leaders should meet high standards, also
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
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.
is whatever you want it to be
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
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
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
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.
need guidance more
than they need freedom
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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!"
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
you need more freedom with food?
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
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
• 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.
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,
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.
we have more freedom with medical
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
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
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
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.
has a right to
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
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
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Be active, not passive
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
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.
society is complex, but so what?
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.
is determining our school curriculum?
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
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:
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
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.
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:
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...
you for engaging in this important work with us!”
Schlissel ends his note by thanking us:
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
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
need leaders, not
The United States does not have leaders.
Instead, we have a
government of submissive servants who pander to
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
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:
and hyperdimensional universes exist. Period. Stop. There’s no choices
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
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.
the government supervise clothing styles?
Earlier I asked whether the government
should regulate food. Now consider whether the government should
supervise clothing styles.
want freedom, but we
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.
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.
• In the other city, the government regulates clothing styles, so
businesses and citizens are allowed to select clothing only from the
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
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
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.
would be free of the idiotic styles imposed by businesses.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
can accomplish more with leaders
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,
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.