C O N T E N T S

New ideas are just modifications of existing ideas A government can be modeled after businesses Why should we care about our social environment? There should be as few leaders as possible Businesses and militaries create better schools Business leaders should meet high standards, also People need guidance more than they need freedom We need leaders, not public servants

One style of furnace that prehistoric people could have built

You might find it interesting to consider that people 20,000 years ago could have been using solar furnaces. The people who had found pieces of gold could have flattened them into thin sheets, and then used those sheets to line the inside of a parabolic wooden or clay bowl.

Even though the mirrored surface would have been crude, it would be an easy way to start a fire or cook pieces of meat on a cold but sunny winter day.

If a group of engineers from today were transported back in time 20,000 years, but without any tools or clothing, they would initially be at a disadvantage to the primitive tribes that were living around them, but their intangible knowledge about farming, written language, carpentry, metallurgy, sewing, fishing, and other issues would give them an incredible advantage. They would be able to create a primitive agricultural village with vegetable gardens, wooden waterwheels, beeswax candles, lamps that burn fat, and houses.

Likewise, if some engineers 20,000 years in the future were to visit our era, they would be able to show us that there is a lot of amazing technology that we have the ability to create right now, but which we haven't noticed yet.

Why didn't any of the people in 20,000 years ago develop solar furnaces or a written language? Why don't any of us create some of the technology that will exist 20,000 years in the future? The reason is because technology develops in a manner similar to how living creatures evolve. Specifically, by trivial modifications to existing technology.

The human mind creates new technology by experimenting with modifications to what we already know. This process will always result in small, incremental improvements rather than enormous leaps. In order to create technology that will not be created for another 20,000 years, we would have to be able to create a new idea from nothing. It would be analogous to a chimpanzee giving birth to a human.

Our mind thinks by processing information. This requires that we have some information to think about. The results of our thinking will always be nothing more than a modification of what we already know.

In order for a person 20,000 years ago to have conceived of a solar furnace, he would have had to conceive of a lot of different and independent concepts, such as how to flatten gold into thin sheets, how to create a parabola, why the shape has to be a parabola, how to use the gold to make a mirror, and the concept that sunlight can be focused and concentrated. Those concepts are not going to magically appear in his mind when the only information in his memory is about hunting wild pigs and sharpening a rock into an arrowhead.

Although the human race has not had much social progress, the progress that we have had is the result of trivial changes to previous social technology. For example, the school systems of today are an accumulation of small changes to the simplistic classes that the Summerians started 6000 years ago to teach children how to use a written language and arithmetic.

Why have the social sciences been so unproductive compared to the physical sciences? One way to understand this is to understand why people during the Middle Ages failed to turn iron into gold. The people during the Middle Ages had acquired a lot of knowledge about fire. They were using fire to turn wood into charcoal, clay into pottery, and raw dough into bread. Even more amazing, fire was capable of transforming certain rocks into iron and other metals.

The people were not idiots for wondering if fire could transform iron into gold, but their experiments failed because they were developing theories that were based on a false assumption. This is analogous to building a house on a faulty foundation. Likewise, their attempts to create perpetual motion failed because those experiments were also based on a false assumption.

Different people reacted differently to their failures to turn iron into gold. Some people just continued to try again and again, throughout their entire lives; some people eventually became so frustrated that they gave up trying; and some wondered if they were wrong to assume that iron can be transformed into gold.

Consider how this concept explains the lack of progress in the social sciences. The social sciences are still almost as useless as medieval alchemy, and the reason is because most people are basing their theories on a faulty foundation. Specifically, most people assume that humans are a creation of a God, and most of the remaining people assume that the human mind is analogous to a piece of clay that can be molded easily by outside forces. Those two groups of people have created lots of theories about human behavior, government, crime, drug abuse, and divorce, but all of their theories have been failures because they have all been based on a false assumption.

Different people react to the failures in social technology in different ways. For example, in regard to the failures of the theory that punishment will stop crime and rehabilitate criminals, some people react to failures by repeating the policy over and over, throughout their entire lives; some people become so overwhelmed by the failures that they give up trying to stop crime; but only a few people wonder if our assumptions about humans and crime are wrong.

In order to create social technology, we have to process information that is valid. If we assume that humans are a creation of a god, and if we are not a creation of a god, then all of our theories about human behavior are going to be failures.

If we regard humans as monkeys, and regard the human brain as a biological computer that follows the same rules as animal brains, we will have a different foundation to base our theories on. Will that give us a valid foundation? The way to find out is to try it, and if we start to make progress in social technology, then we know we finally have a valid foundation.

A person needs more than a belief in evolution in order to create useful theories about human behavior. Specifically, he must have enough self control to look seriously at the human race. A person who cannot control his arrogance will not be able to look at humans in a serious manner. He will instead see himself as being superior to other people, and he will see humans as superior to the animals. His distorted view of humans and animals will interfere with his theories of human behavior.

Our emotions do not become stimulated when we study iron, glass, or computers, but they do when we think about social issues. Therefore, a person must be able to control his emotions or his theories will be twisted to fit his emotional cravings.

An example I mentioned years ago here is that humans are the only creature that suffers during childbirth. When a person has so little control over his arrogance that he assumes that humans are superior to other creatures, he will assume that the suffering during childbirth is due to our superiority, such as our large brain. By comparison, if a person can control his arrogance, then he would realize that it makes no sense to claim that a human is superior to a monkey, or that a dog is superior to a cat, or that an apple tree is superior to a cherry tree. He will instead realize that all living creatures are simply different variations of biological machines.

Humans are not superior to other creatures. We are simply different. It is our arrogance that causes us to believe that we are superior. We have greater intelligence than the other animals, but that does not make us "superior" unless we want to define the words in that manner. Other animals have greater strength per pound of muscle, faster reflexes, and better abilities to survive long periods without food or water. Hawks can see more details at a distance; fish can swim better than humans; and dogs have a much better ability to detect odors. If we were to judge creatures by any of those criteria, then some animals are superior to humans. Or if we were to judge the superiority of a creature according to its ability to convert sunlight into food, all of the plants would be superior to humans and animals.

It is our inability to control our arrogance that causes us to believe that we are superior to the animals and plants. People who have so little control over their arrogance that they cannot understand that humans are "different" rather than "superior" will be unable to create useful theories about human behavior. Likewise, we must realize that men and women are "different", and that neither can be described as "superior" to the other.

We think by processing what we already know, so if what we know is that humans are superior to animals, or that men are superior to women, all theories we create from that information are going to be idiotic since we are starting with a nonsensical foundation. All of the theories that we create are going to be warped in order to support that foundation.

By comparison, when a person can control his arrogance, he will be able to realize that humans are just a different species of monkey, and that it makes no sense to say that one species is superior to another. In such a case, instead of regarding the suffering of childbirth as a sign of our superiority, he will regard it as a "difference" between us. That in turn can cause him to wonder why one species of monkey is having more trouble with childbirth than the other monkeys and animals. That can lead him to the conclusion that it is because humans have been using their intelligence to help the genetically defective people to survive and reproduce, thereby allowing those people to pass their defective genes onto the future generations, which in turn is causing humans to degrade genetically.

We could describe humans as being inferior to the animals in many respects. For example, our stomach acid has become so weak that we must be careful of salmonella and other bacteria that many wild animals can deal with. Our mouth is so defective that most people need constant dental care. Our eyesight is so bad that many of us need eyeglasses.

Rather than boast that humans are superior to the animals, it would make more sense to describe humans as a group of monkeys who became so intelligent that they inadvertently began causing themselves to deteriorate into genetic freaks. Every creature has genetic problems, but humans are suffering more than wild animals. Millions of people today are suffering from such serious genetic disorders as migraine headaches, hormone imbalances, hallucinations, food allergies, and a wide variety of mental problems.

If a person cannot control his arrogance, he will be resistant to noticing the crude, animal qualities in himself and his friends, but he will have no problem finding crude qualities in the people he does not like. His arrogance will make it difficult for him to realize that he has a lot in common with the OCD people, the criminals, the pedophiles, the lunatics, Joesph Fritzl, and the obese people. His arrogance will also make it difficult for him to realize that he is a jumble of genetic traits, many of which are low quality or defective.

It is our arrogance that caused scientists to create the idiotic theory that Cro-Magnon man appeared one day 30,000 years ago. The scientists who supported that theory have enough intelligence to realize that evolution is such a slow process that the human brain required millions of years to develop. However, they were spending so much time titillating themselves with praise of how intelligent and educated they are that they could not believe that they had something in common with the savages that existed prior to 30,000 BC.

We don't want to regard primitive people as being similar to ourselves, and so the scientists created the nonsensical theory that Cro-Magnon people appeared one day from nothing and quickly dominated the planet, thereby causing the extinction of the inferior species of humans.

In order for us to achieve social progress, we have to start with a valid base of what a human is. If you do not have the self-control to see your monkey-like qualities or your low-quality traits, and if you cannot see good qualities in the people you dislike, you will create worthless theories about social issues.

It is not enough for you to be able to say the words, "Humans are just a different species of animal, not the superior species." You must truly have control over your arrogance or else your processing of information will be twisted to fit your emotional cravings. You can fool other people with your remarks, and you might be able to fool yourself, but your mind is a biological computer, and your emotions are trying to influence your conclusions, so you must truly have self-control in order to produce realistic theories about humans and yourself.

When the Articles of Confederation turned out to be a failure, the men who created the United States decided to create a new government by analyzing previous governments and looking for improvements to them. They ended up creating a modification of the British government. Regardless of whether the United States government is an improved version of the British government, or an inferior version, the British government was so crude and inefficient that an improvement to it is nothing to boast about.

All of the world's government systems, economic systems, and school systems are crude. If we bring some improvements to the systems that we have right now, we are not going to do much to improve our lives. Fortunately, there is a better solution.

A nation is just an organization of people, and it follows the same rules as businesses, orchestras, militaries, sports teams, and other organizations. However, businesses and militaries have been under intense competitive pressure for thousands of years, and this has caused them to become more advanced than our governments. Therefore, when designing a new government, we should not restrict ourselves to analyzing previous governments. We should also analyze other organizations.

If a business is tiny, it will not be useful as a model for a nation, but a large business or large military is essentially a small nation, and they have the same needs for governments, economic systems, school systems, and legal systems. Therefore, we should analyze the social technology that has proven to be successful for large businesses and militaries, and adapt those concepts to a nation.

The attitude in the world today is that businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations are mysteriously different from nations, and that the organizations do not have or need economic systems, government systems, voting systems, school systems, legal systems, or other culture, but that is a false assumption.

The economic system of a business or military is the system that the management uses to provide its members with equipment, water, food, and supplies. Their school system is the system the management uses to train their members on how to use whatever equipment they need to use, and perform whatever chores they need to perform. Their legal system is the system that they use to resolve disputes and crimes.

Large businesses and militaries also have a variety of cultural activities, such as celebrations of an achievement of an employee or team. Many large organizations also have their own "public art"; that is, the management provides the buildings, hallways, offices, and landscaped areas with decorations. Some organizations have created clothing styles for their employees, and some also have their own recreational areas or day care centers.

The personnel department of a large business or military is analogous to an "employment agency" of a nation because it helps the members switch from one job inside the organization to another, and it also functions as an "immigration agency" because it looks for people outside the organization to join the team.

A large business and military needs the same social systems that a nation needs. The reason is simply because all organizations are "teams of people", and all teams of people need the same type of social technology to organize them, educate them, and deal with problems.

When we realize that businesses, militaries, and other large organizations have government systems, school systems, immigration agencies, and other social systems, we will notice some dramatic differences between the social systems of our organizations and those of our nations. For a few examples:

• No organization uses a free enterprise system, or has money.
The members are provided with whatever they need for free. However, their economic system is not based on Marxism or communism. Their economic system provides the members with items only if they contribute something of value to the organization in return. The members who cannot contribute are either given different tasks in an attempt to find something that they can do properly, or they are evicted from the organization.

• Organizations do not promote the theory that guns will stop crime.
Organizations do not provide employees with the right to have or carry weapons. Instead, they promote the philosophy that the best way to reduce crime is to evict the badly behaved people from the business. Guns are authorized only for security personnel, and for the defense of the organization, not to treat as toys.

The people in the military have guns, but their weapons are for the defense of the nation, not as a deterrent to stop burglary, murder, rape, or other crimes within the military. The military police deals with criminals within their organization.

• Organizations treat members with more equality.
Most business executives give themselves salaries that are much larger than those of the factory workers, but internally, a business treats its employees more equally than a nation treats its citizens. The management provides themselves with larger offices, nicer cafeterias, and better furniture, but the differences in material wealth between the members of a business are considerably smaller than the differences between the citizens of a nation.

It might help you to understand this concept if you first consider how it applies to the astronauts in the space station. When the astronauts are in the space station, they are in an environment in which all of them are treated equally. They all have essentially the same sleeping areas, clothing, food, and other luxuries. Also, all of them are expected to clean up after themselves and contribute to the maintenance and work to keep the space station functioning properly. None of them are pampered with luxuries. There are no slaves or servants on the space station, and there is no wealthy class.

However, when the astronauts get back to the earth, they leave the equality of the space station environment and enter a nation that allows tremendous differences between people in regards to material wealth, food, land, servants, and pampering.

The same is true of the sailors on a Navy submarine. While they are on the submarine, they are treated fairly equally. There is not much of a difference in the material wealth or privileges between the captain and the sailors. Everyone on the submarine is expected to clean up after himself and contribute to the maintenance of the submarine.

However, when they leave their submarine and enter the United States, they are leaving a clean, safe, orderly environment in which they are treated fairly equally, and they enter a filthy, chaotic, crime-ridden, disorganized social environment in which there are extreme differences between people in regards to wealth, land, and pampering.

The businesses that most of us admire are those that treat the employees in a more equal manner, just like on a Navy submarine or in the space station. Although the management of a business might receive enormous salaries, those salaries are of value only when they leave the business. While they are working at the business, there is not much of a difference between the wealth or treatment of the management and the employees.

The management will have slightly larger offices, slightly better furniture, and slightly nicer bathrooms, but the differences between the management and the employees is small. The managers are not Kings and Queens. The managers are expected to put a lot of time and effort into their jobs, and they usually spend more hours per week working than the other employees.

Some business have automobiles and airplanes, but they do not give those items to any particular executive. Those items belong to the company, and the people share them.

However, when the workday is finished, and the people go home, they leave the business environment and enter a society that allows unlimited differences of material wealth between people. It is when they are outside of the business that we realize that the executives of a business have more wealth than the employees, and that their spouse and children are getting special pampering because of that wealth.

If our nation were to operate like a business, then the differences in material wealth between the citizens would be as small as it is within a business. In such a case, when the workday was finished, the employees and executives would go to homes that were as similar to one another as their offices.

If our nation were to operate like a Navy submarine, the differences in wealth between the lowest level worker and the top management would be even smaller.

If our nation were to operate like the space station, there would not be any noticeable difference between people. Everybody would have to contribute to society, and everybody would have the same home, food, material items, and recreational facilities. Nobody would get special treatment.

If you are confused by these concepts, try to keep two issues separate from each other:

1) When we are working with an organization, we follow the organization's rules, and we experience the organization's social environment.
2) During our leisure time, we follow our nation's rules, and we experience the nation's social environment.

1) When we are working with an organization, we follow the organization's rules.

Each business can decide for itself what type of leadership system they will use; how much space each employee is given to work in; and what sort of equipment and supplies each employee is provided with. The businesses are also free to decide whether they want to provide the employees with daycare facilities, cafeterias, and recreational areas. When an employee is at his job, he must follow the culture that has been set by the business.

Although the unskilled workers are not regarded highly, there is not much of a difference between the managers and the skilled workers in regards to the amount of area they are provided to work in, their furnishings, their bathrooms, their cafeterias, and their recreational areas.

It should be noted that there is no law that requires businesses to treat their skilled workers in a nice manner. Businesses are doing this because of competition. The businesses that have been the most successful are those in which the managers treat the skilled workers in a manner similar to how they treat the management. The reason that this type of social environment has proven to be the most successful is because humans do not like being slaves. We were designed for a prehistoric time in which there was not much of a difference between the leaders and the followers. We have a natural preference for an organization in which the team members are treated equally.

2) During our leisure time, we follow the rules of our nation.

When we are finished working at a business and go home, we leave an organization that has competent leaders, and we enter a nation that is under the control of incompetent and dishonest people who show no concern for the efficiency of society or the quality of our lives. As we step outside of the business, we can be visualized as passing through a barrier in which we leave a clean, crime-free environment in which people are treated fairly equally, and we enter an environment that allows unlimited amounts of wealth and has significant problems with crime, homelessness, refugees, and filth.

If a city was managed exactly like a business, then when we leave a business to go home, we would not make a transition from one environment to another. In such a case, the city would not have any money, and the homes and material wealth of the government and business leaders would be almost the same as those of the factory workers. The city streets would be as clean as the office hallways, and there would be just as little crime and homelessness in the city as there is in the office buildings and factories. Criminals would be evicted from the city, just as they are evicted from a business.

Although there are badly behaved employees at every large business, if a city had as little crime as a business, it would be an incredible improvement. The city would be so safe that people would be able to wander around the city at any time of day or night. Children would not have to be taught to be afraid of strangers, and nobody would train their children to fight with adults. Women would occasionally be annoyed by overly aggressive or lewd men, but rapes and murders would be as rare as they are in a business.

As people in a modern society go back and forth between their jobs and their home, they could be described as making a transition between two different worlds, with two dramatically different social environments. It reminds me of the concept of a "portal", which allows a person to make a transition to another world.

I am not suggesting that a city follow the exact same environment as a business. There are sensible reasons for having different environments within a city. We actually prefer different environments at jobs, schools, restaurants, swimming areas, social clubs, and recreational areas. For a few examples of the advantages of having different social environments within a city:

• We will reduce injuries when factories set clothing styles to fit their particular machinery in order to reduce the problem of clothing and jewelry getting caught in the equipment or ruined by chemicals.

• We could set up some courtship activities, and that environment would allow men and women to flirt and pursue one another, and they would be allowed to wear jewelry, makeup, and sexually titillating clothing. We could prohibit such behavior in the other environments.

• We could restrict the eating of food to only the restaurants and picnic areas, thereby keeping food out of museums, theaters, music concerts, swimming areas, and wherever else food can be an irritation.

• Children could be prohibited from certain restaurants, social clubs, parks, swimming areas, music concerts, and museums.

We do not yet show any concern about the social environment of our city, but our social environment is a form of technology that we can experiment with and improve upon. Restaurant owners have been aware of this concept to a certain extent; they refer to the concept as the ambiance of the restaurant. The ambience of a restaurant is what I refer to as its social environment.

Although businesses put some effort into creating a social environment that will be safe and productive for their employees, an unfortunate aspect of the free enterprise system is that businesses are competing for money, and so they focus on making money rather than on the quality of human life. For an example that I mentioned in a previous document, a Canadian restaurant was requiring the female waitresses to wear high-heeled shoes, apparently because they assumed such shoes would be more attractive to potential male customers. These businesses are treating their female employees as sex objects, and their male customers as profit opportunities.

The free enterprise system does not specify how businesses should behave. Business executives could choose to compete in a fair manner, inspire one another, and work for the benefit of the human race, but unfortunately, the businessmen who don't care about fairness or society will have an economic advantage over the others. Through the years this will result in business executives who behave like those we see today; specifically, like animals that are fighting over a piece of meat.

The successful business executives do not look at their competitors as friends; rather, they see their competitors as enemies. They want to hurt their competitors and drive them to bankruptcy, not inspire them. They want to steal technology from their competitors and copy their products, not learn from one another.

Free enterprise favors the people who fight with one another like animals.

For example, Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech to the Facebook employees in which he said "Carthago Delenda Est", which means "Carthage must be destroyed". He was referring to his fight with Google over a software project. The Facebook management printed that expression on posters and hung them around the Facebook headquarters to inspire the employees to fight with Google.

By comparison, the people who get involved with scientific research are more likely to be interested in contributing to what other people have done rather than driving everybody else to bankruptcy. They want other people involved with scientific research; they don't want a monopoly. They are more interested in inspiring each other and learning from one another.

Although there are likely to be a few scientists who hate their competitors and want to drive them out of business, just like the business executives, the attitude of scientists, as a group, is much more beneficial to the human race. Scientists are not as likely as business executives to have posters hanging on the wall with expressions such as, "Carthago Delenda Est".

Likewise, many of the people who get involved with the CrossFit athletic games want competition. They are not interested in destroying their competitors and being the only person in the game. Some of them enjoy getting together with their competitors for training because they want to learn from one another and inspire one another. They enjoy their competitors rather than hate their competitors.

Our free enterprise system is favoring the business executives who create a war-like environment in which businesses fight with one another and try to become monopolies. This war-like attitude causes some employees to develop the detrimental attitude that their competitors are enemies rather than friends, and it causes other employees to become disgusted with business activity, which can cause them to lose interest in their job and fantasize about retiring early.

By comparison, if we switch to an economic system in which the businesses are competing to improve society, then the employees of a business will regard other businesses as friends. The businesses will try to learn from one another and inspire one another. The employees of competing businesses could have recreational events together at lunch or weekends. Their competitive battles during recreational activities would be just like their competitive battles in business; specifically, for fun and inspiration, not to hurt one another.

Even though some businesses have some irritating and detrimental aspects to their social environment, business executives are doing a much better job of designing a social environment for their employees than the governments are doing for the citizens. Our governments are doing virtually nothing to provide us with a pleasant environment. Our cities are so unpleasant that most people don't want to spend their leisure time in their city, and many people do not want to live inside the city, either.

Most people in the United States seem to be spending most of their leisure time inside their home. The exception are the single people who are looking for a spouse. They spend a lot of their time in the city, but not because they enjoy the city. Rather, they are lonely.

One of the reasons that our cities have such an unpleasant social environment is because nobody has the authority to do anything about the environment of a city. In a democracy, the government consists of submissive representatives who do whatever their particular supporters ask for, but the people never ask for anything intelligent in regards to the design of cities. The only way we are going to be able to create a pleasant environment for our cities is if we give some government agency the authority to design and control a city.

Businesses do not operate with a democracy, so it is easy for the leaders of a business to set a social environment for their organization. However, our nations are operating with a democracy and a free enterprise system, and that prevents our government from having control of the city. Our government has the authority to set zoning regulations, but that is not enough authority.

In order for us to take control of the design of our cities and its social environment, we must change our economic system and government system so that our government has the authority to control the design and placement of every building, train, farm, park, public artwork, school, and factory. The government also needs to be able to control the population level, immigration, and refugees. A government needs to have as much authority over a city as the managers of a business have over their business.

Businesses do not let their employees own their office. The executives have total control of their structures and land. We must do the same for city. We have to eliminate private ownership of land and buildings. The city government must have control of everything.

This will allow us to design a city for a specific population level, and we would be able to control everything about the city. We wouldn't have to wonder where businesses or citizens will build homes or factories, and we wouldn't have to wonder if the city will become overcrowded. There would never be arguments over property lines, either, or complaints about how a neighbor has decorated their home. The city would have a list of every person living in the city, and where they live. There would be no illegal residents.

The city government will be able to control the noise levels of the city, the animals within the city, the bicycle paths, the artwork, the foot paths, and the recreational areas. The government would also be able control the aromas of the city. For example, the restaurants and factories that produce unpleasant odors could be fitted with pollution controls or restricted to certain areas of the city. Fragrant flowers could be planted in the areas where people could easily enjoy them, such as along foot paths.

With appropriate government officials, we would be able to create a city that we enjoy so much that we want to get out of our home and join other people in the city for social and recreational activities.

A comparison between the social systems of large businesses and those of nations shows us that a business would be a failure if it followed the same social systems that nations are using. For some examples:

• Imagine if businesses trained their employees to use equipment with the type of school systems that nations use. Comedians could make a lot of jokes about this because our schools are profit-making ventures, and so their primary interest is attracting students rather than preparing students for jobs. Schools are not held responsible for the education of their students, so they don't care whether the students learn any useful skills. Schools don't even care whether the students are being told the truth about 9/11, the world wars, and other historical events.

Imagine if IBM sent some employees to get some training, and after 4 years and $50,000 per student per year, the employees received diplomas, but were still unable to operate the equipment that they were sent to learn about. And imagine if the IBM employees who did the training did not care and were not held responsible, and the IBM management did not care, either.

• Imagine if the personnel department of a business was importing refugees from Syria and abandoning them in the cafeteria and hallways, which is essentially what governments are doing during 2016.

• Imagine if a business decided to operate on a free enterprise system. Imagine that they create their own internal money supply, and they make each employee pay rent for their office cubicle, or purchase it, and employees must pay for their computers and other items. Imagine the executives put an electric power meter in every cubicle, and send a bill to each employee for the electricity they use. Imagine them converting all of the sinks and toilets to be coin-operated.

What would be the advantage to a business to operate on a free enterprise system? The advantage is that by making the employees purchase everything they need, the employees would use fewer resources, thereby making the business more efficient, but the business would have to use a lot of resources in order to implement the system. Would the savings be worth the burden created by the system? No business thinks so, which is why they don't implement such a policy. Most businesses would rather fire employees who are wasteful, or restrict their ability to waste resources.

Furthermore, some employees would purchase offices to rent to other employees, or as an investment. This would drive the prices up, but who would benefit?

The social systems of successful businesses and militaries are noticeably superior to those of nations. Therefore, instead of doing what the authors of the American Constitution did, which was to design a new government based on previous governments, we should design a new society based on the principles that have proven to be successful for businesses and militaries.

However, businesses have been evolving to make profit, so we have to modify their systems from focusing on profit to focusing on human life. Likewise, militaries have evolved to fight battles, and so their systems also need to be modified to deal with peaceful situations.

Our environment affects us in three different ways:

a) It stimulates our emotions.
b) It affects our health.
c) It provides us with information.

Different environments stimulate different emotions, and to different extents. This is most noticeable with animals. For example, if a person with several dogs provides them with only one bowl of food, he creates an environment that stimulates their emotions to fight for food. If, instead, he provides each animal with its own bowl of food, and if he also separates those bowls by a large distance, he provides them with an environment in which they eat their meals without any fighting.

Everybody can understand how this concept applies to animals, but we do not apply it to humans. Our government system, economic system, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, schools, city design, and other social technology is creating a social environment for us, but there is no concern yet for what effect our environment has on our emotions. We are essentially putting ourselves into a zoo exhibit without caring about how the exhibit is affecting us.

In order to provide ourselves with a better life, we must experiment with our social environment so that we figure out how to stimulate beneficial emotions, such as curiosity, cooperation, friendship, and affection, and dampen hatred, envy, pouting, and arrogance. For some examples:

Are humans who fight over money superior to animals that fight over status or food?

• We have an economic system that puts us into competition to sell products, but this environment encourages us to regard one another as profit opportunities rather than as friends. People fight over money, like animals fighting over food, rather than working together for the human race.

During prehistoric times, by comparison, even though all of the people were struggling to survive, and even though they competed with one another, they were not trying to manipulate one another into purchasing products. They regarded one another as friends and team members. Their primary battle was with nature, not their own team members.

• We allow businesses and television companies to use sexual titillation to attract customers, thereby constantly stimulating the sexual feelings of young boys and adult men. Businesses are also producing pornography. During prehistoric times, by comparison, there was almost no sexual titillation, even though there was more nudity and less privacy.

It is easy to understand this issue by looking at zoo exhibits. Specifically, each species of animal requires a certain temperature range, food supply, humidity, and water supply in order to remain in good health.

During the 1800s, some businesses showed no concern for how their environment was affecting the health of their employees, or other people. For example, they would require employees to work without protection from coal dust or dangerous chemicals, and they would dump toxic chemicals into rivers or vacant fields with no concern for its effect on other people or creatures.

The government today requires businesses to show more concern about the safety of their employees and the environment, but sports organizations are still allowed to ignore the dangers of concussions and other injuries, and businesses are still allowed to put homes, schools, and other buildings next to noisy roads, airports, smoke stacks, and train tracks.

What effect does asphalt and tire dust have on the people who live near highways? Do high-voltage power lines, microwave towers, or radar installations have any effect on human health? Does operating a jackhammer have any adverse effect on a person's body or brain? Nobody yet knows the answers to these questions, but it is possible that our health will improve when we create a city that is considerably cleaner and quieter, and in which people are not exposed to high levels of microwaves, intense vibrations, and chemicals that seep out of plastics and paints.

During World War I, some soldiers were described as suffering from "shell shock". Although the people did not understand what was happening, it now appears as if explosions that occur near the human head can result in brain damage, similar to how concussions can damage our brains. Since people in World War I suffered brain damage from explosions, the soldiers today in the Middle East should be suffering brain damage from explosions, also, but not many people care enough to stop the war.

In 2015 an American family took a vacation to a tropical island. They rented a unit in a condominium, and the unit underneath theirs had been fumigated with methyl bromide. Some of the methyl bromide seeped into their condominium unit, and it caused the father to become paralyzed, and his two teenage sons become paralyzed to to a lesser degree.

The family that was paralyzed by methyl bromide was allowed to file a lawsuit and make some money. In our free enterprise system, lawyers benefit when people become paralyzed by poisons. Lawyers have no financial incentive to reduce the poisonings.

When people install new carpeting in their house, they will inhale chemicals that ooze out of the plastic fibers. People who use mothballs inhale small amounts of whatever chemicals are in their particular brand of mothballs. People who burn food in their kitchens and barbecues inhale and ingest chemicals from those operations. Are any of our health problems the result of these chemicals? Are we suffering any health problems as a result of our pesticides and herbicides?

Imagine if a business fumigated one of their offices with methyl bromide, thereby causing one of the employees to become paralyzed. Imagine that the executives react by helping him to sue the extermination company, and then they fumigate another office, thereby causing somebody else to become paralyzed. Would you want to work for that company? Of course not, but that is the type of society we are living in.

We like to file lawsuits rather than solve problems because we want to behave like animals. When we experience a problem, we do not want to think about it, do research, discuss issues, compromise, or experiment with society. Instead, we want to blame somebody for the problem, and we want to hurt them. We also look for opportunities to profit from problems. Lawsuits allow us to satisfy our cravings; specifically, lawsuits allow us to punish the person that we blame for the problem, and we get to profit from the problem.

Some of the government officials in Missouri decided to protect the people and environment from pesticides, so they created some regulations for pesticides. When they discovered that farmers were ignoring their regulations, they reacted by punishing those farmers by making them pay a fine.

In Part 2 of this series I pointed out that laws cannot control us, and if you understood that concept, then you might not be surprised to find out that the Missouri farmers continued violating the regulations despite being punished with a fine. A Missouri government official has reacted by suggesting that the fines be increased, but increasing the punishment will not stop the problem.

Governments have been using fines and jail to prevent bad behavior for centuries, but it has a 100% failure rate. Instead of punishing businesses, we should try to understand the reason that businesses are misbehaving, and look for a way to prevent the problem.

In the case of farmers who use excessive amounts of poisons, the reason they do this is because they are under competitive pressure to produce food at a low cost, and they are frightened of the possibility that they will suffer serious financial problems if insects or diseases destroy a significant portion of their crop. In a free enterprise system, farmers have a much greater incentive to use poisons than to avoid them.

One solution to this problem is to change our economic system so that farmers do not have to suffer as a result of acts of nature that nobody has control over, such as insects, diseases, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

Another advantage to changing our economic system is that it will allow us to divert some of our resources from nonessential projects to more useful projects, such as developing greenhouses that are sealed from the outside to prevent diseases and insects. Those crops would not need any poisons. We could also fund the development of robots that pick insects off of plants and remove weeds.

We could also divert resources into the development of more automated farming machinery, with the goal of eliminating the need for people to go inside the greenhouses, thereby allowing a higher density of plants. We might even be able to boost the productivity of the greenhouses by increasing the carbon dioxide level inside them.

In a free enterprise system, businesses do not have much interest in funding projects that have high development costs. We need to get control of our economy so that we can work on some of the projects that businesses have little or no interest in.

Modern humans have considerably different job skills, opinions, leisure activities, and behavior compared to prehistoric humans, and the main reason is because we have significantly different information in our memories. Unfortunately, there is still no concern for how information is affecting us.

No society yet does any quality control for information. Instead, every nation is allowing businesses, schools, parents, religious groups, feminists, television companies, and other people to distribute whatever information they please. Not many people even care that our school books are full of lies about the 9/11 attack and other historical events.

It might help you to understand this issue if you consider the difference in the way businesses provide us with information and the way they provide us with medical drugs. Businesses do not have the freedom to offer us whatever medical drugs they please. When businesses want to provide us with a medical drug, they must request government approval, and unless the government decides that the drug has a value that outweighs its disadvantages, it will not be allowed on the market.

The same is true with food products. A business must pass routine inspections in order to ensure that their food products are safe for us to eat.

By comparison, businesses have the freedom to distribute and sell whatever information they please, and so do religious groups, homosexuals, feminists, television companies, and everybody else. Nobody has to submit their information to the government for approval; nobody has to have their information classified as safe for the public. We refer to this policy as "freedom of speech".

No nation yet tries to make a distinction between useful information, propaganda, lies, nonsense, or deception. For example, businesses are allowed to sell astrology predictions, even though most people would classify that type of information as deceptive, dishonest, or a scam. The government will not pass judgment on which information is valuable, and which is worthless, deceptive, wasteful, or harmful.

Many businesses sell products that they claim will improve our health, but if those products do not have scientific evidence to back up their claims, they have a disclaimer that points out that the FDA has not approved of their claims. By comparison, individual citizens, newspapers, businesses, religions, and other organizations can provide us with "facts" about global warming, astrology, guns, and other issues without any supporting evidence, and without a disclaimer that the government has not approved of their facts.

Journalists can even lie about news events without the government complaining, and as I've mentioned in previous documents, such as this, some of the information that the New York Daily News is publishing as "news" should be classified as either "insults" or as material that is "instigating hatred and violence".

There is also no concern for who wins the Nobel prizes or other awards, or why they win. No society yet regards awards as being a form of information that is affecting us.

Awards are social technology, and should be improved

In addition to having an award named after him, Hansen received many awards.

A California government official, Mike Gatto, recently received the James Hansen Courage Award. There are thousands of organizations that give awards, but no society shows any concern for the effect these awards are having on culture. The Nobel prizes were supposedly created to inspire scientific research, but regardless of why it was started, the organization today is under the control of a group of criminals who are giving the awards - especially the prizes in peace and literature - only to people who promote their crime network.

The organizations that give awards are operating secretively, and none of us have any control over what they are doing, or who is making decisions about who should win an award. These organizations are influencing our culture, but they are not held accountable for what they do.

After the 2016 Nobel prizes were announced, some journalists published articles in which they whined that there were not many women among the winners. In this article, for example, the journalist whined that only two women have won the physics prize during the last 115 years. Professor Ethan Siegel whined that there have been 53 consecutive years "that women have been shut out", and Rachel Feltman also whined about that 53 year span. These authors are not producing intelligent analyses of the Nobel prizes. They are simply making the accusation that women are being discriminated against by sexist men.

Everybody realizes that telephones are "technology" and can be improved, and many people look forward to the latest models of phones. We should have the same attitude with social technology. Awards, for example, are technology that we can research and improve. Some of the issues about awards that we should be discussing are:

1) We should separate men and women when giving awards

Most people can understand why we need to separate men and women in sports contests. Men and women can engage in recreational events together when the event is purely for fun, but when we are comparing physical abilities, we must separate them because women excel in the events that require flexibility and gracefulness, and men excel in activities that require strength and stiffness.

Since men and women have different mental abilities, we should have separate awards for men and women in science, engineering, music, art, and other mental activities.

2) Are the journalists really concerned about women?

In October 2016, several journalists published articles in which they suggested that Vera Rubin should have won a Nobel Prize in physics for her discovery of dark matter. The journalists claim that she was ignored simply because she was a woman.

There are three interesting aspects to their whining. First of all, some journalists, such as this, claim that Vera Rubin discovered dark matter, but the Wikipedia says that the first person to suggest that there is such a thing as dark matter was a retired, 71-year-old man who created the speculation in 1922 when he could not explain the way the stars were moving. In 1932, another man provided some evidence that dark matter might actually exist. So, who really discovered dark matter?

Second, nobody has actually "discovered" dark manner. All they are doing is speculating about it. Scientists don't yet know enough about the universe to fully explain the movement of the stars, but their inability to explain the movement does not prove that dark matter exists. Rather, it proves that they don't know nearly as much as they think they know.

Even if dark matter does exist, Vera Rubin did not create the concept, and she was not the first to find some evidence for it. Why should she get a Nobel Prize? Furthermore, the journalists are suggesting that she share the award with Kent Ford, a man, with whom she worked. Did she really do the work, or was it mainly his work?

Finally, the third interesting aspect of their whining is that Vera Rubin is a Jew, and many of the people who are whining that she should have won a Nobel Prize are also Jews. Considering that the people who win awards, have awards named after them, and get publicity, are lying about carbon taxes, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues, we should consider the possibility that the journalists who are whining for Vera Rubin to win a Nobel Prize have no interest in helping women. Rather, they are trying to get more control of our societies, and they are promoting the propaganda that Jews are more intelligent than other people.

If our government had a quality control department for information, the journalists who are whining that Vera Rubin should have won the Nobel Prize would be classified as unfit for journalism, and their documents would be described as poorly researched, or as attempts to manipulate us.

3) We should experiment with awards

I suggest we experiment with a change in attitudes towards awards and contests. Specifically, the prizes should be meaningless, and we should only recognize a person's achievements, not treat the person as a celebrity. Instead of putting the person on a pedestal and behaving submissively around him, the ceremony should be more casual, more informative, more entertaining, and more useful. It should be a celebration of life and people.

For an example of what an award ceremony could be, a person getting an award would be introduced to the audience, and someone would provide an explanation for what they do at their job, and how their work is significant to all of us. The audience members could even be allowed to ask questions. Then the next person to get an award would be introduced. The winners of the awards would not get any prizes. They would simply get recognition for what they did, and the audience would get an explanation of their work.

The award ceremonies should not be restricted to scientists. The awards would be for everybody who does something impressive, regardless of what his job is. We could provide awards to the impressive technicians, farmers, gardeners, plumbers, and restaurant chefs. The awards would be to recognize a person's achievements and contributions to society, so we could also give awards to people who have impressed us with their decorations of the city during the holidays; their designs of foot paths and bridges; and their ability to supervise a daycare center.

There could be awards for people who have impressed us with their arranging of music concerts; their museum displays; the aquariums that they maintain for the city; and their ability to help men and women find a spouse at the courtship affairs. We could also give awards to people who are involved with recreational activities and have impressed us by leading people on hikes through the forest or snorkeling in a pond.

These type of award ceremonies would be casual, fun affairs that are intended to inspire people to contribute to society, and to celebrate life and people's achievements.

The ceremonies would also help people to understand the jobs that other people are doing, and how their projects are beneficial to society. For the teenagers, the ceremonies could help them get a better idea of what type of jobs exist, and what type of projects the adults are working on. The information would also be useful for adults who are thinking about a part-time job, or switching jobs.

These type of award ceremonies would be something similar to what parents do for their children. When parents are impressed by something their child has done, they don't treat him like a celebrity, and they may not even give him any type of prize. They may simply recognize his achievement. Why not do the same with an entire city?

This attitude towards award ceremonies would be similar to what I suggested with weddings in this document. At the weddings of today, the bride is the center of attention, and everybody else behaves like a submissive monkey who pampers her with attention and gifts. I suggest we experiment with weddings that are a social affair for everybody to enjoy.

If we design award ceremonies according to our emotional cravings, we will design the ceremony so that we can stand on a pedestal in front of a crowd of people who behave in a submissive manner and treat us like a King or Queen. Likewise, when a woman designs a wedding according to her emotions, she will design it so that she is a pampered Queen, and the rest of us are worshiping and admiring her.

We have to stop doing what our emotions want and start thinking about what is best for us. I think we will enjoy life more and create a more pleasant social environment when we control our cravings for status and stop expecting other people to be submissive peasants.

By designing award ceremonies to celebrate people's achievements, rather than to pamper and worship a celebrity, the ceremony becomes a casual social affair that everybody can enjoy and learn from.

Furthermore, by getting rid of the prizes, we reduce the craving people have to cheat. Our award ceremonies today offer such enormous financial prizes and status that many people fight for awards, and some will cheat or commit crimes in order to increase their chances of winning.

People look forward to new models of telephones, computer software, and cameras, but we are not yet looking forward to new versions of award ceremonies, school systems, holiday celebrations, city festivals, courtship affairs, or other social technology. We should change that attitude. People should be encouraged to look for ways to improve our social technology.

However, bringing improvements to our social environment requires that we experiment with social technology because we cannot figure out what will provide us with the most pleasant life. My suggestions about award ceremonies are simply suggestions to start the experiments.

Once we start the process of experimenting with award ceremonies, we will start learning more about ourselves and figuring out how to design the ceremonies to make them more useful, more informative, and more pleasant. Remember, don't expect perfection. Instead, learn to enjoy the adventure.

Be as finicky with information as you are with drugs

We are finicky about the medical drugs and food products that we put into our body, but we show no concern about the quality of information that businesses, religions, journalists, or other organizations are trying to put into our minds. The end result is that children are growing up in an environment that provides them with conflicting, idiotic, and deceptive information, as well as deliberate lies about the Apollo moon landing, Holocaust, and thousands of other issues.

If we treated information in the same manner that we treat medical drugs, then before a television company could broadcast a documentary, they would have to submit it to the government for evaluation, and the government would pass judgment on whether it is acceptable, or whether it needs editing. Likewise, publishers of schoolbooks would have to submit them for government approval before they could be distributed to the schools.

It would not be practical to submit news reports for approval since that would delay their publication, but the government could judge news reports after they were broadcast.

The concept of a government that passes judgment on the quality of information may seem ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than passing judgment on the value of a medical drug. It is not easy to figure out if a medical drug should be classified as useful and safe, but the benefits to making these classifications are tremendous. We should not be afraid to do something just because it is difficult. The benefits from passing judgment on the value of medical drugs is worth the effort and frustration.

Likewise, passing judgment on the value of information is going to be difficult, and it will require that we provide ourselves with a better government than what we have right now, but so what? If all humans were apathetic and lazy, we would still be living like animals. Those of us who can deal with difficult problems need to get together and do something rather than let the sheeple discourage us or dominate us.

As I mentioned in Part 2 of this series, business executives and military leaders are already passing judgment on which information is acceptable for their members. We could apply the same concept to an entire nation. All we need are better quality voters who can provide a better quality government.

Imagine if the IBM executives were allowing their employees to produce a newsletter in which they were accusing the IBM executives of lying about who the parents of their children are. This is what is happening in the United States right now, except that it is happening with government officials instead of IBM executives.

Webb Hubbell, left, and Chelsea Clinton, before her cosmetic surgeries.

For example, there are articles, such as this, that suggest that Chelsea Clinton is the daughter of Webb Hubbell, and that Bill Clinton had a son with a black woman. There are also lots of other people, including myself, making other accusations about the government, such as that NASA is lying about the moon landing.

There are thousands of people making accusations about our government, but our government ignores all of them. If the same percentage of IBM employees were routinely making accusations that the IBM management were liars, criminals, and pedophiles, the management would investigate the accusations. If they determined that a particular accusation was a deliberate lie, the person responsible would face arrest or termination.

If an accusation turned out to be an honest mistake, the management would demand that he correct his mistake, and he might also face termination. They would not ignore employees who were continuously publishing information that could hurt the morale or reputation of the organization.

Our government ignores thousands of accusations of corruption, lies, murders, pedophilia, and drug problems. Some people might claim that is because the government has more important things to worry about, but business executives don't dismiss those type of accusations on the grounds that they are too busy, or that the accusations are insignificant. Our government ignores these accusations because some of them are true, and some of the accusations are coming from the government and their cohorts in the crime network in order to confuse and manipulate us.

It would be very easy for the government to prove or disprove the accusations. For example, a DNA analysis would determine who Chelsea Clinton's father is. However, in a society in which secrecy is permitted, we will not be able to trust the DNA analysis. We must change this situation.

We need to eliminate secrecy. The people who collect the DNA sample from Chelsea Clinton should be identified as the collectors of the sample, and the people doing the DNA analysis should have their names on the reports. Everybody should be held accountable for what they do.

Businesses are not allowed to sell medical or food products in secrecy. Instead, they have to identify products with lot numbers, and they have to keep track of the flow of materials. The reason is so that if there is a contaminated product, we can find the source of the problem. We need to apply the same concept to crime investigations and other fields.

Instead of boasting about our government, we ought to be disgusted with our officials and their behavior. Our government should follow they attitude of a business, which is to investigate problems and keep morale high.

The communist governments of the past, and the North Korean government today, censor the information that they regard as unacceptable. What is the difference between what the North Korean government is doing and what I am proposing?

The people in Europe and the United States boast that we have freedom of speech, and we criticize the North Korean government for censoring information, but the situation is not as simple as we make it appear to be. The United States does not truly have freedom of speech, and Europe is even worse. Some European nations have laws to prohibit research and discussions about the Holocaust, for example.

In the United States, the news reports, school books, and television programs are censored and full of propaganda, just like those in North Korea. The difference between the United States and North Korea in regards to freedom of speech is that the censorship in North Korea is coming from their own government, whereas the censorship in the United States is coming mainly from a group of Jews.

Both North Korea and the United States are suffering from censorship and propaganda, but the censorship and propaganda has been so successful that both groups of people have been deceived into believing that they have freedom of speech, and that the other nation is suffering from censorship and propaganda.

Every day there are news reports in the United States that have been deliberately written to deceive and manipulate us. For example, as I write this, October 2016, the journalists are attacking Donald Trump for making crude sexual remarks about women. There is nothing wrong with journalists pointing out that a political candidate has made crude remarks, and it is acceptable for voters to prefer a candidate who does not make such remarks, but the journalists are not trying to provide us with honest information about the political candidates. Rather, they are trying to manipulate us into hating Trump and electing Clinton.

The journalists are trying to trick us into hating Trump by claiming that they have never heard such crude remarks before, and that Trump is an exceptionally disgusting, sexist monster. Although each of us grows up around different people, I cannot believe that any adult man in the United States has never heard any crude sexual remarks. There are children and teenagers making remarks that are more crude than what Trump said. There are lots of movies and television shows that are more crude, also.

In this previous document, I showed a photo of a woman (to the right), holding a poster of one of the rude remarks that she heard as she walked down a public street. The photo is just one of many in an article about women complaining about how they hear rude remarks as they walk around the city.

The journalists who complain that Trump is the only man they have ever heard make a crude sexual remark are liars. Furthermore, they are lying in order to deceive us and manipulate the elections. I would say that those liars are committing a much more serious crime than a man who makes crude remarks.

If we could connect a video monitor to a man's brain, we would find that all of us occasionally produce sexual animations of women. Many adult men have the self-control to keep their sexual fantasies a secret, but all men regularly produce sexual fantasies. We are animals, and we are designed to chase after women, grab them, and have sex with them. We want the women to be willing, but we have to push them because they are naturally passive and resistant to sex. We fantasize about having sex on a regular basis. The men who deny it are liars. The difference between Trump and other men is that Trump often blurts out the remarks that pass through his mind, whereas some of us keep quiet about our crude thoughts.

If we were to count the crude remarks that men make, we would end up with a bell curve in which the man who has made the fewest remarks is at one extreme, and the man who made the most remarks is at the other extreme. Where would Donald Trump be placed in that bell curve? From my own personal observations of men, I suspect he would probably be near "average". I have heard some men make remarks that are so much more crude that their remarks irritated me, and I can understand why women would be disgusted by them.

A lot of journalists, government officials, and other influential people have also attacked Trump for his behavior around women, such as how he trys to touch or kiss them, or that he walked into the dressing rooms of beauty pageants contestants. This is another issue that these people are deceiving us about. Many men look for opportunities to touch and kiss women, especially after they become wealthy and famous. For example, the host of the Family Feud television program, Richard Dawson, would kiss all the women on the show, and on their lips, but nobody complained. When he died, this CNN report gave a brief review of his life and described his behavior as:

Dawson was known for greeting female contestants with a kiss...

Some of the women did not want to be kissed, but instead of criticizing his behavior as crude, disgusting, inappropriate, or as sexual harassment, this website posted this article with the title: "5 Hilariously Awkward Richard Dawson Kissing Videos". Why not treat Donald Trump in the same manner? Why not create a compilation of videos with the title, "Some of the hilariously awkward touching videos of Donald Trump"? Why not giggle at Trump's touching and kissing?

Why was Michelle Obama shaken to the core by what Trump said, but not shaken by any of the other millions of men who are even more crude, rude, and lewd? And why are none of those righteous people shaken to the core by the accusations of pedophilia among government officials, Hollywood celebrities, and policemen, such as from the Hampstead children? In this television interview, the musician known as Johnny Rotten says that in 1978, he and other children were aware that Jimmy Savile and other adults were pedophiles. Why are none of the righteous people shaken to the core by those accusations?

It should be obvious as to what is going on. Our leaders are suppressing investigations of pedophilia and attacking Trump because Trump is not part of their crime network. Or perhaps he was at one time and is now rebelling.

When a male animal reaches a top position in the hierarchy, the females become receptive to him. As a result of this characteristic, the wealthy and famous men can get away with a lot more touching and kissing of women than the rest of us, but some of the women they encounter will not be interested, which can result in an awkward situation. How is a wealthy man supposed to know which woman wants his affection and which does not? He has to touch them to find out, but that can result in women complaining about sexual harassment.

If the journalists, Obamas, and other people were honest, they would provide us with a serious analysis of the issue rather than stand on a pedestal and pretend that Trump is the most badly behaved man they know of.

For example, they could criticize Mark Cuban, who, in the photo to the right, has short pants that have been almost completely torn off from playing rugby, and he goes over to two women and shows some of his pubic hair. If that had been a video camera, who knows what we would have seen before and after that photo was taken. Does Trump ever behave like that around women? Why not describe Cuban's behavior as disgusting, crude, or lewd?

Another example of how the journalists are trying to manipulate us is that in August 2016, some journalists criticized Trump for eating fried chicken with a knife and fork. One of the more extreme journalists was Elliot Hannon, who gave his document the title:

Donald Trump Eats Fried Chicken Like a Sociopath (With a Knife and Fork)

If Trump were to eat a bowl of food like Mark Cuban is doing in the photo below, I bet the journalists would have complained that he is eating like a pig, but the journalists don't criticize Cuban because he is a member of their crime network. The journalists will make excuses for Cuban, such as he was young, and it was in the past, so we should forget about it.

How is eating with a knife and fork "eating like a sociopath"? The US media is under the control of a group of disgusting, sickening, diabolical criminals, and they are using the media to manipulate us. The people who cannot understand that we are being lied to by our media, or who do not care about the lies, should be regarded as helpless sheeple, and they should be prohibited from voting and influencing our future. If you cannot find the courage to stand up to the sheeple, you are going to allow them to influence your future.

Our journalists are not making any attempt to provide us with honest news reports. They are trying to manipulate us. What they are doing is analogous to pharmaceutical companies that are putting poisons into our medical drugs in an attempt to incapacitate or kill us so that they can get control of the nation.

Unfortunately, no nation yet has the attitude that we must be concerned about the information that we are provided. Instead, everybody is behaving like a pet dog that eats whatever his owner gives him.

Another photo of Mark Cuban is below. Are there any photos of Donald Trump behaving like that in public?

If the journalists, Obamas, and other people were honest, and if they also had the intellectual qualities necessary to be useful as leaders, then they would admit that men are sexually active creatures, and that most women have had to deal with crude remarks and attempts to be touched. The people condemning Trump are lying to us when they imply that Donald Trump is the only man in the world who annoys women with crude sexual remarks or behavior.

Incidentally, if women want to dampen the crude behavior, they should complain about it when every man does it, not only Donald Trump. They must complain about Richard Dawson, for example. If the women giggle at Richard Dawson, they are essentially telling men that this behavior is adorable. The women also need to complain about men like Helio Castroneves, who kissed one of the dancers on Dancing with the Stars. When boys see this type of behavior on television, and the women do not complain about it, the boys may assume that the behavior is acceptable.

Getting back to the issue of censorship, the issue is complicated because it applies to more than just the media. Censorship is everywhere. For example, when businesses produce newsletters or other types of information for their employees, the people producing the information will censor it. When the military provides information to its members, and when parents provide information to their children, they also censor it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with censorship. Whether censorship is beneficial or detrimental depends upon why information is being censored (the purpose of the censorship), and how it is being censored (the enforcement of the censorship).

The IBM executives censor the information that they provide to their employees, so what is different from their censorship and that of the Jews or the communist governments? The difference is in both the purpose of the censorship and the enforcement of the censorship. The IBM executives are censoring information mainly to help the organization, whereas the Jews and communist governments censor information mainly to suppress competitors, hide their crimes, and remain in control.

Furthermore, and more important, the IBM executives allow differences of opinion. By comparison, anybody who has tried to talk about evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust should have noticed that the Jews will not allow differences of opinion. The Jews will attack, deceive, murder, blackmail, intimidate, and threaten people who have a difference of opinion.

As a result of these differences, people who have a different opinion about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, or the Apollo moon landings, are attacked incessantly by hordes of Jews. The IBM managers, by comparison, do not hire assassins to kill the employees who have a difference of opinion, and they do not try to break up their marriages or friendships, and they do not try to lure them into doing something illegal so that they can be arrested or blackmailed. The management of a business will evict an employee if he is disrupting the organization, but not for simply having a difference of opinion.

We cannot stop humans from being biased, or from censoring information. Our emotional biases can be annoying, but censorship is a valuable tool. The concept of censorship can be developed just like other social technology. We can censor a person's bias, for example, and his lewd remarks. By censoring information, we can make our social environment more pleasant, and we can protect children from stupid opinions and bad attitudes.

Instead of trying to eliminate bias and censorship, we should design a society that puts checks and balances on the people who provide us with information so that we can ensure that the censorship is useful and their biases are kept under control.

We must ensure that the people in control of information are held accountable for their actions, and that we be able to replace them if we don't like how they do their job. The problem with North Korea, the United States, Europe, and other nations is that the people providing information are unaccountable, secretive, and mysterious. For example, we have no control over the people who are creating our news reports, school books, or television documentaries.

We don't know who is involved with producing or censoring information, or who is selecting people for jobs in journalism. Who selected Wolf Blitzer, Barbara Walters, and those other Jews to be television journalists? We don't know, and we cannot replace any of them. Secretive, anonymous Jews are putting their friends into these positions, and they make it impossible for us to replace them or hold them accountable for their actions.

The free enterprise system depends on fair competition, but there is no fair competition in journalism. We have a monopoly in journalism, and it is controlled by a crime network. The conservatives whine incessantly about the government restricting our economic opportunities, but the Jews are restricting our opportunities more than the government officials.

A lesson to learn from our corrupt media is that when we design a new government, we need to ensure that the journalists, authors of school books, and other people who are involved with the production of information cannot have any ability to silence, suppress, or intimidate their critics. They must not have any authority over society. They must be completely separate and independent of the police force, military, courts, and other groups. We must not give them any ability to use the police, military, or courts to eliminate their competitors or critics, or to create laws that prohibit us from discussing or questioning the information they provide. We also have to ensure that they are not involved with crime networks. They should be independent citizens, not members of an organization.

None of the people involved with information should be secretive or anonymous. Every document should be identified by its author, and all authors should be held accountable for their actions. We must also have the ability to give them job performance reviews, and to regularly replace the people who are doing the worst job.

We must separate the people who provide information from those who create and enforce laws. The government officials who are involved with creating laws, controlling the police force or military, or supervising the courts, should not have any control over information. We must make these departments independent of one another.

The government officials who are involved with law enforcement would be able to have their own opinions, and they could post documents on the Internet, but they would not be able to control school books, news reports, or other information. Conversely, the people writing the school books and news reports would not be able to control the police departments or courts. We need to keep the production of information separate from the law enforcement section of the government. Otherwise we have the problem that we see in North Korea and the United States in which the people who create information can use the legal system to eliminate their critics.

Some people in businesses and militaries have been fired for expressing opinions that conflict with that of their organization, and those people might claim that militaries and businesses are behaving just like the government of North Korea. However, that is not entirely true. Although people in a business and military will be fired for causing a disruption, they are not fired simply for having a difference of opinion.

We have to make a distinction between when a person is causing a disruption in his organization, and when he simply has a difference of opinion. Neither a business nor a military will fire a person simply for having a difference of opinion. However, all organizations will get rid of a member who is disrupting the group, or doing something that ruins the reputation of the group.

There are certainly some small businesses in which the owner has fired people simply for having a difference of opinion, but don't look at the exceptions. Look at the businesses that you admire.

The reputable businesses do not suppress differences of opinion. In fact, if an employee disagrees with one of the managers, if he can present a proposal that some of the other managers prefer, he will likely be rewarded in some manner. The better managers encourage their employees to look for improvements to the management's decisions.

This concept of censorship is complicated by the fact that most organizations want their members to keep their mouth shut and follow orders. This is not because the management is cruel or abusive. Rather, it is because all of the managers quickly realize, if they did not already know before they were promoted to management, that the majority of people have nothing intelligent to say. If a manager encouraged his members to get involved with discussions of what the management should do, both the members and the management would waste their time.

A business will operate more efficiently when the management is more talented than the people they are supervising, and those people are told to follow orders, and to keep quiet unless they truly have something of value to say. This attitude is not "censorship". This is simply recognizing the fact that most people have nothing of value to say, and that an organization will function better when most people follow their orders. The managers are not suppressing freedom of speech or being abusive by promoting this policy. They are simply being realistic.

However, if a business has some talented employees, the management will encourage them to express their opinions on how to improve the organization or its products.

If this is confusing you, consider that the attitude of a business is similar to the attitude of the parents who teach their children a philosophy similar to, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, then keep your mouth shut." Most parents do not want their children participating in discussions of what to do with the family, but if a child has something intelligent to say, his parents will listen to him.

Although this attitude is common with families, militaries, and businesses, it is not the attitude we find in democracies. A democracy promotes the attitude that every adult is a brilliant person who has something of value to say about life, and that every adult will make excellent decisions for his personal life. A democracy promotes the attitude that everybody is a genius.

Polls are conducted constantly to see what the majority of people believe, thereby promoting the attitude that the majority of people are intelligent, and that we should care what they think. By comparison, parents don't regularly conduct polls to find out what their children want to do with the family, and businesses don't conduct polls to figure out what the employees want the management to do.

Businesses and militaries follow a more successful philosophy towards people and their opinions. The reason is because businesses and militaries are in competition for survival. They must operate efficiently. Through the centuries of battles, businesses and militaries have discovered that they operate most efficiently when they put talented people into management positions, and they tell the majority of their members to shut up and follow orders.

By comparison, nations are not in competition with one another to create a better life for their people. Instead, government officials are in competition to appease voters. This results in governments that become increasingly better at pandering to the people.

If a nation were to operate like a business or military, then instead of conducting polls, the top government officials would tell the people, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, then keep your mouth shut." This philosophy would create a much more efficient society because we would not have to put up with hordes of ordinary people who express stupid opinions about abortion, feminism, evolution, and other issues. We would not have to tolerate their demonstrations in the street, either.

If the government of a nation operated like the management of a business, we would continue to have freedom of speech, but the people who repeatedly expressed stupid opinions would be told to shut up, and the people who provided intelligent opinions would be praised and rewarded for contributing something of value.

However, it should be noted that a government cannot promote such an attitude unless our government officials can impress us with their intelligent remarks. If our current government officials told us to keep quiet unless we had something intelligent to say, many people would be disgusted and rebellious since those officials themselves never say anything intelligent.

Businesses and militaries can promote this attitude because they make an attempt to restrict leadership to people who can actually provide leadership.

One of the differences in philosophy between a government and a business is that businesses want as few people in management as possible. By comparison, even though most people complain about large governments, most people actually support and encourage large governments. For example, many people advocate breaking large cities into smaller cities, thereby creating lots of city governments instead of just one. Many people also advocate a new government agency to deal with a new problem, rather than demand that an existing agency deal with the problem.

Our government should follow the same philosophy as businesses; namely, we should have as few people in leadership positions as possible, and each leader should have more authority. There are three primary reasons for this philosophy:

1) To make society more efficient
Reducing the number of people in leadership positions will make society more efficient simply because there will be more people "working" and fewer people supervising.

2) To increase the quality of leadership
The majority of people are "ordinary" in whatever quality we look at, so if we want to provide ourselves with high quality leadership, then we must restrict the leadership positions to the smallest number of people who have the most exceptional abilities.

The fewer people we need to do a task, the greater the chance that we find people with exceptional talent. Conversely, if we need a lot of people to do a task, then we will have to accept people who are not as talented, and that will lower the overall talent of the group.

When we select voters, the result of an election will be roughly an average of the quality of the voters. When we go to the extreme of allowing virtually all adults to vote, the voters as a group will do an "ordinary" job of selecting candidates. If we want voters to do an exceptional job, we need to restrict the voters to the small minority who have the talent to do an exceptional job. The more people we allow to vote, the lower their overall performance will be, because the input of the truly capable voters will be drowned out by that of all the other, less capable voters.

Likewise, if we want better government officials, we need to reduce the number of officials so that we can be more finicky about who is an official. As we increase the number of officials in a government, we lower the overall quality of the government.

In the United States, there are thousands of government officials. If we could measure the leadership abilities of all of those officials, we would discover that very few of them are in the "exceptional" category. Some of them might be "average" or "below average".

By reducing the number of officials, we can be more finicky about who we put into a leadership position. This will increase the chances that we fill the leadership positions with people with exceptional abilities.

3) To make it easier to review our leaders
We must give job performance reviews to our leaders, and we must replace the worst performing leaders. As we increase the number of officials in the government, we increase the number of people that we have to watch over. In the United States, for example, there are tens of thousands of officials in city governments, state governments, and in the federal government. There are also millions of people in influential positions in business, schools, sports, religion, and other organizations. There are too many people for the voters to watch. Ideally, we would have only as many government officials as we can effectively watch over.

Incidentally, when we reduce the number of officials, we must increase the authority that each of them has, which increases the potential for problems, but by having fewer people to watch over, it is easier for us to observe them and pass judgment on which of them needs to be replaced.

Businesses are under competitive pressure to be profitable, and so the business executives routinely look for ways to eliminate useless jobs and make their business more efficient, but government officials are competing to appease voters, so they are under pressure to expand the government in order to provide the unemployed citizens with some jobs, and they are under pressure to give more contracts to businesses.

A government is not going to voluntarily reduce its size or make itself more efficient unless we put government officials into competition with one another to find improvements to society. This requires designing a government that has the same attitude as a business or military. Specifically, a government that ignores the desires of the people and does what it thinks is best for society.

As I mentioned in other documents, one method is to divide a city up into three, virtually identical sections, and let each section be supervised by a different leader. The people selected to be voters would easily be able to find the time to give job performance reviews to only three government officials. Some voters would also be responsible for watching over other officials, such as those in the Quality Control department and the legal system.

With this type of government, those three top government officials will have a lot of authority. The majority of citizens can ignore most of the officials and focus on those three. When there are only three officials to watch, it is easy for the citizens to occasionally compare the three sections of the city and the three government officials, and pass judgment on which of them is doing the worst job.

Although the majority of citizens would not be allowed to vote, everybody would be encouraged to express their opinions if they had some intelligent suggestions or complaints. Although most citizens will have nothing to say about the government, there will occasionally be a citizen who does. Actually, the citizens who provide intelligent analyses or suggestions are the most likely to be selected as voters and government officials, so anybody interested in those jobs should put some time into analyzing the government.

In a democracy, the government officials are under pressure to pander to their supporters, but when we divide a city up into thirds and compare those three sections together, the top three officials will be under pressure to prevent their section from being classified as the worst of the three. The officials will be under pressure to find improvements to their section of the city rather than be under pressure to appease voters.

Each official will be under pressure to analyze what the other officials are doing, including those of other cities, in order to learn from them and try to improve upon what they have done. Each official will want to boast that his section is one of the better sections. This type of competition will cause the officials to learn from one another, inspire one another, and improve upon what one another is doing.

Another difference between governments and businesses is the manner in which they select products for their members. In a business, the executives make, or have final approval of, the decisions about which equipment and supplies to purchase for the employees. They do not allow every employee to make his own purchasing decisions.

By comparison, our government gives the citizens the complete freedom to purchase whatever they want. The government does not provide any supervision of products. If all of the products on the market were sensible, then it would be acceptable to let the citizens choose their products, but that will never happen in a free enterprise system.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are under competitive pressure to sell products, not to improve society. This type of pressure has the beneficial effect of causing businesses to look for ways to operate in an efficient manner, but it has the detrimental effect of causing businesses to look for sales rather than look for ways to make life better for us. The end result is that many businesses are selling products that are deceptive, dishonest, useless, dangerous, or wasteful.

The free enterprise system expects the consumers to ensure that businesses are behaving in a proper manner, but that is an unrealistic expectation for two primary reasons:
1) A modern economy is too complicated for consumers to analyze.
2) Most people lack the intelligence and/or self-control necessary to make wise decisions about products, political candidates, or many of the other issues that affect modern society. Many people cannot even make sensible decisions about their consumption of food or alcohol.

In a free enterprise system, the consumers are "economic voters", and when they spend money, they are voting for the businesses that produced and sold that particular product. However, our economy is so complex that we need a different method of determining who becomes a business leader, and which products are put into production.

Just as we should put government officials into competition to improve society, the businesses should also be under competition to bring improvements to society. They should not be competing for sales. Unfortunately, we cannot put businesses under this type of competition in a free enterprise system. We must put the government in control of the economy. The government needs control over who becomes a business leader, and what products they produce.

In a previous section I pointed out that the more people we allow to vote for political candidates, the worse their performance will be. The same concept applies to an economic system. In a free enterprise system, everybody is allowed to be an "economic voter", and the end result is that, as a group, they make "ordinary" decisions about which businesses to support and which to drive into bankruptcy. In order to provide ourselves with better business leaders and better products, we need to reduce the number of people who are economic voters.

One method of reducing the number of economic voters is, as I described in other documents, to require businesses to submit their new products to a government agency, just as pharmaceutical companies have to get approval for their drugs before they are allowed to put them on the market. The businesses would be competing to please that government agency, rather than trying to titillate consumers.

By letting a small group of government officials make decisions about products, we increase our chances that the businesses focus on improving products, learning from one another, and inspiring one another, rather than fighting with one another and creating useless, deceptive, and shoddy products. The government agency will also be able to prevent trivial variations of a product.

Because there are so many complex products in a modern society, the people within the government agency would be unable to make decisions about products on their own. Instead, the agency would supervise reviews of products.

For example, if a business had just finished the development of a new DNA sequencer, the government officials could not be expected to pass judgment on whether that product is truly such an improvement over what already exists that it should be put into production. They would also be unable to figure out whether it should compete with the DNA sequencers already in production or whether it should replace one of them. Instead, the government agency would arrange for some people involved with DNA analysers to do some reviews of the product and provide an analysis of what to do.

Some of people chosen for the review process would be engineers who design such products, and some would be people who use that type of product in their jobs, and in some cases the government would also want to include some people who have to repair or recycle the product.

The people selected to review products would become temporary government officials who are responsible for reviewing that particular product. They might work part time on the review if the product is simplistic, or they might choose to work full-time. Since they would become government officials, they would have some authority to request testing materials or supplies, engineering data, or the assistance of other people. When they were finished with their review, they would return to their regular job, and the government officials would make a decision about the product based on their reviews.

With this type of system, the government officials would not choose products entirely according to what consumers want. Rather, since the officials would be in competition with one another to do what is best for society, they would be under pressure to not only consider what consumers want, but to also consider what consumers need, use, and benefit from. The officials would also consider how easy the product would be to manufacture, repair, and recycle.

That small group of government officials would become the "economic voters" who determine which products to put into production, and which business executives need to be replaced. As long as they can make better decisions than the majority of people - which should not be difficult! - we will get better business executives and better products.

If you think it is impractical for a government agency to arrange for thousands of product reviews every year, there are already thousands of reviews every year from individual citizens and organizations. All I am suggesting is that we switch this activity from the chaotic situation we have right now to making it an official responsibility of the government.

It would not be difficult for the government officials to put together a group of people to do a review of a product. The difficult aspect is finding people whose reviews are useful. A product review is like an analysis of a political candidate. Most people cannot provide us with an intelligent analysis of presidential candidates, and most people cannot provide a useful review of a product.

What this means is that in order for this government agency to be successful, we need to find people for the agency who are capable of putting teams together to do intelligent analyses of products. Businesses are already doing this for their own internal purposes, so it is possible. Businesses regularly review prototypes and pass judgment on which of them to put into production.

The government officials in this agency will rarely do product reviews; rather, they will usually put teams together to do product reviews, and then they will pass judgment on what to do with the product. They will also pass judgment on which of the people in that team provided the most useful reviews; who asked for excessive amounts of supplies for testing; and who needed excessive amounts of assistance for the review. This will allow them to build up a database of people that they trust for product reviews.

By having a government agency that handles the product reviews, we provide society with control over the process. The reviews will not be secretive or anonymous, and all of the people involved with the process can be held accountable for their actions. When somebody shows evidence that a person's reviews are unsatisfactory, we can stop asking him to provide product reviews and give somebody else the opportunity.

In the world today, if we don't like the reviews from Consumer Reports or somebody else, there is nothing we can do to stop them from producing more reviews. Also, we cannot control how they review products. For example, there is not much concern yet for how easy it is to recycle a product. By comparison, when the government is in control of product reviews, we can ask for more emphasis to be put on how the product will be recycled.

The reason recycling is important is because when there is no peasant class in the city to deal with the trash, the people have to share the burden. Therefore, we should consider how easy it will be to recycle a product before we authorize it for production.

When each of the product reviewers is held accountable for his actions, he is more likely to consider what would be best for society rather than what he is titillated by. At the moment, when people review products, they think more about what they personally like. An example are the people who are titillated by buttons, options, and menus. They will give a favorable review to products with lots of options, but how many people want those options?

From my own personal experiences, I and other people don't want most of the options. If you are old enough to remember when VCRs first appeared on the market, you may remember noticing that some people's VCRs were blinking "12:00" because the people did not know how to set the time, and they did not care. They were using the VCR only to record and play videos. They did not want to learn about the options, or set up the timers.

The government officials who are in control of product reviews will be held accountable for the reviews. The officials will be expected to occasionally take a look at what has been happening to the products that they authorized. Are the consumers using the products correctly? Are consumers satisfied with the product, or are they complaining about it? Are the products easy to repair and recycle? Do they have an adequate lifetime? The government officials should use that information to decide whether the product should be removed from the market or modified.

When we first create a government agency to do these product reviews, it will be our very first attempt, so it's going to be crude. However, this type of agency is social technology, so we will be able to improve it by experimenting with changes. So, don't look for excuses to do nothing. Instead, look forward to getting control of the economy. This type of agency will allow us to determine our future rather than wonder who will become a business leader, and what type of products they will give us.

Once we have this agency established, we will be able to find ways to improve the product review process, and through the decades this will result in more useful product reviews, which will give us better products that are easier to repair and recycle. It will also allow us to provide ourselves with better business leaders. We will become active participants in our economy rather than passive observers.

My concept of dividing a city into three sections might seem idiotic when you realize that many of our large cities are actually clusters of small cities. A photograph of the Los Angeles basin, for example, appears to show one, gigantic city, but it is actually a lot of little cities that have expanded to the point at which they touch one another. We could say that the Los Angeles basin is divided into a lot of little cities, so, why not compare those city governments to one another? Likewise, New York City could be described as consisting of five pieces. Why do we need to break a city into three pieces?

The reason we cannot compare cities together right now is because they are not equal to one another. The cities within the Los Angeles basin, for example, are significantly different from one another in their land area, population level, type of people, and activities. For example, some cities are dominated by businesses and factories, and others are mostly poor people, and others are mostly wealthy people.

In order to compare governments, we have to divide a city in reasonably equal sections. This would be impossible with our current cities. However, I'm not suggesting that we do this to the existing cities. I am suggesting that we take some vacant land and create some new cities. Those cities would be designed to be divided up into three, fairly equal sections.

Furthermore, I suggest eliminating the peasant and wealthy class from the city and making everybody virtually equal. This will make it easier for us to divide a city into equal sections.

When government officials are under competitive pressure to make their section of the city the nicest, they will analyze what other government officials are doing and try to improve upon their ideas. They will look for ways to improve the efficiency of the government, improve the school system, and improve the systems that are used to arrange for music concerts, recreational events, and social affairs.

After centuries of this type of competitive pressure, government officials will undoubtedly come up with improvements to our social technology that nobody today can imagine.

For an example of how this type of competitive pressure would cause government officials to look for ways to improve life, consider that sidewalks, foot paths, roads, gardens, parks, and buildings are scattered in an almost haphazard manner in our cities today.

One of the problems this causes is that we often end up with foot paths that have sharp angles, and people frequently take a shortcut across the grass, leaving ugly trails, as in the photo to the right.

When government officials are under competitive pressure to find improvements to life, one official might decide to put a decorative hedge or fence around the grass, and another official might put up warning signs to stay off the grass, and another official might decide to redesign the paths to eliminate the sharp angles. By comparing the different sections of the city, we will be able to pass judgment on which official is creating the most pleasant environment.

The officials who were doing the worst job would be replaced so that somebody else could try. The officials would be under pressure to analyze what other officials are doing. They would try to learn from one another and improve upon the existing social technology. They would compete with one another to figure out the best way to arrange buildings, bicycle paths, gardens, parks, canals, schools, and other items in the city. They would also compete to improve the school system, recreational activities, social affairs, restaurants, museums, courtship affairs, daycare centers, and music concerts.

For another example of how competition could result in improvements to the city, when we put foot paths, bicycle paths, and other transportation paths along straight lines that run east to west, the people who have to travel along those paths when the sun is low to the horizon, (during the morning and evening), will travel into the sun, which I think is annoying.

I think it would be better if the paths that travel east to west would follow a serpentine path instead of a straight line, and if we also ensured that there were a few buildings, hills, trees, or other obstacles scattered along the path to reduce the chance that we will have to look into the sun.

Would we prefer a city to have paths that run east to west follow a serpentine path? We cannot be sure until we actually give it a try, but when governments are under pressure to find improvements, one of the officials might decide to try it with one of the paths. This will let us determine whether this is a good solution to the problem. Some other official might come up with a better idea.

For another example of what could be done to make a city more attractive and pleasant, a few parks already have elevated foot paths, such as in the photo below, but we could expand this concept to an entire city, and do it for bicycle paths, also.

Bicycle paths and foot paths do not need to support much weight, and so we could create a lot of elevated paths over ponds and rough surfaces, along the level of treetops, and to allow bicycle paths to cross over one another to avoid an intersection. The paths for bicycles could be a different style and color than those for pedestrians so that we can easily determine which path to get on.

The elevated paths allow us to avoid the mud and insects along the ground, and it allows the ground to remain in a pristine, beautiful condition, which is especially nice when the leaves are changing colors, as in the photo above. Elevated paths are also excellent for walking over fields of flowers. Some paths could also be covered so that we could walk and ride bicycles in the rain, as is the path, below, in Singapore.

When government officials are in competition to improve their section of the city, and when we continuously replace the official who is the least talented, we will provide ourselves with officials who regularly experiment with improvements to the city and its social systems.

After centuries of this type of competition, the government officials will have discovered hundreds of improvements to a city that none of us can imagine. They will create a city that is more spectacular, beautiful, efficient, and enjoyable than anything we can dream of. The future generations are likely to enjoy their city so much that they prefer to spend their leisure time in the city rather than sitting at home.

Another difference in the attitude between businesses and governments is that business executives want all of their employees to be working on tasks that have a benefit to the organization, whereas a government doesn't care whether government employees are doing something of value because they don't have any concern for wasting money. Actually, a government will often reduce unemployment by creating some useless jobs for the unemployed people.

To complicate the issue, even though people within a business are doing something beneficial for the business, they may not be doing anything useful for society. For example, the people who are trying to manipulate children into desiring toys are helping their organization, but they are not helping society.

By giving the government control of the economic system, and by putting the government officials into competition to improve society, they will be under pressure to ensure that everybody in their section of the city is doing something that is useful for society. They will discuss issues that nobody is discussing yet, such as:

Do we want people creating astrology predictions? How many people do we want developing games for phones? How many people and how much resources do we want on the development of toys for children? Do we want people building and operating gambling casinos, or should those people put their time into providing the city with covered walkways, more attractive swimming areas, and more comfortable video rooms? Should we put more resources into putting people on Mars or into a better train system? Do we want people making idiotic gifts that people give to each other as a joke, and then toss in the trash?

Everybody would benefit from this type of government in two primary ways. First of all, by eliminating jobs that have no benefit to society, everybody will be doing something that is useful. Second, morale would improve because nobody would feel as if they are wasting their life on a worthless, detrimental, or idiotic job.

In the previous sections I mentioned that our business leaders are providing better leadership than our government officials, but there are lots of examples of business leaders who are behaving worse than government officials.

For example, in a previous document I mentioned a news report about a restaurant in Canada that required the waitresses to wear high-heeled shoes, and that one of the women was complaining that her feet were bleeding by the end of her work day.

In the previous section I mentioned examples of how absurd it would be if IBM operated like a government, but there are some business leaders doing things that would be disgusting if a government official did it. Imagine a government official passing a law that all of the women in the nation must wear high-heeled shoes while they are working. Nobody would tolerate that from a government official, but we tolerate it when business leaders do it.

In a free enterprise system, businesses have the freedom to do whatever they please, and history provides us with lots of examples of businesses that took advantage of that freedom to be abusive to their employees, government officials, foreign nations, and customers. Some of the abuse was deliberate, and some was due to our tendency to follow whatever idiotic cultural or religious belief our ancestors were following.

In a free enterprise system, everybody is free to start a business, including children. As long as a person can make profit, he will be able to remain as a business leader, regardless of whether he is doing anything of value for society. Nobody needs to meet any qualifications in order to become influential in a free enterprise system, and nobody can be removed from their position as a business leader because nobody has any authority over the free enterprise system.

A free enterprise system also allows children to inherit businesses, and spouses can be given businesses in divorce settlements. This allows people to become business leaders through a method that is analogous to a political monarchy.

A free enterprise system does not provide any provisions for removing people from leadership positions. In order to improve upon the situation, we need to design an economy so that the worst performing business leaders can regularly be replaced. We should design a society so that everybody in a leadership position has to meet high standards. We should not allow people to get into influential positions simply because they want to be leaders.

We can interpret the world in any manner we please because there is no right or wrong in regards to life. There are no correct or incorrect laws, holiday celebrations, economic systems, school systems, or clothing styles. A particular law or cultural activity is sensible only if you want it to be, and it is idiotic or cruel if you prefer to look at it from that point of view.

For example, the free enterprise system provides everybody with the freedom to start whatever business they please, develop whatever product they please, and operate the business in any manner they please. If we switch to a system in which the government is in control of the economy and all other culture, the government will be able to control who gets into leadership positions, which products are manufactured, and what our social customs will be. Is that going to be an oppressive system? Will we have less freedom?

We could say that a government will provide its citizens with more freedom when they supervise the economy and regularly replace the worst performing business leaders. Some reasons for this:

1) The government will be able to remove the business leaders who are neurotic, abusive, or incompetent. This will free the people from the abuse caused by those business leaders. An example I mentioned already is the restaurants that force waitresses to wear high-heeled shoes. Those waitresses could be described as "victims of abuse" rather than as "beneficiaries of freedom". Therefore, if the government is allowed to supervise the economy, the government will be able to replace those business leaders, or require they follow more sensible clothing styles, thereby providing the waitresses with the freedom from unpleasant working conditions.

2) The government will be able to prohibit the jobs that have no value to society, or which irritate us, such as telemarketing and the creation of advertisements to manipulate children. Therefore, we could say that the government will free the people of idiotic jobs that don't provide us with job satisfaction, and that the government will free everybody of the abuse from those particular types of businesses. This will allow more people to have a job that they are proud of, which will help morale, and it will allow the people to be more useful to society, which brings benefits to everybody.

3) During the Middle Ages, it was easy for a person to start a business by himself because every business was tiny, but it is no longer practical for individual citizens to start whatever business they please. It is impossible for an individual citizen to start his own automobile company, semiconductor manufacturing business, or electric power company.

However, when the government is controlling the businesses and regularly replacing the worst performing business leaders, business leadership becomes just another job, and this provides greater opportunities for us to become business leaders. We could say that this provides us with more freedom by providing us with more types of job opportunities.

4) The government will be able to prohibit economic monarchies. Children will not be able to inherit businesses or leadership positions. Everybody will have to earn whatever they want. We could say that this will free the people from economic monarchies, nepotism, and incompetent business leadership.

Children and adults all around the world regularly complain that they want more freedom, but in reality, most people want to follow the crowd. They do not want the freedom to explore life and experiment with their culture. They need guidance more than they need freedom. Unfortunately, the crowd believes that they need more freedom, and so most people make incessant demands for more freedom.

People don't want or use the freedom they have right now. Consider the issue of clothing styles to understand this concept. Should people be free to choose their own clothing styles, or should the government provide supervision of clothing styles? Most people would probably respond that we should have the freedom to choose our own clothing styles, but I would say the answer to that question is: it depends upon who we select as government officials.

With the type of government officials we have today, it would be better to provide people with the freedom to choose their clothing styles, but if we could provide ourselves with a government of higher quality people, then we would benefit from their guidance.

For example, consider the businesses that require women to dress in sexually titillating outfits in order to attract male customers. If the government were to prohibit women from wearing cosmetics, jewelry, and sexually titillating outfits except for certain social affairs, would the government be oppressing us by denying citizens and businesses the freedom to choose their own clothing styles? Or would they be making life more pleasant for both men and women by reducing the sexual titillation of men?

After she was told not to wear ponytails, she decided to make fun of the clothing regulations by finding a loophole. She came to work in various types of "cosplay" outfits, including colored contact lenses, and pointed out that the company's clothing rules did not prohibit "cosplay".

For another example, a woman in an English business who was told that the female employees were not allowed to wear scarves or put their hair in ponytails or pigtails.

Should each businesses have the freedom to set hairstyles for their employees? Should each business also have the freedom to set their own work schedules, safety procedures, and policies for dealing with pregnant women or mothers with babies? Should each business also have the freedom to decide if they are going to provide recreational facilities for their employees?

If everybody in the world was as wonderful as they claim to be, then the answer to such questions is YES. In reality, when every citizen and business is free to do whatever they please, some people are certain to enforce rules that irritate somebody else.

History shows us that people need supervision. There are hundreds of examples of business executives showing no concern about safety procedures, or no concern about whether their products have a value to the customer, or who regard female employees who become pregnant as a nuisance to the business, or who mindlessly enforce the culture of their ancestors even though it is irritating people.

Furthermore, the complexity of the modern world is creating a lot of issues that businesses and individuals do not have enough knowledge to make wise decisions about. We benefit from the guidance of people with more experience, knowledge, or intelligence. For example, only a small number of people have enough knowledge about chemicals to know how to safely handle certain chemicals, and only a small number of people know what type of chemicals are safe to put into food and medical products, and in what quantities.

It is foolish to provide businesses and citizens with the freedom to handle and dispose of chemicals in any manner they please, or to choose for themselves what chemicals to add to foods, and in what quantity. It is better to have a small group of people with experience and knowledge create regulations for dangerous chemicals.

The government is already creating regulations or us, but we could expand this concept to other areas, such as clothing. However, we must not allow what we have today, which is a government in which the officials can operate secretly and anonymously. In order to truly improve upon this system, we need to design a government that holds the officials accountable for their laws and regulations, and allows us to replace the worst performing leaders. We must be able to observe what the officials do, and why, and pass judgment on whether we like their guidance. This will allow us to improve the laws and regulations.

With a more appropriate government system, we will benefit by having officials who provide us with even more regulations than we have now. Although some business executives might whine that the regulations are a burden on businesses, or that the regulations are denying businesses the freedom to do as they please, if the regulations have been designed to help society rather than to help some particular group of people, then they are not oppressive, and they are not denying people their freedom. They are simply "regulations" that are providing us with sensible guidance. Those type of regulations are similar to the rules that parents provide their children in regards to how the children can handle knives, razors, and other potentially dangerous items.

When trying to figure out whether a government is abusive or providing guidance, it can help to imagine the same situation happening with a small organization, such as a family. For example, if a father allowed his children to drive automobiles, bulldozers, motorcycles, or airplanes, and without any training or supervision, people would not describe the father as providing his children with freedom.

Even if a father provided training and supervision to his children on how to use automobiles, matches, razor blades, explosives, and guns, most people would criticize the father as a threat to public rather than praise the father for providing his children with freedom.

In 2014, a nine-year-old girl accidentally killed a man who was teaching her to shoot an Uzi machine gun. This incident brings up lots of interesting questions, such as:

1) Are parents providing their children with freedom when they allow their children to use guns? If the government prohibited children from using guns, would the government be denying us our freedom? Would they be oppressing us? Do children in this modern world need access to guns?

2) Why does our government prohibit children from driving automobiles but not from using guns? Why do we require adults to go through training programs to drive automobiles, fly airplanes, and practice dentistry, but we do not require adults to pass training programs to use guns? Why does the military require their recruits to go through training programs in order to use equipment and weapons, but people who are not in the military can avoid training programs?

3) The video of the girl shooting her instructor terminates just before her instructor is shot. Who benefits by hiding that section of the video, and how do they benefit? Who would be harmed if that video was available for us to look at, and how would they be harmed?

We don't want to watch people die or suffer for the same reasons that we don't want to watch people poop or be injected with hypodermic needles. I am not suggesting that we force ourselves to watch these things. Rather, I suggest that we think about our polices rather than follow our emotions. We should experiment with our policies and try to figure out what will provide us with a more pleasant environment.

I think that our policies towards violence are irrational because people are following their emotions rather than thinking. We regard real violence as dangerous, and we hide it, but we promote phony violence as a form of family entertainment. Television shows and movies are full of violence, and a lot of money is being spent trying to create realistic images of people being shot at with guns, cut with saws, and blown up with explosives. Cartoons and other programs for children are also full of phony violence, revenge, hatred, and fights. Many people create extremely realistic simulations of gruesome violence for Halloween displays and costumes.

Are children benefiting from an exposure to phony violence on television, books, Halloween, and movies? Are they really being protected from something when we hide the real violence from them? Perhaps so, but I doubt it.

Violence is a part of life for animals and humans. Predators feed themselves by killing other animals. Humans also kill animals and plants in order to eat. We depend upon death for our life, and so do other animals.

Although death is a part of life, we have inhibitions about it. We do not like looking at dead bodies, and we especially abhor rotten bodies that stink and have maggots crawling around in them.

We will never know for sure what will provide us with the most pleasant social environment until we start experimenting, but I suspect that we would create a better social environment if we treated phony violence in a similar manner as real violence. Specifically, we should keep both the phony and the real violence out of our daily lives, but we should not prohibit it or treat it as if it is dangerous. Death and violence is not dangerous. Actually, if we dislike the people who are dead, their death will be entertaining and trigger feelings of pleasure. Death is miserable only when we like the people who are dead, or don't know them.

Victims of crime frequently ask for "justice to be served". What they are asking for is to torture or kill the criminal. They are enjoying the thought of torturing or killing the criminal.

The problem with promoting phony violence on television, books, and the Internet is that we will be constantly triggering certain emotions in our mind, but what is the benefit to it? For example, Hollywood will include senseless violence in their movies as a way of titillating the audience, which can increase their profits, but what is the benefit to you or to society?

This issue is similar to whether we should allow businesses to use sexual titillation to attract teenage boys and adult men. When they do this, they titillate us, and since this sexual titillation is in lots of advertisements, product descriptions, television programs, and movies, we are being titillated constantly by the businesses. The businesses are benefiting from this, but what is the benefit to you or me? What is the benefit to society?

It might help you to understand this issue if you imagine a world in which businesses were allowed to install electrodes into one of the pleasure centers of every adult's brain, and with a Wi-Fi connection. Imagine that every day the businesses broadcast a radio signal for an hour or so to trigger that electrode. That in turn causes all of us to experience some pleasure, and imagine if it also causes us to wander over to the retail stores and purchase products.

Would you want to live in that type of world? What would you think if you told one of the people that they were being manipulated by the businesses, and they responded, "I enjoy the pleasure from that signal, and I don't want it to stop!"

What is the difference between a business that puts an electrode in your brain and is broadcasting a signal to titillate you, and a business that is displaying an image of a pretty woman on television, or some phony violence, in order to titillate you? What is the difference between a person who enjoys the pleasure of the electrode, and a person who enjoys the pretty girl or the phony violence? How do we draw the line between when people are being "entertained", and when they are being "manipulated"?

During the first few years that television existed, the programs did not show much phony violence, and I don't think the audience suffered as a result. I don't think that the phony violence that we see in television or movies today is making the movies "better". The phony sex acts aren't improving anything, either. I think the producers are creating these emotionally titillating scenes because their movies and TV shows have no entertainment value, and so they are resorting to emotional titillation.

Another problem with allowing people to see phony violence but not real violence is that we end up with unrealistic views of what violence is. This can create the type of problems we see in the United States in which a person believes that he can knock somebody out by hitting them over the head with a bottle of beer, or that he can shoot somebody with a gun and the person will die within a fraction of a second.

In reality, hitting somebody with a bottle of beer will not necessarily stop him from attacking you, and shooting a person with a gun will not necessarily kill him, even if the bullet hits him in the head. Bullets will kill quickly only when they hit certain, small areas.

When we are prohibited from seeing real violence, our memory becomes full of images of the phony violence from movies and cartoons. How do we benefit by having a memory that is full of unrealistic information?

We are allowed to see automobile accidents, including photos of the dead and mutilated bodies. Should we hide photos and videos of automobile accidents in the same manner that we hide gunshot victims? Should the police immediately throw a large tarp over the accident so that we cannot see the crumpled car or mutilated bodies?

There is no evidence that reality is going to hurt us. For example, coroners, police detectives, firemen, and many other people regularly see the effects of gunshots, fire, car accidents, knives, razor blades, poisons, electricity, and explosives, so if it were true that seeing a dead body will ruin a person's life, then every policeman, fireman, coroner, and funeral employee who saw a dead body would be suffering from trauma or mental illness.

There are some policemen, soldiers, and firemen with mental problems, but there is no evidence that those mental problems were caused from observing a dead body.

Our prehistoric ancestors saw dead bodies all the time because nature killed their children at a very high rate. Some of our ancestors had to watch a wolf bite into one of their children, shake the child, and drag it off into the forest. Parents would sometimes find the skull or other bones of their child. Our ancestors also occasionally had fights with neighboring tribes, and that would result in them seeing people stabbed with sharp sticks and hit with rocks. Is there any evidence that any of those violent events caused our prehistoric ancestors to suffer in some way?

Humans and animals are not inherently violent. We do not enjoy violence. Violence and dead bodies upset us. Unfortunately, people are misinterpreting those unpleasant feelings by assuming that we are suffering when we see a dead body, and that life will be better for us if we avoid those unpleasant feelings. This assumption is false. We evolved for a violent environment. The reason we become upset when we see violence is because those emotional feelings are nature's way of causing us to avoid violence.

It would be idiotic to design an animal that enjoyed violence because it would cause the animal to destroy everything in his environment. The animals and humans who were best at the competitive battle for life were those who focused on life, not on death. They were the people who enjoyed socializing with other people and working with them, not killing them. We kill each other only when we are angry.

Our inhibitions about violence and death are like our inhibitions about our poop. A person is not going to be damaged if he sees or smells poop. Every one of us is irritated by poop, including our own, but who is suffering as a result? We do not like poop, but we are capable of dealing with it. It is not causing us any emotional trauma, or ruining our lives. It is simply an unpleasant aspect of life that we have to deal with.

Likewise, death is an unpleasant aspect of life. We do not like death, and we do not like to look at dead bodies, but we are not going to become harmed if we see violence or death. The opposite is also true, we are not going to improve our life by constantly exposing ourselves to phony violence.

I am not suggesting that we start showing real violence on television news reports and force ourselves to watch it. Rather, I am suggesting that we experiment with an environment in which we treat the phony violence in a similar manner as real violence. In other words, keep it out of our daily lives, and don't allow organizations to use violence to titillate or manipulate us. This would be a policy similar to what I suggest with sexual issues.

4) Nobody benefits from secrecy. By not allowing us to see the video of the girl shooting the instructor, and by not allowing us to see the dead body of the instructor, there is no evidence that the instructor was actually killed. This is allowing people who describe themselves as "truth seekers" to claim that the instructor did not really die. Here is a truth seeker who says he is not sure if the death is real or a lie, but he suspects that it is a lie.

These truth seekers are another example of what I mentioned earlier in this document about how we are showing no concern about the information people are providing us. These accusations should be investigated, and if these people are lying, they should be considered as criminals, and if they are making honest mistakes, they need to correct their mistakes. We should not tolerate people making these awful accusations.

These truth seekers put out these type of theories every time some odd event occurs. Most of the truth seekers seem to be Jews, or people working for the Jews. They are trying to saturate the Internet with thousands of variations of conspiracy theories.

Secrecy is not beneficial to honest people. Secrecy is allowing criminals to confuse, deceive, and manipulate us.

By allowing the entire shooting to be put on the Internet, the people who want to see the entire video could do so, and everybody else could ignore it. Nobody would be forced to watch it.

The same concept applies to information about human bodies. We should not censor information about digestion, sex, childbirth, or breast-feeding simply because some people have trouble controlling their sexual inhibitions. As long as the information is serious and not being used to manipulate us, it should be permitted. The people who don't want to look at the information can avoid it.

5) We don't solve problems with lawsuits. People in the United States are accidentally killing themselves and one another with guns on a regular basis. In the case of the nine-year-old girl who killed her instructor, the family of the instructor filed a lawsuit against the shooting range. Lawyers do not help us understand or solve problems. Instead, they help people file lawsuits. Our legal system is encouraging people to look for opportunities to exploit problems and benefit from them.

Lawsuits will never solve any of the problems we face. We need to design a government that provides us with officials who react to problems by analyzing them, discussing them, and experimenting with policies to reduce the problem.

6) Guns should be regarded as tools, not toys. There are lots of videos on the Internet in which somebody gives a gun to a child or woman, and that person has a difficult time handling the recoil. In some videos, the person is knocked off balance and falls on the ground, and in other videos the gun flies out of their hands or hits them in the face. In many of these videos we can hear people giggling when these accidents occur.

What would you think if you saw a video in which people were giving razor blades to two-year-old children, and then giggling when the children cut their fingers or bit into the razor blades?

We are not providing people with freedom when we allow people to use dangerous items that they have no interest in using safely, or that they have no use for. It does not matter whether the item is a gun, a bulldozer, a poisonous chemical, or a razor blade. If a person cannot or will not use a dangerous tool properly, or if he has no use for a dangerous tool, then we are not providing him with freedom when we give him access to that tool. Rather, we are behaving in a reckless, irresponsible manner.

For example, a government that allowed businesses to have the freedom to decide for themselves how to dispose of toxic and radioactive waste should be considered as an irresponsible government rather than a government that provides businesses with freedom.

What is freedom? What is oppression? We do not consider a government to be abusive when they require us to take driving lessons and pass a driver's test in order to obtain a license to drive an automobile or fly an airplane, but millions of Americans insist that a government is abusive if it requires people to pass training tests and get a license in order to have access to a gun.

The military requires people go through a training course before they let them handle weapons, and businesses require employees to be trained before they are allowed to use dangerous equipment or chemicals, so why not apply the same concept to citizens who want to use guns, explosives, and other dangerous items?

Our languages are crude, imprecise, and full of words that we cannot adequately explain. People are constantly whining that they need more freedom, or that they are suffering from discrimination, oppression, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, or bigotry. Although many of our laws are stupid or selfish, most laws are not attempts to restrict our freedom. Rather, they are trying to provide supervision to us. There is nobody in the United States who can seriously claim that he is suffering from a lack of freedom.

We could say that most people have an excessive amount of freedom. For example, consider the issue of food. Everybody in the world is provided with the freedom to eat whatever they please, whenever they want to eat, and in whatever quantities they want to eat. If a government were to put restrictions on how we can eat, or when we can eat, or what we can eat, would the government be oppressing us and denying us our freedom? Not necessarily. It depends upon who we select as a government official. Having freedom does not necessarily result in a better life, and following laws does not necessarily cause us to suffer.

If a mother were to provide her two-year-old child with the freedom to eat whatever he pleases whenever he wants to eat, she would be described as an irresponsible mother, not a mother who was providing her child with freedom.

Imagine two cities that are identical in all respects, except:

• In one city, the people have the freedom to eat whatever they want whenever they please, just as they do today.
• In the other city, people get food from restaurants, and the restaurants must follow government regulations that ensure that the meals are healthy, and that nobody is provided with excessive quantities of food, and that the restaurants are open only for a few hours during mealtimes.

What would be the difference between those two cities in regards to the lives of the people? Which of the cities would provide the most "freedom"? Which city would provide the most desirable social environment?

In the city that restricted food, some of the people would undoubtedly whine that they want to eat more than they are being permitted, and their whining would create the impression that the people in that city have less freedom and less happiness. However, the people in that city would produce less food, and that would reduce the amount of labor and resources that they must put into farming, food distribution, food preparation, and the cleaning up of food related activities. Furthermore, the people in that city would have fewer health problems, so they would not need so many people working in the healthcare system, or producing medicines, or maintaining hospitals.

By comparison, the other city would have lots of fat and sickly people, and the people would have to spend more of their labor and resources on food production, food related activities, healthcare, and sewage treatment. The fat people would also make the city visually different because there would be fewer people taking walks, riding bikes, and swimming. We would also notice that the fat people are less productive at their jobs because they are more sluggish. The fat people would also spend more time eating, and more time in the bathroom. The trains, sidewalks, and hallways would feel more crowded because the fat people require more space, and the city would have a different visual appearance because fat people waddle rather than walk. Their sluggishness would make their city a bit more sloppy and disorganized, and it would impede technical progress. Through the years, their city would become noticeably inferior.

Most people probably believe that they would prefer to have the freedom to eat whatever they please, but if we could live in both of those cities for a few months, I suspect that many people would come to the conclusion that they would rather live in the city in which the government is restricting food rather than live among the fat, unhealthy people.

Another option that we have in regards to food is to allow people to eat as much as they want, but restrict reproduction to the people who have better control of their food consumption. That will allow the people who want to eat excessively to do so, and it would reduce the number of those people during each generation, thereby slowly eliminating the problem.

Every policy has advantages and disadvantages. There is no correct way to design a human society. It is senseless for a person to whine that he needs more freedom. A freedom is not necessarily beneficial. Every freedom has advantages and disadvantages. Rather than whine that we need more freedom, we should experiment with our culture to determine which freedoms we truly benefit from, and which are causing us trouble.

Our government puts tremendous restrictions on medical drugs, but we have unlimited access to alcohol, sugar, candy, soda, aspirin, bleach, ammonia, guns, acetone, automobiles, motorcycles, skateboards, jet skis, and many other items that are just as dangerous, or more dangerous, than those medical drugs.

Furthermore, prescriptions for medical drugs are valid for only a year, so if a person needs a medication throughout the rest of his life, he has to waste his time and money getting a new prescription every year. Why does a person who needs medication have to get a prescription every year, but people can buy bullets without prescriptions? How is this law helping us?

How many people want to abuse insulin or thyroid hormones? Why should people who need those drugs have to waste their time and money on new prescriptions every year? Why can't people who need those medical drugs order them on the Internet and have them delivered by mail?

I doubt if insulin would be abused even if insulin vending machines were scattered around the city. Furthermore, if somebody is so mentally defective that he abuses insulin, why should you or I care? Why should millions of people have to waste their time and money getting new prescriptions simply because a few mentally disturbed individuals abuse some drugs?

Here is a bodybuilder explaining how he uses insulin. He and other bodybuilders have discovered that insulin can be useful in bodybuilding. Because of the secrecy involved with drugs and hormones, we don't know the long-term effects of the drugs that bodybuilders are using, so it is possible that some bodybuilders are hurting themselves, but we are not going to stop them from using drugs simply by making the drugs available by prescription only. We are simply adding a burden to the lives of everybody who needs the drugs.

If a nation decides that they want to stop the bodybuilders and other athletes from using drugs and hormones, then the people must be willing to experiment with some significant changes to their culture. For some examples of our options:

• Some of the athletes and bodybuilders are involved with those activities simply because they don't like any of the jobs available. Therefore, we might be able to stop some of those people from abusing drugs by altering the economy to make jobs more desirable so that more people are willing to take a job and fewer people want to make a living through bodybuilding or athletics.

• We could prohibit prizes for the winners of contests, or require that all athletes have a full-time job and do athletics in their leisure time, thereby making it impossible for a person to make a living from athletics and bodybuilding. That type of change would cause all athletic events to become leisure activities for fun, rather than professions. That would significantly reduce the desire to win the contests, which would reduce the desire of the athletes to use drugs.

• In regards to bodybuilders, we could try to change people's attitudes on what constitutes a nice-looking human body so that the people who win the bodybuilding contests have more "natural" bodies.

Some of the bodybuilders have described themselves as suffering from "bigorexia", which is similar to anorexia, except that instead of becoming absurdly skinny, they want absurdly large muscles. We could treat this as a real mental problem and classify the judges of the bodybuilding contests as promoting bigorexia, and decide that they are emotionally unfit to be judges. We could pass judgment on who among us is qualified to be a judge of a bodybuilding contest, and that would allow us to restrict the judging to people who select a "natural" person to be the winner of the contest.

My suggestion that the government get involved with the judging of a bodybuilding contest would likely cause some people to respond that the government should not get involved with beauty contests. However, there are many people complaining that some of the clothing businesses are using excessively skinny women for models. If it is acceptable to pressure businesses into using "normal" women as models rather than anorexic women, then it is acceptable to pressure bodybuilders into treating "normal" men as having the best body.

The concept I mentioned earlier about awards applies to all types of contests, such as sports events and beauty contests. Just as the Nobel prizes have an influence over our culture, so do the organizations that are arranging sports events and beauty contests.

We need to make a distinction between giving a person the freedom to do as he pleases in his personal life, and giving a person the authority to influence society and the future generations. If an individual woman wants to be anorexic, then we can let her be anorexic. However, when businesses promote anorexic women, they are influencing our attitudes and our future. Therefore, we have the right to decide whether we want their particular attitudes imposed on us.

The same is true with bodybuilding and athletics. If a particular man wants to develop gigantic muscles, we can let him do so. However, when organizations tell us who has the best looking body, then they are influencing society, and as a result, society has the right to decide whether we want their particular views imposed on us.

The same concept applies to religions. Since nobody can adequately explain how the universe came into existence, nobody has the right to say that their particular religion or Big Bang theory is the correct theory. Everybody is free to believe whatever they want, as long as they keep their opinions in their mind. However, once they start imposing their opinions on society, such as putting them into books for school children, or demanding that we put phrases on buildings, such as "In God We Trust", then society has a responsibility to decide if we want their influence on us.

During prehistoric times, a person had almost no influence on the world. Only a few people would have known of his existence and what he was thinking. In the world today, however, an individual person, all by himself, can exert an incredible influence over the entire world, and organizations can exert even more influence.

A modern society has a responsibility to pass judgment on which people and organizations they want influencing their children and their future. We can no longer practice the prehistoric attitude that everybody is free to do whatever he pleases.

If a person keeps his beliefs to himself, then he can believe whatever he wants, but once he starts pushing his beliefs on other people, he is not an individual citizen any longer. He is putting himself into a leadership position and trying to influence our future. We do not have to tolerate people who appoint themselves to leadership. We can and should have a discussion about whose opinions we want influencing the world. We should not be intimidated by the aggressive people who tell us what we should be thinking.

Every individual and every organization today must take into consideration how their behavior will affect other people. A society has the right to decide whether they want a particular person or organization imposing their views on us in regards to beauty, health, social activities, and sports. We do not have to tolerate businesses that try to encourage children to desire certain products, clothing, toys, or sports. We do not have to tolerate the businesses that create holidays so that they can sell more gifts or cards. We do not have to tolerate religions that try to manipulate our holidays or try to promote their particular religion.

We have a responsibility to pass judgment on who we want influencing the world. Businesses do not have the right to tell us which man or woman has the best body. An individual person is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but once he starts imposing his beliefs on other people, then he is putting himself into a leadership position, and we have a right to discuss whether we want his leadership.

This is actually a very complex and important topic. In August 2016, the Portland public school system approved a policy to regard a particular global warming theory as an indisputable fact that is not open to debate. Specifically, the Portland school system will no longer allow textbooks, teachers, or students to doubt the theory that humans are causing global warming as a result of their production of carbon dioxide.

Every school system has to make decisions on what is a fact, what is an opinion, and what is nonsense. For example, most schools have decided that clairvoyance, voodoo, or witchcraft are nonsense, but while most schools teach evolution, some teach about Adam and Eve or other religious theories. Should a school system be allowed to censor criticism of any of the global warming theories? Has one of those theories been proven to such an extent that it should be treated as a fact, and therefore all criticism of it should be banned?

Schools are also passing judgment on which activities to promote. Most schools are choosing to put a lot of emphasis on sports, for example. There is so much emphasis on sports that some colleges will accept students simply because of their athletic ability. This is resulting in athletes mixing into a college where they do not truly fit in with the other students. Are the school systems making wise decisions by putting this much emphasis on sports?

These issues also apply to other organizations, such as businesses and nations. For example, the companies that produce sodas, such as Red Bull, support a wide variety of sports, and so do many of the shoe businesses, such as Nike, but they are not supporting sports in order to make our lives better. Rather, they are doing this to promote their products. They use the athletes as tools to make money. Should we allow businesses or nations to promote sports? If so, which sports, and to what extent?

It did not make any difference what people in 50,000 BC did because they did not have much of an effect on one another, but in this modern world, we need to make decisions about who we want influencing the world. We must be especially concerned with which opinions we want influencing children. Do we want businesses to compete with one another to encourage children to buy certain toys or clothing items? Do we want religions trying to influence school curriculum? Do we want people to put "In God we trust" on coins or buildings? Do we want global warming advocates to influence our school curriculum? Do we want bigorexia victims to influence a child's view of what men should look like?

Everybody should have a right to discuss issues and create their own opinions, but nobody should have a right to impose his opinions on schools, society, or children. A society needs a government to make decisions about whose opinions we want influencing us. However, this requires that we be able to create a government that consists of people who have functional brains and who can make wise decisions for us. This is not the situation that we have today.

Because we do not set standards for people in influential positions, Mike Rosen can keep his job despite his mental disorders.

For example, in regards to the decision by the Portland public school system to prevent opposition to global warming, the school board member who introduced that resolution was Mike Rosen, who admits that he suffers from "depression".

One of the remarks he made about his depression is so absurd that I find it humorous. Specifically, he said that one of his recent episodes of depression was triggered when the city officials began investigating his job performance and behavior. The reason I find this amusing is that it gives me an animated image of government officials, business leaders, journalists, and school officials announcing to the public:

"All of us in leadership positions are suffering from mental illness, but our problems are triggered only when you people give us job performance reviews. So give us the freedom to do as we please and everything will be fine."

Since Mike Rosen has a defective brain, it is possible that he truly believes that global warming is a proven fact, and that he is a hero for protecting the students from the crazy people who have doubts about global warming. It is also possible that Rosen is working for the criminals who are trying to impose carbon taxes, and that he realizes that what he is doing is a scam. Regardless of whether he is a misguided lunatic or a criminal lunatic, his mental disorders should classify him as unfit for leadership position.

Unfortunately, in the world today, mental disorders do not disqualify people from leadership positions. Athletes have to go through regular drug tests, and they are evicted from contests if they test positive, but we do not put our leaders in government, business, school, or media through any type of mental evaluations, and we do not remove those who show signs of a defective mind.

In regards to whether global warming is real, we can say with certainty that the human population is so large today that we are having some effect on the climate, but nobody can say whether the effect humans have is significant, and nobody can be certain what exactly humans are doing that is having the most effect on the climate. If global warming is happening, and if humans are a significant reason for it, is it because we are producing carbon dioxide? Or is it because of our cities and our destruction of plants and forests? Or is it because of something else, such as our production of dust and pollutants?

Furthermore, nobody can say for certain that global warming will be bad. For all we know, we will prefer global warming.

Finally, even if there is global warming, and even if humans are causing it through the production of carbon dioxide, that doesn't prove that the government is going to solve the problem with carbon taxes.

Incidentally, Mike Rosen has a PhD in environmental science and engineering. He is another example of how a person can excel in school even though his brain does not function properly. School is primarily a test of our memory and math abilities. Furthermore, unlike businesses and the military, which will evict people with emotional disorders, schools do not pass judgment on a student's personality or mental disorders, which allows a person to be regarded as an excellent student even if he is abnormally violent, dishonest, psychotic, envious, hateful, selfish, frightened of the unknown, or paranoid.

Every organization has a responsibility to decide who they want influencing their members. An organization needs leaders to discuss these issues and make decisions about how to train the members, what sort of attitudes to promote in the organization, and what the goals of the organization will be.

If a nation does not have a government to make decisions about culture, then individual citizens and organizations will fight with one another for control over culture issues. The public will be analogous to a group of sheep, and the people and organizations that are trying to control us will be like dogs fighting for control of us.

We need to provide ourselves with a government that can behave like the leaders of a business and military. We need our government officials to get involved with discussions about our school curriculum, clothing styles, and even our attitudes on what a man and woman should look like.

If we do not provide ourselves with a government that deals with these issues, then we allow individuals and organizations to fight over these issues. This is not likely to result in sensible decisions. For example, many of the people involved with bodybuilding seem to be homosexuals and men suffering from bigorexia. They are not going to give us guidance that many of us would describe as "sensible".

Likewise, the women most likely to get involved with trying to influence society are the feminists, not the normal women. Those feminists are not going to provide the women with sensible advice.

We should stop being passive sheep who allow dogs to fight for control of us. We need to take control of our culture. We need to discuss these issues openly, and we need to be able to compromise on which policies would be best for society. We need to create a government with the authority to deal with these issues, and we need that government to operate openly, and we need control over that government.

When we do nothing about an issue, we allow somebody else to make decisions for us. So don't be a passive sheep. Take an active role in your future.

I bring up a lot of issues that don't have answers, and some people might respond that I'm making life appear complicated. So what? Computers are complicated, and so are electric power plants, airplanes, and phones. That doesn't stop us from dealing with the difficulty. The rewards to finding solutions to these difficult problems are tremendous.

The majority of people are not capable of contributing to the design of computers, airplanes, or phones. If an ordinary person was brought into a discussion about these items, they would be overwhelmed by the technical complexity of them. However, we don't need everybody involved in these issues.

Likewise, social issues are extremely complex. There are no simple answers to any of our social problems. At the moment, the majority of people believe that they are super geniuses who have brilliant opinions about schools, beauty contests, economic systems, government systems, and crime, but in reality they have nothing of value to contribute to social issues. However, we don't need everybody involved with these issues. All we need are the people who have the ability to contribute something to the discussions, and who have the courage to experiment with culture.

We don't let the ordinary people get involved with the design of computers or electric power plants. Instead, we restrict those jobs to people who have the skills to contribute something of value to those issues. If we apply that same principle to government, then instead of electing nitwits and criminals to government offices, we would restrict the top government positions to people who show an ability to provide us with intelligent analyses of social issues, and who show the courage to explore our options in life.

It would be frightening to let our current group of government officials get involved with determining what our culture will be, but if we can provide ourselves with higher quality government officials, we will create a better situation than what we have right now in which thousands of businesses, religions, and other organizations are fighting with one another to manipulate us and alter our culture to fit their particular selfish desires.

Doing nothing about our culture will not make this problem disappear. Rather, it simply allows individual citizens and organizations to fight among one another over who determines our destiny.

If we can provide ourselves with appropriate government officials, we will not achieve perfection, but we will get better decisions than what we are getting right now. For another example, consider the schools that are trying to increase "diversity".

In October 2016 the University of Michigan announced that it would spend $85 million on school programs to increase "diversity". What is "diversity"? What exactly will the students learn? What exactly will the school spend that $85 million on?

When a teacher asks for money, he should be required to provide a list of items that he wants, and an explanation of how society will benefit when the students have access to those items. For example, a teacher of a machine shop might ask for a CNC milling machine, and he could justify it by pointing out that thousands of businesses have jobs for machinists who have experience in operating those machines.

What will the University of Michigan do with the $85 million that will help our society? They cannot give a specific answer. Their description of the plan sounds like SCIgen created it. For example, at the beginning of Section 4 (pdf file is here) is a paragraph in a large font at the top of a page:

SECTION 4:
BUILDING ON THE STRENGTH OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Foundational to our success in achieving the goals and implementing the strategies of this plan are the many programs and offices that have been established over the years in response to our continuous commitment to these issues. From programs designed to promote diversity, equity and inclusion to those that offer personal resources and assistance to our community members, these efforts will continue to play a vital role in achieving our diversity, equity and inclusion goals.

You can read the entire PDF file and you will still be unable to figure out what they are going to do with the $85 million, and how society will benefit.

The beginning of that PDF document has a personal note from Mark Schlissel, the President of the University. In that note he praises us with such remarks as:

This plan to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion at the University of Michigan reflects those aims, and it was made possible by you, the members of our community. It includes goals, new investments and measures of accountability originated and shaped by your thoughtful input and ideas. It also includes the closely held values you shared with us: your passion for making us better, your belief that all individuals deserve an equal opportunity to succeed...

“Thank you for engaging in this important work with us!”

Schlissel ends his note by thanking us:

Thank you for engaging in this important work with us, and thank you for your dedication to making the University of Michigan a better place for all.

Schlissel's note doesn't convey any intelligent concepts; rather, he praises us for our "thoughtful input and ideas", and he thanks us for making the University a better place. His note should be described as an attempt to titillate us in order to persuade us to approve of his $85 million plan.

That diversity program is an example of how governments slowly grow in size, and without doing anything of value in return. The $85 million will probably be spent on hiring more people, none of whom will do anything useful. Some of those people might do a lot of work, such as talking to students who have complaints about life, or gathering statistics, but it will be useless work.

Our government and schools are not under competition to do anything useful, so they can get away with hiring people for jobs that have an impressive title, but which are useless to society. We have a Department of Education, for example, but how are those thousands of employees improving society with the billions of tax dollars they spend every year?

The United States does not have leaders. Instead, we have a government of submissive servants who pander to their supporters. The lack of leadership results in criminals, religious fanatics, businesses, and mentally ill people fighting to get control of our nation and culture. We are analogous to a group of sheep who are being chased after by various dogs.

Instead of providing us with intelligent analyses and guidance, we have a government of nitwits who pander to their supporters. For example, some government officials are claiming that Connecticut has an "opioid epidemic". Senator Murphy wants the government to put more money into stopping this epidemic. Since there is no way he can provide intelligent supporting evidence for his idiotic theory that heroin addiction is spreading from one person to another, and that the government can stop this epidemic by spending more tax money, Senator Murphy terminates discussions with such remarks as,

"Addiction is a disease. Period. Stop. There’s no choices involved."

That is type of reasoning that supporters of carbon taxes and global warming are using. Our schools should use remarks by politicians as examples of faulty logic. Imagine a physicist using that type of reasoning in a scientific report:

"Wormholes and hyperdimensional universes exist. Period. Stop. There’s no choices involved."

Senator Blumenthal said that the opioid epidemic is "one of the most frightening and scary public health crises of our lifetime." His solution to the problem is the same solution that has been failing for thousands of years; namely, "a stronger crackdown" on drug dealers.

The Surgeon General of the United States also claims that America has an opioid epidemic, although his opinions are not as idiotic as those of the two senators. He sent a letter and some information about opium-based medicines to doctors to ensure that they are aware that the medicines are addictive, and to help them make wise decisions about prescribing them. That portion of his letter could be described as sensible and helpful, but near the end of the letter he encouraged doctors to promote the belief that addiction to opioid medicines is a "chronic illness".

What is a "disease", an "epidemic", and an "illness"? Is addiction to opium a disease or an illness? Rickets and scurvy are considered diseases, but we could classify them as the result of malnutrition. Are obese people suffering from a disease or an illness? This article claims the Samoan islands are suffering from an "Obesity Epidemic". Should you and I worry that the Obesity Epidemic might spread to our city?

Are the people who become billionaires suffering from a chronic illness? Are the people in Hollywood who are struggling to be famous suffering from a chronic illness? Does Hollywood have an epidemic of "fame addiction"?

We do not yet have an authority of language, and this results in people using words in slightly different manners. It also allows a person to use a word in one manner during one conversation, and in another manner in another conversation. We have a tendency to alter the meanings of the words to suit our purposes.

I think it would make more sense to put obesity and drug addiction into a different category than a bacterial infection. I don't think we should describe obesity as an epidemic or an illness. I think people in leadership positions are using words to manipulate and stimulate us, not to transfer intelligent concepts to us. Ideally, our government officials would set a good example for us.

Earlier I asked whether the government should regulate food. Now consider whether the government should supervise clothing styles.

If the government does not get involved, then clothing styles will be influenced by individual citizens, businesses, religions, and other organizations, but none of those people are going to be thinking about what is best for society. Businesses, for example, try to influence styles in order to boost sales.

To understand whether the government should get involved with clothing, consider two cities that are identical in all respects, except:

• In one city, every citizen can decide for himself what he wants to wear during his leisure time, and every business and other organization has the freedom to set clothing styles for their members.

• In the other city, the government regulates clothing styles, so businesses and citizens are allowed to select clothing only from the authorized styles.

Which of those two cities would provide people with the most pleasant life? The answer to that question is: it depends upon the people in the government. If we provide ourselves with government officials who have minds that are similar to those of the communist Chinese government of decades ago, then everybody will be forced to wear the same drab clothing style. If we allow vegetarians to dominate the government, then nobody would be allowed to wear leather or fur clothing. If we allow a group of religious fanatics to dominate the government, then they will set clothing styles according to their particular religion. If we allow a group of nudists to dominate the government, the nobody will be allowed to wear any type of clothing.

However, if a society could provide itself with responsible, intelligent leadership, then we could say that the citizens will have more freedom and a better life when the government creates sensible clothing regulations. For some reasons:

1) We will be free of peer pressure.

Japanese girls wearing a school uniform that is based on European Navy uniforms.

When people have to follow clothing regulations, nobody will experience peer pressure to wear the latest style. This is most obvious with the organizations that require its members to wear uniforms, such as militaries and some schools.

Do the children who can choose their clothing have more freedom than the children who must wear uniforms? Do children enjoy life more when they can choose their clothing style? Do children become better adults when they have the freedom to choose their clothing?

How will children benefit by having the freedom to choose their clothing styles? How will children suffer if the government regulates clothing styles?

I suspect that uniforms make life slightly more pleasant for both parents and children. The reason is that the parents don't have to bother with clothing styles, and the children don't have to deal with the peer pressure of clothing styles.

If we could measure the stress on children, I suspect that we would find that the children who have the freedom to choose their own clothing are suffering from slightly more stress as a result of having to deal with the peer pressure. If that stress was helping them become better adults, it would be useful, but I suspect that all it does is stimulate miserable feelings.

Children don't want or need the freedom to dress as they please. Children have an even stronger craving to mimic other people than adults do. Children don't want to dress in a unique manner, and they are not interested in experimenting with clothing. Children want friends more than they want freedom.

If children are provided with uniforms that are comfortable and practical, I think they will have less emotional stress than the children who have to make decisions about clothing styles.

Don't be confused by the rebellious children who dress in unusual outfits, such as the girl to the right. Those children appear to be more independent and adventurous than other children, and they appear to want the freedom, and enjoy the freedom, to choose their own clothing styles, but it is just an illusion. In reality, they are unhappy or angry misfits who are wearing a different style because they don't fit in with the rest of us.

A certain percentage of the children are misfits for some reason, such as that they do poorly in school, or the other children do not like their personalities, or because they are suffering from mental disorders that make it difficult for them to fit into modern society.

The misfits tend to become angry, rebellious, or depressed. Some of them behave in a different manner simply because they feel unwanted by the normal people, and so they mimic other misfits rather than the normal people.

The misfits appear to be using their freedom to dress in their own style, but they are simply mimicking other misfits. They are suffering from loneliness and rejection; they are not enjoying their freedom or exploring their options. They are angry, sad, and frustrated. They don't want to mimic the "normal" people because they do not feel as if they belong with the normal people.

2) Employees would be free of the idiotic styles imposed by businesses.

When a government creates clothing regulations, they restrict the freedom of a business to choose their own clothing style, but the employees will be free of having to follow the idiotic clothing styles of businesses, such as forcing women to wear high heel shoes, or prohibiting women from putting their hair in ponytails.

Furthermore, most of the men in management do not want the freedom to choose their own clothing styles. They wear the same style of dark colored suit all year, regardless of the weather.

If we could provide ourselves with government officials who are capable of providing better guidance than what we have dominating the world today, then we would have more sensible, more practical, and more comfortable clothing styles for businesses than what the business executives are imposing. Women would be able to wear more practical clothing, and men would be able to change their styles from winter to summer, and even choose from a wider variety of colors and patterns.

2) Society will be slightly more efficient with sensible clothing regulations.

Without government regulations on clothing, clothing styles will drift about aimlessly and wildly, and that will result in lots of clothing items that are produced for a while and then abandoned as the people lose interest in that style. This results in people discarding clothing that is in good shape simply because the style is no longer popular.

In a society in which there is no peasant class to produce and recycle clothing items, a government that provides intelligent guidance for clothing styles will reduce the amount of peasant work that the people have to do because there will be less waste and clothing. Therefore, we could say that sensible clothing regulations will free the people from the burden of producing an ever-changing set of clothing styles. That burden is small, but eliminating lots of tiny burdens adds up to significant benefit.

It is senseless for people to complain that they need the freedom to dress as they please. We do not want the freedom to dress as we please, especially not men. We want to mimic other people. This requires that somebody be a leader, and he needs to be able to provide us with sensible guidance. Without proper leadership, we end up with what we have today, in which businesses, religious fanatics, and lunatics are trying to influence clothing styles.

Everybody in every nation is following the clothing styles of whatever group of people they identify with. People are even willing to wear clothing and shoes that are uncomfortable simply because the members of their peer group are doing it. When people are given the freedom to dress as they please, they ignore that freedom and choose to mimic other people. What is the sense of providing people with freedom when they don't want it?

Furthermore, it should be noted that every nation's government and every school already regulates clothing styles. Although only a few schools require students to wear a uniform, almost all schools restrict the type of shoes and clothing that students can wear. Likewise, every society has clothing regulations for adults. Some restaurants also have clothing regulations, such as requiring shoes or shirts.

It is idiotic to complain about clothing regulations. Instead, we should be trying to provide ourselves with high quality leaders who will provide us with sensible analyses of clothing regulations. We also need to be able to design the government so that we can replace the officials that we feel are doing an unsatisfactory job.

Rather than continue to promote the farce that people need more freedom, we should face the reality that most people don't want or need much freedom, and that a modern society functions better when we create regulations and laws to organize and coordinate the people.

Rather than demand more freedom, we should demand better leadership and more sensible laws. For example, although schools and governments prohibit clothing styles that show sexual organs or women's nipples, it is acceptable for women to dress themselves and their young daughters as sex toys or prostitutes. I think these sexually titillating styles of clothing are a distraction for the boys during school and for the adult men at their jobs.

Our clothing regulations were not designed to make sense. They were designed to appease our emotions. The end result is that some of our clothing regulations are stupid.

We need leaders who have enough self-control to suppress their sexual inhibitions and use their intellect to experiment with clothing styles from the point of view of how to improve our lives. Our clothing styles should be designed to give us what we need, not appease our emotions.

The example I've mentioned many times is that I think we should experiment with clothing regulations that prohibit women from being sexually titillating at school and at work. The sexual titillation should be reserved for courtship activities, weddings, parties, and certain other social affairs.

Most people have a distorted view on sex related issues because they are following their emotional feelings rather than thinking about the issue. For example, they promote the attitude that nudity is dangerous to children, and that women should not be allowed to show their nipples, or let anybody see them breast-feed a baby.

If a man is shown two photos of a woman that are identical, except that in one photo the woman is naked, and in the other she is wearing a bikini, the man's emotions will be stimulated by both photos, but the photo of her naked body will stimulate some slightly unpleasant, uncomfortable feelings. The photo of her in a bikini will seem more pleasant.

A woman's breast and crotch look more attractive in a bikini because we do not like the appearance of the human crotch, and the bikini makes her breasts look nicer, also. Actually, we don't like the crotch of animals, either.

If a man does not understand his emotions, he will react by assuming that the photo of the naked woman is "bad" because it stimulates some unpleasant feelings. If a child is nearby, he may think that he is protecting the child by hiding that photo.

The bikini photo does not stimulate any unpleasant feelings, so he will assume that it is a "good" photo. He will assume that the photo is acceptable for young boys. However, the bikini photo is more sexually titillating. Therefore, when he allows boys to see the bikini photo, he is actually exposing the boys to a greater level of sexual titillation than if he had showed the boys the photo of the naked woman.

Nudity is natural to us, but bikinis are artificial. If children were raised in a natural environment, they would be exposed to so much nudity that they would get tired of it. They would not want to look at crotches or butts.

By comparison, bikinis and pretty clothing are equivalent to artificially flavored foods. They stimulate our pleasurable emotions to an extreme. When teenage boys are allowed to see teenage girls in bikinis and pretty clothing, we are stimulating the boys to an extent greater than they would have experienced 50,000 years ago when the girls were naked.

Our laws against nudity are not protecting children. Our laws are actually causing excessive sexual stimulation among teenage boys and adult men. When women are at the beach, they are more sexually stimulating in their bikinis than if they were naked. Likewise, their breasts are much more attractive in clothing than they are naked.

It is irritating for teenage boys to be in the same classroom with sexually titillating girls. Requiring the girls to wear less titillating outfits will help the situation, but we should also experiment with separating the teenage boys and girls into different classes to see if that is an even better solution.

Boys and girls are similar and compatible when they are young children, but they start changing in significant ways during their teenage years. We develop different interests in life, different personalities, and different intellectual abilities. Most important of all, teenage boys start developing sexual cravings, and both teenage boys and teenage girls have natural tendency to flirt with each other. This can be distracting in a school classroom.

The teenage boys will be able to concentrate on their work better when there are no girls in their class. We might discover that the same occurs at jobs. Specifically, it might be more comfortable for both men and women if we find ways to separate men and women as much as is practical. Rather than merely whine about sexual harassment, we should experiment with ways to reduce the problem, such as by separating men and women at school and at work, and by restricting flirting and sexual titillation to certain social affairs.

Our emotions want us to be our own boss, but in this modern world, we will benefit much more when we can work together as a team, and when we can provide that team with intelligent, responsible leadership.

An example are houses. At one extreme is a group of people who cannot work together. Each person would have to build his own home by himself, and that would limit him to something similar to prehistoric teepee-like structure. At the other extreme would be a society in which the people can work so well as a team and have such competent leadership that they can plan and organize an entire city. The nations in the world today are in between those two extremes.

Perhaps the drawing below will give you some ideas of what a city could be if we could put together a group of people who can control their arrogance and selfishness, compromise on policies, provide themselves with intelligent leadership, and work together as a team. I made the buildings a bit taller and eliminated the automobiles along the base.