Yin Yang Equal Opposites Theory of Government

Hey. Sorry for not posting and for being a lazy stoner.

Ok - so heres my theory for government. I am blazed right now so excuse me if I'm not at my most coherent.

Yin Yang - the ancient chinese philosophy that the world needs a balance of good and evil. I think I agree with this. Heres how i put it: appreciation is reliant on the converse. By this i mean that in order to appreciate something you must experience its opposite. If you were never sad you would never be able to experience happiness, do you see? For if you were always feeling good then you would not in fact be feeling good but merely average, the norm. Experience is about peaks and troughs. You take the good with the bad and just roll with it. But forgive me, im getting a little bit hippy surfer with this. Dude.

So you need to have both good and bad so you can compare the 2 and be comparably happier/sadder etc. How does this relate to government.

I believe that legal organisations police etc should work with crime gangs. This would I believe if done properly enable almost total control of crime. A criminals guild almost. The police tolerate the crime gangs and in return the crime lords regulate the criminals. Im not gonna go fully into the ramifications of this cos i want you to have a think about it, but i can see at least a few ways that crime could be reduced using this system.

Sweet dreams. xx

Rejection of accepted thinking

I'd like to start off by saying sorry for the lack of recent posts. I promise that will change, as I've just managed to throw off the shackles of the esso petrol station - almost. They give you a shitty tie to wear but in return they take your soul. For some bizarre reason I've agreed to still work there on Sundays - I think there may be a mild amount of brainwashing involved. So I'm pretty much free now - looking for agency work, trying to get some comedy written and practising grade 6 guitar. Looks pretty easy so I'm gonna do the grade 6 exam, then the grade 8 and hopefully start some teaching.

So anyway - time to reject some accepted thinking. Also, allow me at this point to apologise for my excessive hyphenation - but I'm pretty stoned and I'm digging it right now.

I would like to call into question the socially cemented concept of authority. I have to be honest, authority confuses and somewhat frightens me.

The very idea of authority (as opposed to superiority, an idea I find no inherent fault with), the idea that there are people or systems that you have to obey without question - is an idea that I find nonsensical. It completely goes against a natural right so completely lodged in my whole being that I would die to protect it - freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is the one thing that no-one; ever; anywhere; should be able to take away from us.

We should always think for ourselves and not be told what to think - not by anyone. If someone tells you to do something, you should always question it. Of course, there will be people in positions of responsibility, such as police officers, whose opinions must be given some weight, but I would go as far to say that people in those positions who assume authority over people are in fact abusing their responsibility towards them.

It is only by questioning that we can ever learn, and I urge that we continue to question and to learn; in any situation, and from any experience.

And of course, you should question everything that I say as well. I consider myself to be a protector of intelligence, but I am certainly not its master.

On that note, I will soon be posting an article in opposition to my previous article arguing for the legalisation of all drugs. What, you thought I was just gonna give one side of the story and leave it at that? Well, like a great friend once told me: leave your preconceptions at home. There is never just one side to any story. Remember - truth is absolute but knowledge is subjective. And fuck it, I'll do a post explaining that last sentence as well in the next couple of days - it will be sick***

xx peace out

Fearlessness

I have often thought that fearlessness was a quality to be admired. Today I realised that I was wrong.

If you have no fear, then there is no value to your difficult choices or actions.

Bravery is about overcoming fear, therefore if you have no fear you cannot be brave, just neutral.

If you are not afraid of doing something and you do it, well that's fine. But if you are afraid of something and you go ahead and do it anyway - then that's courage my friends.

Thanks.

Bush Rape

I just took a pleasant stroll into Swindon town centre with a tenner and came back 1.7 grams heavier, or about 1.4 grams if I know anything about Swindon, which unfortunately I do.

On the way back I encountered two people dressed as a kangaroo and a koala bear, something to do with promoting the australian bar Walkabout. Strangely enough, all I could think about as I passed them was what I would do if they raped me.

Imagine that:

Hi, I'd like to report a sexual assault please (pretty calm for a rape victim I know, but I like to think I've got good composure).........
Description? Yeah one had a bushy tail and powerful thigh muscles - the other was incredibly cute but rather violent and had sharp claws........Ethnic origin? Um, ...... marsupial?
[click]

Anyway, I've lived to see another day with my anus intact. And, as I always say, each day you do that you can give yourself a pat on the back. Nice.

Tampax Nonsense

I'll keep this very brief as I didn't finish work till 6 and I've got to be back there at 3 so I need some sleep.

I saw a box of tampons today that had on them the writing: now with new non-slip grip. WHY? What could have possibly caused them to need a non-slip grip? Be aware that the non-slip grip is on the applicator, so is designed to (apparently) stop you slipping when applying them. But the applicators are made of plastic, and they're not naturally slippy. What kind of idiot would be so careless as to slip when applying a tampon?

To be honest I'm not so much confused as offended by the sheer ludicrousness of it all.

Anyway, Night Night

God in the Matrix?

Assume for a moment, if you will, that the plot of The Matrix is completely true and that we do in fact live in a computer simulated world controlled by robots. Now, if this is the case, my question is where does God fit in?

If we live in the matrix, surely God would not exist inside the matrix? If he were to exist inside the matrix, say, as a piece of programming, the theist would not be able to say that he is in fact God, as he would not be perfect - just a program. So he must exist outside of the matrrix, in the machine world. In this effect, God is reduced to indifference as he would have no direct access to us, we would not be able to interact. God is in the world that he created, we are in the world created by those who we created. That last sentence was sick. Actually, I think I'm gonna end it on that. Safe.

Thanks for reading, goodnight.

Lateral Thinking My Arse!

There is a lateral thinking puzzle that goes thus:

You are driving along on a stormy night when you go past a bus stop. At the bus stop are three people. There is an old woman who seems in need of medical attention, there is an old friend who once saved your life, and there is the woman of your dreams. There is only space for one passenger in your car. What do you do?

Now I won't keep you in suspense; the 'correct' or normally given solution is this:

Give the keys of the car to your friend, and have him drive the old woman to the hospital while you wait at the bus stop with your dream woman.

The immediate problem I have with this answer is that it is completely unfair to your friend. I mean, this guy saved your life, it really seems to me that it's you who owes him a favour, not the other way around. Don't forget he's been waiting at the bus stop with this woman, and he probably fancies her as well if she's that amazing. Who knows, she might have liked him too, they just didn't want to do anything with an old lady dying next to them. Asking him to drive the biddy to the hospital while you stay there and steal his lay is tantamount to being a complete cunt. In my opinion. Excuse the strong language, but I felt it necessary. Hehe.

Here's what I'd do:

Run the old woman over to put her out of her misery. She's had a good innings. What's she doing at a bus stop in the middle of the night anyway? She should be in bed. Probably been out dogging. Then nail your dream girl on the bonnet and drive your mate down the pub to get him a drink. I think you owe him one.

Thanks for reading. Take it easy.

Minority Report Paradox

If you have not seen minority report, I sincerely recommend that you put it on your to do list. It is a great film for those interested in philosophy, particularly the philosophy of predestination and fate. You can purchase this movie from amazon by clicking the link below. If you have seen it, you will know that the basic premise of the film is that in a futuristic society, people are arrested and punished for murders that they have not yet committed; crimes that have been seen by the precogs, who are clairvoyant siblings.

The paradox that I have found arises when you consider the following situation. It is entirely possible that, when the pre-crime unit arrives to arrest you for a murder that you have not yet committed, you are not aware of the reasons behind your arrest (for the very reason that you have not yet committed any crime). In this circumstance, it is likely that some people, feeling that they have done nothing wrong, would try to resist arrest. Imagine that during an ensuing struggle, you were to kill one of the arresting officers. This murder would be seen by the precogs and hence the pre-crime unit would come to arrest you before it happens. Do you see where I am going with this?

What if the murder you are being arrested for is a murder that would only be committed because you were being arrested? This is a closed loop and hence a paradox arises. I can't find a way to resolve this paradox, but if you have any ideas please comment or send me an email.

Why all drugs should be legalised

I'd like to preface this post by making an important distinction that should curtail a few immediate objections: saying that drugs should be legal is NOT the same as saying that people should do drugs or that drugs are necessarily a good thing. We need to be able to separate moral or ethical issues from legal issues. And when I say all drugs, I mean all drugs. Yes, even heroin. There are several very persuasive reasons for the legalisation of all drugs, and it will be seen that these reasons are generic and therefore apply to any drug.

First and foremost, there is the issue of safety. A large majority of drug-related deaths are caused by contamination. If drugs were legal, they could be regulated and controlled by the government. This would ensure that there were few if not zero 'bad batches', saving many lives.
There would also be less taboo associated with drugs, so there would be much more information available, and people would be more inclined to seek help if suffering from any drug-related problems or medical conditions.

The government would also be able to make a huge amount of revenue from taxation of legal drugs. This extra revenue could be spent on information campaigns and rehabilitation programmes for those suffering from drug addiction. You may think that a black market would emerge that would undercut the government price. However, if drugs were legal the government would be able to achieve incredible economies of scale by making use of mass-production. This would ensure that they would be able to offer the lowest price and prevent a black market economy from arising. The lower price of drugs would also end a large proportion of criminal acts committed to finance drug use (burglaries etc).

Making drugs legal and allowing the government to control them would also take the money out of the hands of crime gangs. An alarming percentage of profits made from selling drugs are used to help finance criminal and even terrorist organistions. Taking this money away could help to loosen the hold of crime overall (I appreciate that this point may be a tad optimistic - but I hope you can see where I'm coming from). Drugs would be more out in the open and by consequence statistics on drug use/damage/rehabilitation would be more reliable and accessible.

The main objection that people give is that more people would use drugs if they were legalised. I point out that many people who indulge in drugs do so with little or no regard to their illegality - I know cannabis to be illegal but I still smoke it. I have to concede, nonetheless, that this is possible in the case of some drugs, as people may mistakenly conflate legal and logical/personal issues. However, I argue that this would only be the case for the less serious drugs. A drug like heroin for example, is not the kind of drug you would do just because it was legal. The devestating consequences of heroin use are much publicised and so well known that many people revile it, regardless of its illegality. With regard to the drugs whose use may rise due to them becoming legal, I maintain that the harm caused by increased use would be more than outweighed by the benefits of the safety issues mentioned above.

It is for these reasons that I believe all drugs should be made legal. I look forward to reading any comments or questions you might have. Thanks, goodnight.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to my new blog. As this is the first post, I shall take some time to explain what this site is all about. My aim here is to think, and to inspire others to think. And not only to think, but to push the very boundaries of thought to previously unexplored levels. No light task, but I believe that we can do it. I will be posting frequently, as there will no doubt be much for us to ponder. The topics I will explore will be varied, and will include but not be restricted to: philosophy, science, religion and politics. I welcome and urge you to mail me if you have any comments or queries whatsoever. Thanks for reading and I hope to hear from you soon.