, the people who enjoy competitive
sports would be told to get out of their house and participate in
the sports, or watch their friends play, rather than watch professional
As I mentioned earlier, I think the athletes who are involved with entertaining
sports should eliminate the competition between them and design their performances
to be artistic and entertaining. They could provide us with entertaining
performances during holidays, festivals, and social events. They could
also perform in a studio so that they can provide us with high quality
video of their performances. The goal of these athletes is to provide us
with performances that we find so entertaining that future generations
want to watch them. None of these athletes have to be losers. They can
all be winners. They would inspire one another rather than fight with one
In a free enterprise system, businesses profit from competitive sports
in a variety of ways, and governments exploit sports for taxation and to
promote themselves. However, when the government has control of society,
we have no sensible reason to allow anybody to benefit financially or politically
from sports. Instead, we would design sports according to their benefit
and their burden. If a sport doesn't provide much benefit, then why should
we support it? We should not care if a few people enjoy the sport.
We should pass judgment on sports based on their advantages and disadvantages
When we take control of society, we can also make intelligent decisions
on how many children and adults we want in sports training programs,
and which training programs we should support, and whether the training
programs should be part-time or full-time. For example, there may be thousands
of people around the world today who are practicing how to throw a javelin,
and there may thousands of other people practicing to run 100 meters. In
a free enterprise system, businesses profit by training children for sports,
even if the children do not have the ability to be among the best athletes.
The ancient Greeks would throw the discus during their Olympic events,
but I don't think it was because they considered it to be a wonderful sport.
I think it was because their primitive technology didn't give them too
many options with sports. Do we want to continue providing support for
throwing a discus, pole vaulting, or running 200 meters? How many children
do we want to train on riding a bobsled and throwing a javelin?
If we do not provide much training for children to become athletes,
then their performances will be inferior compared to the athletes of today,
and they will not be able to set any new world records, but does that matter?
Does life improve for any of us when a child has been trained so thoroughly
that he sets a new world record in a competitive sports event? World records
have been broken many times during the past few years. Did you notice
any improvement to your life when those records were broken?
What should we do with violent
Boxing and the American game of football is so brutal that athletes
are seriously injured every year, and many of the athletes are under pressure
to use steroids and other drugs. There are also daredevil types of sports
in which people, such as Evel Knievel, risk their lives to perform amazing
stunts. Are the benefits of violent and dangerous sports worth the burden?
What is the benefit? And what is the burden?
The violent sports put a medical burden on society, but I doubt if anybody
knows how serious the burden is. However, it's easy to understand that
the burden would be extreme if everybody in society enjoyed playing
ice hockey, boxing, and American football. In such a case, almost everybody
over the age of 30 would be suffering from sports injuries. A lot of people
would have brain damage, and many would be in wheelchairs, and some would
Violent sports are tolerable in the world today because only a small
percentage of the population is involved with them, and we can easily provide
medical care to such a small group. However, when society is in control
of sports, our government officials can make decisions on how many violent
sports we support, and how violent they are. How many brain-damaged and
crippled athletes are you willing to
We should also make decisions on how much medical care we want to give
people who get involved with risky sports or activities that society does
not officially support, such as riding skateboards on staircase railings,
or abusing steroids. In Part 8 of this series I pointed out that we are
foolish to torment or arrest drug users. We should either evict them from
society, or tolerate them. We should apply this same concept towards risky
sports. We either remove the people who want to engage in risky sports,
or, we tolerate them. If we tolerate them, we can do so in different manners,
such as providing them with complete medical support, or we could
go to the other extreme of not providing any medical support for them at
all, and that they will have to suffer the consequences of their
injuries just as if they were living in prehistoric times. In such a case,
if they break their bones or destroy their kidneys, they have to deal with
the problem by themselves rather than expect doctors to provide them with
medical care, and rather than expect factory workers to provide them with
artificial hips, hypodermic needles, or kidney dialysis machines.
A society should support the medical care of people who are injured
but we should not feel obligated to help the people who injure themselves
because they want to. Every society
is currently struggling to force the self-destructive people to wear safety
equipment when they play sports, and we struggle to stop them from abusing
steroids and other drugs, but we are foolish to try controlling these people.
We should either evict them from society, or let them hurt themselves.
Human emotions often cause us to behave in a manner that is opposite
of what we should do. The risky sports are another example of this. Our
emotions want us to protect other people, and we foolishly assume that
we can protect the people involved with dangerous sports by forcing them
to wear safety equipment, and by providing them with medical care, but
the opposite is actually the best way to reduce the problem.
Our tendency to help the people involved with dangerous activities is
actually encouraging more of this behavior because we are providing those
people with a
safety net. Whenever they hurt themselves in their
risky activities, even if it is a criminal activity, a team of medical
personnel, police, firemen, and/or other people will rush to their rescue
and provide them with support. Sometimes the rescue personnel will risk
their own lives to save a self-destructive person. By providing a safety
net, we encourage people, including criminals,
to take idiotic risks.
It might seem cruel to take away the safety net and tell people to suffer
the consequences of their idiotic behavior, but why should people today
be less responsible than our prehistoric
ancestors? We actually need the opposite situation; we need people
today to think more often and be more
responsible and more considerate than during prehistoric times. People
today need to be less selfish, less foolish, and less like an animal. When
people are told that they are going to suffer the consequences of their
risky activities, many of them will be more careful.
Watch some of the videos that are described as "fail
videos". They are compilations of people hurting themselves in accidents.
Some of the accidents are meaningless, such as doing a bellyflop into a
swimming pool, but some people hurt themselves because of stupid decisions
that they made. For example, some people have such a poor understanding
of science that they don't realize that they are taking a risk when they
dance on top of glass tables or plastic chairs. There are some people who
hurt themselves in stunts that they realize are extremely risky, such as
riding a skateboard down a staircase railing. There are some people who
hurt themselves because they don't have a good understanding of their strengths
and weaknesses, and they foolishly believe that they can do some of the
stunts that they see on television.
A monkey that makes a mistake when he jumps from one branch to another
will not get medical attention when he hits the ground, and a bird that
makes the stupid decision of flying in a snowstorm will not be saved by
a search and rescue team. For millions of years the humans who made poor
decisions have had lower reproduction rates. This helped create humans
who are capable of contemplating risks and making wise decisions. We are
now pampering the people who make stupid decisions, and allowing them to
reproduce, and this will cause each generation to become more foolish and
We all have accidents on a regular basis, so we cannot complain about
people having accidents. However, we should keep track of accidents and
pass judgment on when a person is having "normal", acceptable accidents,
and when he is so stupid, obnoxious, or psychotic that he is a burden on
society as a result of his destruction of material items or his need for
medical care. Those extreme people should not be reproducing, and we ought
to consider telling some of them to deal with their injuries by themselves
rather than expecting medical personnel to help them.
Analysis of children's products
The Social Technology department would not be responsible for developing
or manufacturing products, but they would play a role in analyzing and
influencing children's products. They would arrange discussions about children's
products, and encourage people to participate, but the purpose would not
be to figure out how to provide children with products that they enjoy.
Rather, the purpose would be to figure out what is best for the
children. Instead of analyzing the popularity of a product, they
would analyze the effect that the product has on children, as well
as adults and the environment.
For example, some children might like playing with noisy toys, but that
would irritate people in their area. The Social Technology department would
analyze the noisy toys and make decisions about which of them should be
restricted to certain areas of the city, which should not be produced at
all, and which should be limited in their noise level. The Social Technology
department would send their decisions to the agencies that are responsible
for developing and manufacturing the products. The other agencies might
reject the suggestions, but if they did so, they would have to provide
For another example, if the Social Technology agency decides that children
are spending too much time on text messages and wasting too much of the
city's bandwidth on sending video to one another, then they can put together
a proposal to the other government officials to restrict children's access
to these activities in some manner, such as by limiting their messages,
or by restricting their messages to only a few hours after dinner.
The Social Technology department would be responsible for designing
clothing and shoes, but they would not be involved in the production of
the raw materials, such as wool, cotton, rubber, zippers, or nylon, and
they would not be involved with the factories that produce the clothing
or shoes. The would be able to produce prototypes, and they might sometimes
make small quantities of specialty items, such as children's costumes for
city festivals, but they would not make clothing in large amounts.
In a free enterprise system, clothing styles are determined in a haphazard,
irrational manner. Businesses produce a variety of clothing and shoes,
often with no regard to comfort or practicality, and consumers choose between
them. The decisions that consumers make are usually irrational, especially
with children, because people are easily influenced by what their friends
and Hollywood celebrities are wearing.
When the government is in control of the design of clothing and shoes,
we can bring some sense to this process. Furthermore, we don't need the
type of fashion shows that we find occurring all over the world. Some of
the fashion shows are displaying clothing that is not designed to be
worn. Rather, the businesses display absurd clothing as a way to bring
attention to themselves and advertise their name. These type of fashion
shows make sense in a free enterprise system, but they are a waste
of labor and resources.
The people who join the Social Technology department, including those
on a part-time and temporary basis, would be able to get involved with
the design of clothing and shoes. They would design prototypes either independently,
or in groups. Every few months, or every year, whatever the cycle happens
to be, the prototypes would be displayed at a more sensible type of fashion
show. The audience would be officials in the Social Technology department
who were interested in participating in the issue of clothing. However,
instead of having professional models walk briefly in the clothing, the
people in the audience would be able to try on the clothing so that they
could determine which prototypes were comfortable and practical. Some of
the people will put on clothing and walk around in front of other people
so that the other people can see what it looks like and how it fits, but
they would not need professional models to do that.
There is no reason for society to support the job category of "fashion
model". We don't need people to specialize in walking a short distance
in clothing. Our clothing should be designed to fit real people,
so real people should try the prototypes. Besides, a fashion show in which
sexy, young women prance around in front of men is not really a serious
display of clothing. It would be better described as "mild pornography".
It is as ridiculous as having a "tool show" in which sexy, young women
prance in front of men while carrying plasma torches and crescent wrenches.
When the Social Technology department has a fashion show, the purpose
would be for the government officials to wear the prototypes, determine
which prototypes are most comfortable and practical, and make decisions
about which of prototypes to put into production. These type of fashion
shows would be serious jobs, not sexually titillating entertainment.
After the Social Technology department selects some of the prototypes
for production, they will observe the reaction of the public. They want
us to enjoy the clothing, but they also want the clothing to be safe and
practical. For example, shoes should not cause damage to our feet, and
the clothing designed for factory workers should not tear easily or get
caught in conveyor belts or machinery.
The most sensible philosophy for this department to follow is to design
clothing for specific purposes. Clothing design for work should
be practical rather than sexual, and clothing designed for courtship, social
activities, and holidays can be more frivolous and decorative. We already
have a few categories for clothing, such as "weddings" and "bathing suits",
and I think we should expand upon this concept by creating more categories.
In such a case, the clothing stores would offer clothing in different categories,
such as "machine operators", "office workers", "bicycle riding", and "social
By having different categories of clothing, and by providing people
with free access to clothing, it would be practical for businesses to restrict
employees to wearing only the clothing that is appropriate for their particular
job. Nobody would have any excuse that they cannot afford appropriate clothing
for work, recreation, dinner, or social activities. Of course, I should
once again point out that providing people with free access to clothing
requires that the people in the city have a certain level of responsibility.
A person who designs clothing that turns out to be a success will be
credited with an achievement, and he will have an easier time getting his
prototypes approved in the future. The designers whose clothing is a failure
will have a more difficult time getting their prototypes approved, and
if they fail often enough, they would be told to get out of the clothing
department and quit wasting their time and society's resources.
Will culture change every
Since the Social Technology department will have tremendous
influence over culture, and since one of the three top leaders would be
regularly replaced, you might wonder if we are going to have the problem
of culture changing wildly as different people come and go in this department.
For example, it is possible to imagine a situation in which the leaders
of this department decide to remove religion from Christmas, and then,
when they are replaced a few years later, the new leaders decide to put
religion back in, and then, a few years later, the next group decides to
take it back out.
We can easily frighten ourselves with these scenarios, but whether such
a scenario comes true depends upon our ability to deal with the problems
of modern society. For example, if we have the emotional strength to control
immigration and evict misfits, then we can create a city in which we have
a certain level of compatibility with one another, thereby reducing the
desire of different groups to radically change the city's culture. If we
also eliminate secrecy, keep track of what everybody does, set higher standards
for people in leadership positions, and become active participants in society,
then we will further improve our chances of creating a pleasant, stable
city. If we also pass judgment on which citizens should be allowed to influence
society, then only the "better" people will even be able to influence our
The frightening scenarios of wild and irrational changes in culture
will come true only if we foolishly create the type of societies we have
today in which a city is a chaotic mixture of people with incompatible
personalities, religions, and mental disorders. Don't be terrified of potential
problems; be excited about future improvements.
The concept of allowing a government agency to pass judgment on clothing
and shoes might seem crazy, but there are already people in businesses
and in the military who are passing judgment on the clothing styles and
shoes of their employees. Some businesses and military units also provide
uniforms, protective clothing, and special boots or shoes.
Furthermore, some businesses and military units also pass judgment on
cultural activities. For example, they arrange for certain types of sports
events, anniversary parties, holiday celebrations, retirement parties,
day care options, and cafeterias.
Allowing a government agency to control our culture is simply expanding
upon what businesses and the military have been doing for centuries. There
are already people in businesses and militaries who are doing what
is essentially creating and controlling culture, but they are doing
it on a small scale for their own particular organization. All we have
to do is apply this concept to an entire city.
I would give the department of Social Technology three
directors of equal authority, but I don't think it would be practical to
give them three different regions of the city. Instead, we would compare
them according to which proposals they approve of and reject. For
an example of how this works, let's assume somebody makes a proposal for
a new sport. The proposal may come from an ordinary citizen, or it might
come from a government official. Regardless of who created it, it would
be sent to the officials in the Social Technology department. If some of
the lower-level officials decide to approve it, it would be sent to the
top three officials for its final rejection or approval.
All of the officials would have the authority to modify the proposal,
or add details to make it more complete. They would even be allowed to
create several different variations of the proposal. The person who created
the proposal could not copyright it, and he would have no control over
what happens to it. If his proposal turns out to be a success, he will
get credit for creating it, and if it turns out to be a failure, he will
have that failure listed in his database entry. If a government official
modifies his proposal and the modifications turn out to be useful, then
the government official will get credit for useful modifications, but if
his modifications turn out to be a failure, then his database entry would
show that he failed in his attempt to improve the proposal.
By keeping track of how each government official approves, modifies,
and rejects the proposals, we can pass judgment on which of them we want
removed from the government. Over time, some people will accumulate achievements,
and others will accumulate failures. This will allow us to pass judgment
on who among us is better at influencing clothing, holidays, sports, and
other activities. We would regularly replace the worst performing of the
top three leaders so that other people have the opportunity to show us
Incidentally, none of the officials in this department have to be full-time
employees. There might be a lot of people who are willing to get involved
with the Social Technology department, including being one of the top directors,
but they may not want to do it on a full-time basis. The reason it would
be possible for people to be part-time government officials in the Social
Technology department is because the officials do not have to supervise
teams of people, and they do not handle real-time problems, such
as fires, heart attacks, or broken water pipes. They would be the "guidance
counselor" type of leaders, not the "supervisory" type of leaders. The
officials in this department do not have to be in an office all day, every
day, ready to deal with problems. Rather, they analyze cultural issues
and proposals, and they can do that on a part-time basis, and they can
do it anywhere they please.
When a person who works in the government on a part-time basis, he will
not have the time to analyze as many proposals as a full-time official,
but we should not judge anybody by how many hours he works. We should judge
a person by the value of his work; by his overall effect
on society. If a government official is contributing something of value
to society, then he is useful, even if he is working in the government
only one afternoon each month.
There are several reasons for designing the government to offer part-time
and temporary jobs. One is that I think it is psychologically better for
us to work for the government on a part-time or temporary basis because
it will make us less emotionally attached to the government job. When we
have a primary job outside of the government, and when the government is
just a part-time or temporary job, then the government job will seem more
like a contribution to society, rather than as a
I don't think we would feel as protective of a part-time government job,
or be as worried of competitors. By comparison, when a person has a full-time
government job, he will be more protective of it and more concerned about
competitors. He will be more likely to think of himself as a government
leader rather than as a person who is contributing to society,
and he will be more likely to feel threatened by competition for his job.
Another reason for offering part-time and temporary jobs in the government
is because it encourages more people to get involved with society. A lot
of us could spend one evening a month helping one government agency, and
another evening a month at another government agency. As more people get
involved with the government, we need fewer full-time government employees,
and we have more people contributing to society. Our existing governments
make people feel helpless, but by offering part-time participation, we
encourage people to get involved with the decisions about our schools,
holidays, transportation systems, city decorations, and recreational activities.
Of course, as I mentioned in the beginning of this article, we cannot
give every citizen the right to have a part-time government job. The jobs
have to be restricted to the people who have shown an ability to think
properly, and who have shown a certain level of honesty, responsibility,
City Maintenance department
As I mentioned in Part 8, I think it would be best to start
the design of a city by laying out the train lines according to that city's
particular land area, and then adding apartment complexes, office buildings,
factories, and recreational areas along the train routes so that so that
we can easily travel everywhere in the city. Transportation should have
a very high priority because we have to travel every day, and so it should
be as efficient and pleasant as possible.
||Each city would be designed for a particular population level, and
the government would maintain that level, thereby preventing cities from
growing and shrinking, as they are today.
By designing very large apartment complexes that hold between 2000 and
8000 people, each apartment complex would be like a village. At the base
of an apartment complex would be train terminals, bicycle storage, exercise
facilities, restaurants, snack bars, and facilities for babies and young
children, such as nursery schools, simple medical facilities, and playgrounds.
The base of an apartment complex would be more similar to the social
areas of a cruise ship rather than a shopping mall because it would be
designed for human life rather than for sales.
||By keeping crime to very low levels, the city would not need bright,
white, security lights, and we would not have to worry about graffiti or
vandalism, so everything in the city, including factories, warehouses,
and train stations, could be beautiful. Decorative artwork could be everywhere.
Some walkways and bridges could be illuminated with low level LEDs, or
made of illuminated panels or decorative tiles.
When we use lights for decoration, we can change the colors and patterns
occasionally so that we don't get bored. We are limited only by our imagination
and our courage to experiment.
Designing a city is a lot of work, but once a city has been built,
the government only has to maintain it, and occasionally make modifications.
Therefore, instead of a City Planning
agency, every city would have a City Maintenance department. This
department would fix problems in the city, deal with changes in technology,
and deal with changes in human activities. They would not need many full-time
employees. Instead, when they had to deal with a problem, they would put
together a team, and that team would be dissolved when the work was over.
For an example of what this agency would do, sometimes buildings or
bridges will be damaged by tornadoes, storms, or earthquakes, and structures
also occasionally need maintenance or replacement. When a problem occurs,
the government officials figure out what sort of skills they need to fix
the problem, and how many people they need, and then they ask the people
who have those skills if they can leave their existing work to help with
this particular problem. Since the government is in control of all of the
jobs, the entire city behaves as if it is one corporation or one military
unit, and so an electrician who works full-time for a business would be
able to temporarily take time off to work on the team that the government
is putting together to deal with the tornado damage, and a plumber could
take time off from his job to deal with damage caused by an earthquake.
When the team is finished with its project, the people return to their
By taking people away from businesses, the government will interfere
with the operation of those businesses, but the businesses are not competing
for sales or customers, so everybody in the city will be told to find a
way to work around the interference. It is analogous to an employee of
a business being called for jury duty, and the customers and other employees
finding a way to deal with it.
This agency would also have to deal with changes in the way people are
living. For example, the officials might need to alter some bicycle or
foot paths to deal with the changes in the way people are spending their
leisure time, or because more people decide to ride a bicycle to work.
This agency would also have to deal with improvements in technology,
such as updating train equipment, or reducing the number of conventional
farms and increasing the number of greenhouses or hydroponic farms.
Our cities today need a city planning agency rather than a city
department, because they are in a constant state of change and growth.
Our cities are a haphazard mixture of buildings, utility lines, and transportation
systems of different ages and qualities, and since the population is growing,
the city is constantly expanding its roads, bridges, utility lines, and
buildings. However, if we can keep the population steady, then we can eliminate
all of the projects related to growth. We can eliminate or reduce the severity
of a lot of other problems by designing a city in a more intelligent manner,
such as by making it easy to access utility lines as opposed to burying
them underneath concrete and asphalt.
Some underground train lines can be near the surface, thereby making
them easier to build and maintain. This would also reduce the time that
people spend walking down into the subways. In some areas of the city,
the trains could be just barely under the surface, which would allow the
roof of the subway to be large, removable, concrete or steel panels that
can serve as walkways or bicycle paths, similar in concept to the old-fashioned
computer rooms that had cables running underneath a false floor.
When a city is operating properly, it is conceivable that the City Maintenance
agency has so little to do that it shuts down for many months at a time.
It would become activated by somebody complaining about something, such
as a leaky roof, overcrowding on a particular plaza, or cracks in a bridge.
The complaints would be sent to the people designated as officials for
this department, they would decide if the complaint is valid, and if so,
they would create a temporary team to deal with the problem. When the problem
was over, the people would go back to their regular jobs in the agency
would shut down again.
Eventually the buildings in a city become so old that they need to be
torn down and replaced. The severity of this problem can be reduced by
designing all of the buildings within an apartment complex or factory complex
to have the same lifetime, and then the entire complex is replaced. By
comparison, our cities today are a haphazard mixture of new and old buildings.
||I would design a city with the utilities and primary transportation
underground so that the surface area of the city is parks, bicycle paths,
gardens, canals, ponds, and walkways.
The Transportation department of the City Maintenance agency
would be responsible for the maintenance and upgrades of all of the transportation
systems, such as the trains, bicycle paths, foot paths, and airport. If
any boats or canals are used for transportation, rather than for recreation,
this department would be responsible for them, also. This department would
not be responsible for vehicles that are purely for recreational use, such
as recreational rowboats, rubber rafts, snowmobiles, and bumper cars for
children. The recreational equipment would be the responsibility of the
Social Technology department.
Food and Restaurants
The Food and Restaurants department would be responsible
for providing the city with restaurants, growing food for the city, and
requesting food from other cities. This department would decide how many
restaurants the city needs, what hours they are open, where they are located,
and who works in the restaurants.
Each city would be designed for a certain population level, and it would
remain at that level year after year. Nobody would be living in a city
illegally or secretly. The government would know exactly how many babies,
children, adults, and pregnant women are in the city. This would allow
them to know how many people the restaurants need to feed each day, and
how much food the farms must produce. If people get over their paranoia
of being watched, the city officials may notice some interesting and possibly
useful patterns in people's eating habits, such as how our eating habits
change according to the weather.
The city would be designed with more restaurants and dining room space
than is actually needed so that if a lot of people are in one area of the
city for breakfast or dinner, there will be enough restaurant space for
all of them. Exactly how much extra space is needed would have to be determined
by trial and error. Some areas of the city might need only 10% extra space,
whereas other areas might need a lot of extra restaurants because they
attract a lot of people during holidays or festivals.
All cities today have sections that have been specifically designed
for people to shop, socialize, or have festivals. However, these sections
are an ugly, haphazard jumble of buildings, telephone poles, plazas, parking
lots, and automobiles because the businesses are concerned only with selling
products, and the government officials are concerned only with taxing the
financial transactions and entertaining tourists. We are not yet designing
cities according to what is best for humans.
We should design our cities for human life rather than for sales and
taxes. We should create factories and office buildings that are beautiful
and surrounded by trees and parks, and we should design certain sections
of the city specifically for socializing, recreational activities, music
festivals, holidays, and other events. These "social sections" would be
designed specifically for our pleasure. There would be no parking lots,
telephone lines, or automobile traffic. They would be a mix of gardens,
plazas, walkways, restaurants, and facilities for social clubs, music concerts,
museums, recreational activities, and whatever else we want.
The city could have some social sections for adults only, and others
for children. Teentown would be designed for teenagers, but a city could
have some social sections for teenagers. The social sections for children
might resemble Disneyland, but they would not have any free enterprise,
so there would be no vendors pushing gifts or candy.
The current philosophy in a city is to mix everybody together, but I
think life will be more pleasant when we provide different sections for
different people. The sections that were designed for adults would allow
adults to get away from children, and when adults are in the mood to be
around children, they would go to the areas for the children. We could
also have special sections for elderly people, and sections for mothers
with babies. Our options are limited only by our imagination. We should
experiment with our options and figure out what makes our life more pleasant
overall. Compare that to the cities of today in which nobody is in control
of anything, and there are no special areas for anybody.
It should be noted that the level of people in these social sections
of the city would rise and fall dramatically during the day and weekends.
These sections would be empty during the weekday because the adults would
be working, and the children would be in school. Only the areas that were
designed for mothers with babies, elderly people, and young children would
have people in them during the day. Most of social sections would be open
only during the evenings, weekends, and holidays.
It is not practical in a free enterprise system to have sections of
the city that shut down during the weekday because businesses cannot easily
survive when they are open only during evenings or weekends. As a result,
many businesses remain open even when it is inefficient for them to do
so. Some businesses try to deal with the shortage of customers by having
somebody stand outside their business to talk to people as they walk by
in an attempt to lure them inside. Some businesses pay people to stand
on street corners in animal suits, dressed as a slice of pizza, or holding
signs in order to advertise their business. Nobody enjoys doing this type
of work, and nobody enjoys being pressured by these people, so why are
we torturing ourselves by continuing this nonsense?
The free enterprise system encourages businesses to look for ways to
manipulate us into spending money, but we should encourage businesses to
look for ways to improve our lives. When the government is in control of
the economy, then we can operate the city in a much more pleasant manner.
No business would be allowed to push anybody into doing anything. The businesses
that are not needed during the morning or afternoon would shut down, and
if they are needed only on the weekends, then they would shut down during
the weekdays. This would be considered inefficient in a free enterprise
system, but so what? We should design the economy to fit human life, not
the other way around.
Perhaps the issue of public bathrooms will help you understand this
issue. In a free enterprise system, businesses have to cover the cost of
bathrooms, and so they provide the minimum necessary. As a result, when
a lot of people get together in one area, such as for festivals or concerts,
there is usually a shortage of bathrooms in the area. Sometimes the shortage
is so severe that businesses bring in portable bathrooms.
We have two different paths to chose from. We can continue building
cities with a minimum number of bathrooms and use portable bathrooms when
the shortage becomes extreme, or we can design a city so that the plazas,
parks, stadiums, theaters, and other areas have enough bathrooms to handle
the number of people that they were designed for, which means that many
of the bathrooms are idle most of the time.
In a free enterprise system, no business wants to create bathrooms that
are vacant most of the time, but why should you
care if some bathrooms are used only on the weekends? If bathrooms were
expensive or large, then we would need to be concerned about how many we
build, but in our era, we can afford plenty of bathrooms. We spend billions
of dollars every year on Israel, and we could take a portion of that money
to provide our cities with plenty of bathrooms.
A related issue is drinking water. Restaurants, coffee shops,
and many other businesses do not want to provide drinking water or drinking
fountains because they want to sell drinks. However, from the point of
view of society, water is an inexpensive and safe drink, and so there should
be no shortage of drinking water anywhere in the city, from either fountains
or from businesses. A cafe would be upset if some people sat at a table,
asked for drinking water, and then relaxed at the table, but from the point
of view of society, the city should feel as if it is our home. We should
be able to use the restaurants the same way we would use our dining room.
If you want to sit at a cafe table to have a glass of water, either by
yourself or with your friends, then you should have that freedom.
In a free enterprise system, issues are analyzed from the point of view
of profit, but we should switch to analyzing issues from the point
of view of their benefit to society. What is the harm to society
for allowing people to sit at a restaurant table simply to relax and drink
water? Nobody suffers from this activity. Instead, we benefit by having
another option to relax, socialize, and enjoy life.
It is also important to note that one of the reasons businesses do not
want to provide bathrooms or drinking fountains is because so many people
are irresponsible, sloppy, and destructive. Bathrooms and drinking fountains
are regularly vandalized, and a significant percentage of the population
is sloppy. Providing our city with extra bathrooms and fountains will not
do us much good if they quickly become filthy, stinky, and vandalized.
Also, if we don't have a peasant class, who is going to clean and maintain
the bathrooms and fountains? In order for a city to truly become better
than the existing cities, we have to restrict immigration to higher
quality people who are capable of handling this advanced lifestyle,
and we must evict the misfits.
Instead of designing a city according to the needs of businesses, we
should design a city according to what would be most pleasant for all of
us as a group. Another example is the issue of food at festivals, sports
events, theaters, weddings, recreational events, and holiday celebrations.
In a free enterprise system, businesses are allowed to sell almost any
type of food at these events, and they can sell them from pushcarts, temporary
stands, trucks, and restaurants. The end result is that many events are
full of visually unappealing food stands, and the people eat messy, sloppy
food from paper or plastic containers, and they create a lot of trash.
Some of the food vendors also produce smoke, fumes, or stinky garbage.
At some events it is difficult for the people to wash their hands after
eating, such as when they are eating inside a theater, or they don't have
access to sinks, such as when they are at an outdoor festival, and the
end result is that food products accumulate on cell phones, doorknobs,
chairs, windows, and clothing. Some of the messy food and drinks occasionally
spill on the floor and furniture. In a free enterprise system, a lot of
businesses benefit by producing the messy foods, cleaning up the mess that
the people make, and delivering and cleaning portable toilets, but who
is going to do that work if we don't have a peasant
class in the city?
We should analyze the issue of food at social events from the point
of view of what is best for society as a group. The food provides people
with momentary entertainment, but it adds what could be described as an
"unskilled labor burden", and I don't think that burden is worth the benefit.
It would make more sense to restrict meals to restaurants, and to prohibit
food in theaters, gardens, museums, and certain other areas in the city.
If we decide to provide food at some event outside of a restaurant,
it would be more sensible to provide tiny appetizers that we can eat with
our fingers without making a mess, such as those in the photo.
When we design a city, we should think about what is best for society,
not what is best for businesses. For another example, consider the
that businesses are open. Businesses prefer to remain open all day, every
day, and sometimes during the night, but if we create a society without
a peasant class, we should try to provide everybody with desirable working
hours, and we must increase efficiency as much as possible by shutting
down businesses when they are not truly necessary.
In some European nations, some businesses are required to shut down
on Sunday, and we could expand this policy by shutting down businesses
during the day if they are only needed in the evening, and shutting down
businesses during the weekdays if they are needed only on the weekends.
This policy will increase the number of people with part-time jobs,
which is undesirable in a free enterprise system, but if we switch to a
society in which everybody is provided with the basic necessities for free,
and the government is handling retirement and health care, then it becomes
practical for people to have two or more part-time jobs.
We should design jobs for human life, not for businesses. Ideally, every
job would be so pleasant that everybody enjoys going to work. We are not
likely to achieve that ideal situation, so the people who must do boring
or physically difficult jobs ought to have the option of doing their unpleasant
job on a part-time basis, and have some other part-time job to give their
muscles a rest or to reduce the monotony.
The Food and Restaurant division will set policies for the type of foods
and drinks that are provided at social events, and where food and drinks
are prohibited. They will also set hours for the restaurants to be open.
Since every city would be able to experiment with their own policies, it
is conceivable that cities will devise some significantly different food
Nobody centuries ago could have imagined the material items that we
have today, and it's possible that future generations will experiment with
food policies that we could not possibly imagine. For some examples that
I am capable of imagining:
A city might decide to restrict candies to Saturday.
A city might restrict alcoholic drinks to dinners on Friday and Saturday
A city might restrict the sweet desserts to the people who have engaged
in some type of physically strenuous job or recreational activity.
A city might allow the people doing physically demanding jobs to
have more access to beer and sweet desserts than the office workers, and
use beer or sweet desserts as a reward for people who participate in physically
strenuous community activities, such as gardening or repairing tile plazas.
Another function of the Food and Restaurant division would be to help
people become chefs and farmers, as well as continuously replace those
who are doing the worst job so that there is always somebody else getting
an opportunity to try his skills. In a free enterprise system, a person
who wants to start a restaurant or a farm has to do so on his own, either
with his own money or with borrowed money, and if he fails, somebody loses
a lot of money. The people who benefit from this chaotic system are the
landlords, banks, and government officials, all of whom make money regardless
of whether the restaurant is a success or a failure.
When the city government is in control of all of the restaurants, buildings,
kitchen equipment, furniture, farms, and everything else related to food,
then nobody needs money to start a restaurant. All a person has to do is
make a simple proposal to the Food and Restaurant division to start a restaurant.
A person would be able to propose anything he could think of. For example,
a person could offer to operate a restaurant on a full-time basis, or he
could offer to operate a restaurant only for breakfast, or only on Saturday.
If the government approves his proposal, then he would be given access
to whatever building, equipment, and food that he needs. He would not have
to worry about landlords, taxes, equipment, or furniture. It would be analogous
to a person being hired by a corporation to manage their cafeteria.
It is difficult in our current economic system for people to start a
new restaurant. One reason is that the existing restaurant owners do not
want to quit their job, so a person who starts a new restaurant has to
compete with the existing restaurants for limited supply of customers.
In order for a new restaurant to be a success, one or more other restaurants
must suffer. It is similar to the life-and-death struggle of animals. This
brutal process causes business owners to look for ways to sabotage their
competitors, such as demanding that the government force new restaurants
to get permits for alcoholic drinks.
Since one duty of the Food and Restaurant division is to continuously
replace the worst performing chefs, the government officials would encourage
people to make proposals to operate restaurants. The attitude of this department
is to give everybody the opportunity to test their abilities.
This department would be much more lenient in granting proposals
for restaurants compared to the division that grants proposals for scientific
research or engineering projects because there is no harm to society
if a chef is a failure. If a chef turns out to be unpopular, nobody suffers.
Since the chef does not own the building, equipment, or supplies, he simply
gets another job, and the building and equipment become available for somebody
else. No equipment has to be auctioned or sold, and there are no contracts
with landlords to worry about. The new chef who takes over the building
might want to redecorate the dining room, but that is not a burden to society
because the city owns all of the furniture, artwork, and other decorations.
Every chef would be free to go to the city's warehouses and swap out whichever
dining room furniture and decorations they don't want, and they could do
it whenever they were in the mood to redecorate.
A chef can quit whenever he gets tired of the job because he doesn't
have to worry about getting out of leases or selling his equipment. He
simply gives notice to the government that he is no longer interested in
operating a restaurant. The government will then make the building and
equipment available for somebody else.
Of course, if a chef doesn't have a sensible reason for quitting his
job, it could affect his future job opportunities. For example, if a chef
quits after only one week, It could cause people to regard him as mentally
unstable, especially if he also quit other jobs after short periods of
time. By comparison, if a chef quits after a year, he could justify getting
a different job, or switching to a different type of restaurant.
This system gives us some options that would never be possible in a
free enterprise system, such as allowing people to operate restaurants
on a part-time basis by sharing a building and its equipment. For example,
chefs could share one restaurant, each of them on a different day of the
week. The sign or flag in front of these restaurants would be either switched
each day, or the sign could be an LCD screen that changes each day to let
people know what the restaurant is on that particular day.
If each of the seven chefs was making similar types of meals, then they
could use the same foods, refrigerators, pantries, and kitchen equipment.
If they were making different meals, it would require "just in time" food
deliveries, or additional refrigerators and pantries, but these are not
difficult problems to solve. If we can fake a man on the moon, we can figure
out how different restaurants can share the same kitchen.
In a free enterprise system, a restaurant has a business name,
and the customers are usually unaware of who the chef is. Furthermore,
most restaurants have more than one chef, and all of the chefs at a particular
restaurant try to mimic one another so that the customers do not see any
change in the food when the chefs change. When people go to a McDonald's
or a Hooters restaurant, for example, they are going for a particular meal
and environment, not for a particular chef.
With the system I propose, individual chefs, not businesses,
would operate the restaurants, and so the restaurants would not have a
business name, and there would be no restaurant chains or franchises. Each
restaurant would be identified by its chef. In front of every restaurant
would be a sign or LCD panel to identify the chef and a description of
his food, such as John Doe's Pancake House, or Jane Doe's Bakery, or Joe
Smith's Sushi Bar. Customers would become accustomed to recognizing a chef's
name rather than a business name.
If seven different chefs were sharing one restaurant on different days
of the week, then the sign in front of their restaurant would change each
day to show who the chef was that day, even if all chefs providing virtually
the same meals. If those seven chefs wanted to provide only dinner,
then the building and equipment would be available during the day for lunch
and breakfast. Therefore, seven other chefs could agree to do lunch
one day each week, and seven more chefs could agree to do breakfast. That
would provide 21 separate restaurants operating part-time with the same
dining room and kitchen. The sign in front of the restaurant would change
21 times every week. This situation may never happen in real life, but
I want to bring the possibility to your attention to help you realize that
we can do whatever we please once we take control of the economy.
We are not helpless!
In a free enterprise system, it is very unlikely that separate businesses
would share one restaurant, but when the government is in control of all
of the buildings and equipment, it is equivalent to a group of construction
workers sharing a forklift, or a group of doctors sharing an operating
room, or a group of roommates sharing a kitchen. As long as the chefs are
responsible, they will have no problem with sharing a restaurant. From
the point of view of society, this type of sharing is acceptable because
the building is put to use, and the people are given meals. Nobody loses;
everybody benefits. Also, from the point of view of society, it makes no
difference if people have 10 part-time jobs or one full-time job. All that
matters is that people are doing useful work for society.
In a free enterprise system, the goal of businesses is to appease consumers
and make lots of money, and so food markets and restaurants are open for
very long hours, sometimes 24 hours. However, most people do not want to
work during the night, and so our goal should be to design society so that
we have the fewest number people working during the night. We can reduce
the number of nighttime restaurant workers by telling people that they
must eat dinner during the scheduled time during the evening, and if they
miss dinner, they either go without dinner, or they pick up something that
doesn't need preparation, such as fruit or snack bars.
Only a few people need to work at night, and so we only need as many
nighttime restaurants as is necessary to feed those particular people.
Furthermore, the restaurants that serve the nighttime workers only need
to be open when those workers want lunch. No city needs to provide restaurants
that are open 24 hours a day. Parents do not provide their children with
meals 24 hours a day. We can apply the same philosophy to a city.
Since the nighttime restaurants only need to operate for a few hours,
some of the nighttime workers could take off early from their job to work
at the restaurants, and then when they are finished at the restaurant,
they go back to their other job. With that system, the nighttime workers
The Food and Restaurant division would be responsible for setting hours
for different meals, similar to what parents do for their family. By scheduling
the restaurants to be open for only a few hours during the day for breakfast
and lunch, we can schedule the distribution of food to occur while the
restaurants are closed to prevent deliveries from interfering with the
production of meals. Also, the cleaning operations can be scheduled for
those times so that the restaurant workers don't have to stay late at night
in order to clean the restaurant.
For some examples of what a city might want to experiment with, a city
could restrict breakfast to between 7 and 9 AM. Some cities might want
to restrict breakfast to simple foods that don't require much preparation
from the restaurant employees so that the employees don't have to get to
work early, and it is conceivable that some cities will not bother to offer
any food prior to 10 AM. Dinner would be extended over a much longer period
of time since that is when most people want to eat more slowly and socialize.
Of course, some cities might want to make lunch the longer, slower meal.
Incidentally, it is possible for the restaurant workers who provide
breakfast to provide fresh yeast bread without getting to work early in
the morning. My personal experiences with making bread show that we can
speed up the process tremendously. For example, we can get the yeast growing
very rapidly if we put only a small amount of flour in the water, and if
we use plenty of yeast, and 30 minutes later we can add the rest of the
flour and other ingredients. The dough is ready to bake after only an hour.
We can also speed up the baking of bread by making sheets or muffins rather
than thick loaves. Nobody wants a large loaf, anyway.
If a chef has customers, then he justifies
Restaurants would be judged according to their ability to feed people
efficiently. The process would be similar to how business executives judge
their company's cafeteria, and how the managers of a cruise ship judge
their restaurants, and how the military leaders judge the people who provide
meals on ships and military bases. Specifically, the officials in the Food
and Restaurant division would analyze each restaurant's consumption of
food and the number of people they are serving, and pass judgment on whether
they are serving enough people efficiently to justify having their particular
building and equipment. If a chef was attracting people, and serving food
efficiently, then he justifies his job. However, without free enterprise,
the government officials must continuously replace the worst performing
chefs so that other people could get their opportunity.
Since none of the chefs own their building or have to sign lease agreements,
they could easily move from one location to another. This would allow the
government to provide each chef with the amount of space that they need.
For example, if a chef was attracting up to 20 people each night for dinner,
he would need a restaurant that held 20 people. If a chef was becoming
so popular that people were waiting in line to get into his restaurant,
and if he was willing to expand his operation, then the government would
offer him a restaurant that was larger. Conversely, if a chef had a large
restaurant but was not capable of filling it with customers, then he would
be told to move to a smaller location if some other chef needed that larger
In a free enterprise system, a restaurant tends to stay in a particular
location for a long period of time, especially if they own their property
rather than rent it. Since the restaurants are known by their business
name rather than the chef, and since they stay in a location for a long
time, the signs that identify restaurants are usually large, expensive,
and permanent. Some signs are attached directly to the building, and some
are placed in a concrete foundation near the road, and some are placed
on tall posts so that they can be seen from far away.
When the government is in control of the restaurants, we have more options
available. Restaurants will be able to move locations as easily as people
are allowed to move from one home to another. As a result, restaurants
will not use permanent signs to identify themselves. They will have some
other type of removable sign, flag, or LCD screen.
It might seem confusing to live in a city without McDonald's, Pizza
Hut, and other familiar restaurants scattered around in permanent locations,
because it would require you to choose between hundreds of different, independent
restaurants that are known by their chef's name, such as John Smith's Soups
and Jane Doe's Non Dairy Pizzas, but as mentioned earlier, learn to enjoy
the adventure! For example, you could use the variety of restaurants
as a topic for lunch or dinner. You could talk about which of the restaurants
you've tried, and what you thought of the chef. Look for opportunities
to enjoy life.
A city might also want to create some restaurants that are known by
their meal rather than by the chef.
These would be especially useful for young children. The chefs at these
restaurants would try to create a particular style of meal rather than
doing what they please. The name in front of these restaurants would identify
the type of food rather than the chef. For example, the restaurants might
have such names as "Sandwiches", "Pizzas", or "Burgers". These type of
restaurants would be similar to the McDonald's and Pizza Hut franchises,
except that the city would be the owner rather than private businesses,
and that allows everybody to have the opportunity to manage and work at
We could have restaurants for toddlers,
Since the city I propose doesn't provide people with their own kitchens,
the city would provide special restaurants for mothers with young babies.
The restaurants would be designed with tables that fit a mother and her
baby, and the restaurant would have different styles of baby food for her
to choose from. The tables, chairs, and floor would be waterproof and easy
to clean. The floor could also have a rough surface so that it doesn't
become slippery when wet, similar to the stickers that some people put
into their bathtubs. These restaurants would allow mothers to easily feed
their babies while they socialize with other mothers.
The apartment complexes would have these restaurants scattered around
so that mothers can feed their babies by taking a short walk or elevator
ride. A mother could pick up some of the food and carry it with her so
that she could feed her baby wherever she pleased, but I would design the
city with enough of these restaurants so that none of the mothers have
to bother carrying food around for their babies. I suppose some mothers
believe that they must be able to provide their children with food at anytime
of the day or night, and that may be true while the babies are breast-feeding,
but it is not true once they begin walking around and talking. The older
children can follow schedules.
Another possibility is to enclose a garden to protect it from the weather,
add some tables and chairs for mothers and babies, and leave the "floor"
of the restaurant to be grass so that nobody has to worry about
food spilling on the floor. The babies could also crawl around on that
type of floor.
I should point out that this system of feeding children would be practical
only if the children were well behaved. In a city that doesn't provide
kitchens in the apartments, the mothers would have to go to restaurants
to feed their children. There would be restaurants for mothers within the
apartment complex, so they would be only a short distance from their apartment,
but this would be irritating if the children are whining throughout the
day and night for food or drinks.
Our prehistoric ancestors could not possibly have provided food to their
children at all hours of the day or night. Animals regularly suffer temporary
shortages of food. The children who demand food and drinks at inappropriate
times should be regarded as defective.
During prehistoric times, their whining would irritate their fathers, possibly
resulting in them being killed, but today we tend to pamper them. The solution
to this problem is to keep track of which children are the most troublesome,
and prohibit them from reproducing. Eventually this will result in children
who are truly a pleasure to raise.
Restaurants don't need
Another option for restaurants, for both adults and children, is for
chefs to dispense with the menus. Their restaurants would be analogous
to art galleries, except that instead of being presented with the artist's
paintings or sculptures, you are presented with his meals. You would have
no idea what you were going to eat. You would have to like the chef and
be willing to trust his judgment. Going to one of these restaurants would
be similar to going to a friend's home for dinner. Your friend doesn't
provide you with a menu, and he may not ask you what you want to eat. Instead,
you trust his judgment.
Restaurants without menus might be especially useful for children. Children
evolved for an environment in which their parents gave them food. Prehistoric
parents did not ask their children what they wanted to eat for lunch or
dinner. Today many parents ask their children what they want to eat,
and some parents also ask their children what type of clothing and toys
they want. Are we helping children when we ask them what they want to
eat? I suspect that we are encouraging the children to become demanding,
arrogant, and spoiled. I suspect that it would be better if the restaurants
for children provided the children with meals. The children who put up
a fuss and make demands of the adults should be regarded as defective,
and they should be prohibited from reproducing. Eventually this will create
children who are grateful for what the adults are providing them.
Restaurants for adults don't have to provide
We also have the option of supporting a cluster of restaurants that
together provide a complete meal, but individually are providing only partial
meals. For example, one restaurant might provide only salads, and another
might provide only breads, and another might provide only meats, and another
might provide only pies. Getting a complete meal with these type of restaurants
requires going from one restaurant to another. This is not easy to do in
the cities of today. For one reason, each restaurant has overhead
to deal with, and that makes these type of meals very expensive, and for
another reason, most cities are so ugly, full of crime, noisy, and filthy,
that most adults do not consider it enjoyable to wander from one restaurant
to another. Another problem with this type of restaurant is that unless
they are within walking distance of one another, not many people would
When the government is in control of all of the buildings and businesses,
we can put the specialty restaurants within walking distance of one another,
and they can be mixed with social clubs, recreational areas, parks, museums,
gardens, and entertainment centers. This makes it very easy for a group
of women to meet at a restaurant that offers salad for a few hours in the
evening, while their husbands are having a beer at a social club. Later
the husbands and wives can walk down the street to meet at a restaurant
that serves only meat, and then they might all walk together to some theater,
concert, or recreational activity, and when that is finished, they might
walk back to the restaurant that served salads, but that restaurant closed
hours earlier, and now a new chef is operating in the same dining room
to produce desserts.
|Restaurants, entertainment, exercise facilities, and
recreational areas should be clustered together so that people can walk
between them, although the drawing below is a plan for the Tianjin
||The city streets would be for bicycles and people, not
automobiles or trains. By reducing crime, the lights at night could be
at very low levels to reduce light pollution and be more decorative.
I should point out that these type of restaurants would be
for the majority of people, and especially for children, because
it allows them to eat whatever they please. These type of restaurants would
provide us with a similar situation that we have right now in our own homes.
When we have our own kitchens, we can choose what we eat, and most people
have such low self-control that they tend to overeat the sweet and fatty
foods, eventually suffering from obesity or malnutrition. A city that provides
clusters of specialty restaurants would need citizens who have above average
Regardless of what type of restaurants we decide to provide for ourselves,
the areas of the city that have the restaurants would be similar to the
way Disneyland mixes restaurants and entertainment in an attractive, quiet
area that allows people to walk around in comfort and safety. In our cities
today, Disneyland is just a tiny section of an ugly, chaotic, disorganized
city. Botanical gardens and parks are also tiny areas within a big, ugly
city. However, we have the intelligence, technology, and resources to make
the entire city into one giant garden, with beautiful buildings,
lots of social activities, recreational areas, and swimming areas.
There could be some areas of the city for adults only, and other areas
for single adults, and other areas for families. We could also have some
areas that prohibit all wild animals and pets, and other areas that allow
certain wild animals and/or pets. It would also be possible to have a section
of the city that is designed only for women, or only for men.
In a free enterprise system, businesses are concerned about money, not
human life, and so they don't want to restrict their customers to only
adults, or only women, or only teenagers. What is best for us? Until we
start experimenting with life, we are not going to be certain.
We need a department of City Decor
In a free enterprise system, it is virtually impossible for us to control
the decorations of a city because each business is responsible for its
own building, and the city government doesn't do much of anything for the
city. However, when the government is in control of society, then the city
owns all of the buildings, plazas, walkways, flowerpots, restaurants, and
artwork. The city belongs to the people, not to individual businesses.
We can create a City Decor Department to decorate the city,
and to change the decorations once in a while to prevent boredom. As with
other departments, people would be encouraged to join this department on
a part-time and temporary basis so that the people can get involved with
planning the city decorations, and/or to participate in creating those
In the cities of today, some businesses that surround plazas put flowerpots,
fountains, benches, or dining tables outside of their business. Normally
the businesses do not change their decorations very often. However, when
a city agency is responsible for decorations, it becomes practical for
us to build stronger, higher-quality, and larger flowerpots on wheels,
which allows them to be moved around for various purposes, such as opening
up areas for concerts or festivals, adjusting their access to sunlight
or shade, and to redecorate the area. We could also design the statues
in water fountains to be removable rather than permanent so that we can
change them once in a while.
promenade on a cruise ship is analogous to a city's Main Street, but the
ships don't put steel gratings over their windows, and there is no problem
with graffiti or crime. Why not? Because they remove the troublesome
The lights that we use to decorate the city at night could
also be designed to make it easy for us to change their patterns and colors
so that we don't get bored with them.
A cruise ship is essentially a miniature city. We make cruise ships
decorative, quiet, and free of vandalism, pedophilia, sex slavery, and
other crimes, so why not make our cities attractive and safe? Also, some
ships have separate restaurants and activities for adults and children,
but nobody on those ships are suffering as a result of "discriminating"
against adults or children, so why not expand this concept to an entire
Most people today are wasting their talent on methods to make money,
but if we shift our attention to figuring out how to make our lives more
pleasurable, we will eventually come up with some useful ideas.
Why not design plazas in which the artwork can be moved around and changed?
Why not design murals for buildings that can be changed or moved around?
Why not build all factories and trains to be beautiful, quiet, and decorative?
Why not experiment with different areas of the city for children, adults,
men, and women? We have nothing to lose by experimenting with our future,
and we have a lot to gain. Don't be afraid to let your imagination run
The city would be divided into
I would divide the Food and Restaurant department into thirds, and
each division would have one third of the city and one third of the farms.
Each section would have one director. This would allow us to compare the
three directors to see which of them is doing the best job, and the worst
performing director would be continuously replaced so that somebody else
would have an opportunity.
The directors would not be judged according to their ability
to please people. As with other people who have influential positions,
they would be judged according to their overall effect on society.
In the case of the Food and Restaurant department, we want them to provide
us with restaurants that we enjoy, but we don't want them competing to
titillate us. If they are under pressure to please people, we can end up
with the idiotic situation that we have in America in which restaurants
titillate children with toys and sweet foods (eg, McDonald's happy meals),
or titillating children with loud and silly entertainment (eg,
E Cheese), or attracting men with partly naked women or pornography
(eg, strip clubs).
We want the officials of the Food and Restaurants department to provide
us with meals and restaurants that we enjoy, but we must also consider
the effect that the restaurants are having on our health and on society.
By dividing the city into thirds, we will be able to compare the mental
and physical health of the people in each section. For example, if the
children in one section of the city start becoming increasingly fat, bratty,
or obnoxious, it would not necessarily be due to the Food and Restaurant
department, but we should investigate to determine what is different in
that section, and which government official is responsible.
We also have to judge the officials of the Food and Restaurants department
on the use of electricity, fertilizer, labor and other resources at the
farms and greenhouses. We would also compare their ability to distribute
the food to the restaurants, and how efficiently their restaurants are operating.
We also have to judge them on the health and morale of the employees who
work on the farms and in the restaurants.
It might seem difficult to make these judgments, but it is similar to
what businesses, schools, and military units are doing right now when they
pass judgment on the supervisors of their cafeterias, farms, warehouses,
and distribution centers.
Incidentally, if you are becoming overwhelmed at the thought of doing
all of these complex analyses and participating in all of these government
agencies, it may be because you are imagining yourself doing all of this
work alone. That would be the case if you were the only human
in the city and everybody else was a sheeple,
but if a significant percentage of the city population is willing to participate
in society, then there will be plenty of people to help with the analyses
of government officials and policies, participate in the discussions, and
work with the government agencies. Nobody will have to do it all by themselves.
One agency would control both farms and restaurants
The Food and Restaurants department controls
both farms and
restaurants. By giving one government agency control over both
of food and the serving of meals, we allow them to do what would
be impossible for free enterprise system, which is to
plan food production
to match the food consumption.
As I mentioned in a previous file, if citizens are tolerant of temporary
shortages of a particular food, we can increase efficiency to a very high
level. For example, if the government officials arrange for a certain amount
of mushrooms to be produced based on average mushroom consumption, and
if during one year there is a problem with mushroom production, then there
will be a temporary and slight shortage of mushrooms. If the citizens are
capable of dealing with shortages without whining, it allows us to significantly
reduce the amount of labor and resources that we put into food production
because we don't need to produce a large excess of food.
Judging a director of the Food and Restaurant department would be difficult
if we did not split the city into thirds and give each director a different
section. Splitting the city into thirds makes it easy to compare the three
directors to one another and pass judgment on which of them is doing a
better job of managing the production and distribution of food.
In a free enterprise system, managers are judged primarily according
to their ability to make profit, but we have to judge government officials
by their overall effect on society. This will be complicated. For example,
when the city is divided into thirds, we might find that the restaurants
in one third of the city are using more electricity, water, and cleaning
supplies, which would make the director of that third of the city appear
less efficient than the other two directors, but we need to analyze why
his section of the city is consuming more resources before passing judgment
on him. We might find that his restaurants are cleaner and more attractive,
and that the extra resources are being used to maintain his restaurants
to a higher standard. In that case, we have to pass judgment on whether
he is being excessively clean, or whether his inefficiency can be
Years ago I knew a manager of a restaurant franchise who had fooled
the corporate management into thinking that he was very efficient because
he had accomplished such amazing feats as reducing the electricity consumption
compared to the previous managers. However, the reason he could make so
much more profit than other managers is because he was ruining the
production of food and making life miserable for the employees. For example,
he removed a lot of the light bulbs from the basement. Many businesses
have an excessive number of light bulbs, but he didn't simply remove the
unnecessary bulbs. He removed so many that it was interfering
with the work of the employees.
Some of his other money-saving tricks were decreasing the quality of
the food, and the customers were complaining more often about the low quality.
However, that particular manager was making so much profit that the corporate
management promoted him into corporate management under the assumption
that he was a spectacular manager. They didn't care, or didn't notice,
that the customers were complaining more often. They were more excited
by the profit. When they promoted him, they put another very successful,
but undesirable, man in corporate management. Eventually the sales at their
restaurants started to drop as a result of the lower quality, and years
later they had to sell their restaurants, but I doubt if the executives
took responsibility for ruining their company. They probably blamed their
failure on changes with the economy or changes in the desires of consumers.
A different manager I met came up with the brilliant idea of injecting
carbon dioxide, from the soda machines, into the mayonnaise, which caused
the mayonnaise to become foamy and increase in volume. His reasoning was
that the employees would use the same volume of mayonnaise on sandwiches,
but when the mayonnaise is foamy, the employees will use less mayonnaise,
thereby saving money on mayonnaise. Somebody who knew a bit about chemistry
heard about this technique and told him that he should stop it because
the carbon dioxide can react with the mayonnaise.
Our free enterprise system is encouraging us to look for ways to make
money, and the result is that we are abusing one another, and the
people who are the best at abusing us are often promoted to corporate management.
Imagine what would happen if we put our efforts into looking for ways to
improve society, and if we promoted the people who excelled at finding
ways to improve society.
The officials in the Food and Restaurants department must do more than
look at statistics. They must occasionally get out of their offices and
farms and restaurants to determine what is actually going on. This might
seem difficult, but there are some business executives who are already
watching over departments or franchises by visiting them and observing
what they do. To make this type of government work properly, we must find
people for government positions who are truly interested in
than goofing off, and working for society rather than for themselves.
Incidentally, in order to make it practical for government officials
to watch over restaurants, farms, factories, schools, recreational activities,
museums, and other groups of people, we must remove
secrecy. Government officials must be able to inspect every
business, museum, and school, and without any warning. Parents should not
have to warn their children that they want to inspect their bedroom, and
government officials should not have to warn businesses or schools.
Another technique to improve business management is to remove the fear
that employees have of losing their job. Many employees are willing to
be silent about corruption or pedophilia in their business because they
are afraid of losing their job. Therefore, by providing everybody with
their basic necessities for free, and helping people to find jobs, the
employees don't have to be afraid of losing their job. This will make it
easier for employees to complain about their management, and if the government
doesn't believe that the management is bad enough to replace, then the
employee can quit and go somewhere else. Employees will not fear homelessness,
hunger, or being blacklisted for jobs.
It is also necessary for a society to create an honest police force
so that the citizens feel safe about exposing a crime, and it is necessary
for the citizens to have confidence that they can expose crimes without
retaliation by the crime network. How many people were aware that Jerry
Sandusky was a pedophile but were afraid to complain because they worried
about retaliation by his crime network? There may be thousands of employees
around the world who are aware that their management is involved with crime,
but they are afraid to expose them. We must stop feeling sorry for criminals
and remove them from society so that we can create a social environment
in which people can trust the police to such an extent that they will expose
The employees and other "ordinary" people should not have any secrecy,
either. The police and other government officials need access to information
about what the people are doing in order to properly supervise society
and eliminate crime. If people can control their paranoia of being watched,
then the only people who will insist on secrecy will be those who want
to engage in activities that they know we would disapprove of. We should
not feel sorry for them or give them the secrecy to do whatever it is that
they know that they should not do.
The government needs an efficiency agency that is analogous
to our immune system. The number of employees in this agency would
increase and decrease as they are needed, just as the quantity of white
blood cells increase and decrease throughout our lives. The efficiency
department could be broken into two divisions:
1) Government Efficiency.
The purpose of the Government Efficiency department would be
to watch over other government agencies and try to eliminate as many of
the jobs as possible. The officials in this division would look for ways
to combine government jobs together, eliminate jobs completely, or reduce
a full-time job to a part-time job. They would especially be concerned
with reducing the number of leadership positions.
2) Business Efficiency.
Since most government employees do intangible work, such as analysis,
data collection, or supervision, increasing the efficiency of government
requires figuring out which tasks are truly necessary, and how we can most
efficiently deal with those particular tasks so that we can reduce jobs
to a minimum.
The people in this Efficiency Department would also be concerned about
the working conditions, cubicles, clothing styles for work, activities
at lunch, and other aspects of what we could describe as the "job
culture". Their goal would be to make employees more productive
and more satisfied with their lives and jobs.
The Business Efficiency department would be a larger department.
They would have the same tasks of eliminating jobs and improving the "job
culture", but they would concentrate on businesses rather than on government
If the officials working for the Efficiency Department are not finding anything
to improve, they would be replaced so that somebody else could have
a chance to try. This would ensure that the officials in this department
are always looking for ways to improve the factories, working conditions,
social affairs, and everything else about society.
Unlike government employees, who do intangible work, businesses produce
items or services. Therefore, increasing the efficiency of the businesses
requires government officials who can analyze manufacturing procedures
and equipment. The government officials would help the businesses figure
out the most efficient procedures, help them to select the proper equipment,
help them increase the safety at their factory, and help them reduce
the consumption of raw materials and utilities.
For example, the officials in this department would make decisions about
whether the CNC controllers should be modernized to eliminate the floppy
disk drives and the serial ports, as I mentioned in Part 9. In order for
this agency to function properly, we need to find people who truly enjoy
learning about new technology, and who truly enjoy experimenting with ways
to make manufacturing more efficient, cleaner, and safer.
People who have the talent to figure out how to eliminate jobs are disliked
in a free enterprise system. Unions complain about them, and business executives
will support them only if they are eliminating the lower-level jobs rather
than the top management positions. Furthermore, it is especially unlikely
for a person in a free enterprise system to look for a way to eliminate
his own job.
However, when the government is finding jobs for us, we don't need to
worry about losing our job. Therefore, a person who can figure out how
to eliminate his own job or other people's jobs is a valuable person
with a very useful talent. People who have demonstrated a success in eliminating
jobs would qualify for the government's Efficiency Department.
One of the areas that the Efficiency Department will focus on is the
distribution of information. In our society today, virtually all organizations
are distributing information in some form, such as newsletters, websites,
and pamphlets. Businesses also produce descriptions of their products,
warnings, and user's manuals. The Efficiency Department needs to occasionally
analyze the organizations to determine whether they are providing us with
sensible information, and in a sensible manner. For example, in the city
that I live in, the agency that provides us with water mails a paper newsletter
to us to tell us about the latest chemical analysis of our water, and a
few other issues, but why do we need a paper copy of this information?
It would be more efficient for the agency to maintain the information on
The Efficiency Department should pass judgment on the value each job
has to society. Their goal is to eliminate the most useless jobs and keep
the jobs that have the most value. We don't benefit much from people who
produce paper newsletters. We benefit much more from people who are providing
us with decorative colored windows, more advanced robots, better educational
materials, more useful social activities, better medical technology, and
trains that are safer, more reliable, and more comfortable.
People would work for the Efficiency division only while they are in
the process of bringing some type of improvement to society. When they
are finished making some improvements, and if they cannot think of anything
else to improve, then they go back to their primary job. This requires
that we set some time limit for an official to do something, such
as two months. If, after two months of analyzing society, an official has
not found any way to eliminate a job or increase efficiency somewhere,
then he returns to his primary job.
This agency will also work with people outside of the agency
in order to spread ideas and coordinate improvements. As an example, let's
assume that you are working for a factory that produces the solar powered
lights that are placed along footpaths, as in the
photo to the right. Let's assume that you take it upon yourself to
analyze some of the jobs at the factory, and you come to the conclusion
that by changing certain operations, machinery, or raw materials, you can
eliminate some of the factory jobs, or reduce the electricity that the
factory uses. And let's assume that your ideas are implemented, and they
prove to be successful in improving efficiency.
Jobs and Education
In a free enterprise system, your achievement in increasing efficiency
would be kept a secret, but it would be better for society if you or your
boss contacted the Efficiency Department to let them know of your achievement.
The Efficiency Department would then pass that information to other businesses
and Efficiency Departments around the world, so that other businesses could
decide whether it would apply to their operation, also.
Furthermore, in a free enterprise system, your boss might thank you
for your achievement, but it would be better for society to keep everybody's
job performance in a publicly accessible database so that people get credit
for their successes, and have to take responsibility for their failures.
The database would allow us to determine everybody's talents and weaknesses,
and the people who show exceptional abilities to improve efficiency and
eliminate jobs would be especially useful as one of the temporary officials
in the Efficiency Department.
If a person's idea to increase efficiency doesn't require much of a
change to a factory, then the managers could implement the change by themselves
without bothering to ask for assistance from the Efficiency Department.
However, some changes are either very complex, or they require changing
some other business, or more than one business, and that requires the government
to get involved to provide supervision.
For example, let's assume that you take it upon yourself to analyze
what happens to the solar powered lights after they become worn out or
broken. Let's assume that you notice that people are throwing the broken
items in the trash, and that many of the batteries are being put into the
trash, also. You think about the issue and come to the conclusion that
by redesigning the device, you can use a battery that is already in production
and which is easier to recycle, or by changing some of the plastic in the
device to a different type, the entire item becomes easier to recycle.
Or perhaps you figure out how to make the LEDs easier to remove and recycle.
You would not be able to implement those type of improvements by yourself
because it requires making changes to more than one business, and possibly
businesses in different cities. These type of improvements may require
coordinating several different factories, recycling centers, and/or raw
material suppliers. These type of improvements cannot be implemented in
a free enterprise system because there is nobody to coordinate and control
the businesses, but when the government has total control of the economy,
then it's easy for government officials to make dramatic changes in manufacturing,
recycling, energy distribution, and everything else.
The Efficiency Department would set up a temporary team to analyze the
issue and figure out how to implement it, and since you had come up with
the idea, you would be eligible to participate in this group by becoming
a temporary government official. You would take some time off from your
primary job, or temporarily suspend your primary job, and then work part-time
or full-time on the efficiency improvement. Whether you choose to be part-time
or full-time would depend upon how much work you needed to do.
By joining the team of government officials, you would have the authority
to implement the changes rather than merely suggest changes. Also, when
you become a government official, you will have contact with the other
people in this division, and they can give you ideas and assistance. When
you are finished making the changes, your job as a government official
is terminated, and you return to your primary job. Or, if other businesses
could benefit from your achievement, you could remain in the government
for a while longer and help other businesses to implement your procedure,
or some variation of it.
In a free enterprise system, the management would not want one of their
employees taking time off to help other businesses become more efficient,
but in this system, everybody works for society, so everybody benefits
when we are helping one another.
The results of your work will be recorded in the database about you,
so every time you are successful, it will show as an achievement, and every
time you make a mistake, it will show as a failure. The people who have
the most success in improving society will have the easiest time getting
people to listen to their ideas, and being promoted to high level government
Most people would be working for "world businesses" rather
than "city businesses", but regardless, each city government would be responsible
for finding jobs for their citizens. From the point of view of employees,
there would be no difference between working for a city business and a
world business. It would be similar to the situation we have today in which
a city has a mixture of local businesses and international businesses.
However, when all of the basic necessities are provided for free, none
of the jobs provide any health care, retirement, or salaries. People would
select jobs according to what the job is, not according to its financial
benefits, or according to whether it is a city business or a world business.
The Jobs and Education department would maintain a database of jobs
in their city to allow people to figure out which jobs are available at
that moment in time, and which will be available in the future as a result
of businesses that plan to expand, or as a result of people who plan to
retire or change jobs. In a free enterprise system, people are usually
very secretive about looking for a new job, and some people are secretive
about their plans to retire. Businesses are also secretive about their
plans to expand and hire people, and they are especially secretive about
their plans to eliminate jobs. As a result, people in a free enterprise
system usually don't know which jobs will become available in the near
However, when the government is in control of the entire economy, everybody
is a government employee, and the Jobs and Education officials have to
help people find jobs and help businesses fill vacancies. Those officials
will want businesses and employees to provide them with as many details
of their future plans as possible, such as who is planning to retire, who
is going to get a promotion, which businesses are planning to hire more
people, and which jobs are likely to be eliminated.
The more details the officials have about future events, the better
they will do at helping people, schools, and businesses to deal with employment
issues. For example, school officials will be able to look at the jobs
that existed years ago, those that exist today, and the jobs that are expected
in the future, thereby allowing them to do an analysis of how technology
is changing the jobs. The school officials can use that information to
adjust the school curriculums, and to help the students decide what jobs to
Everybody benefits from this type of honesty and openness. Secrecy about
jobs doesn't help anybody. We will all benefit if we can control our selfishness
and cravings for secrecy, and work together as a team.
In the world today, there is so much crime, selfishness, mental illness,
vandalism, and crude behavior that many employees are afraid to give advanced
warning that they are going to quit, and many businesses are afraid to
give advanced warning to their employees that they are going to be fired or
that their jobs will soon be eliminated. A few years ago some of the employees
who worked at the Raytheon office near my home arrived for work one Monday
morning and were told that they are no longer needed due to changes with
the economy, and that they must go home, and that somebody in the company
will pack their personal items in a box and ship it to them. Nobody benefits
from this rude behavior. We are tormenting one another, but for what reason?
Who benefits from this?
Another problem in America is that many businesses and government agencies
are under pressure to make it appear as if they are giving everybody a
fair opportunity to apply for a job, and so they often advertise a job
and interview people even though they already know who they are going to
hire for the job. These people are wasting their time and everybody else's
time in these fraudulent, deceptive attempts to satisfy "equal opportunity"
laws and feminists.
If we can find the emotional strength to set standards of behavior for
people and evict those who cannot fit in, then we don't have to be afraid
of one another. Businesses will be able to warn employees that their jobs
are going to be eliminated, and they can provide estimated dates. A respectable
employee will react to that warning by looking for a new job while continuing
to work properly until the time he is no longer needed. The people who
react with tantrums, violence, and vandalism should be regarded as savages
who don't fit into this modern world.
Likewise, managers would be able to honestly tell the substandard employees
that if they don't improve their job performance, they will be fired. A
respectable person will react to this warning by taking a critical look
at himself and deciding whether to keep the job, in which case he must
make a serious attempt at improving his performance, or whether he should
give up and find a job that is more suited to his talents and desires.
The employees who react to such warnings with tantrums, vandalism, or pouting
should be regarded as savages who don't belong in society.
Everybody should face the fact that we all have abilities and limitations,
and that it is in everybody's best interest to figure out what jobs we
can do properly. The people who cannot understand or follow this philosophy
should be evicted. We should not live in fear of one another, and
we should not have to worry about violent, angry employees who want revenge
for being fired.
Another of the reasons that I think Teentown would be useful is that it
makes it very easy for the adults to provide the teenagers with a variety
of different jobs. However, they would not be pampered in their jobs. The
purpose of treating them "harshly" in different jobs is to help them figure
out their talents, desires, and limitations, and to help them understand
that they are not as talented as they think they are. No teenager, no matter
how smart, talented, coordinated, or strong, will be excellent at every
job. By forcing the teenagers into a variety of different jobs, all of
them will occasionally be put in a job that they are average or substandard
at, thereby giving all of them several opportunities to be reprimanded
and fired. Both their job performance and their reaction to being fired
should become part of their public school records. By keeping a publicly
accessible database of everybody's life, it will be easier for us to pass
judgment on who is better able to deal with modern life.
I would also force the teenagers to have several opportunities to supervise
one another, and I would design those jobs so that every teenager must
regularly fire the worst performing member of their team. The purpose
would be to 1) let the teenagers try their management skills so that they
can determine whether they like management and are good at it, and 2) get
them accustomed to the philosophy of analyzing a person's job performance
and routinely firing the worst performing member.
The government I propose has departments in which there are three top
officials, and the worst performing of the three should be regularly replaced
so that somebody else can have the opportunity. This system requires finding
a certain number of adults who have the ability to analyze the performance
of our leaders, make a wise decision about which of them is the worst performer,
and then fire that person. The teenagers should be given experience with
this philosophy so that they become comfortable with the concept, and to
determine which of them shows an ability to do it properly.
The attitude in America is that nobody needs any training, practice,
or education in order to do a good job of voting. America doesn't even
demand that a voter be literate or pay attention to the election. However,
virtually every job requires at least a bit of training, practice, and
education. Voting is treated as if it is the most unskilled job in the
world. Voting is the only job that nobody is expected to know anything
about or need any training for. The people who are hired for unskilled
labor are given more training for their job than a voter. Is there even
one school in America that spends even one hour teaching the students
America is based on the philosophy that the voters can select submissive
representatives without any training or advice, but in a more sensible
government system, the government officials are leaders,
and the voters are the Personnel Department for society. The voters should
analyze the leadership abilities of candidates. It is idiotic to expect
people to do this properly without some education and practice. Furthermore,
it is idiotic to assume that everybody is equally capable of doing these
analyses. If we could measure a person's ability to analyze people for
leadership positions, we would find that most people have "average" talent,
and half the population is "below average". Do you want people who are
"below average" in their analytical skills to influence your government?
The people who influence the world should demonstrate
above average analytical abilities.
It requires more than intelligence to select somebody for a leadership
position. It requires a person to have a certain amount of control over his
emotions. Many people show signs of intelligence, but when they select
leaders for government or business, their low level of self-control causes
them to pick somebody who gives them praise or promises, or they are so
arrogant that they look for somebody who has the same opinions, or they
are so biased towards their friends and family members that they select
one of them rather than a stranger.
Schools should give the teenagers some education and practice with the
analysis of people and issues. The students who show the lowest level of
interest or ability should not be allowed to have much of an influence
over government policies, or over who gets promoted to top positions in
government, business, schools, and other organizations.
Any adult who wants to participate in the selection of government officials
should be able to demonstrate an ability to perform intelligent analyses
of a person's leadership abilities. Determining whose analysis is so intelligent
that they deserve to be classified as a "voter" is as difficult as determining
who has the necessary talent to be classified as a pilot, a dentist, or a plumber,
but we can and must make these type of decisions. A person should be told
that he lacks the intellectual and emotional ability necessary to be a
useful voter if his analysis of a political candidate is as crude as, "His
view on abortion is correct!"
Teentown would be an excellent way of putting teenagers through various
types of educational programs, and starting the process of classifying
their intellectual abilities, and determining their talents and limitations.
Since Teentown would be a training program rather than a summer camp, the
teenagers would have lots of different jobs to do, such as making meals,
cleaning the kitchen, janitorial duties for their apartment complex, bicycle
maintenance, and gardening. As medical instruments become simple to use,
the teenagers could do some medical analyses on themselves and one another,
such as checking blood chemistry and determining their allergic reactions.
I would also force teenagers to practice the creation of recreational,
entertainment, sports, and social activities for themselves, and occasionally
change the artwork and decorations in their apartment complex. Instead
of teaching teenagers to mindlessly follow the customs of their ancestors,
we should force the teenagers to create their own cultural activities and
decorations. They will get into the habit of learning from their
ancestors rather than following their ancestors, and they will become
accustomed to the concept that they can set the course for their future
rather than wonder what the future will be.
Everybody is accustomed to analyzing kitchen appliances, bicycles, airplanes,
computers, and cell phones, and magazines routinely provide reviews of
material items, but not many people are accustomed to analyzing social
technology. Some magazines and television shows provide reviews of music
concerts, sports, and holiday celebrations, but those reviews are for entertainment
rather than to analyze how the activity is affecting society. By forcing
the teenagers to work in teams to analyze and create cultural activities,
they will become accustomed to working with people in the experimentation
and analysis of social technology.
I would also ensure that all of the teenagers are forced to occasionally
explain what they dislike about art,
music, recreational activities, or other cultural issues. This will help
them become accustomed to the idea that criticism of cultural issues is
just as acceptable as criticism of cell phones or computer software, assuming
that the criticism is constructive rather than idiotic whining. This will
help the students become accustomed to the idea that serious criticism
of cultural issues is beneficial, not traitorous or unpatriotic, whereas
grumbling and whining are detrimental.
People are regularly experimenting with new types of solar cells and
farming equipment, but most people defend their culture rather than
analyze and experiment with it. Critical reviews of hobbies, museums,
sports, and city festivals should be just as acceptable as a critical review
of a digital camera or a cell phone. Suggestions on how to improve Christmas,
Halloween, Valentine's Day, a sports event, and a music concert should
be as acceptable as suggestions on how to improve light bulbs or laptop
It is acceptable for people to demand that defective and dangerous products
be removed or fixed, and it should also be acceptable to suggest removing
or fixing the aspects of our culture that we consider detrimental or useless.
For example, I would describe "feminism" as a defective cultural concept
interferes with relationships between men and women, and which encourages
pouting and hatred, and I suggest that we remove feminism from society.
During the first few months of 2013, some people were having discussions
about whether the lithium batteries in the Boeing 787 should be replaced
or modified, and we should have the same type of serious discussions about
whether we want to continue Halloween, Easter, Christmas, weddings, sports,
and city festivals exactly as they are right now, or whether we should
modify some of them, or whether we should eliminate some of them.
We should not need job applications or resumes
Everybody's school records, job performance, medical information, and
personal information would be in a publicly accessible database, so nobody
would have to be bothered by filling out resumes or job application forms.
The Jobs and Education department would maintain a database of jobs that
are available at that moment in time, and those that will be available
in the near future. A person would apply for a job simply by clicking on
a job. That would send a message to the business that the person was interested
in the job, and in the message would be a link to that person's database
This department would also help people figure out if they should take
training courses before applying for a job. This department would be in
control of the educational courses for both children and adults, and so
they would be able to provide people with advice and training programs.
The Jobs and Education department would force teenagers to experiment
with lots of different jobs. In a free enterprise system, businesses do
not want to deal with teenagers who are experimenting with jobs or who
need training because it is inefficient for the business, but society needs
to consider children as the next generation of adults, and we need to prepare
them for society. When the government is in control of all businesses,
then it becomes possible to allow some businesses to operate inefficiently
by providing job opportunities for teenagers.
The government would not want to force any business to accept teenagers.
Ideally, the adults who have the necessary personality to deal with teenagers
would occasionally volunteer to accept some teenagers and provide them
with some job training or job experience.
If we do a good job of educating children and giving them lots of work
experience, then by the time a teenager is ready to leave Teentown, he
will have a good idea of his abilities and limitations, and what sort of
jobs he would be interested in. Figuring out how to prepare teenagers for
adulthood will be difficult and require a lot of experiments, but through
the years we will become increasingly better at it, and that will be worth
the effort because it will allow the young adults to rapidly integrate
into society and become productive members.
A few decades ago it was common for adults to believe that they should
remain in one company forever, but we should not be obligated to dedicate
our lives to a particular business or job. Businesses and other organizations
should be considered as temporary associations of people. We should focus
on society and human life rather than on businesses. We should not expect
to work in the same organization or job throughout our life. There are
lots of reasons why people will change jobs or organizations. Improvements
in technology, for example, alter which jobs and organizations are in
existence. There will be jobs in the future that do not exist yet, and
might want to switch to one of them.
We also need to face the fact that we deteriorate with age. The
people who do physically demanding work cannot be expected to do such work
when they are 70 years old. In the free enterprise system, the people who
do physically demanding jobs tend to retire at about age 55, and then they
either get bored, or they find some other job. Some of the retired policemen,
firemen, and government officials are collecting retirement benefits
while working at a new job, and when they retire from that second
job, they may get another set of retirement benefits.
It would be better to design our economy to deal with the fact that
we age. I already mentioned that we should allow businesses to operate
inefficiently by allowing teenagers to get some job training, and we should
also apply this policy for older people. Many retired people can do useful
work, and many of them have useful knowledge and experience, but we need
to provide them with less demanding tasks, and/or fewer working hours.
In a free enterprise system, businesses do not want to deal with the less
productive older people, and they don't want to provide them with medical
care, but when the government is in control of the economy, the government
takes care of retirement and medical care, so businesses don't have to
be concerned about those expenses, and businesses don't have to worry about
operating at maximum efficiency, so it is practical for businesses to provide
part-time jobs for older people.
The Jobs and Education division should help people change jobs as they
get older. We would not set a particular age for switching jobs or retiring.
The age at which a person changes jobs will depend upon his particular
mental and physical health.
People should also be able to temporarily switch to a different job
and/or different working conditions or hours when they become pregnant,
injured from an accident, or are recovering from surgery or illness. In
a free enterprise system, businesses have a resistance to allowing employees
to take time off, or have different working conditions, but when the government
is in control of all businesses, the government's duty is to provide everybody
with a job. From the point of view of society, it is in everybody's best
interest to keep everybody working. There is no benefit in tormenting the
people who become injured or pregnant.
We could experiment with such policies as setting aside some jobs specifically
for mothers with babies. We would provide the women with their own offices
that have all of the supplies they need for taking care of babies, and
we could provide the mothers with the type of work that they could do while
being interrupted by babies. Those mothers would be less productive than
women without babies, but we should not worry about corporate profits.
It is better to provide everybody with something useful to do, even if
they are inefficient.
Jobs and education belong together
In our society today, jobs and education are completely separate activities.
Schools are providing an education without any feedback from the organizations
that have jobs. As a result, the people who are trying to fill jobs cannot
influence the school curriculum, and schools have no idea if their school
courses are of any value to the students. It would be better to put education
and jobs under the control of one department so that the education can
be altered to fit the available jobs.
When one group of government officials is responsible for finding us
jobs, and when that same group is also responsible for educating children,
then they will become much more aware of when their educational programs
are giving students the necessary skills to function in society and get
a job. Also, when a person is fired from his job, or when he quits because
he doesn't like it, that same group of officials has to find him another
job. Therefore, these officials will be under pressure to not only prepare
students for jobs, but to also help them figure out what they are good
at and what they enjoy so that there are fewer firings and quittings.
The officials in the Jobs and Education department will be under pressure
to teach students information that will truly be useful to them in their
jobs. The officials will want the curriculum to be practical rather than
entertaining. They will be under pressure to eliminate as much irrelevant
information from the school curriculum as possible.
Since this department will also be responsible for managing and developing
the training programs for adults who want to switch jobs, the government
officials will want to ensure that students have a lot of useful skills
when they graduate so that adults don't need training programs for simplistic
issues, such as how to use a computer.
This agency will also be able to deal with a problem that cannot be
solved in the free enterprise system; namely, an excessive number of students
training for certain jobs, and a shortage of students training for some
other jobs. This agency will maintain a publicly accessible database of
jobs, and that will show the students, teachers, and government officials
exactly how many people are working as doctors, dentists, mechanics, and
pilots, and they will guess about which jobs will be available 10 or 20
years in the future as a result of changes in technology and retirement.
They can use that information to ensure that there are not too many or
too few students training for those particular jobs. They will never be
able to accurately predict the future, but they can certainly do better
what the schools are doing today, which is nothing.
If this department doesn't properly prepare students for jobs, then
some adults will have trouble getting a job, or holding onto a job. This
department will have to deal with those unemployed adults, such as by creating
adult education programs to provide them with additional training. As a
result, the officials will be under pressure to reduce the number of unemployed
adults by providing the children with such a good education and training
that they can get and hold onto jobs.
Encourage participation in educational materials
The people who have the best idea of which information and skills the
students need for a particular job are the adults who are currently
working at those particular jobs. Those adults should get involved
with the creation or editing of educational materials. To make this easy,
the Jobs and Education department would encourage people to join the department
on a temporary and part-time basis to help with the creation and editing
of educational documents and videos.
If the people who have experience with jobs are too apathetic to occasionally
participate in the creation of educational materials, then those materials
will either never be created, or they will be created by people who don't
have the experience. From the point of view of society, it is best to encourage
people with jobs to participate in the creation and editing of educational
For example, if a scientist is doing research in stem cells, he should
have a much better understanding than any government official or teacher
about the type of skills and information that a student needs in order
to become a productive member of his research lab. Therefore, he should
occasionally get involved with the department of Jobs and Education to
help create educational materials, tests, and projects for the students.
As technology improves, he should revise his materials.
All of the experienced farmers, machinists, technicians, engineers,
scuba divers, and ranchers should also consider occasionally getting involved
with the creation of educational materials for their particular job category.
Some farmers and engineers may not have any idea of how to create
educational materials all by themselves, but by joining the government
on a temporary basis, they will be working with other government officials,
some of whom will have experience in creating educational materials, and
together they can help one another create materials that are more useful
than what the students have today.
America's philosophy towards education is to provide the students with
a wide variety of information in the hope that some of it is useful. Our
schools provide students with thick, paper books on biology, carpentry,
math, and other issues. The books have a lot of information, but none of
it is actually intended to help the students perform at a job. Most of
the information that the students learn is of no use to them when they
finally get a job.
A better philosophy is to provide them with useful skills so that they
can get a job. Instead of creating generic paper books, we should
have lots of smaller electronic documents and videos on specific issues.
A job training program would consist of a list
of suggested documents and videos for the students, along with tests and
A particular farmer or machinist may assist in the creation of only
one or two short, educational documents during his life, but the quality
of the education materials is more important than the quantity.
If a farmer contributes only one paragraph to an educational document about
farming, he has contributed something of value. If thousands of other people
also contribute a paragraph or two, it adds up to a lot of useful information.
In the world today, scientists are under pressure to publish documents
in scientific journals, but scientists should also get credit for creating
educational materials. If more of the experienced adults would get involved
in creating educational materials, we could theoretically produce a tremendous
amount of truly useful materials. The students will waste less time memorizing
useless information and spend more time learning useful skills.
Divide a city into three school districts
As you might expect, I would divide the city into three districts,
and the Jobs and Education department would have three directors, one for
each district. Each of them would be in control of the schools and the
training programs for their district, and they would be responsible for
finding jobs for the people in their district. By dividing the city into
thirds, we have an easy way of comparing the directors to see which of
them is educating students with the most useful knowledge in least amount
of time, and which of them is doing the best at helping people find jobs
that they are productive at and enjoy.
The three directors would not be
compared according to their popularity with students or job seekers.
Rather, we would judge them by how well the graduates are finding useful
jobs, and how well the students function in society. The issue of "functioning
in society" is another issue that the free enterprise system is ignoring.
There is no profit in training children to function in society. As a result,
children are graduating from school without any understanding of how to
start a business, purchase a home, or put on an airline seatbelt.
When we divide a city into thirds, we can compare the students of each
of the districts to see which of them are fitting into society easier.
We would see which group of children are better mannered, and which group
has a better understanding of how to use the transportation systems, start
a business, and get involved with the government on temporary and part-time
The officials in the Jobs and Education department would be involved
in managing the operation of the schools, setting the curriculum, hiring
teachers, and designing school classrooms. By switching to an electronic
education, it is very easy for the department to make changes in the school
curriculum because the schools do not need to worry about printed books.
Students should be given lists of links,
In an electronic education, the school "curriculum" is just a list
of links to documents, videos, tests, and experiments. Each student
would be independent of the others and learning at his own pace, and so
each of them would have their own curriculum. The teachers would help the
students develop a curriculum, and they would occasionally suggest changes
to the curriculum according to what the student likes and is good at. Changing
the curriculum for a particular student would be easy. It simply requires
changing the list of links to documents, tests, experiments, projects,
and videos, and/or changing the order of items on that list.
For an example of how and why teachers might alter a students curriculum,
if the businesses complained that the students who graduated from school
as machinists were frequently showing signs that they don't know
enough about the concept of "tangent arcs" to use CAD/CAM systems properly,
then the school officials could change the school curriculum for machinists
by suggesting the students watch some particular videos or read some particular
documents on the issue of tangent arcs as it relates to machining and CAD/CAM
systems. If there were no videos or documents on that issue, then the Jobs
and Education department would
create them. The government officials
would also alter the testing of the students in the machining program
to ensure that the students had adequate knowledge about the issue of tangent
Some adults complain that children are no longer reading books, but
as computers become more advanced, paper documents have less value. The
schools could provide every student with a laptop computer terminal with
a touchscreen. Very young children could be provided with desks in which
a portion is a durable touchscreen, thereby eliminating the need for paper,
pencils, books, and laptop computers. Eventually the touchscreens will
be replaced by "pressure screens", and that will make the computer terminals
even more useful for education, artwork, and creative activities.
In our current society, schools are dependent upon printed books, and
the Jews are in control of our publishing industry, so the Jews are interfering
with the education of students. By switching to electronic education and
by eliminating copyrights, all of the educational materials can be put
in the educational area of the Internet. As of today, there is no section
of the Internet for education, but we can easily set aside an area of the
Internet for the school system. It would be an archive of videos, documents,
audio files, and other materials that are intended to be educational rather
than entertaining. None of the materials would be copyrighted, so all of
them could be continuously improved. Without the Jews interfering with
education, we won't have idiotic Holocaust propaganda, UFO propaganda,
and other nonsense mixed into the educational materials.
In this type of electronic educational system, the curriculum for a
particular course is just a list of links to documents, videos, tests,
and projects. All of the students would be independent, so the teacher
would not talk to the students as a group. Instead, a teacher would spend
some time with one student to help him with his curriculum, answer questions,
and give him suggestions. Then the teacher would talk with another student.
When a student became confused about something, the teacher could help
him in the conventional way; namely, by explaining the issue to him. However,
with electronic educational materials, the teacher has the additional option
of altering the curriculum by adding some links to other videos and documents
to the student's list, or changing the order of items in the list. If a
student is continuously having trouble with a subject, the teacher also
has the option of suggesting he try some other subjects to see if he is
better at any of those. With electronic educational materials, a student
can switch from one course to another in a matter of seconds, and then
switch back if he wants to.
In our current educational system, a teacher provides information to
a group of students as if they are identical robots being fed data, but
in an electronic education, a teacher has to spend time alone with each
student and analyze his particular situation. This type of teaching can
be done on a part-time basis, which makes it easy for retired people to
become teachers, as well as people who have full-time jobs. For example,
a retired person, or a technician with a full-time job, might be willing
to be a teacher one afternoon every week. In that short period of time
he might be able to deal with only five students, but if he is helping
the students, it doesn't matter that there are only five in his "class".
Those five students would have access to other teachers on other days,
so they would not be dependent upon just one person.
Since the teachers must spend time alone with students, both the students
and teachers must have a certain compatibility. Therefore, we need to allow
the teachers and students to choose one another. This also requires that
we do a better job of preventing the sexually disturbed and lonely people
from becoming teachers.
In an electronic education, school materials are electronic, which are
easy to produce by individuals and small groups, so we don't need publishing
companies to provide us with educational materials, and that prevents Jews
from controlling the production of educational materials. All we need to
do is set aside a certain area of the Internet for educational materials.
Only the department of Jobs and Education would be authorized to put materials
into this section, but everybody would have access to it, even if they
were not students. When we do a search of educational materials, only the
materials in this section will appear in the search.
Since the government would have control of this section of the Internet,
we have the potential problem of what we see today in which the Jews secretly
get control of the government and manipulate the educational materials.
There are different ways for us to deal with this problem. One is to eliminate
copyrights and encourage everybody to get involved with the creation and
editing of educational materials. We need a certain percentage of the population
to become active participants in the creation or supervision of educational
materials, and to complain about inaccurate historical information, or
that a scientific "fact" is actually only a "theory", or that a particular
photo or diagram is confusing and should be replaced with a better version.
Everybody would be encouraged to complain about educational materials,
and everybody would be free to make their own versions of the materials.
However, people would not put their complaints or modified materials into
the educational section of the Internet. Instead, people would post their
complaints, suggestions, and modifications to a particular website of the
Jobs and Education department. The officials in that department would be
required to post a response to each of them.
By putting all of the suggestions and government responses on the Internet,
everybody would be able to see the suggestions on how to improve educational
materials, and how the government officials are reacting to the suggestions.
This openness and lack of secrecy would allow us pass judgment on which
officials are rejecting the sensible suggestions, and which people are
coming up with the most useful suggestions. The people who accumulate successes
would be more likely to be promoted, and the people who accumulate failures
would be demoted and ignored.
Compare that situation to what we have in America today. Our history
books are lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing,
and many other issues. You can complain to the authors and the publishers,
but only those few people will see your complaints. There will be no public
record of your complaint. The authors and publishers can ignore your complaints
because they are under no obligation to respond to complaints. They can
do whatever they please, and secretly. There will be no public record of
their response to your complaint.
By creating educational materials in a more open and honest manner,
and by keeping track of everybody's successes and failures, the people
who are successful in improving educational materials will have an increasingly
easy time getting other people to seriously consider their suggestions,
and it will be easier for them to get top-level government positions in
the Jobs and Education department. This allows us to provide ourselves
with government officials who have useful talent.
At the other extreme, the people who accumulate failures will have an
increasingly difficult time getting people to take their suggestions seriously,
and if they fail often enough, they could be classified as a "public nuisance"
and banned from posting their idiotic suggestions on the website.
Likewise, the government officials who post responses to the suggestions
will also build up successes or failures as they approve or reject the
suggestions for improvements to the educational materials. The officials
with the most failures would be regularly replaced so that somebody else
is always getting an opportunity.
There is no way to prevent corruption, incompetence, mistakes, and cheating,
but by increasing the number of people who are watching over educational
materials, we reduce the chances of mistakes and propaganda.
This philosophy of encouraging citizens to get involved with the creation
of educational materials would also be useful for creating on-the-job
training materials. For example, if a scientist finds that he
is frequently training new employees on a particular piece of DNA analysis
equipment, instead of suffering silently, as he does today, he could create
a video that explains how to use the equipment. He could then post that
video on the site for suggested improvements for educational materials.
The officials in the Jobs and Education department may agree that the video
is useful, but they would not necessarily put it into any school curriculum.
Instead, they may decide that the students already have too much information
to deal with, but that the video would be useful for on-the-job training.
Therefore, they would put his video into the educational database, give
that scientist credit for developing a useful educational video, and when
a student graduates in that particular field, he would be given a list
of that and other materials for his on-the-job training, thereby reducing
the burden on the scientists. Instead of the scientist training the newly
hired employees, the students would watch the video, and then the scientist
would only have to answer their questions.
Our schools today create courses only for students while they are in
school, but if we also start accumulating educational materials for on-the-job
training, then whenever a person gets a job, he will be given a list of
materials to start learning so that he understands how to do the job.
Schools could also provide educational materials for "adult education"
for adults who have jobs, but who occasionally need to refresh their memory
or who need to learn about some concept or new machine. For example, a
particular machinist might be given a task that he has never done before.
Instead of asking other people for help, he would first look in the educational
database to see if somebody has created some information to explain that
particular task. This type of educational material could be described as
"online job help" rather than as "adult
Ideally, the adult education materials would be developed with the assistance
of people who are actually working at the jobs so that they can make sure
that the materials are relevant. For example, airline pilots, scuba divers,
and technicians occasionally find themselves explaining some piece of equipment
over and over, or they have to occasionally refresh their own memory about
something. When a person finds himself explaining the same concepts, techniques,
or equipment over and over, he should consider creating an educational
video or document. When a person finds himself confused by a particular
educational document, he should consider editing it and trying to make
it better. When a person cannot find some subject in the educational database,
he should consider whether other people would be interested in that information
also, in which case he should consider making whatever is missing.
Some people might have an idea for an educational video or document,
but they don't have the time or technical skills necessary to create it by
themselves. In such a case, they could post a proposal for their educational
material on the website for the Jobs and Education department, and if the
government officials consider his idea to be potentially valuable, then
they will provide him with the assistance that he needs, and he could supervise
the project. He would in effect become a temporary official in the Jobs
and Education department in order to create that educational material.
If a lot of people participates in the creation and editing of educational
materials, we would eventually build up a very valuable educational database.
As cell phones become more advanced, people will be able to access the
database from their phone. When robots become more advanced, we will be
able to ask them questions, and they can search the educational database
and give us the answers both verbally and on a monitor. Compare that to
the situation today in which we search the Internet for educational materials,
and most of what appears is idiotic material, propaganda, and entertainment.
We could also apply this concept to creating a database to replace the
"help files" for software. Most software comes with "help files",
but these files are created by the developer, and so they are limited to
what the developer can create. When everybody in society is encouraged
to participate in the editing of those help files, then we could potentially
provide ourselves with help files that are much more useful. The users
of the software know what they need help about, and they also know which
parts of the existing help files are confusing, and so by participating
in improving those files, we would end up with more useful help messages.
There are lots of printed books that offer the details of how to use
AutoCAD or Adobe Photoshop, but from my personal experiences, these books
are written by authors who are trying to make money or start a career as
a writer. They are not really interested in educating us. Furthermore,
a paper book is not nearly as easy to search through as an electronic document,
and it is impossible for people to edit paper books. It would be better
to have everybody contributing to an electronic database of help messages.
I should point out that an educational database is only as valuable
as the people can make it. If we create a government of criminals and idiots,
and if the majority of people are apathetic sheeple who refuse to contribute
to the database, then it will be worthless. The value of this database
depends upon the quality of the material, and the ease at which
we can find material. The Internet could be described as an educational
database, but most of what is on it is worthless, and it takes a long time
to find something of value. When we do find something of value, it is of
limited value because most of the educational materials were created by
just one person, and usually during his leisure time, and educational materials
from one person are not nearly as good as those that have evolved over
Furthermore, the Internet is completely disorganized. There is no educational
area, and to make the situation worse, the Internet seems dominated by
idiotic information, entertainment, and Jewish propaganda. Also, many people
are making copies of videos and documents and posting them on their own
site, and the end result is that when we search for something, we often
find dozens of copies of the same material. The educational materials need
to be separated from the rest of the Internet, categorized in a more sensible
manner, and duplications need to be removed.
Imagine if the Internet had an educational section that was maintained
by the people who create the Encyclopedia Britannica, without, of course,
the Jews. That section of the Internet would become an online encyclopedia,
but without the limitations of paper. When we searched for a topic, we
would have access to serious and useful educational materials. We could
potentially find information so quickly that employees could regularly
use the database on their job. Medical personnel would be able to access
medical information faster than they could from paper books. You might
be able to access information so easily that you occasionally use your
cell phone to learn about the plants or animals that you encounter as you
take a casual walk in a city park. You might even access the database while
you are eating in order to learn about the foods or spices in your meal.
Since computers can now read documents to us in an artificial voice, we
could access an educational document through our phone, tell the computer
to read it to us, plug in some earphones, and then take a bicycle ride
while listening to the information.
What language should an educational database be in? Should we have only
one database for the entire world? If different cities insist on speaking
different languages, then each city will have to maintain their own educational
database. With the educational materials in a constant state of change,
everybody would end up with a slightly different database. This is a situation
that we have right now with paper books, software, magazines, and encyclopedias.
Some people believe that computers will be able to do translations,
but a computer translation is only useful for picking up the general point
of a document. It is not useful for education. Human languages are
too imprecise for computer translations.
It's important to understand that educational documents cannot be easily
translated. The value of an educational document depends upon its sequence
of words. By picking different words, or by rearranging some of the
words, the document can become easier to understand or more useful. When
translating an educational document, the educational value of the translated
document depends entirely upon the talents of the translator to create
educational materials in that particular language. Furthermore, if somebody
edits the original document to improve the wording in some of the sentences,
the translator may not be able to figure out how to carry those improvements
over into the translated document.
It is best if educational materials are
not translated. I predict
that eventually the human race will become tired of different languages
and switch to one language, and that they will also make that one language
much more rational. The people in the world today may be too much like
animals to tolerate just one language, but eventually humans will evolve
into a more advanced creature. The future generations will then maintain
just one educational database for everybody.
It should be easy to apply
for a job
Applying for jobs today requires creating resumes and/or filling
out job applications, and often there is an interview. Sometimes there
are several interviews, and sometimes interviews are on more than one day.
Some applicants also have to take drug tests, lie detector tests,
or some type of intelligence, psychological, or performance test. Is it
really necessary for people to go through this abuse whenever they want
to apply for a job? I don't think so. I think we can improve the situation
by making two changes in our attitudes:
1) Stop feeling sorry for the "Underdog".
America promotes the concept of feeling sorry for the loser.
Nobody gets in trouble if they lie about their education, work history,
military history, or criminal history. Actually, the Supreme Court recently
said that we have the right to lie about our military history. As a result
of this philosophy, people who are trying to get a job will benefit by
being deceptive. We are rewarding deception, not encouraging honesty.
2) Stop allowing people to be secretive.
A person might get fired from his job if his employer discovers that
he was lying about himself, but most lies will never be exposed because
we cannot verify what a person says about himself. Even if a person
is caught lying, and even if he is fired, he may not suffer from it. For
one reason, he can lie about why he was fired, or he can deny that he ever
had that particular job. For another reason, it is very difficult in America
for an employer to say something critical about an employee. An employee
is allowed to sue his former employer for giving him a bad recommendation.
As a result of these idiotic attitudes, some employers give good recommendations
to employees who are dishonest, incompetent, violent, or psychotic.
Every society follows the "frightened rabbit philosophy". Specifically,
we believe that everybody should be able to hide almost every aspect of
themselves. As a result, it is impossible for us to verify a person's educational
history, job history, or criminal background. We cannot even easily determine
if a person is married. By allowing such a high level of secrecy, people
can easily lie about themselves and their history.
America's philosophy of feeling sorry for losers and allowing people to
be secretive is creating a terrible environment for finding jobs and for
finding employees. Businesses cannot trust job applicants, and there is
no way they can verify anything that the job applicants say about themselves.
The risks for lying are minimal, and the potential benefits are significant.
This is an idiotic situation.
We will create a much more pleasant economy if we eliminate secrecy,
and become intolerant of lies, deception, and abuse of all kinds. We can
also eliminate the need to create resumes and fill out job applications
if we maintain a publicly accessible database that has everybody's school
records, job history, medical information, and everything else.
We should also put employee performance reviews in a publicly accessible
database. Some people are afraid to have their job reviews become public
because they worry that if they have an incompetent or psychotic boss,
he will give them a bad review, thereby giving them a bad image. However,
a performance review is also a review of the manager's ability to analyze
his employees. If a manager gives terrible reviews to employees who turn
out to be useful, it will make the manager look incompetent, not the employee.
A performance review is useful for analyzing the performance of the employees,
and for analyzing the manager's ability to analyze employees. When performance
reviews are posted in a public database, every supervisor will want to
make sure that his reviews are intelligent and impressive, not idiotic
A concept that badly behaved people try to ignore is that a person's
reputation is dependent upon his behavior,
not on remarks by other people. It is impossible to
ruin a person's reputation unless he doesn't bother to defend himself,
or if he cannot defend himself because he is dead. For example, after Jim
Jackson, and Whitney Houston
died, Jews created lots of articles about their mental instability, drug
use, sexual problems, and psychotic tendencies. Since dead people cannot
defend themselves, the Jews can easily create false histories and unpleasant
images for them.
Each of us is responsible for our reputation as long as we are alive.
We don't have to worry that an unpleasant review from our supervisor will
ruin our life. By removing secrecy and putting everything out in the public,
everybody will be able to see what is being said about them, and everybody
will be able to defend themselves, and everybody will eventually figure
out which supervisors are making terrible judgments, and which are making
good judgments. Without secrecy, everybody is essentially striped naked
and put in front of the world for all to see. We don't have to fear other
people's opinions about us.
Each of us already does critical reviews of other people, but most of
our reviews are spontaneous, simplistic, biased, and worthless. For example,
when you go to a restaurant with your friends, you might provide them with
your opinions about the employees or the other customers. When you are
home, you might provide your family members or friends with your opinions
of one of your neighbors, or their children, or the way they decorate their
home. When you are at work, you might tell some of your coworkers about
your opinions of other coworkers. When you watch sports events, a singer,
or a music band, you will sometimes provide your friends with your opinion
of the people.
All of us are arrogant, especially the men, and we regularly provide
other people with our analyses of events, people, religion, crime, and
life. Each of us behaves like a God, and we assume that our analyses are
so brilliant that other people should hear them. There is nothing wrong
with passing judgment on other people. Actually, the ability of the human
mind to analyze people and issues is a very valuable
trait. Unfortunately, most people today are not putting much effort into
their analyses. They are merely blurting out simplistic comments based
on emotional reactions.
Schools should give students practice with the analysis of both people
and issues, and students should spend more time practicing how to express
their opinions clearly. When managers review employees, and when teachers
review students, they should put enough effort into their analysis so that
it is worthy of putting into a publicly accessible database. The length
of the analysis is not important; rather, it is the quality. The
purpose of the review should be to help other people understand the person's
abilities and limitations. At the same time, the review gives us an indication
of the analytical abilities of the manager or teacher.
The government agency that maintains the database would allow us to
complain about the reviews that are in our entry. We could also complain
about other people's entries. It would be similar to the manner in which
people today can take complaints to a court. For example, assume your manager
gives a review to one of your coworkers, and you felt that some of his
remarks were inaccurate. Perhaps the manager had praised the employee's
skills or ability to work with other people, or perhaps he complained that
the employee was incompetent or dishonest. Regardless of what you disagreed
with, you would be able to develop your complaints into a document in which
you specify the particular remarks that you disagree with, and you would
explain why you disagree with them. You would post your complaint on the
government website, and the agency would have to respond. If they agreed
with you that the review was inaccurate, then the manager would have that
as a discredit in his database, and you would be credited as doing a better
analysis of the employee.
The idea of allowing people to file complaints about the information
in their database might cause you to worry that a significant percentage
of the population will frequently file complaints, thereby creating such
an enormous burden on the government that they couldn't possibly find the
time to deal with them all. However, these type of disputes would be unusual
because people are not going to file frivolous complaints. Unlike the American
court system, everything a person does will be recorded in his database,
and it will affect him in the future. For example, when a person's complaint
is judged to be idiotic, it will be recorded in his database as a failure.
If a person fails often enough, he will be classified as mentally incompetent,
and then the government will ignore everything he does, and he will not
be allowed in any type of influential position.
At the other extreme, people who make complains that are judged to be
intelligent will have an increasingly easy time of getting the government
to look at their cases. They will be given first priority by the government,
and they will have an easier time getting jobs in influential positions.
This philosophy rewards people for good work and penalizes them for
bad work. This will cause people to realize that they should not file a
complaint unless they truly have something intelligent to say. Likewise,
managers will be under pressure to provide serious reviews because if they
provide inaccurate reviews, it will make them look incompetent. The managers
whose reviews of employees are judged to be the most accurate will be considered
the most valuable managers, and the most worthy of a leadership position.
In the American legal system, lawyers profit from court cases, and so
they have a financial incentive to bring cases to court, even if the case
has no chance for success. However, in this system, the government officials
do not profit in any way from people who complain, and there are no lawyers
in the system. The complaints are a burden on them. The complaints provide
the officials with additional work to deal with, and it is the type of
work that everybody would describe as an irritation, not as enjoyable.
Therefore, the government would not want frivolous complaints.
The previous paragraphs may make it appear as if I am proposing of radically
different society and a radically different court system, but we are actually
following this philosophy right now, but in a very informal manner. Everybody
is already applying this philosophy in their family life, school classrooms,
and jobs. For example, when children complain to their parents about something,
the children are essentially filing a court case, and their parents are
essentially creating a temporary court. The parents listen to the complaint
and then pass judgment on whether the children have a valid complaint,
and if so, the parents are more likely to listen to the child the next
time he complains, but if the parents decide his complaint is idiotic,
they are more likely to ignore the child the next time.
Teachers in a school classroom also follow this philosophy. Teachers
have to listen to complaints from the children about broken chairs; being
irritated by another student; or getting a lower grade on an assignment
than they believe they should have received. The children are essentially
filing a court case when they complain, and the teacher must essentially
create a temporary court and become the temporary judge and jury. The teacher
will listen to the complaint and then pass judgment on whether the student
is making a valid complaint, and if so, the teacher will be more likely
to listen to the child's next complaint, but if not, the teacher will be
more likely to ignore the child the next time he complains.
It should be noted that when parents and teachers have to resolve complaints,
there are no lawyers, and nobody profits from the dispute. Why not apply
this philosophy to an entire society? We should remove the incentives for
fighting, and we should also keep track of the results of each court case
so that the people who file idiotic complaints will tarnish their reputation,
and those who fail repeatedly should be classified as mentally
Teachers should create reviews of students from the point of view of
what would be most beneficial to businesses and government officials who
are trying to match people with jobs. The teachers should give a serious
description of a student's desires and abilities for welding, plumbing,
engineering, carpentry, farming, or whatever subjects the student was interested
in learning about. When a student graduates from school and applies for a
job, employers should be able to trust the analyses of the teachers. Employers
should not have to put job applicants through extensive interviews or tests.
After a person gets a job, his manager will add job performance reviews
to his database entry, and other employers should be able to trust those
job performance reviews.
In an ideal situation, everybody's school and job reviews would be so
honest and accurate that employers could look through the person's entry
in the database to learn about his abilities, desires, limitations, successes,
and failures. The same applies for selecting government officials. Ideally,
we would be able to judge political candidates by reading the reviews and
descriptions in their database entry.
When people apply for jobs today, they behave like a male peacock that
is trying to titillate a female. Most people are fearful or worried, not
relaxed, and they try to create an impressive image of themselves. Their
resume is deceptive and manipulative, not honest or accurate. They list
their job titles and duties, and the projects that they worked on, but
that doesn't tell us anything of value. We need honest reviews of their
abilities, limitations, successes, and failures. What exactly have they
been successful at? What have they been a failure at? What did other people
like and dislike about working with them? We don't benefit from resumes
or job applications. We need honest reviews from other people, and since
everybody has their own opinion, we need more than one review.
The official policy in America is that the person who is "most qualified"
for a job should be hired. If all humans were genetically identical, this
policy would work fine, but America is a nation in which there are extreme
differences between us. Americans speak different languages, and there
are a wide variety of religions, races, educational levels, and mental
disorders. The American philosophy towards jobs is allowing people to file
complaints of discrimination by claiming that they were the most qualified
for the job but were rejected because of their sex, race, religion, or
Even if we create a more homogenous city, I don't think we should follow
the philosophy of hiring the most qualified person. Almost every person
today is working in a team, and therefore, the team members should be able
to select people that they want to work with. If a particular group of
men want to discriminate against women, they should be allowed to do so,
and if a particular group of women don't want a man on their team, they
should be able to discriminate against men. Likewise, people should be
able to select members according to their personality.
When a business is looking for an employee, they should have the same
attitude as people who are looking for a friend or spouse. The business
should pick a person that they want to work with, and they should not have
to justify their decision to anybody. Nobody should be allowed to complain
that they were the most qualified for the job, and that they were discriminated
In a free enterprise system, people fight for jobs similarly to how they
fight for a spouse. This is creating tremendous fear of unemployment. This
fear is causing people to take jobs that they don't want, and to work with
people who dislike one another. Most people are struggling for an income,
not casually looking for a job that they enjoy, and a job that is useful
to society, and a team that they enjoy working with. By putting the government
in control of the economy, the government will help people to find jobs.
Nobody has to fear homelessness or hunger. This will allow people to relax
while looking for jobs.
Applying for jobs should be a simple and pleasant procedure.
By keeping a database of everybody's life, we don't have to fill out job
applications or resumes. All we have to do is let an employer know that
we are interested in a job. The employers would be able to trust the information
about us that they find in the database. Employers will not have to waste
their time verifying what we claim about ourselves. They would conduct
interviews only to determine if they wanted to work with the person, not
to ask about his performance in school or his previous jobs. For some jobs,
such as factory workers, the employers might not bother with interviews.
They might hire people solely according to their previous job reviews.
If, after a person is hired, the employer discovers that some of the
information in the database is inaccurate, then they would be able to point
that out when they post a review in the database. For example, if a business
hires a person to be a technician because his school records and previous
jobs reviews showed that he had the ability, but if he turned out to be
incompetent in certain tasks, then the employer would provide some details
on what exactly the person was unable to do properly. As long as teachers
and supervisors give accurate descriptions of people, we will eventually
build up useful descriptions of one another.
This system also allows lies (and honest mistakes) to be corrected.
For example, if a teacher or supervisor lies about a particular person
in order to be help him (or to hurt him), somebody may eventually discover
the lie. Instead of quietly tolerating the lie, the Jobs and Education
department should be told of the lie, and they should investigate, correct
the information, and the person responsible would be dealt with in some
manner. This system would catch and expose many, perhaps most, of the lies
and honest mistakes. This system will reward people who are honest, and
it will expose the people who are arrogant, incompetent, psychotic, or
Testing intellectual abilities is difficult
If we can create an accurate database of people's abilities and limitations,
employers will have no need to test a person's skills or intellectual abilities.
If an employer needs somebody with above average skills in TIG welding,
the database should show him who those people are. He should not have to
put job applicants through welding tests. Ideally, no employer would bother
putting job applicants through drug tests, either. Ideally, the database
would have everything about us, such as our medical history, hobbies,
drug use, and interest in alcohol. Ideally, employers would not have to
test anybody for anything.
In our world today, we are so tolerant of crime and secrecy that many
employers put some of their job applicants through a variety of tests and
interviews. In addition to wasting people's time and irritating people,
I think only some of these tests are even practical. For example, it is
possible to test a person's welding abilities by giving him a torch and
telling him to weld two pieces of steel together, but it is not practical
to test a person's intellectual abilities.
In October 2012 I noticed that Facebook was looking for computer programmers,
and their method of determining who has the necessary talent was to ask
each job applicant to write a short computer program to solve a particular
problem. They give each applicant a limited amount of time, such as an
hour, to complete the task.
Those tests are based on the assumption that a person's programming
skills can be determined by a simple test, but if that were true, then
schools would be able to determine a person's programming skills with a
simple test. A more sensible situation would be for the schools to put
the students in computer programming courses through a variety of
tests, and for the teachers to provide an analysis of the student's
abilities and limitations. The reviews from the teachers should be put
into a public database. Employers should be able to trust the review from
the teachers. The attitude among employers and teachers is that the teachers
are preparing the students for jobs and working with employers to analyze
the talents of the students. Our schools today, by comparison, have no
interest in preparing students for jobs, or in providing analyses for employers.
After a person gets a job as a computer programmer, his boss should add
to the database with additional reviews.
Facebook managers consider school records and recommendations by previous
employers to be worthless, and so they put job applicants through tests,
but this is the wrong way to react to this problem. If school records are
useless, we should change the school system so that they become
useful. We could create a government department that is responsible for
both jobs and education, and that would allow the officials to ensure that
the schools and employers are working together. Teachers should be preparing
children for jobs, and providing useful analyses of the student's abilities.
Incidentally, I decided to take one of Facebook's sample problems that
required only 30 minutes, but I never bothered trying to write the code
because I wasted almost half the time just trying to understand the problem.
This brings up an important issue that I know thousands (or millions!)
of people are aware of because I've seen people complaining about it for
but there are still a lot of people who don't understand it. It applies
to all types of tests. Specifically, a person's ability to do a test is
dependent upon 1) his ability to solve the problem, and 2) his ability
to understand the problem. Understanding a problem is difficult
because human languages are crude and inaccurate, and different people
grow up in different areas, thereby picking up slightly different meanings
to words and phrases.
Because of this concept, it is possible to train people to become better
at intelligence tests. If a person is taught the terminology that
is typical in a test, then he will do better at solving the problems because
he will do better at understanding the problems. For example, here
is the Facebook problem that I tried to solve. The sentence that had me
confused for about 15 minutes is a description of the input data:
Each integer in the second line is in the range
1 to K where the i-th integer denotes the peg to which disc of radius i
is present in the initial configuration.
I was confused as to what "i" referred to, but I suppose that the students
who are taking computer programming courses in America today are regularly
seeing problems stated in that manner. That would explain why the person
who wrote the test did so in that manner.
Another problem with intelligence tests is that they usually have time
restrictions, so unless the restrictions are lenient, that means that
the tests are also measuring the rate at which a person can answer
the questions. In a free enterprise system, businesses are under pressure
to be the first at everything, and so they want people who are fast, but
without free enterprise, we can be more concerned with a person's final
Most of the projects that we work on today are very complex and require
of effort, and so we should be more concerned about a person's ability
rather than his speed. Some people are slow simply because they are considering
more options or being more careful, not because they are stupid. For example,
I met a computer programmer who would rarely have bugs in his software
because he spent a lot of time writing his programs correctly the first
time. He would probably write software at a faster rate if he was less
of a perfectionist.
Incidentally, that particular computer programmer was Japanese, and
I wondered if his Japanese personality was causing him to be so careful.
If we could control our obsession with secrecy and observe people as thoroughly
as we observe animals, we might discover that there are subtle differences
between the races and sexes in regards to how we develop computer software,
how we use screwdrivers and hammers, and how we fly airplanes.
We should be encouraged to
My confusion with the Facebook computer programming problem
is another example of why it is beneficial to eliminate copyrights and
encourage people to propose changes in wording to educational videos, software
help messages, repair manuals, instruction manuals, tests, educational
documents, and government documents. The process for improving documents
would be the same as I described for improving battery terminals in Part
8. Specifically, each of us would be free to make a proposal to improve
the wording in a document or video, and we would post our suggestions and
improvements on the page for the government agency that is responsible
for improving documents. If they approve of the change, then we would get
credit for improving the wording of a document.
For another example of how our language can cause confusion, I saw the
following sentence in a news report:
South Carolina authorities say a shotgun-toting
man kicked in a church door during Sunday services before being disarmed
by congregants who saw him coming through the windows.
My first interpretation was that the congregants saw the man with the
shotgun climbing through the windows, and after he got inside the church
he kicked down a door, and was then captured.
When people purchase a cell phone or an automobile, they expect the
engineers and factory workers to put a lot of effort into making the item
nearly perfect. Some people whine about trivial imperfections, such as
blemishes in the paint. We need the same attitude with social technology.
We should want our educational materials, instruction manuals, job performance
reviews, school records, medical records, warning labels, software help
files, and other documents to become increasingly useful to us and easy
We look forward to new versions of computers, phones, and robots, and
we should also look forward to improved versions of our video documentaries,
instruction manuals, and other educational materials. Citizens can participate
in the evolution of documents by identifying the sections that they are
confused by, or by pointing out the issues that the authors forgot to write
No society yet provides citizens with the ability to complain about
educational materials or make suggestions on how to improve them, but it
would be easy to do so. It is entirely possible for us to create a Complaint
Department for the government, and allow people to send all types of complaints
to them, such as complaints in the wording of an instruction manual. By
giving that Complaint Department some authority to edit documents, fire
people from their jobs, and alter government policies, the citizens will
have a way to fix problems and deal with government officials that are
Our languages are crude. Ideally, we would switch to one language, give
it more sensible grammar and spelling, standardize the use of words, and
set higher standards for materials that are intended to educate
compared to those that are intended to entertain. The educational
materials should be as efficient as possible in transferring information,
concepts, and images into our mind.
People should be encouraged to look for ways to improve our educational
materials, including reducing unnecessary words. An example of an unnecessary
word is "sheer", as in, "The man was climbing up a sheer cliff". What is
a sheer cliff? How does it differ from a non-sheer cliff? That word
has a sensible meaning when describing fabrics, but people are applying
it to items that it makes no sense for. We need to create a government
agency to be in control of our language to correct the improper and confusing
use of words.
I also think we should separate entertainment materials from educational
materials. In a free enterprise system, businesses are competing to attract
customers, and the end result is that journalists who are supposed to be
creating serious documentaries or news reports are frequently making their
materials entertaining or sexually stimulating. The television weather
reports are perhaps the best example of this. They could be described as
a "comedy weather" because the reporters are mixing serious weather information
with entertainment. For example, they use such expressions as, "The
mercury plunged to a frosty 5° today." I prefer news reports
get to the point as quickly as possible, such as by saying, "The temperature
was 5° today" or "It was 5° today." Here is an amusing
compilation of Los Angeles television reporters struggling to dramatize
the Los Angeles winter. Television companies benefit by making their news
reports entertaining, but I don't think it makes our lives any better.
In Part 2 of this series,
I pointed out that animals do whatever they please, wherever they are,
and whenever they want, but during the past few thousand years, humans
have been putting restrictions on our behavior. I think we should continue
this trend and start restricting entertainment to the activities that are
designated for entertainment.
By separating education from entertainment, we can encourage people
to improve the wording in our educational videos and documents.
The easier it is for us to understand our historical documents, educational
materials, instruction manuals, and software help messages, the less of
our life we will waste trying to figure out what other people are
saying to us, and the fewer misunderstandings we will have. We all
benefit; nobody suffers.
A document is "linguistic DNA"
Our documents, videos, instruction manuals, warning messages, and school
tests are "social technology". Their sequence of words is like a strand
of DNA. The sequence of words, not
the words themselves, determine whether the document has a meaning to us.
Anybody, even a computer, can put words together into a sequence, but it's
not easy to put them into a sequence that accurately and quickly transfers
intelligent thoughts or images from one person's mind to another.
All living creatures are created by virtually identical strands of DNA,
but subtle differences in the sequences of the molecules determine whether
it is a dog, a bird, a retarded human, a Neanderthal, or a healthy human.
Likewise, all documentaries, instruction manuals, warning messages, and
other documents are created from the identical set of words, but the trivial
differences in the sequences of those words can make a significant difference
on what we learn from them, and how rapidly we learn. We should think of
our documents as linguistic DNA, and
we should strive to improve them. We can improve a document simply by rearranging
a few of the words, or by removing a section of words, or by adding a section.
It is similar to evolution, except that we are in control of the process.
The English classes in our schools are encouraging the students to use
words in entertaining manners, which is acceptable for entertainment, but
when we are trying to convey intelligent thoughts, we have to follow different
standards. The goal of intelligent writing should be to convey intelligent
thoughts as quickly and accurately as possible. Also, our instruction manuals,
educational documents, and warning messages should "evolve" through time
so that they become increasingly easier for us to understand. For documents
that are electronic, we can easily make even tiny improvements, such as
changing one word.
The narrators of the educational videos that are produced by PBS and
Nova are often dreary, or they try to be exciting, but educational material
should be precise and clear. We must eliminate copyrights for intelligent
material so that everybody can participate in their improvement. Everybody
should be encouraged to identify the confusing sections of instruction
manuals, educational materials, and warning messages. That type of feedback
can help us in two ways: 1) it helps the schools determine whether different
people are interpreting words differently, and if so, the schools will
realize that they need to do a better job of standardizing the use of those
particular words, and 2) it helps us improve our materials so that they
become more easily understood.
The people who write intelligent material should occasionally check
to determine whether people are interpreting their writing accurately.
Sometimes people assume that they interpreted the writing correctly, but
they did not. I don't get much feedback on my documents, but I have noticed
that some people misinterpret some of my sentences. This is the reason
that I mentioned, at the beginning of the first article of this series,
but I will occasionally explain the same concept in different words. Hopefully
by restating concepts differently, there will be less confusion about what
I am saying.
An educational document is supposed to convey thoughts from one person's
mind to another, and we should be concerned with the accuracy of
the transferred information, the speed
at which the information is transferred, and the value
of the information that is transferred. By combining jobs and education
in the same agency, the government officials can analyze how accurately
and quickly the students are learning, and how much of that material has
value to them.
No engineer is expected to produce a "perfect" product, and we cannot
expect anybody to create a perfect instruction manual, educational document,
or warning message. We need to be able to improve other people's documents.
This requires eliminating copyrights; encouraging people to look for ways
of improving documents; and creating a government agency that is in control
of language. There are already lots of school teachers involved with language,
but they are passive observers of language. We need government officials
who are actively involved in controlling and improving language, and ensuring
that documents are understandable.
Journalists are "chefs"
who serve "information"
In a free enterprise system, journalists have to compete with
one another for the attention of consumers. This is a ridiculous method
of providing ourselves with serious information, and to make the situation
even more ridiculous, a network of Jews has gotten control of virtually
every nation's media. We must be more concerned about the people
who provide us with information, and the quality of information
We are extremely demanding with the job performance of farm workers,
stewardesses, and assembly-line workers. They are fired if they repeatedly
make mistakes. We are also very demanding with waitresses. Many people
make snide comments, refuse to leave tips, or write insulting messages
on their bill if their waitress makes a mistake, or if they don't like
her personality. At the other extreme, Hollywood celebrities, professors,
journalists, and government officials can abuse us without worrying
about anybody complaining. Journalists and teachers, for example, are routinely
covering up such crimes as 9/11, the kidnapping of the Bollyn family, and
the Jewish involvement in the world wars.
A waitress serves us something tangible, namely food, and she also gets
physically close to us, so she directly interacts with our emotions.
By comparison, a journalist and a teacher provide us with intangible information,
which does not directly affect our emotions, and we don't usually get physically
near to them, which reduces the emotional interaction between us. As a
result of these differences, a waitress has much more effect over our emotions,
and most people misinterpret the emotional stimulation to mean that the
waitress is more significant to our lives than a journalist or a teacher.
However, the opposite is true.
We have to think about what the
journalist and teacher are doing in order to understand the significance
of their job. They are actually much more important to us than a waitress.
A waitress is a luxury because we are capable of providing ourselves
with food. We could design restaurants without waitresses. In such a restaurant,
the customers would serve themselves, like a buffet. Everybody is capable
of looking over the food items and picking out the items they want to eat.
By comparison, journalists and teachers are not luxuries. We cannot
simply walk into an Internet cafe when we are in the mood to become educated
about some subject, and then browse through the information on the Internet.
We depend upon journalists to create news reports, and we depend upon other
people to create educational materials about science, math, and history,
and we need teachers to help us figure out which materials to look at,
and to answer our questions, and to test us.
Journalists and teachers are more important to us than waitresses. A
waitress who lies to us about 9/11 or the Holocaust is not nearly as dangerous
as a journalist or schoolteacher who lies to us. Therefore, journalists
and teachers should meet higher standards than waitresses. We should be
more tolerant of incompetent waitresses than incompetent and dishonest
journalists and teachers.
The job of a journalist is to create sequences of words that provide
us with some useful information. If you understand my analogy of how a
document is "linguistic DNA", then you should understand that when a journalist
writes an article, he is essentially giving birth to a "linguistic creature".
When journalists give birth to useful documents, everybody should participate
in helping those documents grow and evolve by identifying
inaccuracies and confusing sections. By switching to electronic documents,
the errors could be corrected rather
than creating another document to identify the errors.
At the other extreme, when journalists give birth to idiotic or deceptive
documents, we should consider those documents as "retarded linguistic creatures"
that need to be put to death. We should not tolerate their lies or stupid
The process of complaining about journalists would be the same as the
process of complaining about educational documents. People who have a complaint
would post it on the particular website of the Jobs and Education department
that collects complaints about journalists. This allows everybody to see
what the complaints are, and the officials would have to post a response
to each complaint, and we would see their responses.
People should be able to complain about anything, such as how a journalist
is referring to "temperature" as "mercury", or that he is using idiotic
expressions, such as "cool features" or "hot features", or that he is biasing
his report in the favor of some religion. If a person's complaint is judged
to be sensible, then the article that he complained about would be corrected,
and he would be credited with a "success" in analyzing documents. The people
whose complaints are judged to be idiotic will be credited with a failure,
and they will have an increasingly difficult time getting people to listen
to them, and eventually they may be banned from posting complaints.
The government should regularly replace the worst performing journalists
so that other people get the opportunity to try their skills. We should
not tolerate a small network of people getting control of the media. Every
type of job category should have a continuous replacement of the worst
performing people. We should not think of this replacement process as "cruel".
Rather, we should think of it as a necessary part of maintaining
a modern society and helping us to figure out what our talents and limitations
It should be noted that replacing the worst performing people is not
enough. We must ensure that the replacements are coming from the general
population, rather than being restricted to a very limited group of people.
For example, in America, journalists are replaced occasionally, but their
replacements are other Jews and criminals. Nobody else is given an opportunity.
When replacing people, we must ensure that everybody with appropriate talent
has the opportunity, and that nobody is restricting the replacements to
their friends or a network of criminals.
I mentioned earlier that when people are hiring an employee, they should
be allowed to pick somebody they want as a team member, and they shouldn't
have to justify their decisions. This allows them to pick their friends,
if they want to. However, that concept applies only to employees, not to
the people in leadership positions. A person in a leadership position is
not a "team member"; he is a "leader". People in leadership positions need
to meet higher standards, and follow slightly different rules. People in
leadership positions must compete with one another, and although the competition
is supposed to be friendly, we cannot allow them to keep their particular
friends in control of society.
It will not be easy for us to determine whether people in leadership
positions are being replaced in a fair manner, but we cannot let the complexity
frighten us. It is necessary for us to watch the replacements of our leaders
and pass judgment on whether the replacements are being conducted fairly,
or whether some group is trying to control society and eliminate competitors.
This is simply another responsibility of living in this modern world. We
must participate in the maintenance of society.
Journalism should be treated as a serious scientific field. We should
consider a journalist to be similar to a scientist, but instead of studying
rocks, chemicals, or animals, a journalist studies current events.
Their reports are essentially a scientific report of what is happening
in the world. They are like historians, except that they study events that
are too recent to be called "history". We can and should pass judgment
on which journalists are doing a proper job of providing us with reports
that are both accurate and have some significance to our lives.
For example, this
article about Paris Hilton watching her boyfriend at a fashion show
is indeed "news", and after many years it could be added to historical
documents that describe human life in this particular era, but we can't
report every event in every person's life. We have to pass judgment on
which events are significant enough to be considered "news", and which
of them are significant enough to be added to "history". I would describe
the articles about Paris Hilton as "entertainment", not news or history.
We should make a distinction between serious material and entertainment,
and the serious material should meet a higher standard. Furthermore, we
must pass judgment on which entertainment is appropriate for society. We
cannot let journalists give people whatever they are titillated by. For
example, it is possible that the articles about Paris Hilton are destructive
to society by causing a small percentage of the population to become "celebrities",
and causing other people to be put into a role of a peasant who worships
his King and Queen.
We do not yet distinguish between or separate entertainment from education,
and so the material that we refer to as "news" is a mixture of serious
information, entertainment, and propaganda. By making a distinction between
education and entertainment, and by encouraging everybody to look for ways
to improve the educational materials, and by regularly replacing the worst
performing journalists, we will eventually provide ourselves with journalists
who provide us with useful news reports, documentaries, and historical
analyses, and those materials will slowly evolve through the years and
become increasingly useful and understandable. Of course, this assumes
that there are a certain number of people in society who become
participants in watching the journalists and complaining about them.
I think we should experiment with a society that doesn't promote the
concept of "celebrities". I think the concept of a celebrity is
detrimental to society, and I suggest experimenting with ways to reduce
this problem. One method is to force a high turnover rate in the jobs where
celebrities are likely to develop, such as the entertainment programs on
For example, we could make the jobs of news reporter, talk show host,
and game show host available only on a part-time and temporary basis so
that lots of people can have the opportunity to do them. By having a high
turnover rate in those jobs, the television audience doesn't become emotionally
attached to any particular person. Furthermore, each of us will occasionally
see somebody on television who we personally know, and that will further
reinforce the feeling that the people who appear on television are just
"ordinary" people who are having fun.
If you wonder how this type of participation would work, one person
might be willing to read the news one evening each month for a year, which
means that he would be contributing 12 evenings of his life to television,
and another person might be willing to spend an evening every month for
a year to participate in some type of talk show, and somebody else might
be willing to spend an evening a month hosting a game show. These people
would not be contributing much time, but with thousands of people willing
to contribute some time, there will be enough people to have a significant
impact on television.
We could go even further and encourage people to participate in acting,
singing, music, and other television shows. By encouraging participation,
we will reduce the "quality" of some of the programs, thereby giving television
a somewhat amateurish aura, but entertainment jobs are not as critical
as surgery, dentistry, or flying airplanes. It doesn't matter if a person
doesn't perform well on television. We have to judge a policy by its overall
effect on society. I suspect that our lives will be more pleasant overall
if we encourage people to participate in their entertainment compared to
allowing a group of professionals dominate television and become "celebrities".
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, we can use the amateurish qualities
of the television shows as topics for dinner conversations. We can talk
about and laugh about a friend of ours who frequently messed up the words
as he was reading the news reports, or who was not doing a very good job
of hosting a talk show. We need something to talk about, so why not talk
about our experiences on television? The more activities we experiment
with, and the more people we meet, the more subjects we will have to talk
about. You might also enjoy pushing some of your friends and coworkers
into participating in television.
Population Quality Control
All organizations, including businesses, military units, and
sports teams, have to occasionally deal with badly behaved members, and
so they all need some type of legal system. Businesses, for example, have
to occasionally pass judgment on when employees are stealing items from
one another or from the business, or when one of the male employees is
behaving in a lewd manner around other employees or customers, or when
an employee has such behavioral problems that he becomes disruptive to
When somebody in a business complains about another employee who is
misbehaving or cheating, that person could be described as "accusing an
employee of committing a crime". The management of the business will react
by investigating the complaint. For example, they might look at security
camera video, or they might talk to some of the other employees to find
out what they know about the situation, or they might talk to the employee
who is accused of the crime. That investigation could be described as a
"criminal investigation", and the managers who get involved could be described
as "taking some time off from their normal duties to become part-time,
temporary police investigators".
After the management has gathered information about the employee's crime,
they will discuss it among themselves. That discussion could be described
as a "trial" for the accused criminal employee. After the management has
made a decision about what to do, all of the managers return to their regular
Businesses and other organizations are not allowed to put their disruptive
members in jail or beat them physically, and most of them would not want
to do so even if it were legal. Most organizations prefer to evict the
disruptive members. The exceptions are crime networks, which might react
by chopping off a fingertip or beating a person. Some groups of children
also react to bad behavior by physically hurting their badly behaved friend.
Most organizations of adults realize that punishments are useless for
fixing bad behavior. Rewards and punishments are useful only when people
are training one another, and only when the rewards and punishments
are trivial. For example, when a person is trying to learn how to
use a particular piece of machinery, his boss or teacher can help him by
using rewards and punishments, such as reprimanding him when he makes a
mistake, and praising him when he does the operation properly. In those
cases, the rewards and punishments are used to inspire and motivate the
person. This technique can also work with animals. The reason punishments
help these particular students is because they want to learn, and as a
result, they react to the punishments by trying to learn whatever it is
they are supposed to be doing. However, if a student is not interested
in learning, then he will react to the punishments with anger, and in that
case, the punishments are worthless.
Sometimes a business or organization will threaten to evict or fire
an employee if he does not behave in a more appropriate manner, and that
may appear to be similar to a society that is trying to cure a badly behaved
person with threats of jail, but it is not the same. When a business threatens
an employee, they are not threatening punishments, and they are not trying
to cure the employee of his bad behavior. Rather, the business could be
described as giving the employee an ultimatum. The business is telling
the employee that if he continues to follow the same path, then he will
be fired. The business is not trying to cure the employee of his problem.
Rather, they are telling the employee that if he wants to continue working,
must change himself. It is entirely up to the employee to make the
change. The management will not make any attempt to change him.
Some organizations, especially schools and the military, will provide
counselors of some type to help their members deal with some of their emotional
or family problems, but those are also attempts to help the person to help
himself rather than an attempt to cure the person.
Schools have been using various types of punishments to cure badly behaved
children for centuries, but none of them have ever fixed a badly behaved
child. Christian schools have tried to control children through Bible studies,
threats of hell, and possibly sexual abuse, in addition to beatings, but
the Christian schools have also failed to fix badly behaved
children. Adults have also never
been cured of their bad behavior through jail, Bible studies, beatings,
rapes, or cutting off their fingertips. How many more centuries
are we going to continue believing that we can fix bad behavior through
Apply the legal system of a business
to a city
The legal system of a business could be described as managers who become
part-time and temporary police investigators and judges whenever the business
has to deal with the troublesome employee, and who evict the badly behaved
members. Why not expand this concept for an entire city?
The legal system of most organizations could be described as consisting
of three stages:
1) Investigation. Some of the managers take some time off from
their normal duties to investigate the troublesome employee.
2) Trial. Some of the managers discuss the evidence and make
a decision about whether the employee is guilty.
3) Verdict. The managers decide what to do with the guilty employee.
One significant difference between the legal system of a business and
the legal system of America is that the American legal system authorizes
a group of lawyers and judges to have total control of the trials, and
to have a supervisory role in the investigations. For example, the police
must ask judges for warrants in order to gather certain information, and
lawyers can be present during interviews of witnesses and defendants in
order to restrict the interview.
The lawyers and judges are supposed to provide checks and balances to
the police and government. For example, by making the police ask a judge
for a search warrant, the judge supposedly plays a role in checks and balances
in order to prevent the police from abusing us with unnecessary searches.
This concept may have worked centuries ago, but in our era, judges are
not capable of providing checks and balances to the police.
In order for a person to play a role in checks and balances, he must
have an incentive to counteract whatever quality we want him to control.
For example, nature designed men with a strong craving for sex, but
women have a natural resistance, and so women can provide checks and balances
to a man's sexual craving. However, a man cannot take that role. Homosexual
men cannot truly provide checks and balances to one another in regards
to sexual activity because all of them have the same incentive.
For another example, a person who has no interest in alcohol can provide
checks and balances to somebody who craves alcohol, but two alcoholics cannot provide
checks and balances to one another.
Judges and lawyers would be able to provide checks and balances to the
police only if they had an opposing incentive, but judges and lawyers do
not have any incentive to ensure that the police are honest or responsible.
In America, the judges and lawyers are treated in a similar manner as we
treat religious leaders. Judges and lawyers can do virtually anything they
please, and the Supreme Court judges cannot even be forced into retirement.
Judges and lawyers can be senile, just like the Pope. How can a senile
person provide checks and balances to anything? The only incentive that
lawyers and judges have is to please their Jewish friends, and to help
one another keep their jobs and eliminate competitors.
Centuries ago, when the Kings and Queens were in control of a simplistic
police force, and the people who were in the role of a judge were somewhat
independent of the monarchy, the judges may have truly been able to provide
checks and balances on the government police force.
In America today, the government officials cannot directly control the
police departments, and the Jews have taken control of our courts. Nobody
is providing checks and balances over the Jewish lawyers or judges, or
their legal schools, and they are not providing checks and balances to
anybody else, either. The lawyers and judges are behaving like Kings and
Queens of the Middle Ages.
You might respond that I am allowing my anti-Semitism to influence my thoughts,
but if you think I am being overly critical of the Jewish lawyers and judges,
consider the recent cases in America in which an Arab was put on trial
for conducting the 9/11 attack. Or consider the case of Sirhan Sirhan who
was found guilty of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. It shouldn't take
much intelligence for you to realize that the only way those cases could
occur is if the lawyers and judges are doing whatever they please
with no regards to the evidence.
In case it never occurred you, consider that the trial that convicted
five Arabs for the 9/11 attack is as disgusting
as a trial that convicts you for the
assassination of President Lincoln, or something else that you obviously
had no connection with. How would you feel being a defendant in a trial
for Lincoln's assassination? Now imagine being convicted for that
killing. That is the type of court system that we have in America.
The checks and balances in the American court system are not working.
By requiring the police to get search warrants, judges can interfere with
investigations, and the requirement that there be evidence "beyond
reasonable doubt" would not protect you from being convicted of Lincoln's
assassination. The fact that our courts can blame Arabs for the 9/11 attack
should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legal system of America
needs to be tossed in the trash. Anybody who cannot see the corruption
in our legal system should be described as either emotionally unable to
look critically at his own society, or suffering from some very serious
intellectual disorder. It should also be easy to see that the Jews
are dominating our legal system.
The American court system makes people put their hand on a Bible and
swear to tell the truth, but almost nobody gets in trouble for lying, especially
not the lawyers or judges. One reason that people can get away with lying
is that it is difficult to prove that a person has lied. People can easily
claim that they were stupid, ignorant, or mistaken. Our courts do not consider
omitting crucial information to be lying, and lawyers can fake incompetence
and ignorance over and over without any repercussions. We don't have any
standards for lawyers or judges. They can be senile
without anybody noticing or complaining. There are no checks and balances
the lawyers or judges.
Allowing lawyers to be present during police interviews may have been
beneficial during the Middle Ages when interviews were conducted in secrecy
and there was no video of the interview, but today the police can provide
video of the interviews. Our lawyers and judges are not helping us to understand
or reduce crime or corruption. They are interfering with interviews and
investigations; helping criminals get away with their crimes; and helping
their Jewish friends abuse us to an extent that is truly shocking. We must
find the emotional strength to experiment with changes to our legal system
rather than allow this abuse to continue.
A city can deal with crime just
like a business
I suggest that we give the city government a Population Quality Control
department, and one of its departments would be the legal system. It would
supervise the police departments and the courts. Instead of focusing on
whether people violate laws, they should behave like farmers who pass judgment
on the value of their animals and plants. They should be more concerned
with the quality of our behavior rather than whether we are technically
following the laws.
The typical legal system in the world today consists of two separate
groups of people; namely, 1) the police and 2) the courts. Note: I use
the word "police" to refer to the entire department, which includes the
officers, the detectives, the prosecutors, the forensic scientists, and
anybody else involved with investigating and capturing criminals, and I
use the word "courts" to refer to everybody connected to a trial.
A legal system needs somebody in the role of a judge in order to settle
disputes, but I don't see any benefit to having lawyers. When businesses
must deal with badly behaved employees, some of the executives will take
the role of police investigators or judges, but none of them take the role
of lawyers. I think we should design the legal system for a city to be
a more advanced and formal version of what businesses are using. There
would be no lawyers, and the people taking the role of judges could do
so on a part-time and temporary basis. Without lawyers to censor information,
interfere with interviews, and dominate trials, everybody would be allowed
to participate in the discussion of the evidence and what to do with the
For an example of how this system would work, assume that John Doe has
just been arrested for a crime. The police would do what they do right
now, which is investigate the crime, but they would not have any lawyers
interfering with their interviews, and they would not have any judges interfering
with their collection of evidence. After they are finished with their investigation
and have come to a conclusion, they would post their evidence and analysis
on their website so that everybody could see what they had uncovered and
what they were proposing to do with the defendant. This would not only
document the trial, it would allow everybody to see what the police had
The police proposal would have all of the evidence of his criminal behavior,
such as photos, fingerprints, and video of their interviews. The police
would also include an analysis of his previous behavior to give us their
opinion on his value as a member of society. Everybody would be free to
look through their evidence and analyses. The police would also include
their suggested verdict for the criminal. Since I suggest we eliminate
jails, none of the police would suggest putting people in jail. Instead,
the police would make such proposals as:
1) For a person who is only a minor irritation, the police might propose
restricting his access to certain jobs, children, chemicals, areas of the
city, or activities. This would be especially useful for business leaders
who obey the laws but behave in an undesirable manner. It would allow us
to remove them from positions of importance and prohibit them from getting
a leadership position again.
2) For a person who shows undesirable qualities but who is not destructive
to society, the police might propose restricting him from reproduction
or preventing him from adopting children.
3) For a person who is a social misfit or who doesn't want to follow
the laws, the police may propose evicting him to a city where his behavior
will be accepted.
4) For a person who is dangerous or unwanted by other cities, the police
might propose exiling him to the City of Misfits, executing him, or using
him for medical purposes.
The police would post the proposal on their website for everybody to
see and analyze. The police who are involved in creating the proposal would
identify themselves as the authors of the proposal. The police would not
be allowed to operate secretly or anonymously. Every policeman would be
held accountable for his actions.
In America, the police are in a subservient role when they investigate
crimes. For example, they must ask permission from a defendant for a DNA
sample, and they must ask for permission to look through his personal information,
school records, or job history. It would be better to prevent people from
keeping secrets about themselves. Everybody's life history should be in
a publicly accessible database so that the police do not have to ask anybody
for their job history, medical history, fingerprints, or DNA.
In America, the fourth amendment requires the police to get search warrants
in order to search a person's home or monitor his activities. This philosophy
puts the police in the role of a child, and the judge in the role of his
wise father, but I think it would be better to tell the police to take
responsibility for their investigations and searches. If the police department
managers are too incompetent to make wise decisions about searching people's
homes, then we should replace them and give somebody else a chance to supervise
the police department. Requiring that the police ask somebody else for
approval to search a home is simply adding a delay and additional work
to their investigation.
It would be more efficient to let the police detectives have the authority
to do searches and interviews, and hold each detective responsible for
his actions. By removing secrecy, we will be able to see which detectives
are authorizing searches, how they behave during the searches, and how
they are interviewing people. That would allow us to determine if a particular
detective is irritating us with his excessive or abusive searches, or his
idiotic or abusive interviews. In America, there is no way for citizens
to complain about the police, but by providing the government with a real
Complaint Department, the citizens will be able to send complaints to a
department whose sole purpose is investigating complaints and trying to
To summarize all of this so far, the first stage of dealing with crime
is for the police to do an investigation. When they are finished,
they post their evidence and suggested verdict on their website. With modern
technology, it is more sensible for the police to post their information
on their website for both documentation purposes and to allow people to
see it before the trial starts.
The American court system was designed during an era when the primary
communication method was the human voice, and many people were illiterate,
and so a trial in 1776 was a group of people getting together in a room
to discuss the evidence, and to interview witnesses and the defendant.
Most of the information in that era was verbal. Furthermore, America was
designed to allow people to hide their criminal history, and so the police
are not allowed to give us free access to the information they uncovered
during their investigations.
A more sensible system for our era is for the police to post their evidence
on the police website, which gives everybody a chance to analyze it. There
is no longer a need for police to present evidence at a trial. It is much
more efficient for them to just publish it. Also, we do not need lawyers to censor
any of the information. The police should include any information that
they consider relevant, and the citizens can decide if the police are adding
unnecessary information. In our era, a trial is needed only to debate the
evidence, ask some additional questions of the witnesses or defendant,
and debate the verdict.
After the police have posted their proposals, the citizens and the defendant
would be able to post a response. A citizen could request that a person
be interviewed again, or he could ask questions about some of the evidence,
or he could complain about some of the police assumptions, or he could
suggest a different verdict. The citizens would also be able to complain
about the behavior of individual policemen. The defendant would also be
free to post a document to defend himself, and he could include whatever
photos, video, or other information that he felt was relevant. His friends
and family members could help him create his document, or post their own
You might also worry that the citizens will post stupid responses that
waste everybody's time, but in a society that judges people according to
what they do, the citizens who repeatedly post responses that are judged
to be stupid will eventually be labeled as too incompetent to influence
society, and they would be prohibited from posting on the police website.
The citizens will be under pressure to make sure that their responses are
The police would then have to respond to all of those complaints from
the citizens and the defendant. By allowing the citizens and defendant
to post responses to the police, and by requiring the police to respond
to them, we allow the citizens to have direct participation in the criminal
cases. You might worry that the police will simply dismiss the complaints
by the citizens, but by requiring all responses be posted, there will be
a record of who is doing what, and that will allow people to pass judgment
on which of the police are responding in an intelligent manner, and which
are either stupid or trying to cheat. When nobody is allowed secrecy, and
everything we do is documented, the police who misbehave will eventually
be noticed and replaced, assuming that society doesn't consist entirely
By comparison, the American legal system does not allow the citizens
to directly influence the process. The American citizens are allowed to
sit in a courtroom and observe a trial, but they are not allowed
to participate. If a trial has a jury, some citizens will be jurors,
but jurors do not truly participate in the trial, either, because they
are in the role of a computer that is being fed censored data by lawyers.
I think we should get rid of the lawyers and allow the citizens to be
the opponent to the police. The defendant and the citizens would provide
the best checks and balances to the police because they are the only people
who truly have an incentive to ensure that the police are behaving properly.
Lawyers cannot contribute to a court system because their only incentive
is to keep their job, eliminate competitors, and help their friends get
away with crimes.
Although the citizens would be allowed to complain about the police
proposals, they would not be allowed to conduct demonstrations in the streets.
The citizens would be required to post a document on the police website
to explain their complaints, and they would have to identify themselves
as the author. Nobody would be allowed to post a response anonymously or
The police, citizens, and everybody else who gets involved with the
trial must be held responsible for their behavior. The police who repeatedly
make decisions that are later judged to be stupid will be replaced, and
the citizens who repeatedly make idiotic complaints would be classified
as "mentally incompetent". Some of the police might even be classified
as mentally incompetent if they make some truly stupid decisions. The people
with that classification would be prohibited from posting complaints on
the police website.
If neither the defendant nor the citizens posted an objection to the
police proposal, then there would not be a trial. Of course, most of the
time there would probably be objections from either the defendant or the
citizens. This would require some type of trial to be conducted in order to
resolve the issue of what to do with the defendant.
A trial should be similar to what occurs in a business when the executives
discuss the issue of what to do about a badly behaved employee. The executives
have a serious discussion about the evidence and the employee, as
opposed to the type of trial that we have in the American legal system
in which lawyers and judges are censoring information and trying to manipulate
a jury with facial expressions and body language.
Trials would occur in public, and be open to the citizens, but unlike
the trials in America, there would be no lawyers to censor the questions
or evidence. The people who participate in the trial would determine for
themselves which information was relevant, and they could even debate the
relevancy of some information. Also, no defendant, policeman, or witness
would have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Everybody would be
required to answer questions, or be considered guilty of obstructing a
trial. The trial would resemble a public discussion or debate
rather than an American trial.
It is conceivable that during the trial, the defendant, citizens, and
police come to an agreement with one another about the verdict, in which
case the trial would be terminated due to a unanimous agreement. The most
likely scenario, however, is that the defendant, citizens, and police disagree
with one another, which could result in a trial that continues for decades.
There would have to be somebody in the role of a judge to terminate
the trial and determine the verdict when the people could not agree.
The job of a judge should be available to anybody who has shown the
intellectual and emotional stability to moderate and supervise a criminal
debate. We should not promote the theory that only people with some mysterious
"legal experience" should be able to be judges. Law schools are teaching
students about the arbitrary and complex rules of the American legal system,
and it also teaches students about previous law cases so that they know
about the concept of "precedent".
However, we should simplify our legal system so that people can participate
without knowing complex rules, and we should not follow "precedent". A
person who is accused of a crime should be judged according to what we
think is best for society at the time, not according to how our ancestors
judged similar cases. We have to stop following our ancestors and
think for ourselves.
A criminal case should be a debate,
similar to what scientists and engineers do when they discuss new products
and technology. The difference between a criminal case and a debate between
scientists is that a criminal case directly stimulates our emotions, and
therefore, the people involved in criminal cases need more than the intellectual
ability to debate. They also need the ability to control their emotions,
remain calm, and suppress their bias so that they can make decisions that
are best for society.
Students should be put through a variety of different debates so that
teachers can get an indication of their ability to debate, and their ability
to control their emotions. Anybody who shows signs of handling emotional
debates should be allowed to apply for the job of a judge. If a judge turns
out to show undesirable qualities, he can be replaced.
There is no need for judges to wear powdered wigs, although because
of the emotions involved with the trial, it is conceivable that there is
a psychological benefit when they sit in a throne-like chair. That might
make it easier for them to keep other people under control. I doubt if
there is an advantage to referring to them as "Your Honor", however. That
seems a bit too medieval. I think they should be referred to by their names.
The judge would schedule the trial and provide guidance to the participants.
His primary duty would be as a moderator of the debate over the
evidence and verdict rather than as a medieval king who is ruling over
his peasants. He would supervise the debate and provide guidance and suggestions.
He would ask questions and discuss issues. He would not be a silent observer.
He would not censor information or questions, either. If he did not consider
a question to be relevant, he would explain his objections rather than
In America, everybody is theoretically able to become a judge, but in
reality, a network of Jews is dominating our legal system. We have to watch
over the people who become judges so that we prevent a small group of people
from selecting the judges for us. Anybody who has shown an ability to conduct
an intelligent debate over emotional issues should be able to try the role
of a judge, including on a part-time and temporary basis. The advantage
to encouraging people to become a judge on a part-time basis is to bring
more people into the legal system. The more involvement from the public,
the less likely a small group will have control of us.
The American lawyers and judges have created so many arbitrary and complex
rules for conducting a trial that we cannot participate in a trial without
their assistance, but a trial should be a debate, not the legal equivalent
of a Rube Goldberg contraption. When business executives debate what
to do with an employee who is accused of bad behavior, they simply discuss
This system allows us to see the evidence that the police have collected;
see which policemen are making the proposals; see which of the citizens
are posting responses; and see what the judges are doing. This in turn
allows us to pass judgment on which of the people in the police department
we want to replace; which of the citizens are wasting our time with biased
or idiotic responses; and which of the judges should be removed from their
Although the citizens would not be able to directly replace anybody
in the police department or classify any citizen as mentally incompetent,
we would be allowed to send our complaints about people to the government
agency that accepts complaints, as previously discussed in the section
that advocates we provide the government with a real Complaint Department.
The officials in the Complaint Department would be required to investigate
and deal with our complaints. Compare that to the situation in America
in which judges and lawyers have virtually permanent jobs regardless of
how many people are disgusted with their behavior and opinions.
The American court system allows lawyers to profit from court cases,
and that encourages them to extend a case over a period of years.
It would be more sensible to require the citizens to respond to police
proposals within a certain number of weeks, unless somebody can come up
with sensible reasons as to why he needs more time. We could also restrict
trials to a few weeks, unless somebody can explain why they need more time.
The American court system promotes the paranoia that we must be extremely
careful that we do not convict an innocent person, but there are two aspects
of this issue to consider that might reduce the paranoia:
1) False convictions are not random. Certain people are more
likely to be falsely convicted of a crime. They tend to be the people who
have a criminal history, or a history of psychotic behavior. By taking
everybody's history into account, the people who are the least likely to
be falsely convicted are those who have an impressive history.
2) Perfection is impossible. Our attempts to achieve perfection by
increasing the number of checks and balances is simply adding complexity
and inefficiency. We must face the fact that we will always make mistakes.
Rather than believe that we can eliminate mistakes, we should design our
social systems to be biased so that the mistakes are in the favor of the
Many television shows have a plot in which people are suspected of a
crime because they behave suspiciously when interviewed by the police,
and later it turns out that they were innocent of the crime but were behaving
suspiciously because they were trying to hide something else, such as some
other crime that they had committed, or some embarrassing aspect of their
lives, such as alcoholism, drug problems, gambling problems, or adultery,
and sometimes they are trying to hide the problems of their children or
friends. These people do not necessarily lie; sometimes they merely withhold
information from the police.
Although these are only television shows, I suspect that these situations
occur once in a while in real life because there are a lot of people trying
to hide unpleasant aspects of their life, or that of their children's lives.
These people should be considered as criminals because they are
interfering with police investigations and trials. We must stop feeling
sorry for people who are ashamed of themselves or who try to cover up the
bad behavior of their children. If a witness to a crime interferes with
a trial because he is embarrassed to expose his alcohol problems, he should
be described as interfering with other people's lives. Why should he have
a right to do that?
One advantage to this legal system in which people post everything on
the police website and citizens are allowed to file complaints is that
it puts pressure on people to be
honest. By comparison, the lawyers
in the American court system are expected to be
biased. The lawyers are not supposed to be honest; rather, some
lawyers defend the defendant, and others defend the police, and everybody
expects all of the lawyers to hide crucial information and lie to jurors.
Lawyers are also allowed to manipulate the jurors, such as by putting the
defendant and witnesses in certain type of clothing, and by helping them
practice certain types of facial and body expressions. The American court
is similar to a fight between two dogs over territory. Neither dog has
a desire to be fair or honest. They are fighting for selfish reasons. I
would summarize the primary problems with the American legal system as:
1) Our legal system was never intended to reduce crime. It
was designed by people who were frightened of the government, and who wanted
to feel sorry for the "Underdogs". They made it very easy for people to
avoid responsibility for their bad behavior, and to hide their horrible
history. The lawyers and judges are exploiting this miserable system rather
than helping to make it better.
A legal system should focus on a
It is not easy to measure crime levels, but there seems to be much more
fear of crime today than there was centuries ago. However, the lawyers
and judges are not considered to be failures, and they are never
fired for incompetence. Instead, they profit from additional crime. Imagine
hiring a plumber to clean your drains, but the drains never become any
better, or they become worse. Would you hire him week after week to do
the same useless work over and over?
The purpose of a legal system should be to help us understand and reduce
crime, and if it is not accomplishing its goal, then we need to replace
officials and/or experiment with different policies.
2) Most of the population are apathetic, selfish sheeple who ignore
corruption, and a significant percentage of the population is so dishonest
that they assist the corrupt lawyers and judges with their crimes.
The only solution to this problem is to ensure that a certain percent
of the population is willing to play an active role in the maintenance
of society. A certain percentage of the citizens needs to occasionally
observe what the police and judges are doing.
3) We don't have any sensible checks and balances on our legal system.
None of us have any influence over the lawyers, judges, or court procedures.
The president is the only person with the authority to appoint Supreme
Court judges, but nobody can fire a judge.
The solution to this problem is to provide the citizens with some influence
over the legal system, such as by allowing citizens to post responses to
the police decisions, providing citizens with a real Complaint Department,
and by forcing the government to regularly replace one of their leaders.
Of course, whether people use these checks and balances depends upon whether
they are sheeple or humans.
The American legal system focuses on whether a person has violated a
law, but I think we will do a better job of reducing crime if we focus
on a person's value to society. The
police would not have to wait for a person to commit a crime in order to
arrest him, and they would not have to worry about finding tremendous amounts
of evidence of his crime.
This system would allow the police to do "maintenance" of the human
population, which is impossible in nations today. For example, a man who
often makes lewd remarks to women on public trains is not technically violating
a law, but if he were to cause enough complaints, the police might decide
to arrest him. In such a case, the police would create a proposal that
provides an analysis of that man's life, and they would show that he is
continuously irritating people, especially women, and that it would be
best for society to evict him. The police would not have to provide any
evidence that he technically violated any particular law. They would merely
provide sensible reasons as to why he is unfit to be a member of our society.
In America, people are regularly irritating one another with their violent
dogs, badly behaved children, or psychotic personality, but when people
complain to the police, the police respond that they cannot do anything
until a serious crime has been committed. Women are complaining on a regular
about their violent ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands, and some men complain
about their psychotic ex-wives, but the police cannot do anything about
abusive or irritating people. Some people have such psychotic neighbors
that they attract the attention of news reporters, such as this
episode. Some of the psychos are eventually arrested, such as Patricia
but she will spend only a year in jail.
When we keep track of what everybody says and does, and when we judge
people according to their value to society, we don't have to wait for somebody
to commit a serious crime to arrest or evict them. They simply have to
be considered "undesirable" by enough people. This system will penalize
people who are regularly lying, manipulating, abusing, deceiving, and irritating
This system may seem to give the police the authority to evict and execute
whoever they don't like, similar to what we see in communist nations. This
is indeed a valid concern. If the city
consists of sheeple and criminals, and if the government is dominated by
pedophiles, alcoholics, and criminals, then of course this frightening
scenario could come true.
Although this system gives the police tremendous control over society,
it also provides the citizens with plenty of opportunities to keep corruption
under control. For example, by removing secrecy and putting everybody's
life history in a publicly accessible database, everybody will be able to see
what everybody else is doing, including what the police and government
officials are doing. As long as a certain percentage of the city population
is willing to get involved in the maintenance of society by watching over
the police, citizens, teachers, business executives, and government officials,
it will be difficult for somebody to abuse the system.
The American court system expects the family members and friends
of a defendant to give biased testimony, but we should put pressure
on people to treat everybody fairly, even if they are closely related to
them. Parents who lie for their children, and friends who lie for one another,
would be considered as "destructive influences on society" as a result of their lying. They
would not have any special privileges to lie simply because they are friends
or relatives of the defendant.
Hollywood movies and television programs often promote the concept that
parents should do anything to save
their children. The movies frequently show parents killing or abusing other
people in order to help their child. Some television programs show policemen
violating laws to help their child avoid embarrassment or jail for their
drug use, drunk driving, or other crimes. Most people consider it "normal"
for parents to be biased in favor of their children. Although this behavior
makes sense for animals and primitive humans, we should consider this as
crude behavior that is inappropriate in this modern world.
The idea of putting pressure on parents to reduce the bias for their
children might seem bizarre, but imagine how much nicer the world would
be if parents were fair to all children. Those parents will be able to
see the good qualities of other people's children, and the bad qualities
in their own children. They would judge a child according to his behavior,
not according to who his parents were. If you
happened to have a wonderful child, then other parents would appreciate
your child and want to help him and protect him, even though they are not
related to him.
Parents who can be fair to all children would do what is best for the
human race, not what is best for their own biological children. It would
be similar to the attitude in a military unit in which the soldiers protect
one another even if they are not closely related to each other. It would
create a much more pleasant environment for us compared to when every parent
is selfishly protecting his children and treating other people's children
as expendable, inferior pawns.
Our legal system should penalize people who lie, manipulate, deceive,
abuse, make stupid remarks, or are an irritation. The police should be
expected to create intelligent proposals, and the citizens and judges should
be expected to respond in a serious, honest manner. If a citizen posts
a proposal that is judged to be stupid, dishonest, or biased, he should
get a "failure" listed in his database, and after a certain number of failures,
he should be prohibited from participating on the grounds that he is intellectually
or emotionally unable to contribute to the legal system.
The purpose of a trial in the American court system is to determine
whether a person has violated a law, and if so, what type of suffering
he should be subjected to, but our legal system should not focus on laws,
and it should not inflict any type of pain on a person. The police and
the citizens should focus on whether the person was a valuable member of
society, and if not, whether he needs restrictions or should be evicted
If this type of legal system seems bizarre, consider that it is happening
around you right now. Both businesses and military units will remove
people from their organization if they become tired of their irritating
attitude or abusive behavior, even if they did not commit any serious crimes.
behave this way with people, also. For example, you will stop being friends
with a person if you get tired of his irritating qualities, and you will
get a divorce from a person that you become irritated with.
Businesses, militaries, and ordinary people are allowed to terminate
relationships with people without providing evidence "beyond reasonable
doubt" that the person has violated a law. We should apply the same policy
to an entire city. A city must eliminate the dirt in their transmission,
even if that dirt has not actually committed a serious crime. We must maintain
the morale of a city. Humans in this modern era must form cooperative
teams rather than behave like selfish savages who fight with
Some people might complain that this system puts the stupid people at
a disadvantage because when they get arrested, they and their stupid friends
will have trouble coming up with intelligent responses to the police proposals.
My response to that concern is, so what? It is not our responsibility to
help stupid people complain about the police or defend themselves from
accusations of being an undesirable citizen. We need to reduce the number
of stupid people, not feel sorry for them. Besides, if only a few stupid
people oppose a police proposal, then we ought to consider the policy to
be sensible because if the police were to truly do something idiotic, then
some of the intelligent people would respond, unless, of course, everybody
in society is a sheeple.
Will we want the burden
of this legal system?
According to census report
324, there were 11 million arrests in 2009. If America was following
my suggestions for a legal system, that means the citizens would be expected
to read through 11 million arrest proposals every year. Let's assume that
America has 110 million adults of the proper age, literacy requirements,
and mental qualities necessary to participate in the legal system. If each
American adult observed only 10 trials each year, then there would be only
one citizen reviewing each trial. It would be better if there were several
citizens reviewing every arrest, but that would require every American
adult deal with perhaps 30 or 50 cases every year. Would you want
to deal with several arrests every month?
If we create a new city, and if crime is as extreme as it is right now
in America, dealing with all of the arrests would put a significant
burden on us. Then consider that many of the crimes in America are not
even reported. For one reason, many of the criminals are getting away with
their crimes because they work for the government, legal system, or media,
and for another reason, some of the victims don't bother to report their
crimes because they don't believe the police will do anything about it.
If all crimes are reported, then there would be significantly more than
11 million arrests every year.
The legal system I propose requires participation of the citizens, and
the only way that burden will be tolerable is if we find a way to reduce
crime, and not by just a little bit, but dramatically. We need to
reduce crime to such low levels that citizens rarely have to participate
in a trial.
If a business was having so many problems with criminal behavior that
the executives were spending most of their time investigating complaints,
they would experiment with methods to reduce the problem. They would not
allow the crime to ruin their business. We must also be willing to experiment
with methods of dramatically reducing crime in a city, and we must face
the fact that nobody has developed a pleasant technique to reduce crime.
Reducing crime means making sacrifices of some type; it requires
For example, one method to reduce crime is to evict criminals on their
very first arrest. However, evicting criminals on their first arrest means
evicting a lot of teenagers, and a lot of your friends and
family members. Are you willing to make that sacrifice?
Many Americans, especially those who refer to themselves as "conservatives",
promote "tough law enforcement," or "cracking down on crime", but despite
what they say, the majority of Americans push for leniency and pity because
criminals are coming from everybody's family. Virtually every conservative
becomes a "bleeding heart liberal" when he
is caught committing a crime, or when one of his children or friends
Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno were Republicans. How many Republicans
demanded that Joe Paterno be investigated to determine if he was helping
to cover up Sandusky's pedophilia network, or if he was helping to cover
up the murder of a District Attorney Ray
Gricar? How many Republicans demanded tough law enforcement with Jerry
Sandusky? How many Republicans are demanding that the police be tough on
the pedophilia of the Catholic Church?
Another example are the women who blackmail or abuse men, such as Monica
Lewinsky and Anna Chapman.
How many conservatives demand that those women be arrested? Most men have
so little control over their sexual emotions that they tend to regard female
criminals as innocent, young girls, especially if the woman is pretty.
Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old when she was trying to manipulate Bill
Clinton with sex, which classifies her as a fully grown, adult woman. She
should be considered a dangerous criminal; a con artist who was
trying to blackmail a government official. Instead, many people considered
her to be an innocent, young girl.
You could respond that in Bill Clinton's case, he should have known
better than to get involved with Lewinsky, but I'm using that particular
case because it is well known. There have been lots of other women who
have faked a romantic interest in a man simply so that they could use him
for money or publicity, or to set him up for blackmail, or to steal items
from him. However, these women are not considered guilty of criminal activities.
Most people do not regard those women as deceptive, diabolical criminals.
Some of the women who behave in this manner can become wealthy
and famous by talking about what they did. Monica Lewinsky, and some of
the women who deceived Tiger Woods into relationships, are examples. I
would say that allowing women to profit from this behavior is equivalent
to a man who rapes a woman, but instead of being arrested, he is invited
on television talk shows to promote a book that he wrote about his rape,
and Time magazine makes his book a cover story and puts his smiling
face on their cover.
Many years ago in the city where I live, a woman was walking along a
sidewalk in the morning, and as a man walked by on his way to work, she
asked him for help with something. I forget what she asked for, but perhaps
her high-heeled shoe had broken. When the man stopped to see what he could
do, her boyfriend jumped out of the bushes, hit him over the head with
something, and robbed him. Those two were not caught, at least not at the
time of the news report, but if they had been caught, many men would have
given the woman special treatment on the grounds that she didn't directly
participate in the beating or the robbing. However, when men and women
commit crimes together, the men will naturally do the more physically demanding
tasks. This also occurs when a crime network consists of men of different
sizes and ages. The smaller and older men tend to let the stronger and
younger men do the physically demanding tasks. That doesn't mean the smaller
or older men are less troublesome for society.
Men are simply looking for an excuse to feel sorry for female criminals
because of our sexual cravings and desire to protect women. In this modern
world, we have to control our emotions and pass judgment on which women
are worthy of protection, and which of them are destructive creatures who
removed from society.
Some men feel sorry for women who are so stupid that they get
involved with crime simply because of their crude boyfriends, but regardless
of whether a woman is an active participant in crime or a submissive participant,
if we allow the abusive women to live among us, we allow them to abuse
more men, and we ruin the morale of society. If we allow them to reproduce,
we will have more of these stupid and abusive creatures in the future
The point I want to make is that there are a variety of policies that
we could experiment with in order to reduce crime, but all crime reduction
policies are going to be unpleasant. Are you
willing to experiment with unpleasant policies, such as evicting criminals?
If so, do you understand what that requires of you? It requires that you
control your sexual emotions when women are caught abusing people, and
it requires controlling your craving to protect your own children and relatives
when they are caught abusing people. Do you have that much self-control?
If the people in a city do not have the ability to evict criminals, then
we will continue to arrest the same people over and over, and we will continue
to allow psychotic neighbors to irritate us year after year, and we will
continue to allow the undesirable people to reproduce.
What type of lawyers do we need?
When businesses have a problem with an employee, they don't allow lawyers
to get involved. They don't want lawyers profiting from the problem, and
they don't want lawyers censoring information, and they don't want lawyers
training employees on how to appear innocent. Businesses want problems
dealt with as efficiently, quickly, and quietly as possible.
If lawyers truly helped businesses to resolve problems with employees,
then businesses would use lawyers, but lawyers have no incentive to help
organizations deal with problems. The only incentive that lawyers have
is to profit from problems, and to help their criminal friends appear innocent.
Lawyers are parasites and manipulators. They are not contributing anything
of value to society. The lawyers who help businesses and citizens file
lawsuits or circumvent laws are not beneficial to society, either.
We don't need lawyers to get involved with criminal cases. The only
type of lawyer that we would benefit from is a person who helps businesses,
government agencies, and other people to write contracts so that
people can clearly understand what they are supposed to do, and
who help resolve disputes when there are disagreements with the contract.
For example, when a government official authorizes a research proposal
or a manufacturing operation, the document should clearly explain what
is being funded, and what is expected of the person doing the work. That
document could be described as a "legal document", and it would be beneficial
to have some lawyers with excellent writing skills and analytical abilities
to help create those documents. If a disagreement develops over the contract,
the lawyers should be embarrassed that people are misunderstanding their
contract, and they should help resolve the issue as quietly and quickly
as possible rather than encourage fights and lawsuits.
That type of lawyer is not the same as a lawyer who gets involved with
a criminal case. This type of lawyer is an expert
in the English language. His purpose is to help people
and negotiate. He would help people to create precise documents that
are easily understood. When there is a dispute over what the contract says,
then the lawyer could get involved to help resolve the issue.
This type of lawyer would be judged according to how accurately people
were interpreting his documents. For example, if the documents of a particular
lawyer were causing more confusion or arguments than the contracts from
other lawyers, then he would be considered as less competent. Lawyers should
be under pressure to write documents that are clear and understandable
I suppose lawyers would respond that they are indeed trying to make
their documents precise and understandable, but I think that many lawyers
are deliberately trying to write documents in a manner that nobody can
understand in order to force us to use their services whenever we need
contracts to be written, and whenever we need some other laywer's contract
to be deciphered into ordinary English. The free enterprise system puts
pressure on lawyers to sell their services, not be honest, understandable,
or moral. Lawyers are under financial pressure to make their documents
so confusing that we want to pay a lawyer whenever we need to deal
with legal contracts. They don't want legal documents to be so simple that
we can create them on our own.
In a society in which everybody has the same material wealth, lawyers
cannot profit from problems. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, every
city should have an Efficiency Department to look over all of the jobs
and try to remove as many unnecessary jobs as possible. The Efficiency
Department will want to reduce the number of lawyers to the bare minimum
because lawyers are not directly contributing to society. The fewer lawyers,
In this type of society, we would judge the lawyers according to the
clarity of their documents. The lawyers whose documents are the most confusing
and cause the most arguments should be regularly replaced so that somebody
else can try his skills at being a lawyer. We should not allow lawyers
to keep their jobs forever. Just like everybody else, they should continuously
earn their job. We should regularly replace the worst performing lawyers.
These type of lawyers could operate on a part-time and temporary basis.
A scientist, for example, might occasionally be willing to help create
or edit a document for a research proposal. In America, the lawyers try
to stop people from writing their legal documents by insisting that we
know all sorts of confusing rules about the use of words, but our attitude
should be that anybody who is excellent with communication has the necessary
If people of above-average intelligence have trouble understanding a
legal document, then we should consider it to be poorly written. If a particular
document turns out to be so confusing that it causes arguments or other
problems, the lawyer who edited it would have that listed in his database
as a "failure". Over time, this would allow us to determine who among us
has the skills necessary to be a lawyer.
It would be useful for people to offer to be a lawyer on a part-time
and temporary basis because our business contracts are becoming increasingly
complicated, and the people who are best at creating them will be people
who are familiar with the subject, which are the people who are working
in that field. Some scientists could offer to help write legal contracts
for research proposals, and some engineers could offer to help write contracts
for engineering proposals.
In a society in which everybody's basic necessities are provided for
free, the lawyers cannot profit from creating or editing legal documents.
The lawyers in this system would be like dentists, nurses, carpenters,
and plumbers. The government would hire these type of lawyers to help them
with their documents, and sometimes to help businesses and organizations
with their documents. These lawyers would simply be doing a job just like
other government employees. The lawyers would be in the role of an editor
who is trying to create a clear and understandable document as opposed
to an American lawyer who is trying to create a complex legal document
that nobody else can understand.
In America, lawyers compete for money, and so they advertise their services
to ordinary citizens. The lawyers are encouraging the citizens to file
lawsuits and to fight with one another and fight with businesses. The lawyers
are also deliberately trying to make life so confusing that we need to
go to a lawyer in order to get a divorce, create a will, and start a business.
When the government has a Department of Efficiency, and their sole purpose
is to eliminate as much unnecessary work as possible, then they will counteract
the tendency of lawyers to make life complicated. The Department of Efficiency
will try to make our personal lives and business activity more efficient
so that we don't have to waste so much time with lawyers and paperwork.
Cheating, deception, and
manipulation is no longer appropriate
In the previous article of this series, I suggested that you
go to a courtship activity by suppressing your selfish cravings for a spouse
and working with the supervisor to help other people understand you and
make a decision about whether they want you as a spouse. Now I would like
you to consider that students in school should have a similar attitude.
Our schools and businesses put emphasis on diplomas. Many students are
foolishly making the mistake of considering school to be a hurdle that
they must overcome in order to acquire a diploma. As a result of this attitude,
they are willing to cheat in order to get that diploma. They are behaving
like a lonely man who is looking for a spouse, and is willing to manipulate
and deceive a woman so that he can achieve his goal of marriage.
A more appropriate attitude for school is that the students should work
with the teachers in order to develop some useful skills and to learn about
themselves and life. When a student has that attitude, then it should be
obvious to him that it makes no sense to cheat. How can you cheat
when your goal is to learn about yourself? How can you cheat when you your
goal is to learn a useful skill? A student who cheats is hurting himself.
He also becomes a problem for society.
A more extreme example might make this concept more clear. Imagine if
a student wanted to be an engineer, and all throughout school he cheated.
Imagine him getting a job to help design a factory that processes chemicals.
Since he doesn't know how to do his job properly, his section of the factory
could be seriously defective. Imagine that one day his section explodes,
causing serious injuries to thousands of people.
If you had been in school with him while he was cheating, you would
have likely ignored his cheating rather than complain that he should be
evicted from school, and you might have felt that you should cheat in
order to compete with him. If anybody had complained about him cheating,
he might have responded that they were a "tattletale". However, if his
factory exploded and burned the skin off your face, you might realize that
his cheating was a very serious problem.
Some people would probably need to have their face burned away
from such an accident before they would be willing to stand up to the students
who who cheat, lie, deceive, and manipulate. We must stop ignoring, being
frightened of, and tolerating people who lie, cheat, abuse, and deceive.
Don't be intimidated by them when they accuse you of being a "tattletale"
or a "goody
two-shoes". They are the ones with the problems, not those of us who
complain about them. The people who cheat are hurting not only themselves
but everybody else. We should stop tolerating such crude, animal-like behavior.
When a student cheats in his school work, he may get to join a
team of people that he doesn't actually have the skills to contribute to.
He will become a burden on that team, and he might be fired. In some cases,
he will put other people's lives at risk. Furthermore, when a student who
cheats is given a job that he doesn't have the ability to do, some other
person is denied that job.
If the students understood this concept, then they would resist cheating.
If they were taking tests while sitting next to one another, they would
avoid looking at what the other students were doing because they would
want to know what their abilities are. Teachers would not have to
waste any time trying to stop cheating.
Now consider how this applies to courtship. When you are looking
for a spouse, everybody involved benefits when all of you are honest, and
you all suffer when some of you are deceptive. For just one example, if
you are a man, and if another man is deceiving the women in order to get
a spouse, he may end up with a woman that is much better suited to you.
People who deceive potential spouses will waste their time by getting into
relationships that they should not be in, and they are wasting the life
of their partner, and they will be denying somebody else the particular
spouse that they have deceived into marrying them. Nobody benefits from
such deception, not even the deceptive person himself. Animals benefit
from this selfish behavior, but not modern humans.
We should start seriously looking for a spouse during our late teenage
years or early adult years, and those should be considered the prime years
of life. We should be appalled by people who waste that portion
of our life.
If people truly understood this concept, then they would be honest when
they were looking for a spouse. They would want a spouse that they truly
fit with, not somebody who has been tricked into marriage.
It is necessary for animals and prehistoric humans to behave in a selfish
manner and fight with one another for food, territory, and reproduction,
but now that we are living in technically advanced cities, the human race
must evolve into a creature that can understand why honesty is truly the
best policy. Ideally, an adult would not have to be told to be honest.
Ideally, the human race will evolve into a creature that figures this out
during its childhood.
In the world today, and for the foreseeable future, people are going
to have to lie once in a while simply because we are living among people
who cannot handle the truth. We often have to lie about whether we like
somebody's hairstyle, artwork, children, or pets. Many people today, when
presented with the truth, will become angry or have a temper tantrum.
To confuse the issue, sometimes we lie to simplify complicated situations.
For example, if somebody were to ask you if you enjoy having dinner with
them, or going to the beach with them, you might say "Yes" rather than
give a long, vague, and confusing explanation about how on some days you
enjoyed it a lot, and other days you mostly enjoyed it but not all aspects
of it, and on other days you didn't care for it too much.
Life is becoming complicated. Although we could say that nobody would
lie in an ideal world, is such a world practical? Perhaps
a few million years from now, but not during our lifetimes. However, we
should pass judgment on when a person has crossed the line from "acceptable
lying" to "destructive lying".
We cannot force people to be honest, and we cannot force students to
want to learn. Humans must evolve into a creature that wants to be honest,
wants to learn, and wants to contribute. Animals fight for food and reproduction,
but humans must enjoy cooperating with other people, participating in society,
and being honest, responsible, and considerate.
Children need a probation
The quality control for humans needs to be different than it
is for material items. When a factory produces items, the quality control
inspectors can reject items anywhere along the assembly process. However,
I don't think we should apply this policy to people. Instead, our quality
control should be only at the beginning of the process, such as
the first six years of life.
If we set six years as being the probationary period, then during
the first six years of a child's life, the Population Quality Control department
would routinely analyze the child and pass judgment on whether he is showing
undesirable qualities. This department would execute the physically or
mentally defective children in an attempt to get rid of all of those who
might become troublesome, lonely, sickly, miserable, anti-social, stupid,
or mentally ill.
If a child gets past the probationary period, the Quality Control department
would become much more lenient with him. Teenagers and adults would not
be executed unless they were truly a problem for society.
The reason I would limit this probationary period to the first six or
so years of life is because during those first few years, a child doesn't
have a good understanding of anything, and so it is possible to execute
young children without them understanding why their friend disappeared,
or that they may be next to disappear. This allows us to kill young children
for such reasons as they are ugly, they cry a lot, they seem weird, or
they are stupid.
At a certain point in time, children start becoming aware of the concept
of death. If we were executing teenagers for such reasons as being ugly
or antisocial, we would cause emotional turmoil among them. Therefore,
the goal of the Quality Control department is to figure out which people
need to be executed while they are still very young. The children who get
past that probationary period will be able to relax. Some of those children
will eventually be classified as unworthy of reproduction or unworthy of
adopting children, and they may have restrictions imposed on them in regards
to the type of jobs they can do, but they will not have to worry about
being executed unless they truly present a threat to society.
If the department was capable of doing this job with 100% perfection,
then they would remove the misfits during the first few years of their
life, and everybody who survived the probation would be happy, healthy,
and well-adjusted to society. There would be no crime, no people who hate
themselves, no envy, and no misfits.
Unfortunately, we cannot expect 100% perfection. As a result, some of
the children who pass through the probation period will eventually become
troublesome adults, or misfits of some type. Therefore, the Quality Control
department would have to continue to watch over everybody.
The police departments and courts in the world today focus on whether
people are following laws, but the Quality Control department would focus
on a person's overall effect on society. By ignoring whether people obey
the laws and judging them by their overall effect on society, we avoid
the problem of people who justify their undesirable behavior by whining
that there is no law against what they did. The opposite is also true.
Specifically, sometimes people will violate a law, but nobody is harmed,
so why should we care? The best example of this are the traffic laws that
most of us regularly violate.
The Quality Control department would also consider whether a person
is capable of enjoying his life. For example, some of the people who are
born with a stuttering problem or a defective hand are wonderful, honest
people. As young children, they will be happy, but eventually they will
begin wishing that they were normal. We are not being nice when we torture
these people. We would be nicer to put them out of their misery, and give
life to a child who is healthy.
Would killing children create
an unpleasant environment?
Some people might worry that the killing of defective children
will create an unpleasant social environment. I agree that killing a child
will cause lots of emotional trauma for his parents and the other children
in his family, and it may also cause emotional trauma for some of the people
who knew the child. However, simply because a policy created some unpleasant
emotional reactions doesn't mean that it is "bad". We have to consider
the overall effect a policy has on human life rather than focus on an individual
act. If we focus on the act of killing a child, then of course our conclusion
will be that it is a horrible thing to do.
Perhaps a good way to understand this issue is to consider how easily
we deal with death in other situations. For example, consider car accidents.
Children, teenagers, and adults are regularly killed and permanently injured
by car accidents, but who is complaining about the death and destruction?
Parents will cry for a while if their child dies in a car accident, but
they quickly resume their life. The people who have no emotional connection
to the accident victims do not even cry. Rather, they enjoy the
images of broken cars, dead bodies, blood, and body parts. They take videos
of the accidents and post them on the Internet for entertainment.
|The satirical Crashvertise
marketing company is taking advantage of the gawking at car accidents by
offering to rush a few pretty women to the scene of a car accident to hold
up whatever advertising sign you want the drivers to see.
Why are we able to deal with the death and suffering of automobile
accidents, but we are traumatized over abortions, assisted suicide, and
the execution of defective children? I think it is because we have strong
emotional inhibitions about killing our own species, but if the killings
are caused by something else, such as an automobile accident, we consider
it to be just an unfortunate aspect of life.
If a pregnant woman is in an automobile accident, and if her fetus pops
out of her and onto the street, she will cry a while, and then she resumes
her life. The people in the other cars will be entertained by the dead
fetus, and many will laugh as they watch the fetus fly through the air,
and many people will post videos of the dead fetus. Lots of people who
saw the incident will giggle with their friends about watching the fetus
fly through the air. The story will circulate around the world, and it
will entertain millions of people.
If that same woman had been driving to an abortion clinic, and if she
not have an accident, then she
would have killed her baby at the clinic, but in that case, many of the
people who were entertained by her dead fetus and who were posting videos
of it would be outraged that she killed the fetus. Obviously, people don't
really care about a dead fetus; they care about how it was
killed. If people really wanted to reduce killing, they would do something
about all of the automobile accidents, false flag operations, wars, etc.
The people who complain about abortion, euthanasia, and the killing
of retarded children do not really care about the deaths. Rather, they
are upset that humans did the killing.
When nature does the killings, they are entertained, and sometimes giggle,
but when humans do the killing, they are horrified.
When we see a fetus killed by "natural causes", our minds will react
to the death in a certain manner, but when we see a human kill a
fetus, a different portion of our brain is stimulated, and the reaction
is much more intense. That portion could be described as "inhibitions"
that are designed to prevent stupid animals from killing their own species.
Most people interpret that unpleasant emotional feeling as a sign that
there is something inherently wrong with killing, but there is nothing
wrong with killing.
Animals have inhibitions about killing because animals do not have the
ability to make wise decisions about these issues. Animals can kill only
when their inhibitions are overridden by a more dominant emotion, such
as hunger or fear. As monkeys developed into humans, they needed stronger
inhibitions about killing, especially about killing their own species.
Today, however, humans must control their inhibitions and make decisions
about which animals and people need to be killed. We are allowing animal
populations to grow excessively, and we are allowing the human population
to become contaminated with criminals and retards.
All of us experience an unpleasant emotional reaction to an abortion
and the execution of retarded children, but we don't have to mindlessly
respond to those emotions by becoming hysterical. At least some of us have
the ability to control our emotions, think about the issue, and pass judgment
on which type of killing is sensible, and which killings should be prohibited.
You have lots of options in life. You can chose to waste your life crying
over the execution of a retarded child, or you can regard the execution
as an unfortunate but necessary aspect of modern life.
People are suffering and dying every day because of car accidents, crime,
pedophilia, diseases, sports, Jewish false flag operations, wars, lightning,
tornadoes, and attacks by pet dogs. There is also tremendous loneliness,
awkwardness, pouting, suicide, and misery as a result of people who hate
themselves because they are ugly, stupid, neurotic, or deformed. Orphans
are suffering because they are unwanted. We are not relieving any of the
suffering by becoming hysterical over abortions or the killing of retarded
If we can figure out how to identify and execute the miserable and defective
children while they are very young, we will cause their parents to suffer
a bit of emotional trauma, but we have the potential of creating a world
in which the teenagers and adults are happy with themselves and can trust
one another. There would be no cravings for cosmetic surgery, no retards,
no children in orphanages, and no people pouting or suffering because of
their physical or mental disorders.
People are suffering everywhere in the world every day, and there always
will be some suffering. However, if we start the process of learning how
to identify and remove defective children, through the years we will do
an increasingly better job of reducing the number of miserable people.
This will create a world in which people enjoy life, treat one another
with decency, and can trust one another.
Millions of people react with horror to an abortion, but giggle at a
car accident. They have a tantrum when they hear about assisted suicide,
but they ignore the unhappy teenagers who commit suicide. They think they
are wonderful, loving people because they become hysterical over abortions
and euthanasia, but they are actually just stupid
animals who are doing nothing to stop the misery around them.
There is going to be suffering and death no matter what we do. Killing
retarded and defective children will cause some suffering, but it will
eliminate other types of suffering. We have to consider what is best overall
for the human race.
Ugly babies should be killed
Allowing an ugly baby to live is torturing a human. A recent
example is Nadia
Ilse, whose entire childhood was wasted as result of being rejected
and insulted by other children. Children have a natural craving to torment
defective children. This is a vicious and cruel aspect of animals and humans,
but what is the solution? In the case of Nadia, she was given free cosmetic
surgery by the Little Baby Face
Foundation. However, surgery is useful only for the children whose
ugliness is trivial. There are a lot
of children who are so ugly that medical technology cannot help them.
Even if surgeons could fix all forms of ugliness, that would help only
a small number of the defective people. Surgery would be useless for the
children who are suffering from weird personalities, intellectual disorders,
migraine headache, allergies, stupidity, Tourette's syndrome, stuttering
problems, speech disorders, defective livers, and faulty memories.
Nadia Ilse now looks much better, and she might be able to attract a
husband and reproduce, but if we allow ugly people to reproduce, we are
going to have more ugly people in the next generation. The human
race will become increasingly ugly and deformed.
As medical technology improves, we will be able to help a greater percentage
of the ugly people, but if let the ugly people reproduce, they will create
even more extreme variations of ugly people, thereby pushing medical technology
to its limit. Medical technology may never advance fast enough to deal
with the degradation of the human race. Even if medical technology does
become capable of correcting all of our medical disorders, do you want
the future generations to be so incredibly ugly and defective that every
child has to be given hundreds of hours of surgery to correct their cleft
lip, deformed hearts, holes in intestines, club feet, and twisted fingers?
A better solution is to restrict reproduction, and to kill
the defective babies. Our goal should be to create a world in which all
children are happy, healthy, intelligent, talented, good-looking, nice
smelling, and have nice personalities. It is cruel to raise children
who suffer from mental or physical disorders. We are not "loving"
a child when we give life to a child who will never be happy. People who
give life to defective children are torturing children. Furthermore,
some of those children will torment us because they will grow up
to be angry, bitter, envious adults. It would be better to control our
emotions and kill the ugly, deformed, and sickly children while
they are still too young to understand what is happening to them.
The people at the Little Baby Face Foundation are helping a small percentage
of ugly people feel less disgusted with themselves, but they are doing
nothing to eliminate the underlying cause of ugliness. The only sensible
solution is to improve the genetic quality of the human race.
It's also important to note that many - probably most - of the people
who promote giving life to ugly and deformed children refuse to assist
with the care that these children need. Imagine if the government decided
to provide all of the ugly and deformed
children with whatever cosmetic surgery and medical technology we have
available today. That policy would require that we build a lot more hospitals
and surgical centers, and a lot more people would have to become surgeons,
doctors, and nurses. We would also need more people working in the factories
that produce medical supplies and drugs. Who is going to do all that work?
How many of the people who oppose the killing of defective children
are willing to go to medical school to become a doctor, surgeon, or nurse?
How many of them are willing to work in a factory that produces medical
supplies or equipment? How many of them are willing to take care of some
of the unwanted children?
The people who oppose the killing of unwanted and defective children
are following their stupid emotions to protect children. They are
not interested in studying or discussing the problem, and they do not want
to help with the care of the unwanted children. Most of them do not even
want the defective children to live in their neighborhoods. They want to
push the defective children aside, as if they are trash. They want the
defective children to live, but they want somebody else to be responsible
Don't be intimidated by the people who oppose abortion and euthanasia.
Don't be fooled into thinking they are loving people. They are cruel, selfish
who cannot deal with the problems of modern society, and who are inadvertently
torturing children and causing the human race to degrade.
Kill the fetuses that
Melissa Ohden (in photo) is a woman who was aborted very late
in her mother's pregnancy with the saline solution technique. She suffered
some damage from the procedure, but she survived it. Melissa is not the
first fetus to survive this abortion technique. Most of the fetuses that
survive this technique are so seriously damaged by the saline solution
that they have a very short life, but Melissa had only minor damage. She
was later adopted and is now 31 years old and on
a crusade to reduce abortions.
Her story is very interesting and emotional, but she's not helping us
to deal with the problem of abortion or unwanted children. She complains
that her mother wanted to abort her, but she doesn't tell us why
her mother wanted to abort her. She wants to stop abortion, but how can
abortion be stopped if we don't understand the cause?
No woman wants an abortion. Women hate abortions. However,
the people who crusade against abortions are insinuating that women are choosing
abortions with a casual, carefree attitude.
Melissa Ohden gives speech after speech about how her mother wanted
to abort her, and she complains over and over about abortions, but she
doesn't do any research into why her
mother or the millions of other women are having abortions. She is not
helping us to understand our problems, and she's not offering any solutions.
She is simply upset by the concept of abortions. It is as idiotic as a
person who goes on a crusade to stop people from having cavities filled
in their teeth. Nobody wants a dentist to drill into their teeth. We pay
dentist to do it only when we don't know what else to do. We all hate doing
it. Therefore, crusading against it is not going to stop people from doing
it. Killing dentists will not stop people from having their teeth drilled,
either. The only way to stop people from having dentists drill their teeth
is to understand the cause of cavities and offer people a method to prevent
Likewise, killing abortion doctors and reprimanding women for having
abortions is not going to stop abortions. The anti-abortion people are
than idiots; they are causing trouble for society with their constant
whining, murders, arsons, and fighting.
A lot of people believe that they can stop abortions by making women
feel guilty, or by making abortions illegal. This is similar to the people
who think they can stop cigarette smoking by frightening people with photos
of cancer patients on the packages of cigarettes, or stop drug use by making
The only way to stop abortions is to study the issue, make guesses
at policies that will prevent abortions, and experiment with those
possible solutions. Unfortunately, Melissa and the others who oppose abortion
have no interest in studying the issue or experimenting with society. Melissa
is not even interested in enjoying her own life. She is not grateful
being alive. Rather, she is wasting her life by feeling sorry for
herself and spreading misery to other people. She cannot
the issue and become a productive member of society.
The fact that Melissa is still alive brings up another interesting issue
that I've mentioned in previous files. Humans are often described as violent,
but we are so opposed to violence that when an unwanted child is aborted
and turns out to be alive, very few people are capable of killing the child.
Instead, they just back away in shock and let the child live, even
if they realize it will be seriously deformed, and even if they know that
it will suffer a slow, miserable death. If people were truly violent, they
would have no trouble killing a seriously damaged fetus that survived an
If the people in the abortion clinic had killed Melissa after birth,
then she never would have suffered the emotional torture of growing up
as an unwanted, aborted child, and she would not have suffered whatever
medical problems the saline solution caused. Also, none of us would have
to listen to her whining. Letting her live was a mistake.
She is not grateful for life. She thinks she is helping the world, but
who among us is benefiting from her existence? She is just dirt in the
Allowing aborted babies to live is torturing those children. It is idiotic
to allow an unwanted child to live after you have tried to kill him. Unfortunately,
people have such inhibitions about killing our own species that we have
trouble fixing our botched attempts at killing unwanted fetuses and criminals.
We also have trouble killing unwanted pet dogs and cats. We can kill wolves,
bobcats, and other animals that frighten us, but we cannot kill the deer,
pigeons, opossums, or other animals that reproduce in excessive quantities
as a result of our killing of their predators. There is a city in South
Africa where the
penguin population has become so large that the
penguins are wandering around the city streets and into people's homes.
Penguins, koala bears, and pigeons might be adorable in their natural environment,
but they're not adorable when they have reproduced to such extremes that
they are wandering around our house.
It makes sense for animals to take care of all
of their babies because animals do not have the intelligence to make wise
decisions about which of their babies to kill. Likewise, it was best for
prehistoric humans to support all of their children. Modern humans, however,
not only have the ability to make wise decisions about which baby lives
and which dies, we have no other option. We are now interfering
with nature so we must do what nature used to do. We can actually do a
job than nature because we can put the defective babies out of their misery
very quickly, whereas nature often causes animals and humans to die a slow,
torturous death. We can also make the sensible decision of killing a child
before the parents have wasted a lot of time and effort to raise him. Nature,
by comparison, allows parents to spend years struggling to care for a defective
child that eventually dies a slow death. Nature is extremely cruel.
We have to control our emotions and make intelligent decisions. We are
being cruel when we let defective or unwanted children suffer a life of
misery. We are also fools to think that killing animals is cruel. Nature
designed animals to reproduce excessively because that is how evolution
works, and the animals are also designed to be food for one another. Animals
are supposed to eat one another alive. Animals are not supposed
to reach old age. Animals actually have a much nicer death when humans
But where do we draw the
Don't be intimidated by the people who complain that if we start killing
babies who are seriously defective, then we will eventually lower our standards
and start killing babies for trivial defects, and then we will start killing
for having acne pimples or stained teeth. Yes, if we allow pedophiles,
criminals, and psychos in top government positions, then we would be taking
a risk to give them the authority to kill defective children. The solution
to this problem is not to be afraid of euthanasia. The solution
is to raise standards for citizens, and especially for our leaders.
I would not want Henry Kissinger, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, or Barbara
Walters to be in control of determining which children live and which die,
but if we can create a city with higher-quality people, then it would be
practical for us to follow this policy.
The men we put into leadership positions need to understand that a woman
has an intense craving to take care of babies, but the female mind was
never designed with a concern about the quality
of the baby. Women don't even have any concern about what they are
taking care of. Women will take care of defective babies, animals, dolls,
and babies that don't have brains.
A mother will spend an enormous amount of time crying and screaming
if we kill one of her babies, and our emotional reaction is to assume that
we are inflicting incredible pain on the woman, but the woman is simply
"reacting" to the death like a stupid animal. During prehistoric times,
nature killed human babies on a regular basis, and we can be certain that
the women cried every time a baby died. However, the women survived.
The cycle of giving birth, crying when a baby dies, and then having
another baby, is simply a part of being a woman. It is similar to the cycle
that men go through of struggling to achieve some goal, failing at it,
becoming upset with the failure, and then getting over it and starting
on another goal. Feeling sorry for a woman whose baby has died is encouraging
her to pout rather than deal with it. It would be as foolish as encouraging
a man to feel sorry for himself for failing at something. If a man wasted
more than a few hours crying over his failure to get a job, or achieve
some other goal, his wife would likely tell him to stop crying like a
baby and get over it. Men should provide the same inspiration for women.
After a mother has spent a certain number of days crying about the death
of her baby, the men should tell her that it is time for her to forget
about it and move on with life.
When somebody joins the military or is hired by a business, the other
people in the organization don't assume that he is going to be a productive
member. Instead, new employees are given a probationary period, and the
military goes one step further and puts new members through training programs
to identify and remove the misfits. We should apply this type of policy
to all baby humans. Let each new person prove they are worthy of becoming
a member of the human race.
Should jail guards remove
babies from toilets?
The news reports do not provide a serious or detailed description
of what happened to Lisa Allison, but from what I can understand, she had
been arrested while she was pregnant, and she was taken to jail, but something
was wrong with her pregnancy. She began bleeding, and her baby slipped
out and into the toilet. She did not take her baby out of the toilet, and
neither did anybody else. She lost so much blood that the jail guards sent
her to the hospital for a blood transfusion. Eventually one of the guards
flushed the baby down the toilet.
The journalists do not provide a serious report of the incident. Instead,
they try to stimulate pity for the pregnant woman, and anger towards the
guards, with such
"It was her one and only time in jail,
and it was her birthday while she was in bible study when the pain began."
Why should we feel sorry for this woman? We could say that she is lucky
to have been put in jail for her crime rather than evicted from society
or executed. During prehistoric times, people who misbehaved were sometimes
abandoned or killed. Furthermore, if she had been born in any other era,
she may have died from the loss of blood. We could say that she is lucky
she lives in an era that has the medical technology and equipment necessary
to keep her alive. She could also be thankful that people donated blood.
We could say that she should thank the guards for sending her to
the hospital rather than ignoring her problem. And she should also thank
the medical personnel.
None of us owe any favors to any criminal. We do not owe them blood
transfusions, and none of has an obligation to reach into a toilet that
is full of blood and whatever else, to retrieve their fetus.
Some news reports emphasize that this was her first time in jail,
and that she was in Bible study, thereby implying that we should
be more sympathetic to her compared to the criminals who have been in and
out of jail several times, or who are atheists or Muslim. If society followed
my guidelines, nobody would ever have a first
time in jail because the troublesome people would either be
evicted or executed.
It's also important to note that some news reports tell us that it was
her birthday when she first felt her
pregnancy pains. The journalists are trying to manipulate the emotions
of the readers. The journalists could be described as criminals
or con artists who are using news reports to manipulate us
rather than inform us. We should set standards for journalists and fire
those who are incompetent and
evict or execute those who
are destructive to society.
It's also interesting to consider how many additional idiotic issues
we create for ourselves if the courts insist that jail guards are obligated
to remove a fetus from a toilet. For some examples:
|| Will the jail guards be obligated to remove
every fetus, or
only those above a certain age? If a woman loses a three-month-old fetus
in the toilet, will the jail guards be required to pull it out so that
she can give it a funeral? Or will they be allowed to flush a three-month-old
fetus? Imagine that the guards are told that they have to remove all fetuses
that are older than six months, and a woman with a five-month-old fetus
lies to the guards and tells them that her fetus is six months old. After
the guards discover the truth, would they be allowed to toss the baby back
into the toilet?
If the jail guards are told to remove
every fetus regardless
of its age, then removing the very young fetuses could require emptying
the contents of the toilet into a shallow pan and then searching for the
fetus with a magnifying glass. Should the
to do this? Or should we tell the mother to do it?
If the jail guards remove a fetus that is alive, who is going to take
care of it while the mother is in jail? Should we create some "family jails"
so that women can raise their children while in jail? If we allow women
to raise babies while in jail, at what age do we take the children away
We should design laws according to what is best for society,
not according to our emotional reactions. How does society benefit by telling
the police to take care of a criminal's fetus? Lisa Allison's attorney
"No matter how guilty a person might be,
that child is innocent." However, if a person is a criminal due
to their genetic qualities, then their children should be considered as
Children are the responsibility
Most of the babies that were born during prehistoric times
died before they became adults, but today we put phenomenal resources into
keeping every baby alive. Our emotions fool us into believing that children
are beautiful bundles of joy, but in reality they are just random
collections of genetic material, and now that nature is no longer taking
care of us, we must pass judgment on which of those genetic jumbles are
worthy of our time and resources.
In this modern world, one person can influence everybody else
on the planet, including the future generations. As a result, children
should be regarded as a responsibility of society, not as toys for parents
to play with. Children belong to everybody, not to the parents. As I described
years ago here,
the best example are the Neanderthal creatures, such as Henry Kissinger,
who were born in central Asia, and who ended up causing suffering for billions
of people around the world.
If there was a shortage of people, then we could justify saving the
fetus of a criminal, but there is no shortage of people, especially not
of dishonest, psychotic, or stupid people.
of a Swedish television show was about two rival gangs that were fighting
for control of the heroin trade in their city, and the leader of one gang
kidnapped the daughter of the other gang's leader. Near the end of the
show the two gang leaders and the kidnapped daughter were together in an
isolated location, with police snipers secretly hiding all around the area.
The police could have easily shot and killed all three of them. Instead,
several police risked their lives to save the kidnapped daughter,
and then they struggled to save both gang leaders.
The Swedish television shows are propaganda to encourage pity for criminals
and to make it seem as if killing a criminal causes serious psychological
trauma for policemen.
To a person who follows his emotions, every child is a precious creation,
but in reality, we are fools to risk our lives in order to save the children
of destructive or psychotic people. Their children are no more valuable
to us than the larva of fleas. We must control our craving for children
so that we can treat children in a more serious manner.