The official policy in every nation is that their Constitution is a precise set of instructions that must be followed exactly. When a nation must deal with an issue that their Constitution doesn't specifically mention, most people believe that if they study the words carefully, they will figure out what the writers of the Constitution intended for them to do. An example is the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment does not directly apply to the world today. For example, it refers to a "militia" which, at the time it was written, was a group of citizens who would voluntarily get together when there was some threat to their society. The men who participated in a militia usually had to provide their own weapons, and so it was necessary for them to have the right to own weapons.

The Second Amendment provides the right to have "arms", which at the time it was written, referred primarily to flintlock muskets. How does an amendment that refers to such crude guns apply to us today who have access to much more dangerous pistols, rifles, assault rifles, tasers, chemical sprays, or other modern weapons? This amendment will be even less relevant to people in the future who have access to tiny drones, robots, 3-D printing machines, and biological technology. The future technology, even the items that are not intended for use as a weapon, such as a household robot, will have the ability to make our 21st century weapons seem crude and ineffective.

Will the Second Amendment provide people of the future the right to own microwave weapons? Will the Second Amendment give people the right to give weapons to their robots or install weapons on their drones in order to protect themselves and their family? Will Ted Nugent's great-grandchildren whine, "If laser weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have laser weapons"? Will Charlton Heston's great-grandchildren announce, "I'll give you my microwave gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands"?

The Second Amendment also doesn't say anything about what type of training, if any, a person should have before he is allowed to own a weapon, or whether we should deny certain types of weapons to people with certain types of mental disorders, criminal convictions, alcohol problems, or personality flaws. Will the future generations of Americans continue this policy? Will future generations allow alcoholics and idiots to purchase microwave guns even if they have no idea what a microwave is, and no idea how to properly use such a gun?

The people who wrote the Constitution were frightened of government, and so the Constitution did not authorize professional, armed police departments for the cities, or a military for the nation. The Constitution was based on the philosophy that citizens with flintlock rifles would form militias whenever they needed to deal with some foreign or domestic threat. The Constitution allowed people to become sheriffs, but many of those sheriffs were volunteers, and the only weapon they were allowed to have was a billy club. If a Sheriff had to deal with a serious problem, he had to get help from a militia or a posse.

Some concepts behind the Constitution were partially successful, such as the First Amendment, which provides us with freedom of speech and prevents the government from promoting or controlling religions, but other concepts were a complete failure, such as the idea that America did not need police departments or a military. The concept of a Sheriff with a billy club depending upon citizens to help him deal with crime was such a failure that most cities ended up creating police departments, and they provided guns to the policemen. The concept that militias would protect the nation from foreign nations was also such a failure that a military was authorized for the nation.

James Madison's initial Second Amendment was 46 words:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

During the following months, as the Bill of Rights was debated and modified, and it was eventually reduced to 27 words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Their final version put more emphasis on the militias. A militia was an important aspect of their lives because citizens with flintlock rifles got together to fight the British soldiers. Those militias successfully defeated the British military and gave the colonies their independence. As a result of their success, the attitude among the people was that the militias were capable of defending a nation from foreign militaries, in addition to defending their nation from their own domestic criminals and corrupt government officials. However, the founders of America seriously overestimated the value of militias and how technology would dramatically change the situation in the following decades.

The Second Amendment doesn't directly apply to the world today, but most people believe that by understanding the theory behind it, then they will be able to apply that theory to the world today. They believe that they can essentially figure out how the founders of America would modify the Second Amendment if they were alive today.

The flaw with that theory is that the founders of America had different information in their memories compared to people who are alive today. Even if we could analyze their DNA, re-create their brain with computer software, and figure out exactly what they were thinking when they created the Second Amendment, a simulated version of their brain would not help us deal with the issues of today. The reason is because their brain had different information that doesn't apply to our era. In order for a simulated version of their brain to help us, we would have to provide it with the type of information that they would have acquired if they had grown up in our era. However, if the founders of America had grown up in our era, they would have picked up the same type of information about life that you and I have, and they would have developed more modern attitudes, and that in turn would have caused them to write a different document.

If we could analyze James Madison's DNA and figure out his brain circuitry, we might find that there are hundreds of men whose brains have extremely similar circuitry. However, we cannot ask any of those people to tell us how James Madison would write the second amendment if he were alive today. If we could figure out your brain circuitry, we might find that there was a person in the 1400s who had almost identical circuitry. Would you be able to tell us what that person was thinking?

If the people who created the Constitution had grown up in our era, they would resemble the people who are alive today. The best example of this concept is religion. Some of the founders of America were religious, but if those people had grown up in our era, they would have learned about galaxies, evolution, and bacteria, and some of them would have become atheists. It is foolish to set the course for our future by trying to figure out what people of the past would do if they were alive today. We have to think our own thoughts.

The people who believe that they can interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment are treating the Second Amendment as if it is a math problem that can be figured out. A math problem has only one possible answer, but there is more than one way to interpret the Second Amendment. For example, we could interpret the Second Amendment as providing weapons only to "militias", not to ordinary citizens. Furthermore, we could say the militias were to use the weapons in teams to protect society. Therefore, we could conclude that the Second Amendment doesn't authorize the individual citizens to have weapons for recreation, shooting at road signs, or their own, personal protection.

The Second Amendment specifies weapons for "well-regulated" militias, as opposed to, what? Unsupervised militias? What is a "well regulated" militia? The Supreme Court interpreted "well regulated" to mean: "nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." The Supreme Court explains one vague phrase with another vague phrase. What exactly is "proper discipline and training"? Who in society will determine the "proper" discipline and training? Who will provide the proper training? Who is going to determine what to do with the militia members who are not showing proper discipline or training?

I think the phrase "well-regulated militia" referred to the fact that people were much more self-sufficient in 1776. The transportation and communication technology was so crude in the 1700s that most people had contact only with people who were within walking distance of their home. People had to be more self-sufficient compared to today. Many people made their own clothing and bread, for example, and groups of citizens would often get together to deal with criminals in their town. The militias in the 1700s had to regulate themselves. However, just because it made sense for militias to regulate themselves in 1776, that doesn't mean all of the citizens today have a right to have guns.

If the founders of America had truly wanted every citizen to have the right to own a gun, then, as they were arguing over the words in the Bill of Rights, somebody would have suggested deleting the first 13 words to create this:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My interpretation of the original Second Amendment, and its subsequent and final revisions, is that they were giving the militias the right to have weapons, not the ordinary citizens. They did not prohibit anybody from owning weapons, thereby allowing hunters, farmers, and other people to have weapons, but they were not specifically giving citizens the right to weapons. Furthermore, we can find many instances in which the people who created the Constitution considered the ordinary people to be stupid and irresponsible.

The phrase "bear arms" is also confusing. I would interpret it as giving militia members the right to display their weapons in public as a way of intimidating government officials, criminals, and foreign nations. It is the opposite of "concealing" or "hiding" weapons. It is carrying a weapon in public and exposing it to everybody.

Why would the writers of the Constitution want to give militia members the right to display their weapons in public? I think it is for the same reason that wolves growl and show their teeth, and cats show their fangs. Prehistoric humans had to protect themselves from animals and other people, and those men did not want to carry concealed weapons. They wanted their weapons to be visible to intimidate potential enemies. Nobody wants to get into a fight, except for people with serious mental disorders. Every "healthy" animal and human wants to avoid fights, and our technique is to intimidate potential enemies.

Many paintings of medieval life show men carrying swords and knives in public, such as the man in this painting from 1597 in which most of the men are carrying swords, even though some are casually strolling with their wives in a public market while dressed in their best clothing. I would describe those men as "bearing arms". They were displaying their swords as a way of preventing fights, not because they were violent men.

The display of weapons, teeth, and claws is very effective with animals and primitive humans, but it doesn't work well with modern humans. The Chinese and Russians regularly have public displays of advanced weapons, including nuclear bombs, but it is not doing anything to help their nations or the world. Modern humans don't need the right to "bear arms". We are no longer primitive savages who need to intimidate one another.

The people who promote the Second Amendment may have memorized a lot of historical facts and figures, and some of them might show signs of above-average intelligence, but they don't understand two, very important concepts:

1) Life has changed significantly during the past few centuries. It was possible in 1776 for groups of men with flintlock rifles to fight the British military, but it is absurd to believe that groups of citizens in our era are capable of fighting a modern military.

2) The Second Amendment was designed for a nation that doesn't have a military or any police departments. It was designed for a nation in which militias and posses provided all of the necessary security. We could say that the social changes that our nation has experienced since the 18th century have made the Second Amendment as irrelevant to our lives as the 18th century procedures on how to repair stagecoach wheels.

We need policies that have been designed to deal with the world as it exists today, not the world of the past. It is idiotic to interpret a law that no longer applies to us. When mechanics are taught how to repair a modern automobile, they are not told that they are patriotic when they interpret the repair manuals for the stagecoaches of 1776. They are taught completely new procedures that have been developed specifically for modern automobiles.

The reason that we want to follow our ancestors' Constitution, hairstyles, food recipes, holiday celebrations, and other culture is because we have a natural craving to behave like a train on a track and follow the same procedures over and over. We have a natural resistance to thinking, exploring the unknown, facing potentially dangerous situations, and analyzing issues. We don't like discussing issues, either, and we especially dislike listening to criticism and having to compromise.

If technology and the world population had remained exactly the same from 1776 onward, then militias would still be effective today, and the second amendment would still apply. However, the population of the cities grew; the weapons became increasingly dangerous; and militaries became larger and more advanced. The concept of citizens voluntarily getting together to deal with foreign and domestic problems became increasingly absurd.

The official American attitude is that we will figure out how to apply the Second Amendment to the modern world by carefully studying its 27 words. Unfortunately, when we allow lawyers and judges to interpret a law, we are letting them take the role of Kings and Queens. The reason is because there is no right or wrong interpretation of a law, Constitution, or other document. Therefore, the lawyers and judges are free to interpret the law in any manner they please, and no matter what their interpretation is, they can boast that they are following the Constitution.

One person could interpret the Second Amendment to mean that citizens have the right to own as many pistols and semi-automatic rifles as they please, but I would interpret the Second Amendment as being so outdated that it has become invalid to our lives. Therefore, if I was on the Supreme Court, I would say the Second Amendment must be discarded, and we must devise a new policy to fit this modern world.

Another way to interpret the Second Amendment is that we can modernize it by replacing the phrase "well-regulated militia" with its modern replacement:

A professional police department and military, being necessary for the security of a free State, have the right to keep and bear Arms.

I would make it even more relevant by eliminating the "bearing" of arms, and changing a few other words:

A professional police department and military, being necessary for the security of society, have the right to keep and use weapons.

What is the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Before the American colonies became independent, the American people had to pay taxes to England's King. Some Americans felt that the British tax collectors were abusive in regards to searching people's homes and seizing their property. The Kings and Queens could also search people's homes if they suspected other types of criminal activities. The fourth amendment was created to protect citizens from "unreasonable search or seizure", for all crime investigations, not just tax cases. If the government suspected a person of criminal activity, they had to show "probable cause" and get a "Oath or affirmation" in order to search his house and look through his possessions.

During the following centuries, automobiles, computers, and telephones were developed, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the fourth amendment to mean that the police cannot look through our computer files, email, telephone conversations, and automobiles unless they can get a warrant. The courts also insisted that the police need a warrant to take a DNA sample from us.

I would argue that a DNA sample is simply another form of "identification". It is equivalent to the police asking us, "What is your name?" Or, "Let me see your driver's license or passport." If providing a DNA sample was a horrible procedure, such as cutting off the tip of our finger, or if a DNA analysis was a very expensive procedure, then I would not want DNA samples taken except under extreme conditions. However, a DNA analysis is becoming inexpensive, and giving a DNA sample is no more annoying than showing your driver's license or determining the alcohol level of your breath. I would say that whenever the police are investigating a crime, they are justified in asking everybody who is connected to the crime to show their identification, and anybody they want to identify through DNA should be required to give a sample.

If each of us routinely encountered policemen who asked us for identification or a DNA sample, then everybody would agree that the police are "unreasonable". We can easily frighten ourselves by imagining a police department of psychotic freaks who enjoy tormenting us, but don't live in fear of possible government abuse. Instead, look for ways to reduce government abuse. For example, we could reduce the need for the police to ask for DNA samples simply by taking a sample from everybody as soon as they are born.

Another way of reducing our contact with the police and their need to ask us for information would be to develop technology that allows them to identify us at a distance, such as software that recognizes us from security cameras or photos. This technology would allow computers to track us as we travel through the city, and even inside buildings. Your emotional reaction to such technology will be fear as you imagine people watching you, but control your emotions and think of the benefits to this technology.

For example, as cameras and microprocessors become smaller and more affordable, this technology would allow us to dispense with keys, drivers licenses, passports, and all other types of security devices and identification. Computers could handle all security and identification issues by themselves. Computers would be able to monitor children to prevent them from operating machinery or getting into rooms that they should not have access to. It would also be useful for monitoring people who are sick or elderly and may need medical assistance.

This technology would also allow us to do some interesting analyses of ourselves. For example, we could connect a medical monitoring device to our wrist, and it could transmit data about us to the database. We could go even further and enter the type and quantity of foods that we eat. This type of data would be useful for people who want to understand such medical problems as allergies, problems with energy levels, and digestive problems.

Government officials would be able to use the tracking information to figure out how people are traveling around the city, which would help them make more sensible plans for foot paths, elevators, moving walkways, trains, plazas, parks, bridges, bicycle paths, and other transportation and recreational issues.

This technology would also allow us to figure out for ourselves where our friends and family members are so that we don't have to call each other on the phone and ask, "Where are you?"

This tracking technology would frighten people who are embarrassed of what they do, or who are engaged in criminal activities, but try to imagine living in a city in which you and everybody else has friends and activities, and imagine that lots of people have truly pleasant marriages. What are you going to be doing that you are ashamed of? What difference does it make if your friend or spouse uses a cell phone to find your location and discovers that you are at a restaurant with some friends, or that you are at a park with your children, or that you are rowing a kayak with some other group of people?

If we can develop effective courtship activities, there will be so many stable marriages that married couples will not live in fear of the possibility that their spouse will meet somebody that they prefer, thereby leading to a divorce. This will allow married couples to separate on a regular basis to do different activities, and each spouse will be confident that their partner will remain with them. A husband will realize that his wife has already met lots of men at the courtship activities, and she married him because she prefers him. He will not worry that she will abandon him. Therefore, he will not panic if he looks on his cell phone and discovers that his wife is at a dance. Instead of tormenting himself over visions of her abandoning him for some other man, he will have visions of her and the other people enjoying themselves, and even flirting with one another. When people have a truly stable marriage, one spouse could even take camping trips or vacations with their friends or children, without the other being afraid of abandonment.

The primary problem with tracking technology is that it would help criminals figure out how to kidnap, rape, and burglarize. It would be dangerous in a society of criminals, sheeple, and psychos. However, if we can create a more honest society, and if we can figure out how to help people form stable friendships and marriages, and if we also provide ourselves with lots of activities, what would you have to fear by being tracked? Who among us would want to waste their life sitting at a computer and watching you? In a more pleasant society, all of us will want to do something enjoyable with our lives, not watch one another. The reason that there are so many people today who are putting cameras in bathrooms and dressing rooms and secretly watching one another is because we have created a miserable society in which misfits and psychotic people are suffering a lonely life. We are capable of creating a more pleasant society. All we have to do is stop living in fear and start taking control of society.

Getting back to the fourth amendment, it is idiotic for us to try to figure out how to interpret a vague law that was designed by people who were living in a radically different era and had the educational level of a third-grade child. The Constitution was intended to unite people into a society, and the Bill of Rights was intended to protect people from abuse by the government. Instead of trying to interpret their words, we should do exactly what they did, which is to discuss among ourselves how to best unite one another into a society, and how to protect ourselves from abuse.

Instead of trying to figure out how the fourth amendment applies to our modern world, we should instead be devising policies for the police that fit this modern world. I agree with the founders of America that we need to be protected against "unreasonable" searches of our home, especially if the police make a mess and destroy furniture, as they do in the Hollywood movies.

Whenever the police search somebody's home, office, or other personal items, they degrade our social environment, even if we are not the person who is being searched. It is unpleasant to live in a society in which people are having their personal possessions searched by the police. The more often this occurs, the more miserable our social environment will be. It is in the best interest of everybody that the police operate as invisibly as possible. They should have contact with the public only when necessary.

How can we reduce the contact between the public and the police? How can we reduce their need to search our homes and possessions? One solution is to put as much information about people as possible in a publicly accessible database. This allows the police to gather a lot of information about us without contacting us. That database would have our photos, school records, medical records, DNA data, and other information that the police currently must get warrants for, and which is scattered around at doctor's offices, schools, and employers. The police could also have access to information that we may not want to make available to the public, such as phone records.

The American courts would say that the police would be violating our privacy if they had access to all of that information, but I would argue that nobody has a right to hide themselves. It is especially ridiculous to allow people to hide contagious medical conditions, such as their venereal diseases, tuberculosis, or lice. I would argue that we have a right to know about the people we are living and working with. Nobody should have a right to deceive us about their miserable and embarrassing qualities, and we should be especially intolerant of people who hide contagious diseases.

Social issues do not have solutions, as math problems do. All of our policies have advantages and disadvantages. When designing a society, we have to make decisions on what we are trying to accomplish. We need to set priorities. We have to decide what we are going to sacrifice in order to achieve our goal. Perfection is impossible.

My priority would be to reduce crime as much as possible, and for the police to operate as invisibly as possible. Among the sacrifices I will make in order to achieve that goal are allowing the police to put security cameras throughout the city; allowing the city to maintain a database on everybody's life; and giving the police unrestricted access to the information in that database.

The only type of surveillance that I think would be disruptive would be for the police to put security cameras inside of people's homes and bathrooms. It would be useful for scientists to have cameras inside people's homes so that they can study such issues as how we sleep, and how our mind and body changes from morning to night, but I would restrict that activity to the people who volunteer to be involved in a scientific experiment. I don't think it would be sensible to put cameras into people's homes simply for police surveillance. I don't think it is necessary, anyway. If crime ever gets so bad that we feel a need to put surveillance cameras inside people's homes, we should assume that our crime policies are a failure, and we should experiment with some new policies.

What is the meaning of the Fifth Amendment?

The Fifth Amendment is a bit confusing, but it is most well known for giving us the right to remain silent when we are accused of a crime. It is possible to devise scenarios in which honest people truly benefit from the right to remain silent, but we should not design a legal system according to some bizarre possibilities. The Fifth Amendment gives us the opposite of what an honest person needs. When an honest person is falsely accused of a crime, he needs the right to defend himself, not the right to remain silent. If an honest person is told to keep silent, he should complain that he is a victim of censorship or oppression. Being able to defend yourself should be considered a basic, human freedom.

It should be noted that neither businesses nor the military allow their members to have the right to remain silent. I think Americans want the right to remain silent because so many of them are involved with crimes or have embarrassing aspects of their lives that they want to keep secret.

When trying to understand a crime, it is in everybody's best interest that everybody involved be forced to answer whatever questions people feel are necessary to understand the situation. We should not care that some people become embarrassed about what they have done.

Furthermore, the police and government officials should also have to answer questions. They should not be allowed to be silent, either. Nobody should have the right to remain silent, not even the people doing the DNA analysis. In order to fully understand an issue, we need as much information as possible. Nobody should be allowed to keep information a secret.

The lawyers and judges try to stop people from asking "irrelevant" questions or presenting "irrelevant" evidence, but how do they know which information is relevant? We should analyze crimes the same way scientists analyze issues. Specifically, gather information about the crime, and then analyze that information. If we allow some people to hide or censor information, we allow those particular people to manipulate the investigation and analysis.

The Fifth Amendment also has a "double jeopardy" clause that prevents the police from accusing a person a second time for the same crime. If we allow ourselves to have an incompetent or corrupt police force, then the Fifth Amendment prevents the potential problem of the corrupt police repeatedly trying and failing to convict an honest person of a crime, but if we can provide ourselves with a more honest police force, then the Fifth Amendment is as idiotic as a business providing their employees with a double jeopardy option.

We can eliminate the need for the Double Jeopardy Clause by holding people in government responsible for their behavior. If a judge or a prosecutor repeatedly accuses people of crimes who are later determined to be innocent, then that official should be considered incompetent, and he should be replaced. This requires that at least some of the citizens have the emotional strength to stand up to people in leadership positions and demand that they be removed. Unfortunately, most people behave like submissive animals who either give their leaders special privileges, or who live in fear of their leaders. Very few people will stand up to people in influential positions and demand that they be removed because of incompetence, pedophilia, or criminal activities. Most people do not even have the emotional strength to stand up to a football coach who is accused of pedophilia.

A wolf may roll over on its back to show submission. This is how most men behaved around Jerry Sandusky.		A wolf may also put its tail between its leg and cower. This is how most men behave around Abe Foxman.

Standing up to people in leadership positions requires controlling your emotional craving to worship or fear them. It also requires ignoring their aggressive displays so that you are not intimidated by them. Don't reprimand yourself for behaving submissively around people in influential positions. This is natural behavior for us. Instead, become aware of your emotions so that you can learn to control them and think more often.

Animals and humans have a natural desire to be submissive to their leaders, so we cannot complain about people who do this. However, we can and should control our emotions so that we can pass judgment on when our leaders are abusing us. It makes sense for animals to give blind obedience to their leaders, but it is not sensible for modern humans. Modern humans must look critically at their leaders and ensure that they are truly providing guidance, and that we are not following them simply because of our emotional craving to follow a leader.

The British citizens put their tail between their legs or roll over on their back when they meet Queen Elizabeth, but they should control their emotions and ask themselves, "Why are we behaving submissively around this woman? What is she doing to deserve a leadership position?"

In order to create a better society, we need to find people with the self-control necessary to treat people in leadership positions in a more intelligent manner. One of the reasons that I suggest we provide everybody with virtually the same home and material wealth is to dampen our emotional tendency to treat people in leadership positions as "VIPs", or as "celebrities". When our leaders are living in the same homes as us, and when they have the same material wealth, it is easier to regard them as "people who are doing a job". It becomes emotionally easier for us to demand that they either perform their job properly, or they be replaced.

The Fifth Amendment encourages people to live in fear of the government. A society should instead encourage people to watch over their government officials, pass judgment on which of them are truly performing their functions properly, and regularly replace those who are doing the worst job so that somebody else has an opportunity. 

Don't allow government officials to interpret laws

Since a person can interpret a law anyway they please, we are risking abuse when we allow government officials to interpret a Constitution or a law. Allowing government officials to determine our future by interpreting a law is as idiotic as allowing somebody to determine your future by interpreting your astrology chart. Government officials should be required to show us how their policies are going to benefit society.

In December 2012, the French courts overturned a tax on extremely wealthy people, but their only reasoning was that the tax was "unconstitutional". They weren't thinking of what is best for France. The courts in Europe, Egypt, and America are also doing whatever they please and justifying it by claiming that they are following their particular Constitution.

Every policy can be described as either constitutional or unconstitutional. Social issues are a personal opinion, not a definite right or wrong. When we allow our courts to justify a policy on the grounds that it is constitutional, we are giving the lawyers and judges a blank coloring book to fill in as they please. We are essentially providing them with dictatorial authority.

Every government official should be required to justify his policies with intelligent arguments. They should not be allowed to justify a policy according to whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. Government officials should show us that they have analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of every policy they propose. They should be forced to explain the burden and benefit of all of their policies, and from the point of view of society, not from the point of view of an individual person. Every policy should be justified according to its value to society; its overall effect on society.

When laws become outdated, we need to create new laws. Since our environment is always changing, there will regularly be times when we should change our laws, government structures, business policies, school system, and holiday celebrations. Whenever a Constitution is modified, somebody could complain that the modifications are unconstitutional or traitorous but we should not waste our time worrying about what is or is not unconstitutional, patriotic, or traitorous. There is nothing wrong with doing something that is unconstitutional.

A nation must operate like a business that occasionally changes its management structure, departments, and operating policies. As we learn more about life, and as technology changes, we must adjust our Constitution to fit the new environment. The changes we make should be based on what is most beneficial to society rather than what is constitutional.

It is emotionally satisfying to think that we are following a Constitution because it makes us feel as if we are following a familiar path in life. The human race has to evolve into a creature that considers life to be an adventure into the unknown. We have to learn to enjoy exploring new ideas, analyzing past events, discussing our future options, and experimenting with new policies.

Organizations must adapt to their environment

All organizations are hierarchies, and the members follow certain rules, regardless of whether the organization is a business, research laboratory, government agency, sports team, military, or school. That hierarchy and those rules could be described as the "organization's culture". It might seem that each organization would have an "ideal" culture, but every organization needs a flexible culture that is adjusted occasionally in order to deal with changes in: 1) personnel, 2) the purpose of the organization, and 3) technology.

For an example of why an organization has to change to adapt to personnel changes, imagine that you are a supervisor of a construction crew, and all of the members of your team are experienced carpenters, bricklayers, and plumbers. You would be able to set up a hierarchy in which there were only a few people in supervisory and quality control positions. Your team would follow certain procedures in order to accomplish their task.

Now imagine that a few years later those employees retire, and they are replaced with uneducated people from various foreign nations that don't speak English very well and have no desire to learn English. The hierarchy and procedures that you had originally created will not work as well for this group. This particular group would need more management because this group would need more supervision, quality control, and training. The hierarchy will have to be expanded to include the additional people for those management positions. You may also need to hire one or more translators, or you may need to require supervisors who speak one of the languages that the employees speak. You may also have to change the procedures that they follow, such as having them pause work a few times during the day to allow for quality control inspections.

For another example of why changes in personnel can require changes in the business hierarchy and procedures, if you had to replace the retired employees with people who were dishonest, you would need to expand the hierarchy to include a security department. You might also have to change the procedures that the employees follow, such as requiring them to pass through metal detectors on their way home from work. Or you might have to prohibit them from picking up supplies, and require that they request supplies from a person who has been designated with the authority to access the supply room.

If nothing in life ever changed, and if none of us grew old or died, then it would be possible for every organization to follow the same procedures forever. The environment doesn't change much for animals or prehistoric humans, so it is possible for them to live almost exactly the same as their ancestors. However, our environment is changing dramatically today because of our development of technology and scientific knowledge. Our culture has to change in order to adapt to the changing environment.

It is necessary for animals to follow established procedures because they are surrounded by dangers and don't have the ability to make intelligent decisions. Humans eventually developed the intelligence necessary to think for themselves, but a few thousand years ago they were too ignorant about the world to make their own decisions, so they had to follow established procedures, also. Humans today have both the intelligence and the knowledge necessary to make decisions for just about everything we do. We can ignore the established procedures and explore our options. Actually, it would be foolish for us to follow established procedures. Modern humans need both the ability and desire to analyze our options, explore the unknown, and experiment with our future.

When creating an organization, we cannot create the "ideal" culture for it. All we can do is set up a hierarchy and create a set of procedures in order to get the organization started, and then the managers will occasionally have to adjust the hierarchy and procedures. However, the managers should make changes according to what is best for the team, not according to what is best for their particular salary or status. This is not likely to happen in a free enterprise system because people are too concerned with their income, and they are especially resistant to finding improvements that eliminate their own job.

For example, it is possible that a manager will realize that his entire department could be eliminated by making changes to other departments, but a manager is not likely to make such a recommendation unless he is confident that he will be given another position rather than become unemployed. We have to eliminate the fear of unemployment so that the managers can do what is best for society rather than hold onto their job like a frightened animal.

I also think that it would be easier for managers to think of what is best for society if they were all treated virtually the same. When all of the managers live in the same type of house, have the same income, and are treated as equals, they cannot select management jobs according to salary. This will prevent the managers from wasting their time comparing their income to that of the other managers, and they won't have to worry about a decrease in salary when their management position changes. The managers will have less of an interest in trying to get or retain a particular job and more of an interest in doing their job properly so they can justify retaining a management position.

Why do women hit glass ceilings?

The feminists promote the theory that men are preventing women from achieving their potential in jobs and in life. They claim that men are trying to force women to be mothers and housewives, and that any woman who tries to do a man's job will encounter resistance from the men, which the feminist describe as a "glass ceiling". I agree with the feminists that women are indeed under pressure to be mothers and housewives, but I disagree on where this pressure is coming from, and why they have this pressure. This glass ceiling is not coming from men, and it is not because men are sexist. It is the result of an animal's desire to follow established procedures.

During prehistoric times, men and women had certain roles in life. As they settled into cities, people tended to follow the established procedures, which is that women raised children, and men did the hunting, farming, and toolmaking. If any woman tried to deviate from her typical role in life, everybody, both men and women, would put pressure on her to follow the established procedures. It has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with the craving that animals have to follow established procedures and be frightened of anything different or unknown.

The feminists whine that the men are preventing women from achieving their potential, but if we could measure a person's resistance to change, I think we would discover that women are much more resistant to change than men, and that most of the pressure on women to conform to a "sexist" philosophy is coming from other women, not from men. It might be easier to understand this concept if you look at grooming practices. When my grandmother was a teenager, none of the girls in her high school had pierced earrings or wore makeup. At that time in American history, most women considered piercings, makeup, and tattoos to be a sign that the woman was mentally inferior. If I remember correctly, my grandmother said they were described as "dimestore waitresses." My grandmother and the other teenage girls considered makeup and jewelry to be a sign that the woman was so undesirable that the only way she could attract a man's attention was by dressing like a prostitute. At that time, the girls were putting pressure on one another to avoid piercings, makeup, and tattoos.

During the following decades, the women who dressed like a prostitute were more successful in attracting men, and this caused more women to do it. Today virtually all women are dressing this way, including preteen girls. Today the girls consider themselves to be deviants if they don't have piercings and lots of makeup. The percentage of girls who want tattoos has also increased significantly. The girls are not being forced to pierce themselves and wear makeup because their fathers, brothers, or other men are "sexists". Rather, the teenage girls are inadvertently putting pressure on one another to follow the established grooming procedures. Girls are not as adventurous or as independent as boys, and as a result, they experience much more pressure to conform.

Both mothers and fathers try to force their children to follow established culture, but I suspect that mothers, as a group, put more pressure on their children to conform. In other words, the fathers are more tolerant of adventurous children. I also suspect that mothers put more pressure on their daughters to conform than they do on their sons. In other words, mothers are more tolerant of an adventurous son than an adventurous daughter.

When a woman tries to behave in an unusual manner, she will encounter resistance, and that resistance can be described as encountering a glass ceiling, or experiencing discrimination, or experiencing sexism, but that resistance cannot be blamed on men. It should be blamed on the characteristic of animals to follow established procedures. Furthermore, I think that women are more to blame for the glass ceilings than men because women are less adventurous than a man; more likely than a man to follow established procedures; and more likely than a man to pressure other people to conform. Men have always dominated exploration and adventure, not women.

Many feminists complain that men are helping one another get jobs and discriminating against women, but men are not truly helping one another. Men are in competition for jobs, women, businesses, awards, and everything else. Even within crime networks, in which the men are violating laws to help one another, we find that the criminals are fighting with one another for positions in their hierarchy. Life is a competitive struggle for everybody, both men and women.

Women complain that men regard women as inferior, and I would say that there is some biological basis for this because men have a natural tendency to regard women and children as needing our care and protection. However, our personal experiences with women are the primary reason why we regard them as being less intelligent. Every man knows lots of people, and we are frequently impressed by a man's talents or intelligence, but how often do we encounter a woman who impresses us with her intelligence?

If women were as intelligent as men, we would have seen the evidence by now. Billions of women have had plenty of time to contemplate life, men, women, makeup, children, divorce, piercings, math, engineering, chemistry, and other issues, and they could be providing us with intelligent remarks about these issues, but instead, all they do is whine about men and make accusations about us. Some women complain that we don't want to hire them for leadership positions in businesses, but nobody is stopping women from starting their own businesses and hiring women for the executive positions.

Women and children whine whenever they are upset with something and don't know what to do about it. The feminists are not encouraging intelligent discussions, or helping us to understand women, relationships, or the world. They are simply whining, hating, and accusing. They are having a temper tantrum. The men should react by trying to figure out what is wrong with society. The men should be experimenting with changes to improve the situation but, instead, most men are so overwhelmed with the complexity of modern life that they either ignore feminism, or they encourage it.

We are not going to be able to create a better society when a certain percentage of the women are whining about discrimination and sexism. The feminists are like dirt in a transmission. Men need to find the self-control necessary to deal with women rather than pander to them or ignore them. We benefit when women have pleasant attitudes and participate in intelligent discussions, but we don't benefit when they whine, hate, and make idiotic accusations.

There are glass ceilings everywhere

Understanding why women encounter glass ceilings is important because it will help you realize that there glass ceilings everywhere, and all of us occasionally hit them. For example, when a person promotes changes to his culture, or to his government, we could describe the reaction he gets from other people as hitting a glass ceiling. The majority of people want to follow established procedures, and so they will attack him for being unpatriotic or a traitor. He will experience the same emotional pressure to conform as a woman who tries to deviate from the standard female lifestyle.

The rules that we follow in regards to women, such as that they should get married, raise children, wear dresses, have longer hair than men, and wear jewelry, developed as a result of how our ancestors were living. It is acceptable, actually desirable, for us to discuss those rules and experiment with new rules. Life for men and women has changed dramatically during the past few thousand years, and so we should analyze the rules that we follow to ensure that they are sensible for this modern era. However, experimenting with those rules will cause emotional trauma for many people. Anybody who suggests making changes is going to hit a glass ceiling.

Circumcision is another example of this concept of a glass ceiling. When I was a child, almost all of the parents had their sons circumcised, but not because of sexism, racism, or bigotry. It was simply because most people, both men and women, were behaving like stupid animals who were following established procedures that probably developed inadvertently from some mentally defective, religious fanatics. The people who opposed circumcision could be described as encountering a "glass ceiling", but that glass ceiling was not the result of men. It was the result of both men and women.

The same concepts apply to the document that sets up a business, sports team, recreational activity, nation, research lab, and other organizations. Those documents are merely the initial guidelines. People who suggest changing those guidelines will encounter a glass ceiling, but not because of sexism or racism. It is simply because of our desire to follow established procedures.

We encounter resistance when we tell people that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust. What is the difference between that particular resistance, and the resistance that women experience when they try to do something that is unusual for a woman? I don't think there is any difference. Anybody who tries to push a person off the track that he is following is going to encounter resistance.

If life were to remain exactly the same year after year, then we could follow the same guidelines forever, but the people within an organization are constantly changing; the information in our minds improves as we learn more about life; and technology is always improving. The guidelines that set up the organization need to be revised occasionally, and sometimes it's best to discard them and start over. There is nothing unpatriotic or traitorous about throwing the U.S. Constitution in the trash and creating an improved version.

This concept applies to more than just documents that create organizations. It also applies to documents that create material items. The diagrams that created horse-drawn buggies in 1776 could be modified many times to create improved vehicles, but after a certain number of modifications, it is best to discard them and create new diagrams. It would be idiotic for a person to insist that we would be patriotic to "return to" the diagrams of 1776. Those original documents belong in a museum, and we need to create new documents for our modern vehicles.

The diagrams that created the cities in 1776 should also be in a museum. We should not be using their city designs. We should design a city for modern train systems, modern utilities, and modern telephone systems. We are also foolish to follow a school system, economic system, or government system of 1776. We should design social technology that fits our modern era, and we should continuously update our social technology.

The documents that create a society should be treated the same as the documents that create a horse-drawn buggy. We should expect people to propose changes and improvements, and we should be willing to experiment with changes. We should look forward to improved versions of our school systems, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, government, sporting events, and city festivals rather than accuse the people of being traitorous for suggesting changes. We should be thankful to the people who come up with improvements rather than be angry with them.

Since the natural tendency of animals and humans is to follow an established path, our mind has a tendency to assume that when we are forced to make a change to our lives, it will simply be to another path, and then we will remain on that new path forever. A more realistic way of looking at the future of the human race is that we are on an endless adventure, and that we are never going to be able to settle down on any path. We will always be exploring.

In 2013, the Boeing 787 aircraft was grounded because of a few minor problems, mainly the instability of lithium batteries. This brings up a couple of interesting issues. The first is that many people seem to be shocked that there are problems with this airplane. It would actually be more shocking if the plane was perfect.

Everybody in this modern world should expect problems with all new products and software. It is impossible for us to develop complex software or products that are flawless. The human mind is not nearly as intelligent as we like to imagine. No matter how carefully we plan, analyze, and test our products and software, as soon as we begin using the product, we are going to notice imperfections, flaws, and limitations.

Schools should teach children to expect and actively look for problems rather than become shocked or angered when a problem occurs. When we discover a problem, we should look for solutions rather than ruin morale by whining about the problem or looking for somebody to blame.

This concept applies to social activities, organizations, holiday celebrations, sports, and other social technology. Whenever people create a new organization, a new social activity, a new holiday celebration, or a new business, we must expect imperfections and mistakes. We should be looking for problems rather than becoming shocked when they occur. We should think of life as an adventure into the unknown, with lots of interesting challenges along the path.

At some point in the future, some group of people will try creating a new government, school, city, or courtship activity. Those people should have the same attitude as explorers on another planet. They should expect problems rather than be shocked when problems occur. They should regularly analyze their situation and look for ways to improve it, and they should enjoy the process of experimenting with possible improvements. The problems should be considered as part of the adventure of life. They should regard the problems as just another subject to talk about during dinner, and to tell their grandchildren about.

A person who has already successfully created a few corporations will have an easy time creating another one, but a person who has never created an organization will make a lot of mistakes when he creates his first corporation by himself. Likewise, if there were some people who had successfully created some completely new cities with new government systems, then those people could help us create some additional new cities, but nobody has any experience in creating new cities, new government systems, new schools, or new economic systems. There is nobody to help us.

The first automobiles had tremendous numbers of failures and limitations, and so did the first airplanes, the first rockets, and the first silicon transistors. We must expect the very first city that we create to have problems, also.

Although nobody has experience in creating new cities or new governments, there are lots of people with experience in creating factories, businesses, schools, and farms. The people who are designing cruise ships, submarines, and aircraft carriers have experience in designing what are essentially small cities. They have experience with providing thousands of people with homes, electric power generation and distribution, sewage, restaurants, maintenance facilities, and social activities.

Creating a new city in which the government is in control of the entire economy would be similar to a corporation creating a city for its employees, or a military creating a giant military base. There are a few people with that type of experience.

There may be millions of people who can contribute to the development of new cities and a new government. However, we cannot expect those people to design the ultimate city. As soon as we move into the new city, a lot of people will come to the conclusion that we need to make some changes to the city, government, social activities, bicycle paths, farms, and everything else. We have to expect problems rather than expect perfection. The people in the first few cities need to be explorers, not sheeple. We have to enjoy and learn from the problems.

People have been building cities for thousands of years. There are lots of people with the experience necessary to create the physical structures of a city. The more difficult aspect of a new city is the social technology; the government, the businesses, the schools, the social activities, the recreational activities, and the courtship activities. A good example are the cities in China that are vacant, such as Ordos City.

After we have created an empty city, we have to put people into it and provide the people with a government, schools, and economy, and other social technology. How do we do that? A lot of people know how to manufacture pipes to deliver water to the buildings in the city, and other people know how to make window glass for the buildings, but how do we make an economic system for a new city? How do we create a new government?

The first step in creating a city is to select thousands of people to become the initial government officials, businessmen, school officials, farmers, plumbers, and gardeners. A lot of people have experience with gardening, so it will be easy for us to select people to be gardeners, and it is easy for those gardeners to figure out what they need to do in order to accomplish their jobs, but we cannot figure out who should be a government official in a city that has a radically different government and economic system since nobody has had any experience with it. We must simply select some people to fill the initial positions.

The people selected to be the initial government officials will be in a similar position as the American pioneers who created new cities for themselves. Nobody will be able to tell those initial government officials how to set up their particular agency. They are going to have to figure out how many people they need to hire, whether they need to create departments within their agency, and what tasks each person in their department has to do. However, unlike the American pioneers, life is much more complicated for us, and so these government officials will have a more difficult time figuring out what to do.

Imagine if you were told that you have been selected to be the top official in charge of product development, and your agency is responsible for reviewing engineering prototypes for products and determining which of them will go into production. Imagine that you have been given an office in a building, and you are sitting there by yourself at your desk. What are you going to do? How many people do you need to hire for your department? What will their tasks be? Will you need to hire so many people that you should separate your employees into sub-departments?

Getting a city started is not going to be easy, which could explain one of the reasons why China has cities that are sitting vacant. In order for us to get a new city established, we need to find thousands of people who are truly capable of working together for the benefit of the city, rather than what we see dominating societies today, which is arrogant, selfish apes who try to eliminate their competitors, gather enormous amounts of material items, and demand that their children have special treatment.

Imagine how much easier it would be for us to create a new city when all of the basic necessities are provided for free, and everybody has the same home and material wealth. Everybody would also be provided with the same medical and retirement benefits. In such a case, nobody would be concerned about the salary of a job; nobody would care whether he had several part-time jobs or one full-time job; nobody would waste any of their time on comparisons of their salary to other people's salary; none of the men would waste any of their time imagining themselves to be special for having a large house or lots of money; and none of the women would be putting pressure on the men to make more money. Everybody would contribute to the tasks that needed to be done according to what they were capable of doing, rather than according to jobs or salaries.

Furthermore, imagine that we create a Jobs and Education department, and the people in that department are helping everybody find jobs. In such a case, nobody would have to worry about unemployment, and the people who had only part-time jobs would be assisted in finding other part-time jobs.

Since nobody has experience with creating a new city, a lot of the jobs that are initially created will later be eliminated or turned into part-time jobs. Jobs will be very unstable. However, when there are no salary differences between the jobs, and when there is a Jobs and Education department to help people find jobs, nobody would be afraid of unemployment, so everybody would be willing to look for ways to make society more efficient by eliminating and combining jobs.

When our prehistoric ancestors went hunting, or when they built a camp for themselves, all of them contributed to the work with no regard to what their job was, or who was making more money. Imagine if a group of modern humans were sent back in time 20,000 years. They would have a tendency to create job titles for one another, and provide one another with different salaries according to their job. One person might be the Chief Executive Pig Hunter, and another person might be the Assistant Stick Sharpener, and at the bottom of the hierarchy would be "Camp Janitor" who grumbles about doing the "Neanderthal Work".

When our prehistoric ancestors had work to do, each of them simply joined in and contributed to the tasks according to what they were capable of doing. If one person finished his task, he didn't become unemployed. Rather, he looked for something else to do, or somebody would ask him to help with his task. Wouldn't that philosophy work for us in this modern world? Why not pick jobs according to what we are capable of doing properly rather than according to its salary? And when a job is eliminated, why not help the person find something else to do rather than tell him that he is unemployed?

It would be useful if the women would become active participants in the new city, but since women are not as adventurous or independent as men, rather than expect them to figure out how to contribute, I think we should help them get the process started. Farther down in this document, in the section about the city government, I have a suggestion on how the women would get involved with government and society. Unless somebody else has a better suggestion, the women could start with that.

The businesses, government agencies, scientific laboratories, social clubs, schools, and other organizations in a new city will go through lots of changes as people adapt to their new environment. The initial government officials are going to frequently waste their time on activities that turn out to be useless, and they may initially make so many mistakes that it might look as if we are going backwards rather than making progress. If we react to these problems with panic, whining, or accusations, we are going to fail. We have to control our frustration and disappointment. We must be able to deal with the chaos. Actually, rather than merely cope with the chaos or ignore it, we should learn to enjoy it.

How can it be possible to enjoy problems? For one reason, the problems will give us something to talk about during dinner, or while riding in a rowboat with your friend, or while taking a walk in the park with your spouse. Some problems will be amusing enough to make jokes about. We could even have some comedy shows in which people make jokes about the latest failure with a government agency, holiday celebration, sport, or courtship activity. You might respond that we should not make jokes about our problems, but why not? If there were no problems in life, what would we talk about? What do the people in heaven do and talk about?

Most people have been fooled by their emotions into believing that they will be happiest when they get into heaven because that will allow them to become completely free of problems, suffering, and work. Some people realize that the concept of heaven is absurd, but some of them fantasize about becoming wealthy and paying people to pamper them. They are essentially trying to use money to create a small portion of heaven here on the earth for their personal use.

The people who are struggling to avoid problems, and who want pampering, are fools. Humans evolved to deal with problems and to work, not to be a pampered angel floating around in heaven. Being pampered would be boring, except for people who are suffering from certain physical or mental disabilities that require pampering in order to survive. If a healthy person were to achieve a heaven-like existence, his life would become dull, meaningless, and boring, and he would have nothing to do or talk about.

Your life will be more fun when you have problems to solve and friends to work with. However, you must set realistic goals for yourself. You will become frustrated and miserable if you set goals that you cannot possibly achieve, such as the people who struggle to become athletes, scientists, or musicians when they don't have the talent. In order to enjoy this modern world, we need to be able to seriously analyze ourselves, figure out what our talents and limitations are, and then adjust our life and our goals to fit our abilities.

As bizarre as it may seem, we can find ways to enjoy at least some of our problems. For example, we could use some problems as an excuse for social affairs. For example, we could arrange for some affairs in which people take turns discussing their complaints and suggestions. In addition to helping us find solutions to our problems, these type of affairs would be useful in helping people get over their fear of public speaking, and in helping people to get into the habit of looking for solutions to problems rather than whining about them.

For certain types of problems, we could create recreational events. For example, if a few people have a complaint about a bicycle path, instead of doing what they do today, which is to whine about it or send complaints to a government official, they could arrange for a bicycle ride along the path, and afterwards they would discuss the problem. If some other people had a complaint about an artificial canal, they could arrange for an affair in which they go rowing or snorkeling so that people with similar interests would be able to see the problem, and then they could discuss it.

By using problems as excuses for recreational or social activities, we not only encourage people to get together to discuss issues, we also get to meet one another, learn about other people's personalities, and gain a better understanding of what other people like and dislike. These type of affairs would also help us figure out who is better at research, analysis, and leadership. We could go so far as to create some affairs for only men, or only women, or only single people.

If it seems silly to use a problem for a social affair, try to imagine what life would be like living in a city that was following this philosophy, and then compare it to life today. For example, people in America complain about and disagree on how to celebrate Halloween, Christmas, and Valentine's Day, but nobody is having any serious discussions about these holidays, and nobody is suggesting that we experiment with changes to them.

Imagine living in a city in which the officials are actually paying attention to society and noticing what people are complaining about, and that they respond to our complaints by arranging social affairs for us to discuss the issue. For example, imagine that the officials notice that a lot of people are complaining about Valentine's Day, and so they react to the problem by arranging for a variety of dinners for adults in which they listen to an official give a history of Valentine's Day, and then after dinner, they are encouraged to participate in a discussion of possible changes to Valentine's Day.

For another example, imagine the city officials notice that some people are complaining about Halloween, so they arrange for a variety of festivals on Saturday afternoon for women and children. As the children are playing with one another, a government official provides the women with some history about Halloween, and he leads the women in a discussion about what sort of changes to Halloween they might like to experiment with. The officials could arrange for some other affairs for men to discuss Halloween.

Nothing significant would happen as a result of just one dinner or one festival, but by having these type of affairs on a regular basis, the government officials would accumulate suggestions on what sort of experiments to try. It would provide the people with an education about their culture, and encourage them to participate in discussions about what they want their future to be. More important, it would promote a beneficial attitude among the people. It would encourage people to get together to discuss problems with their government and make suggestions for experiments.

Almost everybody, especially men, complain about society when they get together with their friends and family members, but most of what they do is senseless whining or arrogant boasting of how they know the solutions to all of the world's problems. It would be better for the city to encourage people to stop the whining and arrogance, get out of their house, and get together with other people and government officials to learn about and discuss the issues in a more serious manner. The government official can provide historical or other information, and the people would be encouraged to seriously analyze their problems and make proposals to experiment with.

If the affair combines a discussion with a recreational event, then the people can get exercise at the same time, and if the affair is a dinner, then the people can socialize. You could respond that most of the people who go to these affairs will not have the intelligence, or whatever is necessary, to contribute something of value to the discussion, and therefore, you could conclude that these affairs are a waste of people's time. Before you condemn these affairs as worthless, keep in mind the concept that I mentioned about courtship activities in the previous file: We should not look for "perfection"; we should look improvements to our lives.

Every day there are possibly millions of people grumbling with their friends and family members about traffic problems, government policies, businesses, social affairs, or pollution. None of them are putting serious thought into their conversation, and none of them are doing any research into the issue. All of them could be described as wasting a portion of their leisure time. My suggestion is that they stop grumbling and get together with other people for more serious conversations. Even though most of the conversations could be described as "useless", I think it would be better than what they are doing right now.

Instead of grumbling about society as you eat dinner with your friends or family, get together with other people for a dinner to discuss the issues in a more serious manner, and have a government official there to provide some background information and collect opinions. Instead of grumbling about society as you ride a bicycle with your friend, get together with other people for a bicycle ride, and when you are finished you can discuss the issue in a more serious manner with a government official who can provide information and collect your suggestions on what to experiment with.

You could respond that most of the people who go to these affairs will be wasting their time, but they are wasting their time right now when they grumble with their friends and family. We have to compare which activity is more beneficial overall for society:
1) People grumble about society with their friends and family members.
2) City officials arrange for affairs to encourage us to get out of our house, get together with other people, discuss our complaints in a serious manner, and have an official at the meeting who can provide some historical information and gather opinions?

Regardless of what we do, most people could be described as wasting their time, but I would argue that the second option makes more sense because it encourages better attitudes. It also encourages socializing, and, if there is recreation involved, it encourages exercise.

Even though most of the people at these meetings will not be able to directly contribute anything of value, some will occasionally contribute something indirectly by stimulating discussions about certain issues, or by bringing up questions that other people hadn't thought of. Occasionally these type of discussions will result in something of value. By comparison, how productive are the discussions that people have among their friends and family members?

These type of affairs could also be used for discussing material items, city artwork, home furnishings, and the design of trains. Instead of grumbling with your friends that you don't like the artwork in your city, the city could arrange for affairs in which an official provides information about the resources required for different types of decorations, and the people would discuss what they would like to see in regards to statues, artwork, murals, and lights.

If the city officials were arranging lots of these affairs for lots of different issues, each of us would occasionally find an affair that was dealing with an issue that we were interested in. We could then go to that affair, learn some information about it, meet some people who are also interested in the issue, and discuss the issue in a more serious manner. These affairs promote a more productive attitude among people because they encourage us to learn about and discuss our problems, and seriously look for ways to improve society. These affairs encourage people to participate in society rather than whine about it.

When people do a job that has value to society, they will have more "job satisfaction" compared to when they are doing a job that is worthless or destructive. Likewise, people will have more "leisure satisfaction" when they are doing something in their leisure time that has some value. Therefore, when we live in a city in which the officials are arranging lots of different affairs for us to discuss different issues, I think the people will have more leisure satisfaction compared to when they grumble about these issues with their friends or family members.

Most people are wasting their leisure time on idiotic activities. By turning society's problems into social affairs, we can spend some of our leisure time doing something that has at least a bit of benefit, and which encourages good attitudes.

Some managers of a business will occasionally have meetings with their employees in order to provide them with some information about the business, and to listen to their suggestions or complaints. Not much of anything may occur from just one meeting, but many managers have noticed that it is better to encourage the employees to learn about and participate in the business rather than quietly grumble among themselves and feel as if they are dominated by arrogant, uncaring dictators. Why not apply this concept to an entire society? Why can't the government officials behave like the managers of a business?

Many city officials in America are arranging public meetings once in a while, but their meetings tend to be worthless. For example, the city officials where I live are occasionally arranging for public meetings for us to express our opinions about airport noise, the expansion of a road, or a construction project. Once I went to one of those meetings, and my conclusion was that they are a waste of time. They are not truly "meetings". The city officials are in the role of a medieval king, and he tells us what he is going to do, and then he tolerates complaints from the peasants for a while.

I think that almost all of the public meetings in America are a fraud; a farce. Our government officials do not really care what we say. They do not have public meetings in order to encourage participation in society, or to collect our opinions, or to provide us with any background information on the issue. The government officials have already made up their mind about policies when they have these public meetings. The meetings are either to pretend that they care about us, or to determine whether there is so much public anger that they should make some changes to their plans.

For example, there is an airport near me, and people have been complaining for decades about the pilots who fly private jets at low altitude directly over people's homes. It would be very easy for the city to tell the pilots of private jets to turn towards the ocean after they are in the air. Virtually all of the commercial pilots are doing this now, but even though there have been public meetings about this issue, and even though citizens have send complaints by mail and phone, the government officials still haven't bothered to demand the private jets stop flying over people's homes. Our city officials truly do not care.

I think some of the reasons that public meetings in America are worthless are:
1) We are not passing judgment on who is intellectually or emotionally unfit to participate in influencing society. As a result, a public meeting is likely to be dominated by stupid and selfish remarks. When we create a new city, we must restrict immigration to people who are better suited to this modern world. In such a case, the meetings are more likely to consist of people with more appropriate intellectual and emotional qualities. If we go even further and classify some people as unfit to influence society, then they would be prevented from participating in the meetings. This would make the meetings even more useful.

2) Most American government agencies seem to be dominated by criminal Jews, alcoholics, idiots, unemployable misfits, organized crime members, and pedophiles. We need to set higher standards for government officials so that our government leaders are truly talented people with an interest in society.

3) We don't have control over our government officials. In theory, the citizens can control their government by voting, but in reality, this system is a failure. We have to design a government system that allows people to apply for jobs as individual citizens rather than as party members, and we must also design a government that allows us to remove the officials that we are dissatisfied with.

Don't let the problems of public meetings frighten you, and don't let the problems of a new city frighten you. Animals run from problems, but humans should learn to enjoy finding solutions to them. Hiding from problems is allowing criminals, weirdos, and freaks to dominate society. Everywhere in the world we find appalling levels of abuse, selfishness, fighting, pouting, and misery. We should start a transition into a world that is dominated by our intellect. You can think of this transition as the "teenage years" for the human race. It would be confusing and frustrating, but it would also be full of amazing discoveries and changes. The human race is going to make this transition only once, and we should do it now while we are alive so that we can enjoy it. It will only happen once, so you ought to take an active role in it and enjoy it. Participation is more fun than fear or voyeurism.

Will our emotions tolerate equality?

Another issue that I want to bring to your attention regarding the Boeing 787 is how the competition for money is adversely affecting our lives. In regards to Boeing, by January 16, the value of their stock would drop when news reports about the problem were published, and the engineers took advantage of the situation in their contract negotiations to put pressure on the company management. We should react to problems by calmly looking for solutions, not looking for ways to exploit the problem.

In our free enterprise system, everybody has to compete for money. Since humans are naturally competitive, this encourages us to compare one another's income, and to compete to make more money. Women encourage this competition by showing an interest in the men with the most money. Since no society makes any serious attempt to stop crime, and women show no concern for how a man makes his money, people are also constantly looking for ways to make money by cheating and by parasitic activities, such as marriage and investments. I would not be surprised if some of the people who advocated the grounding of the 787 were doing so for financial reasons, such as to lower the value of Boeing stock, or to help a competing airplane or battery company.

Although our emotions do not want equality, consider how much nicer life would be if we were living in a society in which we were all virtually equal in regards to material wealth and homes. For some examples:

If every job provides the same income, then who will want the responsibilities of being a business executive? Who will want the risks of becoming an entrepreneur who starts new businesses or develops new products? It will be the people who truly enjoy that type of work, rather than people who do it for money.

Furthermore, without free enterprise, the businessmen will not be judged according to their ability to make profit. Instead, they will be judged according to their ability to bring improvements to society. Therefore, the people who become entrepreneurs and business executives will be those who have confidence in their ability to do something useful for society rather than confidence in their ability to devise clever advertisements, sell products, and make profit. I think this type of society will give us better quality business executives.

If everybody is treated equally, then if a man accomplishes something special, such as developing new technology, writing a popular song, or creating a beautiful stained-glass window for the city, his achievement would be listed in his database entry, but he would not get any money or special pampering. He would continue to live in the same ordinary home, have access to the same ordinary material items, and be treated just like everybody else. That should reduce the problem of men becoming conceited after they have accomplished something.

Creating a city in which everybody has virtually the same material wealth will undoubtedly have some disadvantages, but we have to consider what type of society is more pleasant overall. We will not be happiest when we do whatever our emotions crave. We must figure out what we need.

Some wealthy people, such as Thomas Peterffy, oppose equality, but I suspect that we would be happier overall by forcing ourselves to accept equality because it would give us the type of environment that is natural to us. Thousands of years ago the men who were dominant in society had slightly better access to food and women, but otherwise they lived just like ordinary men. Men have strong cravings to be dominant, but we should use that craving for good use, such as competing with one another to do something useful for society, rather than competing to have the biggest house or the largest yacht.

I don't think we benefit by giving some people a larger pile of material items, or by pampering them with servants. I think that giving people special treatment encourages them to become conceited and arrogant. Humans were designed to struggle for life every day. We were not designed to be pampered or worshiped.

Thousands of people have become rich during the past few centuries, so there are lots of wealthy people for us to analyze in order to determine how wealth and pampering affects a person's life, and how society is affected by having a class of wealthy people. You may also personally know of some wealthy people. Can you see any evidence that any of the wealthy people are enjoying life more than the ordinary people? Can you find any evidence that society improves in some way when it has a wealthy class?

The wealthy people are certainly happier than the people who are starving, but so are the ordinary people. I don't see any evidence that wealthy people are happier, or that society is benefiting by having a wealthy class. I can find more evidence that the wealthy people have turned themselves and their children into social outcasts and, in some cases, arrogant, spoiled brats. My conclusion is that pampering a small group of wealthy people is causing trouble for them, their children, and society.

A lot of people worry that if we create a society of equality, then each of us will have to give some of our wealth to poor people, but that is not necessarily true. The wealth of a society depends upon the people and the type of work they do, not on whether they have equality. Our prehistoric ancestors were virtually equal to one another in regards to material wealth, but did they suffer because of it?

The wealth of the city depends upon its people. If a city consists of unskilled, dishonest, parasitic, uneducated, and retarded people, or, if a city consists of people who are doing useless jobs, such as advertising, investing, banking, and insurance, then an enormous percentage of the population will not be contributing to the wealth, and so the few people who are doing something of value will have a tremendous burden on them.

By comparison, if we put the government in control of the economy, and we insist that people do something useful for society, then we will be incredibly wealthy because more people will be directly contributing to society rather than doing something worthless or parasitic. In such a case, the city will be a team that works together rather than a group of parasites and criminals who are trying to exploit one another.

Products should be designed for society, not for customers

Another issue regarding the Boeing 787 and its problem with lithium batteries is that we are currently designing products to appease consumers rather than according to what makes the most sense for society. Batteries of all types are a nuisance, and lithium batteries have already caused problems for laptop computers and cell phones. In a free enterprise system, businesses are likely to look for ways to improve the batteries so that they can please their customers, but when we are designing products for society, we have the option of sacrificing something about the product in order to reduce the size or quantity of batteries.

An aircraft doesn't actually need a battery. When an aircraft is sitting on the airport runway, it can be plugged into an electrical outlet, and as soon as the engine is running, it can produce its own electricity. Batteries are an option for aircraft, not a necessity. Therefore, if we are willing to sacrifice some of the luxuries and safety features, we can reduce the need for a battery. In a free enterprise system, however, a business is not likely to make such sacrifices because it would allow their competitors to boast about providing more safety and luxury.

When we design aircraft according to what is best for society, we can make intelligent decisions about when we are going "too far" with safety and luxury. For example, we could face the fact that it is extremely rare for an aircraft to lose all of its engines, and we can also face the fact that if an airplane loses all of its engines, the passengers will be in very serious trouble regardless of how many batteries the airplane has. Therefore, we could say that the batteries are not actually necessary, and so we could reduce or eliminate them.

The customers of airlines have a higher average income than the customers of trains and buses, and as a result, airlines have to compete for the attention of wealthier people who are accustomed to being pampered and treated special. This is causing the airlines to offer luxury and pampering. By comparison, most of the trains are designed to be more functional.

My preference is to reverse that philosophy. I would design a city so that trains are the primary transportation, in which case we would ride trains every day. If our trains are miserable, we suffer every day. The more miserable our train system is, the more we will dread traveling on the train to get to work, or to visit somebody, or to travel to a recreational area. We will be tempted to stay at home and avoid the trains. Therefore, I would put a lot of effort into making trains that are reliable, comfortable, smooth, fast, quiet, and attractive. If we enjoy riding on the trains, we will enjoy traveling to work, and we will enjoy traveling during our leisure time.

By comparison, most people fly only a few times during their entire life. Putting a lot of effort into making luxurious airplanes does virtually nothing to improve the quality of our lives. The pilots need to be comfortable since they must be capable of concentrating on their job, but I am willing to accept the fact that airplanes and spacecraft will always be cramped and miserable by comparison to ground transportation. Our lives are not going to be ruined if we make airplanes functional rather than trying to make them into flying luxury resorts.

If we have to travel every day on miserable trains, it will have a very detrimental effect on our life and our attitudes. It is acceptable for us to dread airline travel, but we should love traveling on our trains. We should also love walking around the city, riding the elevators, riding bicycles, or taking a ride in the canals in a kayak or boat.

It would be idiotic for us to design schools according to the wishes of the children. Likewise, it is foolish for businesses to pander to customers. We should design products for society. This allows us to make intelligent decisions about which luxuries to provide, and which to sacrifice. For example, why should airlines provide passengers with cooked meals or refrigerated drinks? Aircraft don't need kitchens. The passengers on short flights could be told to eat prior to getting on the aircraft. For longer flights, we could develop some special "airline snacks". They would be bite-sized items that do not get your fingers dirty or create crumbs.

We make special meals for astronauts, such as the freeze-dried jambalaya in the package to the right. The military has special meals for people who are traveling, also. Why not make special meals for airlines? They could be similar to "snack bars".

The astronauts that are sent to the space station are not pampered by stewardesses who offer them alcoholic drinks and their choice of cooked meals. The astronauts are told to eat specially prepared "spacecraft meals", and to feed themselves, and to clean any mess they make. Why not apply the same philosophy to airplanes?

If we create a society in which the basic necessities are free, then airport terminals will provide passengers with access to shelves that contain small bottles of water, specially designed airline snacks, and paper bags. Each passenger would put some water and food into a bag, and carry it onto the airplane. They would feed themselves, and they would put their trash into the bag. The trash would consist of thin, dry pieces of paper or plastic wrapping materials, so none of the passengers would have to worry about wet or sticky trash. As they leave the airplane, they can carry their bag of trash with them, and they can dump it in the airport terminal. They do not need a stewardess to distribute food or collect their trash. Without the stewardesses, the aisles of the aircraft would be noticeably less crowded.

It should be noted that airline snacks would be practical only for certain people. The airlines would face the same problem that the military faced in regards to feeding soldiers who are away from their base. The military developed MREs for this purpose, although the airline snacks can be designed to be much more pleasant because airline snacks don't have to be capable of surviving long-term storage or extreme weather conditions. Also, the airline snacks are needed only to replace one or two meals, not provide a person's total nutritional needs for months. Even though airline snacks are more practical than MREs, the airlines would face the same problems that the military faces:

1) Finicky eaters. No matter how many varieties of airline snacks we offered, all snacks would have very similar characteristics; namely, dry, bite-sized pieces food. Some people would whine that they are tired of eating the same type of snack over and over.

2) People with low self-control in regards to food. This system requires people to control their consumption of food. The people who are on very long flights would have to pick up enough water and food for 2 or 3 meals. If the food was as sweet as most people want food to be, then many of the passengers would eat all of their food during the first few hours, and later they would whine that they don't have any more food. If, instead, the food was not very sweet, they would complain that the food is bland.

3) People who waste food. Some people would take excessive amounts of food and water if it were available for free, and then not eat all of it. This would be acceptable if they did not damage any of the unopened packages, and if they put them back into the food bins when they got off the airplane, but how many people are responsible enough to do that? Also, many people, if provided with unlimited amounts of free food, will take a bite of something, and then decide that they don't like it, toss it in the trash, and then take a bite of something else, and discard it also. This problem can be seen at buffets and social affairs in which food is offered for free.

All nations currently follow the philosophy that we should pander to customers, especially those who are spending lots of money, and we should feel sorry for misfits, drunks, and idiots, and we should clean up after the messy and irresponsible people. A more sensible philosophy is for every society to set standards for foods, manners, and other aspects of human behavior, and to tell the people to either follow the standards, or get out of society.

A lot of people fantasize about traveling to the moon or Mars, and some businesses are currently struggling to offer trips to the top of the atmosphere. Will those businesses offer stewardesses? Are the people who take flights to the upper atmosphere or the moon in such a need of pampering that they are willing to sacrifice some of the space and weight on the spacecraft so that they can carry servants, alcoholic drinks, toaster ovens, and other unnecessary items? Will some of them also want to bring their pet dog?

The free enterprise system promotes the philosophy that the "Customer is King", but this philosophy encourages businesses to pander to their customers, and it encourages customers to behave like spoiled brats. It would be more sensible to design products for society, rather than to titillate people.

How would the government analyze products and social activities?

In a free enterprise system, each business is responsible for analyzing their products to determine whether customers are satisfied with them; whether any should be discontinued; and how to improve them. When the government is in control of the economy, then some government officials must get involved with the businessmen in doing those analyses. However, the purpose of the analyses will be different. Instead of being concerned about the consumer appeal or profit potential, they would analyze a product according to its value to society.

When the government is also in control of social activities, then some officials must do what nobody is doing today, which is analyzing holiday celebrations, city festivals, recreational events, schools, hobbies, restaurants, bicycle paths, and other aspects of our culture, and providing those analyses to other government officials and to the public to help us determine what sort of activities to experiment with. These analyses will also be in regard to the value the activity has to society.

How would a government analyze something as intangible as a city festival or a recreational activity? Do they call us on the telephone and ask us multiple-choice questions, such as "How much did you enjoy the activity on a scale of 1 to 10?" The surveys that ask us multiple-choice questions are popular because anybody can be hired to ask the questions, even idiots, and the answers are easily entered into a database and analyzed. However, this type of analysis is not useful for analyzing complex issues. A business will not learn much about their products simply by asking customers some multiple-choice questions, especially if their customers are not given a chance to think about the questions beforehand. Likewise, a government official will not learn much of value about a holiday celebration, social affair, school course, or sporting event simply by asking some multiple-choice questions, especially if we are not given plenty of time to research and think about the questions.

In order for government officials to truly understand products and social technology, they need to discuss issues with us, observe our behavior, and experiment with us. Understanding humans is like investigating a crime, or studying wolves. We cannot understand ourselves by hiring some unskilled laborers in India to call us on the telephone and ask us multiple-choice questions. We need government officials who can do serious analyses, like a scientist.

When scientists want to study a solar cell or electric motor, they put it in some type of test stand, expose it to different environments, and observe it in different conditions. Ideally, we would do similar experiments with people. For example, to determine which bicycles are the most useful to society, engineers cannot simply ask people some multiple-choice questions about which bicycle they prefer. The ideal situation is to take a large group of people, let each of them to try a variety of bicycles and riding environments, and then observe their behavior. This will allow us to determine which bicycles are causing the most physical pain; which are causing the most accidents; which need the most maintenance; which models are the most popular for commuting to work; and which models are the most popular for various recreational purposes.

If engineers ask people which bicycle they like the best, they will get simplistic answers because most people have not had much experience with different types of bicycles and riding environments, and most people are not very good at analyzing anything anyway. An individual bicycle rider will also be unable to tell us which bicycles cause the most accidents, or need the most maintenance. We have to look at large groups of people to see the overall effect that a particular bicycle is having on society. The engineers need to put a group of people through different tests and then observe the entire group. Asking people questions is useful to get an idea of what those particular individuals are thinking about, but their opinions are not necessarily accurate or intelligent.

The same concepts apply to the analysis of social technology. Government officials should not give us multiple-choice questions about sports, restaurants, or holiday celebrations. Ideally, the government would experiment with lots of different activities, and then observe the results. They would sometimes ask us our opinions simply to get an idea of what we are thinking, but they would not consider our opinions to be of much value. The officials would have to do more than observe whether people enjoy the event. They have to look at the long-term effect of the event. Does the event encourage good attitudes or bad attitudes? Does it make people relaxed or frustrated? Does it help children become better behaved in school or worse? Does the activity improve people's health, or does it cause brain damage, broken tendons, obesity, or poor nutrition?

If you have trouble understanding the concept that the government has to watch the long-term effects of a social activity rather than give us what we claim to enjoy, consider how this applies to children. If we were to ask young boys some multiple-choice questions to find out if they enjoy looking at pornography, we would discover that most of them enjoy it. If we were to observe the boys as they look at the pornography, we would also come to the conclusion that most of them enjoy it. This could lead us to the conclusion that pornography is a wonderful activity for teenage boys.

However, the fact that the boys say they enjoy pornography, and the fact that they show signs of enjoying it, should only be considered an indication that their emotions are attracted to it. It is not an indication that pornography is beneficial to them. We have to consider the long-term effects that the pornography has. Does pornography help them in any way? Or does it cause problems for them? We should not promote an activity simply because our emotions are attracted to it.

In a free enterprise system, the products that dominate the marketplace are those with the highest consumer appeal, but those products are not necessarily useful, safe, or reliable. They may simply be products that appeal to our emotions. The most extreme examples are the medicines of the late 1800s, such as those made from coca leaves or which promised hair growth on bald men.

Those particular products are now illegal, but there are still a lot of worthless, dangerous, and useless products. There is tremendous consumer appeal for pornography, jewelry, astrology predictions, gambling, pets, and guns, but do any of those products actually add value to our lives? Or are they simply products that appeal to our emotions? Future generations may prohibit some or all of those products on the grounds that they are as worthless as the pharmaceuticals of the 1800s.

What type of soaps and detergents should we provide? How many varieties do people need to choose from? Businesses in America are offering hundreds of variations of soaps and detergents with different colors, perfumes, antibacterial chemicals, oils, vitamins, and other additives. There is tremendous consumer appeal for this wide variety of soaps, but is the benefit worth the burden? The burden for the soaps is that they increase the manufacturing complexity and require additional raw materials, but what is the benefit? Perhaps some of the additives may have a benefit, but I consider the perfumes to be annoying. I prefer soaps that don't have any fragrance. Rather than titillate consumers with hundreds of variations of soaps and detergents, we should have serious discussions on which of the additives are truly worth the burden they impose.

Is it better for society to encourage people to keep pets in their home? Or is it better for the city to support a variety of opportunities to allow people to occasionally assist with the care and maintenance of animals, fish, and birds at farms, zoos, restaurants, museums, aquariums, gardens, and parks? What is the benefit to society to encouraging people to sit at home with some fish or a dog? Why not encourage the people who enjoy animals to occasionally get out of their house, visit a social club that is involved with the maintenance of the fish at a city pond, or with the birds or deer at a city park? People who enjoy growing orchids or bonsai could visit a social club and help maintain the plants that are put into restaurants and city gardens.

When we promote hobbies that people do alone in their home, we encourage isolationism. By comparison, when a city supports lots of different social clubs, we encourage people to get out of their house and do something with other people that has a true benefit to all of society. When the city is supporting the social clubs, we don't have to pay fees or make any commitments. We would be free to visit the social clubs and participate in any activity we were interested in.

Products should have value to human life, not consumer appeal

When we put the government in control of the economy, the engineers do not have to design products to appeal to consumers. They can instead focus on developing products that actually bring some benefit to human life. Instead of analyzing a product's consumer appeal, they will observe the effect that each product has on society. The products that bring the most value to our lives will be those that dominate, and they will not necessarily be the products with the highest consumer appeal.

In a free enterprise system, business executives and engineers regularly discuss such idiotic issues as which advertising campaign has been most effective; which product is selling the best; which features consumers are asking for; and what trends they predict for consumers in the near future. By switching to a government-controlled economy, the government officials will join the engineers and business executives in discussions about whether a particular product has been improving life for all of us as a group, and if so, whether it is enough of an improvement to justify its production.

The government needs a department that routinely analyzes products, services, holiday celebrations, transportation systems, and other aspects of society, but they cannot do these analysis by hiring unskilled laborers to conduct multiple-choice polls. The government has to observe the long-term effect that a product has on human life, and they also have to consider its maintenance requirements, manufacturing burden, and ease of recycling.

For example, a government official who is trying to make decisions about which bicycles to put into production, which to discontinue, and where to put some research, needs to occasionally get out of his office to talk with, experiment with, and observe a random sample of the population. When he encounters a person who does not ride bicycles, he should occasionally pick one at random and analyze why the person doesn't ride bicycles. Is it because of a lack of interest in that activity, or is it because he considers bicycles to be uncomfortable? He could let the person experiment with different bicycles to see if any of them are more appealing, and to provide feedback to the engineers on what he complains about.

Some of the businesses that produce or sell bicycles will try to figure out how to sell bicycles to people who do not have one, but the government officials will not be trying to promote bicycles, or any other product. Rather, their goal is to improve life, not promote any particular activity or product. They want to get an understanding of why people are doing certain activities, why they avoid certain other activities, whether they are benefiting from their activities, and what type of new activities we should experiment with.

When a government official encounters somebody who regularly rides bicycles, he should not assume that the person knows what he likes. He should encourage the person to experiment with different models of bicycles, and he should observe the results. If the person spends a lot of his leisure time riding a bicycle, then the government official ought to wonder why he spends so much time on that activity rather than other activities. What does he dislike about the alternative activities? The government official might encourage him to try some other activities, and then visit him months later to determine how he reacted to those other activities.

Government officials who do these type of analyses would be scientists who are interacting with and analyzing us, rather than pollsters who ask us what we want, or salesmen who are trying to promote a certain product. With complicated products, such as cameras and cell phones, this type of interaction would be especially useful because it would help the government officials figure out which features are being used, which are ignored because nobody realizes what they are or how to use them, and which features are being used incorrectly. An official might show us how to use a particular feature, and then come back weeks later to see if we found it useful.

Conducting these interactive analyses would require many hours of a government official's time, and it would be spread out over many months, but these type of analyses would be much more useful to the engineers who are designing products compared to a multiple-choice survey.

These type of analyses can also be conducted for holiday celebrations, birthday parties, and weddings. By encouraging people to experiment with different activities, and by talking to them about what they like and dislike, the government officials will get some idea about which activities are actually bringing some value to our lives, and which are merely titillating us, wasting our time, or encouraging bad behavior.

Educational videos need this type of analysis, also. Thousands of television shows, movies, and videos are being produced every year, but very few of them can be described as "educational". The videos produced by PBS claim to be educational, but I think they are designed mainly to be entertaining to the typical television viewer, and some are spreading propaganda about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, global warming, and Nazis.

We should produce a variety of truly educational videos, and the software should allow us to easily go forwards and backwards through the video, and do slow-motion. The videos do not have to be of any particular length because they would be on the Internet, rather than trying to fit a time slot of a television program. Some might be only a few minutes long.

For example, we could have lots of brief medical videos to help us identify a potential medical problem with our appendix, kidney stones, diabetes, or thyroid. We could also create videos to show people how to prepare for certain types of medical tests, and to explain what the tests are. Doctors would not have to waste any of their time explaining the same information over and over. If somebody needed a CAT scan or an MRI scan, instead of the doctor providing a brief education about the issue, the doctor could tell the person what to search for, or he could provide them with links to the videos, and then people could watch the videos at their leisure. However, this requires that we produce videos that are truly useful, so how do we determine if a video is useful?

We currently consider a video, movie, or television show to be valuable if a lot of people enjoy it. If a video is meant to be entertaining, then we would indeed be concerned about whether people enjoy it, but an educational video is useful only if people learn something of value from it. Therefore, instead of counting the quantity of people who watch a video, and instead of asking people whether they enjoyed the video, the government officials must judge the value of an educational video by talking to people before and after watching the video and analyzing what they learned from the video. They must investigate the effect of the educational video. They would then provide that information to the people who made the video so that they can create an improved version.

This concept also applies to schools. It is idiotic to send children to school without analyzing whether they are learning something of value. Our schools today don't even care whether students get a job after they graduate, and neither does the government. As of today, school and government officials are interested only in increasing the amount of money that they receive in taxes and tuition, and the parents and students are only concerned about getting a diploma. We need some government officials who occasionally analyze what the children have actually learned, and whether they have learned something that truly has value to them. This information can be used to alter the school curriculum and educational materials.

If we create a society that consists of semi-independent cities, then we need two types of governments: 1) A city government for each city, and 2) One world government.

Although there are only two types of government, every city would have its own variation of a government. Each city would have to follow the same economic rules, language, and measurement systems, but they would be encouraged to experiment with changes in their government, schools, architecture, clothing styles, sports, and other culture. As a result, we cannot say what the structure of a city government will be. We can only describe its responsibilities, and provide suggestions on what a city could start their experimentation with. Every city government would be in a constant state of change. Since none of the governments will be secretive, every city will be able to observe the governments of other cities, and that will give everybody ideas on what they would like to experiment with.

I cannot give specific suggestions for the city or world government because we have not yet had any public discussions about what type of experiments we want to try. Do we want to experiment with providing the basic necessities for free? Do we want to experiment with a city in which all of the homes are virtually identical? The structure and functions of the government are going to depend on what we decide to experiment with. Until these discussions come out into the public and we make decisions on what to experiment with, the remainder of this document will assume that you want to try my more extreme suggestions of a city in which everybody is virtually equal. Even if you don't like that concept, it might inspire you to consider experimenting with significant changes to your life.

We should encourage part-time and temporary government positions

Government officials today want to be full-time, and they want to eliminate competitors, but I think we should design government so that there are as many part-time and temporary positions as possible. Two reasons are:
1) Agencies should expand and contract as necessary
Some government divisions would have so much work all throughout the year that they could use full-time employees, but all of the agencies should follow the philosophy of expanding and contracting as their workload increases and decreases. Some agencies might be shut down most of the year.

For a simple example of how this concept would work, if the buildings in a city are not very flammable, then everybody in the fire department would have some other, primary job. They would get together to become firemen only temporarily when there was a fire, or when they needed training, or when they had to do maintenance with their equipment. When there was nothing for them to do, they would return to their primary job.

The government agency that provides people with jobs would also benefit by expanding and contracting as needed. When students graduate from school, for example, the agency could expand in size. That agency would have to take people from businesses or schools, but that would not necessarily cause any problems for society. It would be similar to people taking time off for jury duty, pregnancy, or vacations.

By designing society so that the expansion and contraction of a government agency is an official policy, society can be designed specifically for it. For example, the schools can be designed so that when the students graduate, the teachers and other school officials switch to temporary jobs in the government agency to help the students find jobs. This will allow the government to expand without bothering any of the businesses, and it will also help the teachers figure out whether the students are adequately prepared for the jobs.

If the concept of expanding and contracting the government seems bizarre, consider that our government is already doing this on a regular basis, except that in a free enterprise system, the government usually doesn't hire people on a temporary basis. Usually the government hires people as contractors, or they pay a business to assist with their workload. The reason the government doesn't hire people on a temporary basis is because every job in a free enterprise system has a different salary and benefits package, and so people cannot be freely move from one job to another. It is also very inconvenient for people to have several part-time jobs. Therefore, when the government needs to temporarily expand its operation, it will contact a business for assistance rather than bringing individual people into the government.

When we get rid of free enterprise and let the government control the entire economy, everybody can be considered as a government employee. People can freely move from one job to another without any concern about salary or health care. Therefore, when a government agency needs to temporarily expand its operation, it has two options. The agency could advertise the temporary jobs and bring individuals into the government, or, if they have something more complicated to do, they could ask a business to send one of their experienced teams to provide assistance.

This concept also occurs regularly within a corporation and a military unit. The managers frequently shift people temporarily from one task to another in order to deal with temporary surges in work, or to deal with unexpected problems. Why not apply this concept to an entire society?

This philosophy of expanding and contracting the government has two important advantages. The obvious advantage is that it eliminates the problem of government employees who have nothing to do, and the not so obvious advantage is that by making government jobs available on a temporary basis, more of us can get involved with the government because we don't have to make any full-time or long-term commitments. With government positions opening up throughout the year on a part-time and/or temporary basis, you might find yourself occasionally willing to participate in some government agency.

2) To encourage more participation in the government
Government agencies should allow people to work on a part-time and temporary basis in order to provide more opportunities for people to get involved with the government. In our current society, government jobs are essentially a ticket to an easy life, especially the management positions in government, and as a result, a lot of people want a full-time government job so that they don't have to work for a living. If we switch to a government that provides us with jobs, and which requires that every person do useful work, then government jobs will not be any easier than jobs in business.

With everybody being provided with the same type of home and material wealth, the government jobs won't have any financial advantage over business jobs. Also, it will be easy for people to have several part-time jobs with this type of society because nobody has to worry about the salary of a job, or its benefits. Therefore, it is practical to design the government to offer lots of part-time jobs in order to encourage more people to get involved with the government, which encourages participation in society.

It is in everybody's best interest to encourage more people to get involved with government, even if it is only one afternoon once a year. You can understand this concept if you think of society as a big family, and if you think of the government as the parents. In a family, it is in everybody's best interest if everybody helps out occasionally with the household chores and the maintenance of the family. Likewise, the citizens should be encouraged to participate in the maintenance and care of their society by helping with the government once in a while.

I previously mentioned that the government could arrange for social affairs in which people discuss some of their problems and complaints. The people who organize and supervise those meetings do not have to work for the government on a full-time basis. A person could be working full-time as a technician, engineer, scientist, or farmer, and he could offer to organize a meeting when an issue came up that he was familiar with and interested in, even if that means that he works for the government only one evening every 5 years.

When everybody gets their basic necessities for free, then we don't have to worry about how much other people are being paid. Everybody is expected to work, and by providing lots of part-time opportunities in the government, then people can fulfill some of their working requirements by helping with the government. We can also allow people to do extra, overtime work that is beyond their requirements. The people who do the extra work would not get a bigger home or a yacht for that extra work, but we could provide them with some type of benefit, such as giving them first priority with restaurants, entertainment events, and social affairs.

I think that society will improve when we get more people involved with the government, even if they are involved only one evening a year. For one reason, encouraging participation in society will help dampen the attitude that we are helpless peasants who are under the control of a small group of government officials. It encourages people to participate in society rather than whine about oppression and abuse. For another reason, by bringing more people into the government, the government ends up with a wider variety of opinions, and there are more people to watch over the government officials to prevent abuse.

The city government structure

The philosophy behind the American and European governments is to spread the authority over a large number of officials so that nobody has much authority. The problem with this system is that it requires that we watch over thousands of government officials, which is impractical. Furthermore, as I described in the previous file of this series, since none of the officials have much authority, it doesn't do much good to watch over them or replace them. It is almost pointless to replace a government official who has almost no authority. This type of government is like a horde of locusts. Each locust is insignificant, and so killing a few is meaningless.

It would be more sensible to design a government that has only a few officials to watch over, and each of those officials would have a lot of authority. My suggestion for a city government would be to have five primary divisions, and each of those divisions would have three leaders of equal authority, putting them into competition with each other. The worst performing of the three would be replaced regularly, such as every four years, so that somebody else gets the opportunity to try the job. The citizens would have to watch over only five groups of three leaders, a total of only 15 officials.

Each of the five divisions would have different functions, but they would frequently overlap each other's functions, thereby causing potential conflicts between them. If they could not resolve their differences, all five groups could vote on what to do, and with 15 people voting, there would never be a tie. The five divisions would be:
1) City Businesses
2) Jobs and Education
3) Social Technology
4) Quality Control
5) Women's Issues

I would have three divisions for the world government, and each of them would also have three leaders of equal authority, resulting in a total of nine world officials for us to watch over. The divisions would be:
1) Resources
2) Economy
3) Quality Control

The difference between City and World businesses

Our prehistoric ancestors could be described as self-employed entrepreneurs who were in the business of producing food, tools, shelters, and clothing. All of their businesses could be described as "local" or "city" businesses because they affected only the people in their particular tribe. As humans advanced, a few people began producing tools or clothing to trade with neighboring tribes. Those people could be described as operating a "world" business. During the past few centuries, the situation has reversed itself; most people today are involved in "world businesses".

The city governments would control the "city businesses" that affect only their city, but they would not have any management influence over the "world businesses" that are producing items for the world. For example, restaurants and bicycle repair shops affect only the people in a particular city, so those businesses would be in the category of "city businesses", which means that a city government would be in complete control of those businesses. By comparison, the businesses that produce something for the entire world, such as airplanes, computers, satellites, or medical research, would be considered "world businesses".

The city officials would be responsible for finding employees for the world businesses, and those employees would be responsible for operating those businesses properly, but the city officials would not be involved in the management decisions of the world businesses. To understand this concept, consider the situation of Toyota building a factory in Chicago. The people who live in Chicago are responsible for operating the factory, but they are not involved in the management decisions of what the factory produces, the quantity of items to produce, what type of equipment the factory will use, or how the items are distributed. The world government officials would make the type of decisions that those Toyota executives would make.

McDonald's and other businesses are building restaurants around the world. Therefore, those restaurants are "world businesses". However, if we switch to an economy in which food and other basic necessities are provided for free, then there is no benefit to the human race in allowing the world government to provide the cities with restaurants. It would be more sensible for every city government to have total control over their restaurants.

If one city develops a particular style of restaurant that another city wants to try, then that other city would simply implement their version of it. There would be no copyrights or patents to worry about. All physical and social technology would be available to everybody for free. The people who invent popular social technology, such as a particular style of restaurant, clothing, holiday celebration, music, or recreational activity, would get credit for their creation, but they would not be able to control what other people do with it, and they would not get any type royalties from the people who use it. Other people would be encouraged to learn from it, experiment with it, and try to improve it.

Every city would have some farms and greenhouses to produce food for themselves, and the city government would be in complete control of what they produce at those "city farms", and how the food is distributed to their city's restaurants, schools, and whatever else they want to distribute food to. However, many cities will also produce food for other cities. Those particular farms would be "world farms". The city officials would be responsible for finding employees for the world farms, and the employees would be responsible for operating the farms properly, but the world government officials would make decisions about which food items to produce, in what quantity, and how they will be distributed around the world.

The city governments would not do any scientific research, unless there is something specific for their particular city. For example, a city might do research into the particular geology and animals of their area, but research that has significance to the entire world would be conducted by the world government.

Starting a business would be effortless

When the government is in control of the economy, all of the businesses are essentially divisions of a giant corporation, or units in a giant military. This allows us to make it effortless to accomplish two tasks that are currently difficult in the free enterprise system:
1) Manage an existing business

In a free enterprise system, if a person wants to purchase an existing business, then he needs to find the funding to do so. By comparison, when the government controls the economy, a person who wants to do the equivalent of purchasing an existing business is in a similar situation as a person in the military who wants to supervise their helicopter repair shop, or an employee of a corporation who wants to supervise their assembly line or warehouse. The government needs to find people who are willing and able to operate the factories, repair shops, machine shops, mining operations, research laboratories, and other businesses, and so the officials will encourage people to learn the skills necessary to run those businesses and apply for the jobs.

The people who want to manage existing businesses do not need to deal with financing, land, equipment, leases, or employees. They simply apply for whatever job they want. If they are hired, they will be given assistance from other people in business and government. The government officials do not want anybody to fail, and they do not want the people fighting with each other or sabotaging one another. The government officials will have the same attitude as military leaders and corporate executives; specifically, they want everybody working together as a team and helping one another become productive.

2) Start a new business.

In a free enterprise system, if a person wants to be an "entrepreneur" who starts his own machine shop, factory, or repair business, he is on his own to figure out what equipment to purchase, get funding from banks or investors, find employees, and deal with government regulations and taxes. He will not get any assistance from his competitors, or from the government. He will have to create a proposal for his idea, and then he would have to explain his proposal to various investment companies, potential employees, banks, and landlords.

By comparison, when the government is in control of the economy, people who want to become entrepreneurs can do so by creating a proposal for a new product, service, business, or whatever, and then posting it on the government website for such proposals. This allows everybody to see what is being proposed, and by who, and the government officials would be required to post a response so that we can see which proposals they are approving, and which they are rejecting, and their reasons for rejecting a proposal.

The process would be similar to what happens in a business when one of the managers proposes a new division or a new product, except that the government would do this in a more formal manner, and it would be open to the public. If the government approves of a proposal, then the person would get whatever assistance he needed. It would be similar to when an employee of a business gets his proposal approved and is given whatever resources and assistance he needs.

The government would not micro manage businesses

Although the government would supervise the entire economy, we should not give the government the same level of authority that business executives have over their employees. For example, business executives have total control over the working environment for all of their employees, and the executives also have the authority to tell their managers how to do their job, which we criticize as "micro management". We should not allow the government to have this extreme level of authority over the people who are managing businesses. This government system would be based on the theory that progress comes about when people have the opportunity to explore, experiment, and take risks.

The government officials would have authority to coordinate and supervise businesses, but they would not have the authority to control individual employees or tell any of the business executives how to do their job. The executives would have the freedom to set their work environment and choose their employees. From the point of view of the employees, these businesses would resemble those in a free enterprise system rather than a communist nation.

Furthermore, and even more important, rather than micro manage the business executives, the government officials would encourage the executives to look for ways to improve their operation. If a executive wanted to make a "simple" change to his business that did not affect people outside of his business and did not affect the product that he was making, such as rearranging his equipment or altering the responsibilities of some of his employees, he would do so on his own. If he wanted to make changes that required the assistance of other people, or which had a potential effect on other people, such as replacing a piece of equipment with something different, and which therefore may have a detrimental effect on the final product, or if he wants to expand his business to produce another product, or if he wants to make a change to the product that he is producing, then he would have to submit a proposal to the government officials and explain his reasoning.

It would be similar to what happens within a corporation when a manager has an idea to improve his department; specifically, he can make the change by himself if it is "simple", but he needs permission, and possibly assistance, if the change is expensive, or if it may have an effect on the product he is producing.

If the government officials agreed that the proposal had potential benefit, they would assist the executive with his experiment by providing him with whatever equipment, assistance, land, labor, and supplies that he needs. It would be similar to when a corporation agrees to experiment with a change to one of their departments. By eliminating secrecy and keeping track of everybody's performance, the executives who accumulate successes in their experiments will have an increasingly easy time getting their proposals approved, and the executives who accumulate failures will have an increasingly difficult time. The government officials will also accumulate successes or failures according to which proposals they accepted and which they rejected. This system will reward people who are creative and productive.

Furthermore, the government would be designed to continuously replace the worst performing executives so that there are endless opportunities for other people to try their skills at managing a business. The government would not allow a business executive to keep his job unless he was actually performing at above-average levels. The executives who were performing below average would be replaced.

Incidentally, I will sometimes mention that after a person has had "a certain number" of failures, he will be replaced in his job or classified as "mentally incompetent". Exactly what should that number be? It would not be a number. Every person would be judged individually. A person who did something incredibly stupid might be classified as mentally incompetent from that one event. A person with more talent might have dozens of trivial failures before people came to the conclusion that he doesn't have the necessary skills to accomplish his particular goals.

It would be similar to the way in which coaches make decisions about who to except as a team member. The coach will judge each athlete by his abilities, and in some cases, a person only has to play for a few minutes before the coach rejects him, whereas others play for months before the coach makes a decision.

Business owners would compete for society, not profit

The officials in the city and world governments would be responsible for determining which items to produce, which services to offer, and which scientific projects to authorize, and they would hire business executives to manage the factories, repair shops, research laboratories, farms, and other businesses. Those executives would be analogous to "business owners". They would be responsible for managing their employees, setting the work environment, and producing whatever items or services that the government told them to produce. Unlike the business owners in a free enterprise system, they would not be concerned with taxes, landlords, retirement plans, advertising, medical programs, sales, distribution, or marketing.

The business owners would compete with one another, but they would not compete for profit or for the popularity of consumers. Instead, they would compete to be the most useful executive from the point of view of society, which is a more complex competition. The government officials would judge the business executives according to a variety of different criteria, such as:
1) The efficiency of their business; ie, the amount of labor and resources they were consuming.
2) The quality of their products or services.
3) Whether they have the creativity to find ways to improve their business, products, or services.
4) The effect they have on their employees. People in leadership positions should have a beneficial effect on morale. We should not judge supervisors, teachers, government officials, or parents according to their popularity. All of these people should be judged according to the overall effect they have on other people. For some examples of how people in leadership positions can have a good or a bad effect on the people following them, some parents have caused their children to become spoiled brats; some school teachers have inspired their students to learn about some subject; and some supervisors have irritated their employees to to such an extent that they become angry and rebellious.

Being a good supervisor requires more than intelligence and education. A leader has to keep the members of his team behaving in a productive manner. He has to find a way to prevent fights, envy, and pouting. He must keep up morale, and inspire his members. A lot of people have the intelligence necessary to be a supervisor, but they don't have the desire or ability to deal with the irritating characteristics of human behavior.

Furthermore, the problems that a supervisor faces depend upon his particular team. For example, a teacher who has to supervise a group of children has to deal with slightly different emotional issues compared to a supervisor of adults on an assembly line, and both of those supervisors have to deal with slightly different problems compared to the supervisor of a research lab who has to deal with a group of independent and arrogant researchers.

Example: A bicycle repair shop
To understand how these concepts would work, consider how they would apply to a simple business, such as a bicycle repair shop. The city would be designed with a certain number of repair shops, and they would be scattered around the city so that everybody in the city has easy access to a shop, and each shop has a similar number of customers. The manager of a shop would be analogous to a business owner, except that he would not own his building or supplies, and he would not have to deal with taxes or bank loans. All he would do is manage his business and deal with his employees.

The government would occasionally review the performance of the shop managers and regularly replace the worst performing manager. This would cause the job of a bicycle repair shop manager to regularly open up, and the people who were interested in the job would apply for it as if it was any other type of job. The person who was selected would be given the shop with the vacancy, and he would take over the customers, employees, and supplies. It would be equivalent to a person in a free enterprise system who purchases an existing bicycle shop.

The person who manages the shop would operate the shop as if he was the owner in a free enterprise system, such as having the authority to change employees, decorations, or procedures. However, he would not own the building that he was in, so if he wanted to move to a different location he would have to create a proposal to the government to explain how such a move would be justified.

For an example of why the manager might propose changing locations, if the city provides tracking information on everybody, the supervisor might analyze the people who are coming to a shop, and he might notice that there would be a significant reduction in their traveling time by moving the shop to a different location. If the government agreed that his analysis was sensible, then they would authorize the move. The government would then observe the tracking information for a while to see if it indeed reduced the overall time spent traveling, or if it merely reduced the travel time of his particular customers while adding a significant burden to lots of other people. The government would analyze the situation from the point of view of society, not from the point of view of his particular customers. If they decided that the change brought more benefit to society than disadvantages, then the manager would get credit for his analysis.

In a free enterprise system, a business owner can remain in business as long as he can make a profit, but in this system the government will give each newly hired manager a certain amount of time to adapt to the job, and then they are compared to one another. However, the managers of the shops would not be competing for sales, profit, or popularity among consumers. Instead, the government officials would compare them according to those four qualities I mentioned a few paragraphs earlier. For a bicycle repair shop, the government officials would look at the number of bicycles they repaired and their consumption of labor and resources; the attitudes of the employees; the quality of their service; and whether they were coming up with ideas to improve their service or improve bicycles. The worst performing manager would be replaced regardless of how many customers he has or how much they like him. The government will certainly take into consideration whether customers like a business owner, but being popular is not good enough to keep a job. The government cannot allow popularity to be a dominant criteria or else we will end up with the situation we have today in which business managers use sexual titillation to attract men, and candy to attract children.

The reason it would be possible for the government officials to compare the managers to one another is because the officials would be able to see exactly what the managers are doing. The managers would not be able to operate in secrecy. The managers would get all of their supplies, utilities, and equipment from the government, and whenever a manager wanted to hire or fire employees or send an employee for training, the government would know about it because the government would be in control of jobs and training programs.

Sometimes the managers would be so similar to one another that the government officials would have trouble selecting one to be the loser of the competitive battle, but the government would be required to regularly replace the worst performing managers so that other people have the opportunity to try. In this type of economy, the government has the responsibility of creating a turnover of business owners. In a free enterprise system, it is devastating for a person to lose his business, but in this type of economy, the government simply helps the person get another job, and eventually he might find a job that he is better-than-average at.

Example: A scientific research laboratory
For a more complex example of how this system would work, consider the people who supervise research laboratories. The government officials would make decisions about which research projects to fund, and the scientists who want to supervise one of the projects would apply for whichever project he was interested in. The government would select some of the scientists to supervise the projects, and each of those scientists would become equivalent to a "business owner". Each of them would have to figure out who to hire and fire, and which supplies and equipment they need. As with the people who manage bicycle repair shops, the scientists would not have to worry about rent, landlords, banks, or retirement benefits.

However, unlike bicycle repair shops, it is difficult for the government officials to compare research labs to one another because they are doing more complex work, and usually they are doing different projects. Even if two labs are working on the same project, it is difficult to say that one of them is more successful because they are exploring the unknown, and so it is conceivable that two different labs will achieve something, but something different, thereby making it difficult to say that one of them is better than the other.

It will be difficult for the government officials to pass judgment on whether the manager of a research lab is accomplishing enough to justify his consumption of labor and resources, but don't be concerned about this dilemma. Businesses are facing it every day. Businesses regularly make decisions about when to let a research project continue for a few more months or years; when to reduce its budget; when to give it more funding; and when to fire one of the managers or scientists in the project. Businesses occasionally make mistakes, but there is nothing we can do about that except learn from them.

By keeping track of everybody's achievements, the scientists who accumulate the most successes will have the easiest time getting their ideas approved, and those who have the most failures will have the most difficult time.

How will "we" control the government?

The government I propose is in control of virtually everything about society, which is potentially dangerous. I occasionally mention that we will be able to watch over and pass judgment on government officials and policies, but who exactly are "we"? And how do we control the government? The "we" are the people who choose to get involved with influencing society, but how do people "get involved"? How do we influence government officials or their policies? We would get involved in two different ways:

1) Posting suggestions on the government website.

A popular method in America for influencing the government is paper letters, email messages, and phone calls. Unfortunately, these methods are virtually useless because government officials do not care what we say. They are concerned only with the people who are supporting them, or who are blackmailing them. Furthermore, because government officials can operate in secrecy, we do not know if they are looking at our complaints, and we do not know what type of complaints other people are sending to them. To make the situation more ridiculous, even if a government official considered one of our complaints to be valid, none of them have the authority to do much of anything.

There are several techniques to make it more practical for us to send suggestions and complaints to the government:
1) By providing the basic necessities to everybody for free and giving everybody virtually the same type of home, we can almost completely eliminate the influence that money has over our government.
2) By reducing the number of government officials in top leadership positions, there are fewer officials for us to watch over and send suggestions to.
3) By giving the top government officials much more authority, none of them will be able to use the excuse that they are helpless. Also, because they have a lot of authority, if we replace an official that we don't like, we can bring significant changes to the government.
4) By allowing citizens to post suggestions and complaints on a government Internet page, everybody can see who is posting suggestions, and by requiring government officials to post a response to each suggestion, we can see that the government officials are looking at these suggestions, and we can see how they respond.
5) By being less tolerant of crime, we will be able to reduce the problem of criminals who blackmail, intimidate, or threaten government officials.

2) The government needs a "real" Complaint Department.

In a free enterprise system, many retail stores have a department for accepting returned items that people are unhappy with, and some businesses also have a public relations department to deal with customer complaints. Many businesses also provide warranties and guarantees for their products and services. Many businesses also have a Quality Control department.

However, no government has the equivalent of a complaint or quality control department, and no government offers anything equivalent to a warranty. If we don't like the way our government is spending our tax money, we cannot demand that the government officials take a pay cut and give us our money back. If any government has a Complaint Department, it is just a trick to fool the public into believing that the government officials actually care about us.

We need a Quality Control division for both the city and the world governments, and give both of them a real Complaint Department. The officials in the Complaint Department should work on a temporary basis so that their jobs vanish when they do not have any suggestions or complaints to deal with. Officials would be brought into the Complaint Department when complaints come in from the public.

We should be able to complain about virtually anything. For some examples, we could complain about a specific government official, or about one of his policies. We could complain that a particular section of a bike path is overly crowded at certain times of the day, or that a city park has too many trees and not enough grass or ponds. We could complain that there is too much research going into cosmetics and not enough into robots.

The officials would have to respond to our complaints. If they agreed with our complaint or suggestion and decided to experiment with a change to society, they would then observe the long term effects of the experiment. If it turned out to be beneficial, then the person who created the complaint, and the officials who approved it, would get credit for a success, but if it turned out to be a failure, all of those people would have a failure added to their database entry. Likewise, if a government official rejected a complaint that later turned out to be sensible, he would have that failure added to his database entry.

The people who accumulate successes will have an easier time getting their complaints approved, and they will have an easier time getting into top leadership positions. Conversely, the people who frequently fail in their complaints will have an increasingly difficult time getting people to listen to them or put them into important positions.

This Quality Control department would provide checks and balances for the other departments by providing us with a way to experiment with different government officials and policies. This Quality Control department would allow individual people, regardless of whether they are government officials, to have significant influence over society.

Citizens in America today are regularly complaining about dishonest businessmen, the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack, and corrupt lawyers, and many people have intelligent suggestions for some of our problems, but nobody, not even the President of America, has much authority over society, so even if one of those government officials wanted to experiment with some of our suggestions, there is nothing they can do. We are wasting our time by complaining to them. However, by designing a government with a Complaint Department that has the authority to do fire anybody from any job, and the authority to alter social technology, then everybody has the opportunity to influence society. All they have to do is come up with some intelligent suggestions that impress other people.

It is easy to frighten ourselves with the possibility that the Complaint Department becomes infiltrated with idiots, crime networks, and selfish, arrogant psychos. You might imagine Larry Silverstein getting control of the department and using his authority to help his criminal Jewish friends get control of society.

If you want to frighten yourself over the possibility that the Quality Control department becomes corrupt, then you may as well also frighten yourself over the possibility that the Nobel prize committee becomes so corrupt that they give Nobel prizes to Al Gore and Henry Kissinger. And why not also worry about scientists, journalists, government officials becoming so corrupt that they lie to us about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and the Apollo moon landing?

Yes, it is possible for the Quality Control department of a government to become infiltrated with criminals, idiots, and psychos, but don't look for reasons that a concept might fail. Look for ways to make it successful. If we allow a city to become dominated by apathetic sheeple and crime networks, then of course the government will horrible. A society is only as good as its people. In order to create a better city, we must follow the same philosophy as a business, sports team, or military. Businesses evict the destructive employees; they do not put them in jail. Cities must operate on the same principle. All citizens must either contribute to the city, or be evicted. We must stop feeling sorry for destructive people, and stop trying to fix their problems with jail or Bible studies.

In addition to being less tolerant of crime, I think we will significantly improve our chances of creating a useful government if we control our paranoia of being watched and remove secrecy so that we can keep track of everybody's life. Everybody should be responsible for their behavior. Nobody should be allowed to hide anything about themselves. Everything that we do should go into a publicly accessible database. The citizens and government officials who repeatedly fail at something, or who cause trouble for society, should have an increasingly difficult time getting people to listen to them and getting influential positions in society.

We should not feel sorry for the people who are ashamed of themselves. It's not our fault that they behave the way they do. They do not have a right to deceive us about their life or hide their unpleasant qualities. It would make more sense to say that we have a right to know the truth about the people we live with.

By keeping track of everybody's history and judging a person according to his value to society, the individual citizens who send complaints to the Quality Control department would be under pressure to make sure that their complaints are sensible, and the government officials would be under pressure to give serious consideration to every complaint. Over time, some citizens and government officials would build up a history of successful suggestions and complaints, and others will build up a history of failures. By restricting leadership positions to the people who have proven themselves to be the most successful in helping society, we will provide ourselves with a much better government than what we have today.

The employees of a business are allowed to send complaints and suggestions to their boss. If the management considers one of the suggestions to be intelligent, then the employee responsible for will be considered intelligent, and he will have an increasingly easy time getting the management to consider his suggestions, but if the management considers a suggestion to be idiotic, the employee responsible will be regarded as an idiot, and after he has made a few idiotic suggestions, the management will either tell him to stop, or they will ignore him. We can apply the same philosophy to an entire city.

Since humans are not identical, every organization has to analyze the abilities and limitations of their members so that they can figure out which task each person is best suited to. It is difficult to analyze a person's abilities, and none of us is capable of providing a "perfect" analysis of another person, but we must do these analyses. We can treat people equally in regards to their material wealth, but we cannot treat people equally in regards to their jobs. We must pass judgment on who is better at dentistry, carpentry, flying airplanes, and supervising construction crews. We must also pass judgment on who has intelligent suggestions and complaints about holiday celebrations, economic issues, schools, sports, and other cultural issues. We cannot give everybody equal influence over our culture or our future. We must pass judgment on who is better at analyzing culture and developing intelligent suggestions for experiments.

How do businesses determine which of their technicians should get promotion to leadership? How do they determine which scientist should be the leader of the laboratory? How do they determine who should be the supervisor for a group of factory workers? Businesses cannot figure out the answers to these questions. They simply have to analyze people, make a judgment, and then watch the results. If they make a mistake, they try to correct it.

Likewise, people in the military have to make decisions about who should get a promotion, who should be allowed to maintain a helicopter, and who should be allowed to operate a drone. Sometimes mistakes are made, but the military doesn't cry about it.

Life was physically difficult but intellectually simple for our prehistoric ancestors. Life is now physically simple and intellectually complex. The people who whine about it should not reproduce. Humans must evolve to enjoy our new world.

Life is becoming increasingly complex. Every year more people find themselves overwhelmed with the issues we face. Many people create hysteria by whining about "Where do we draw the line?", or "If we allow (such and such), then it could lead to (this or that)." The proper reaction to these people is to tell them that since they can't cope with the complexity of modern life, they should keep quiet, not have any children, and let the rest of us do our best to deal with the problems.

We must stop feeling sorry for people and start judging them according to their value to society. We should favor the people who have proven themselves to be productive members. By comparison, our current economic system favors anybody who can make money, even if it is through illegal or parasitic activities, and our government system favors anybody who can get elected, even if is the result of deception, blackmail, or bribery. We are allowing our society to become dominated by parasitic, aggressive, dishonest, selfish, and abusive people.

Instead of judging a business executive by his income, and instead of judging a political candidate by his popularity, we should judge people in leadership positions according to what they have done to improve life for all of us. By switching to a system in which we judge people according to their contributions to society, we favor the people who have the ability and desire to spend time analyzing issues, doing research, discussing issues, and developing sensible proposals that are truly beneficial to all of society.

What should we earn? What should be free?

Most nations make their citizens earn their material wealth, and they allow the citizens to develop extreme differences in material wealth, but they promote the theory that everybody has a right to reproduction, voting, jobs, schools, medical care, legal services, and treatment by the police, firemen, and rescue personnel, and that all of us should have equality in those rights.

This philosophy appeals to our emotions because it is natural for us to struggle each day for food, tools, and other items, and we also have a craving to be dominant, and so we enjoy competing for material items and showing off our collection, but we have no emotional craving to earn or compete for modern, complex concepts, such as voting, education, or reproduction. However, we should not follow a philosophy simply because it appeals to our emotions. We need to analyze the overall effect of the philosophy. Which philosophy would be better overall from the point of view of the human race?

When people must earn their material wealth, and when we allow extreme differences in wealth, we encourage people to focus on the gathering of material items, and when we promote the theory that everybody has equal rights to reproduction, voting, and medical care, then the criminals, idiots, and mentally ill people have just as much influence in society as the rest of us, and they have just as many babies, and they have equal access to police, fire, and medical services. Actually, the idiots, weirdos, and criminals are likely to require more medical care, police services, and rescue services because of their stupidity and self-destructive behavior.

The opposite philosophy would be more sensible from the point of view of society. Specifically, to give everybody equal and free access to material items so that nobody has to compete for food, a home, or other basic necessities, but make everybody earn their right to reproduce, adopt children, have a particular job, participate in training programs, and influence society.

Incidentally, America doesn't practice what it preaches. America promotes equality in regards to legal services, voting, jobs, and other areas, but we are so focused on material wealth that the wealthy people end up getting special privileges. The wealthy people get better legal treatment, better treatment by the police, and it is easier for them to get a government position. The wealthy men also have significantly greater access to women. To make this problem even more troublesome, Americans do not care how a person becomes wealthy. The people who become wealthy through crime, lotteries, divorce settlements, gambling, inheritances, and investments are given the same special pampering as the people who earn their money by doing something useful for society.

It is possible and sensible to share material wealth, but it is idiotic to give everybody equal influence in society, or give everybody equal access to reproduction. We must face the fact that humans are random collections of DNA, and each of us has a slightly different brain, and some people's brains do not function very well. We must pass judgment on who among us deserves to be a pilot, dentist, plumber, policeman, and engineer. We must pass judgment on who should be allowed to reproduce, who should be allowed to adopt children, and who is so annoying or destructive that they need to be removed from society.

People are very similar, but we are not equal. We differ in both physical and mental abilities. It's relatively easy for us to accept the fact that some people are very talented, but it is more difficult for us to face the fact that the opposite is also true. Specifically, there will always be a certain percentage of the population at the other end of the bell chart. There will always be a certain number of people who classify as the stupidest, and another group that classifies as the most uncoordinated, and another group as the ugliest. There will always be some people who are the most arrogant, and others will be the most envious, and others will be the most selfish. It is impossible for a group of people to be "equal".

When we practice the philosophy that everybody is equal, then when a person risks his life to save somebody, we will consider him to be a hero regardless of who he saves. This allows a person to become a hero even if he saves a psychotic criminal who has fallen onto train tracks because he is intoxicated. You would not consider a person to be a hero if he saved a bunch of mosquito larva that were about to die in a drought, and we should not consider a person to be a hero when he saves criminals, retards, or other destructive people.

Our laws should take into account the value of a person. We are forcing parents to raise retarded children, for example, and we are forcing everybody to live among homeless people and mentally ill freaks. Parents of retarded children sometimes become so frustrated that they accidentally or deliberately kill their children, and then they are accused of murder. We could say that society is responsible for those dead retarded children by tormenting the parents for years. We could say that parents have a right to raise healthy children, and that it is cruel to force them to raise retarded children.

Likewise, when homeless people commit crimes, we could say that society has brought this problem on itself by dumping unwanted people in the streets and not providing them with any way to survive. You can interpret life any way you please. We could also say that a society is irresponsible to allow homeless people to live with us, and that we are cruel to the normal people when we force them to live among homeless people.

Farmers do not promote the philosophy that all animals and plants are equal. Farmers are allowed to pass judgment on which of the plants and animals deserve to live, and which of them are so special that they deserve to reproduce. A farmer is not arrested for killing retarded animals. We must follow the same philosophy with humans. We must keep track of everybody's life and judge people according to their value to society. The people that we can trust and work with as team members are more valuable than the people who abuse us.

The "better" people should have more influence

All government agencies, including the Complaint Department, should follow the philosophy that people are different, not equals, and that we should have different amounts of influence over the government. Government agencies will occasionally have to deal with arbitrary issues that have no right or wrong, and they should settle these disputes by giving special preference to the people who are the most valuable members of society.

For example, if some government officials approved a project to build a statue of Marilyn Monroe, as in the photo, and other government officials rejected it as "toilet humor", the government should resolve the issue by asking people in the city for their opinions, but they would not consider everybody's opinion to be equal. The people who have proven themselves to be the most valuable members of society would have much more influence.

This philosophy requires that we have some way of determining who are the higher-quality people. We currently judge people according to their job title, material wealth, college diplomas, and awards, but it would make more sense to judge people according to their behavior and their contributions to society. By keeping track of everybody's life, we can pass judgment on who among us has been contributing to society; who has been honest and responsible; and whose opinions have been the most intelligent and successful.

If passing judgment on a person's "value" to society seems ridiculous, consider that schools are passing judgment on whether a student is "educated". Businesses also pass judgment on which of their employees deserve to be promoted, and which deserve to be fired. There are also groups of people passing judgment on who qualifies to be a dentist, Olympic athlete, engineer, and doctor.

We pass judgment on one another on a regular basis. I am not suggesting anything new. I am merely suggesting that we face the fact that passing judgment on one another is a necessary aspect of modern life.

During prehistoric times, nobody had to qualify for anything, and they did not pass judgment on one another. None of the men were told that they do not qualify as a "hunter", and that they must stay with the women while the other men hunted for pigs. However, in our era, we must pass judgment on who qualifies as a hunter, farmer, dentist, pilot, and mechanic. We must also pass judgment on who deserves to influence society, and who should be told to keep their mouth shut. The people who don't like this modern world can be told to deal with it or get out.

Passing judgment on other people's abilities should become an official policy for society. Also, this process should be completely open rather than secretive. Information about everybody's life should be in a publicly accessible database, and every school, business, government agency, and other organization that passes judgment on somebody should post their analyses into the database so that everybody can see who is making comments about them, and what their reasoning is. We allow ourselves to be abused if we allow people to pass judgment on us secretly or anonymously. Everybody should be responsible for their behavior, including the people who are passing judgment on us.

Another reason I suggest putting the teenagers into Teentown is to make it easier for the adults to compare the teenagers in regards to their ability to work in teams, contribute to society, be honest, and treat other people with decency. It would allow the adults to pass judgment on the personalities of the teenagers, and their value to society. Teenagers who are abnormally dishonest, envious, antisocial, violent, selfish, arrogant, or uncooperative should be considered as below average in regards to their value to society.

America allows the people with the most money to have the most influence, but if we start judging people according to their value to society, and if we give the most valuable people the most influence, I think we will see a significant change in society because I think this group of people will have noticeably different desires in art, television, social activities, sports, scientific projects, material items, computer software, and recreation compared to the people who dominate society today.

Human diversity must be kept under control

It would be ideal if we could follow the philosophy of allowing everybody to listen to the music they like, wear the clothing styles they prefer, and decorate their homes as they please, but this is not practical. The reason is because every generation of humans has more genetic variety than the previous generation. If we do not control the variations, then eventually humans will become incompatible with one another.

There are already some significant differences between us in regards to music, art, eating habits, and home decorations. For example, and some people enjoy listening to this type of music. If we don't control diversity, our taste in music will become so different that we would not be able to distinguish between somebody's music and random noise.

Hollywood promotes pirates, criminals, losers, misfits, alcoholics, and murderers. The Grinch that Stole Christmas is a story about a miserable freak, probably based on a Jew, who wants to put an end to Christmas. Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer is about a retarded reindeer. The movie Despicable Me glorifies criminals and makes us feel sorry for orphans. A lot of the material that Hollywood describes as "entertainment" is what I would describe as promoting miserable or destructive attitudes. They also promote a lot of what I would describe as toilet humor. I think it is because Hollywood has become dominated by freaks who love to feel sorry for themselves, commit crimes, and get revenge on people.

I am only one of millions of people who are regularly complaining about the television shows and movies, and if we don't control human diversity, then eventually humans will become so different from one another that nobody will like anything that was produced by somebody else. This issue is especially important for raising children.

Adults can tolerate a wide diversity of people within our neighborhoods and businesses because we can easily ignore the people that we don't like, but children cannot easily ignore one another, especially not when they are in the same school. Putting incompatible children together in the same school will cause social awkwardness and confusion. I would say that we are torturing children when we force them to grow up among such diversity.

Adults can also tolerate a wide diversity with culture because we can ignore the culture that we don't like, but children cannot disregard culture that they disapprove of because they don't yet have any opinions on culture. A child is like a sponge that soaks up the language, clothing styles, and other cultural aspects of the adults and other children in their environment. When a child is raised in a homogenous society, then he picks up just one culture, but when a child is raised among adults who are following different culture, the child is exposed to a variety of conflicting and sometimes contradictory culture. We should provide only one environment for the children rather than exposing them to a smorgasbord of culture.

In America, children are picking up bits of culture from Hollywood movies, television shows, other children, and adults. For example, some of the jokes in the South Park cartoons are amusing to adults, but as I mentioned years ago, the young girl living next door to me imitated one of the idiotic scenes from Beavis & Butthead. Some people in Hollywood might say that this is appropriate behavior for a child, but I would say she was picking up idiotic behavior. Likewise, when children pick up tattoos, body piercings, and the "smartass" attitude that they see on television and in movies, some people in Hollywood might respond that the children are developing "normally" and picking up adorable attitudes, but to people like me, they are behaving like freaks and picking up disgusting attitudes.

What is the "proper" environment for a child? That depends upon who you ask. There is no right or wrong to that question. Take a look at how parents around the world are raising families. Some parents are piercing their daughter's ears when they are only a few years old, and some let their children have alcohol or marijuana, and some allow their children to eat unlimited amounts of candy bars and potato chips. In some families, incest and group sex is common, and Josef Fritzl provided an even more bizarre environment for his children. In some families, crime is so common that their children are taught how to steal and cheat.

If we don't control genetic diversity, then the families of the future will have even more variety, and that would mean that everybody's child has to grow up among other children who are following an extreme variety of different lifestyles. I don't think that would be a "proper" childhood. I think it would be frustrating, lonely, and confusing to all of the children. I think it would be much better to create a more homogenous city, but creating a homogenous city requires we pass judgment on which behavior is acceptable, and everybody must either follow those guidelines or be evicted.

Farmers make a very serious effort to raise plants and animals properly, but we have no concern for what children are exposed to. We don't even care that businesses are regularly manipulating children or titillating them sexually. Instead of protecting children, most parents are doing the exact opposite. For example, they prevent schools from providing children with serious information about bodies and sex, but they allow children to pick up perverted, unrealistic sexual material from Hollywood and advertisements. Parents also want National Geographic documentaries to warn viewers of "graphic" or "mature" material if it shows animals killing and eating one another, but they allow their children to watch Hollywood movies and cartoons that glorify violence.

Every society must pass judgment on what type of eating habits, manners, art, clothing, music, and behavior is within the acceptable range, and the people who are beyond that range should be prohibited from reproducing. However, we have to make decisions that are intelligent, not emotional. An example is music. What type of music is acceptable? We can't answer that question with our emotions. We have to think about it.

During the 1960s, many religious people were concerned that rock 'n roll music was the devil's music, and that it was capable of transforming wonderful children into terrible children. I would describe that as an idiotic religious philosophy, not an intelligent decision. It is certainly true that music can stimulate our emotions, and song lyrics, movies, and television programs can influence our attitudes towards life. A society needs to pass judgment on what type of television programs, poetry, books, lyrics, and other material is acceptable. Because young children are much more easily influenced, we need more restrictions on the material that is acceptable for children compared to adults. However, we have to make decisions that are intelligent, not decisions based on emotions, religion, or astrology.

It's also important to understand that the reason we control a child's environment is to make their life more pleasant and less confusing. We are not controlling their environment in order to protect them from the devil, or prevent "bad influences" from transforming them into drug users or criminals. While this concept might seem obvious, no society is following this philosophy yet. Every society is following the philosophy that wonderful, honest children can be transformed by the environment into criminals, drug addicts, and freaks.

The environment has a significant effect over us, especially over children, but it is just an influence. Our intellectual unit makes the final decisions for our behavior. The reason we want to blame the environment for the bad behavior of our children is because we are extremely protective of our children, and we don't want to face the possibility that our children might be genetically defective or inferior. We don't want to take responsibility for our own bad behavior, either, because we don't want to face the possibility that we are defective or inferior.

We will take credit for everything wonderful that we do, and we will give our children credit for everything wonderful they do, but whenever we or our children misbehave, we find somebody, or some intangible concept, to blame.

Although the environment has an effect on us, everybody - including children - are responsible for their behavior. If an honest, well behaved person starts listing to rock 'n roll music, and if during the following months he becomes increasingly rebellious, dishonest, and angry, it is not because the music has transformed him into a monster. This is especially true if the person is a fully grown adult. Music can stimulate emotions, including destructive emotions such as anger and resentment, and the lyrics can give us ideas, including destructive ideas, but music cannot control our behavior or rewire our intellectual unit. All of us experience various types of emotional stimulation throughout the day, but how we react to those emotional feelings depends upon our brain circuitry.

Likewise, if a person smokes marijuana, and then tries other drugs, eventually becoming addicted to heroin, it is not because marijuana has the magic ability to cause people to become interested in heroin. It is instead because his mind made the decision to experiment with other drugs. There are a lot of possible reasons as to why a person would make such a decision. For example, perhaps he enjoyed the marijuana and decided to experiment with other drugs, or perhaps marijuana did not relieve whatever misery he was suffering from and so he decided to experiment with other drugs, or perhaps his experience with marijuana showed him that society had lied about its effects and dangers, and so he disregarded their warnings about the other drugs and decided to experiment with some of them.

The environment determines the information in our memories, and that has a tremendous effect over our attitudes and opinions, and the environment also stimulates our emotions, but the environment has no effect on what our intellect chooses to do. Our brain has some ability to change something about itself so that it can memorize information and learn both mental and physical skills, but our brain can change only to the extent that it was designed to change. The environment cannot transform a monkey into a human, or a dog into a cat, or a man into a woman. The environment can affect us only to the extent that our brain has been designed to be affected by it. A song can stimulate our emotions and give us ideas, but it cannot cause us to behave in a manner that we don't want to behave.

Television programs are much more significant than songs because they can influence our views of life, marriage, and jobs, but television programs cannot cause us to behave in a manner that we don't want to. If a person watches a news report about Jerry Sandusky and then rapes a young boy, or if he watches a movie about Bonnie and Clyde and then robs a bank, it is because he wanted to do so. Don't blame the news report or the movie.

I don't think we should create movies that glorify bank robbers, but those movies do not transform honest people into bank robbers. The movies promote and encourage criminal behavior, but it is up to each person to decide whether he actually wants to mimic what he sees in the movie.

The Beavis & Butthead television show has a significant effect on children because the show is full of "toilet humor" and childish behavior, which titillates children's emotions. The young girl next door to me imitated the particular episode in which Butthead was asking for toilet paper to wipe his butt. Young children are titillated by jokes about butts and waste products. They don't imitate the sensible aspects of Beavis & Butthead; they imitate the aspects that titillate them, which is the toilet humor. To rephrase that, the Beavis & Butthead television show did not cause the young girl to make remarks about the toilet paper. Rather, she was titillated by that particular aspect of the television show, and her mind decided to imitate it because she thought it was amusing.

These concepts also apply to pornography. There are lots of different types of photos that we regard as "pornography". If we were to show a variety of pornography to men, we would find that most men become titillated by certain sex acts with women, and a small minority of men become titillated by homosexual sex. Each of us has some section of our brain that could be described as "sexual emotions", and those emotions are titillated by certain environmental stimuli. All humans have the same emotions, but there are subtle differences between us in regards to what we are titillated by, and to what extent. However, pornography only titillates our emotions; it does not cause us to behave in any certain manner. If you rape a young boy after looking at homosexual pornography, it is because the intellectual unit of your brain made the decision to rape that boy. Your emotions did not make you do it, and neither did the pornography.

When Dan Avery discovered that his 24-year-old son was in the hospital as a result of using a dangerous drug that he purchased illegally at a retail store that sold items for smoking marijuana, he became angry at the retail store clerk who sold the drug. He traveled to the store to confront the man who sold the drug, and to destroy some of the glass cases and merchandise in the store.

If Dan Avery's son was only five years old, then he would be justified in blaming the retail store clerks for selling the drug, but his son was 24 years old, which is older than some retail store clerks. Avery's son made a decision to travel to that store and purchase that drug. The retail store is not to blame. And why did he want that drug? I think it is because he inherited some of his father's low-quality mental characteristics. For example, Dan Avery spent 2½ years in jail for burglary when he was a young adult, so we ought to expect the son of a burglar to have a low quality mind.

There are some retail businesses that sell homosexual pornography, and some of the clerks that work in those stores may also be illegally selling child pornography. Assume that you have a 24-year-old son. Now imagine that your son purchased some illegal child pornography from one of those stores, and then he became sexually excited, and then he raped a young boy. Would you travel to the retail store to confront the sales clerk who sold him that pornography? Would you destroy their glass cases and magazines? Or would you wonder if there is something wrong with your son's brain?

Pornography titillates us, and as a result, we should put restrictions on where it is acceptable, what type is acceptable, and when it is acceptable. However, pornography cannot cause you to to behave in a manner that you don't want to.

We need to put restrictions on pornography, but those restrictions should be based on intelligent reasons, not on religion or emotions. For example, we could justify prohibiting teenagers from having access to pornography to on the grounds that it will cause the teenagers unnecessary frustration, but we should not prohibit pornography on the grounds that it will cause the teenagers to rape one another or allow the devil to enter their mind.

Likewise, we could demand that some song lyrics be edited to eliminate the promotion of violence or psychotic behavior on the grounds that nobody benefits by having those particular thoughts stimulated in their mind, but we should not justify restrictions on lyrics on the grounds that some songs are the "devil's music", or that some lyrics will cause people to become lunatics or drug users.

There are a lot of things in this universe that stimulate our emotions, and we should pass judgment on which of those stimulations we want in our life, and which we should prohibit or restrict. In all cases, we should look for intelligent reasoning to justify our policies rather than base these policies on religion or emotional feelings. For some more examples:

• Television programs frequently create the impression that people who are wealthy are happier than the rest of us, and this stimulates our craving for material items, pampering, fame, and special treatment. I don't think it is beneficial to continuously stimulate the thought that material wealth will make us happier.

• Sugar titillates our emotions, and although many adults can handle it, we should regulate a child's access to it.

• Children are titillated by toilet humor, but I don't think we should be stimulating those particular feelings in children. I don't see how they benefit from it, or how the adults benefit. I think we should stimulate more pleasant thoughts in the children.

• Women have strong cravings for babies, and businesses are exploiting this by breeding dogs to imitate babies, but I don't think women are benefiting from the baby-like dogs. I think it would be better to experiment with activities that would be more useful for both the individual women and society.

The only environmental factors that can truly cause us to behave in a manner that is unnatural for us are certain drugs. Alcohol, LSD, and certain other drugs can truly interfere with the way our brain functions, and that in turn can cause us to think thoughts that we would otherwise never think, and do things that we would otherwise never do. Although those drugs can change our behavior, they cannot make us use them. We must choose to use them, and in a quantity that alters our behavior. Furthermore, drugs can affect us only to a certain extent. For example, LSD cannot transform a man into a woman, or a human into a monkey. Our behavior is limited by our mental circuitry, even under the influence of the most extreme of the mind altering drugs.

To summarize this section, every society has to pass judgment on what type of behavior, artwork, music, and clothing is within their acceptable limit. This is not because some types of music or art is evil and will ruin people. Rather, is to prevent humans from becoming incompatible with one another, and to provide adults, and especially children, with a more pleasant, less frustrating environment. Diversity can be enjoyable, but we have to pass judgment on when people have become so different from one another that we are creating trouble for ourselves. We cannot follow the philosophy of letting every person do as they please. We are not creations of a loving God. We are random gatherings of genetic material, and we will diverge into incompatible creatures and freaks if we don't do something to control our diversity.

The city government would deal with the production and distribution of utilities, such as electricity, water, steam, compressed air, and natural gas. There may not be any city that distributes compressed air, but this department would have the authority to implement such an option. For example, they might create a "factory complex" so that similar factories can be near one another, such as those that use compressed air. The government could then provide pipes of compressed air the factories. Each factory would need only a few empty tanks to serve as buffers for the compressed air. Although this requires us to run high-pressure pipes to the factories, that burden may be offset by the advantages. One advantage is that it allows the city to replace a lot of noisy, inefficient air compressors with a smaller number of larger, quieter, and more efficient compressors. Another advantage is that having fewer, but larger, compressors makes it easier to to recycle the waste heat from the compressors.

It would also be possible to provide a group of businesses with pipes of cold water for air-conditioning or refrigeration. As with the distribution of compressed air, this allows a city to replace smaller, noisier, inefficient units with larger, more efficient, and quieter units, and it makes it easier to recycle their waste heat. This concept is especially important for apartment buildings. It is ridiculous to provide each apartment with one or more air conditioning units that stick out of the windows.

If everybody in a city can control their consumption of ethyl alcohol, then a city could pump cold alcohol to factories for air-conditioning, refrigeration, and freezing. Although high concentrations of ethyl alcohol are flammable and dangerous, there might be some situations in which it is better than ammonia, isopropyl alcohol, and other options.

In a free enterprise system, factories are independent businesses, and they are scattered about haphazardly, and there is no way to coordinate them, but when the government is in control of the economy, we have a lot of options available to us, such as designing them to more efficiently use their waste heat. For example, imagine if the building in the image below is a part of a large factory complex. It would be similar to a shopping mall, except that it would consist of factories. The government would need only one large air compressor and one large refrigeration unit for all of the factories within this complex. It would be easy to use the waste heat from those units to warm the buildings during the winter, or to warm the water that cascades from the fountain into the pool so that the employees have a warm swimming pool for recreation at lunch. Water from the pool, or from the lake, could be used for cooling the equipment in the factory.

Many cities have fountains or ponds, but only a few of the ponds are intended for people to use for exercise and recreation. If we put our transportation system underground, and if we put apartments, offices, and factories in large clusters, then there will be lots of surface area available for parks, bicycle paths, ponds, and gardens. Why not design some of those ponds for exercise and recreation, and design others for warming or cooling the buildings, plazas, and pathways?

The image below shows a proposal for an Army residential complex in Iran. We currently build ponds only for their visual image, and - as in the image below - bicycle riders often share the same path as pedestrians. We ought to consider designing separate paths for bicycles, and designing ponds for recreation. If the buildings in the image below were offices or factories, and if we provided a longer lunch to the employees, then the employees would have time to go swimming, bicycle riding, kayaking, walking, or jogging. Why not use some of the ponds rather than just look at them?

We would not want children to swim in the decorative ponds, but responsible adults will not ruin a pond by swimming in it during their lunch break, or rowing tiny boats or kayaks. If a lot of the adults enjoy playing in the mud, then the city could provide special ponds for them, such as Redneck Resort in Tennessee. The adults who are too obnoxious, irresponsible, and inconsiderate to properly use the bicycle paths, ponds, and escalators should be removed from society.

Our options are limited only by our imagination. For example, the city could put factories that produce carbon dioxide near some greenhouses so that their exhaust can go into the greenhouses. This assumes that plants grow faster with additional carbon dioxide. Or maybe the carbon dioxide could be used to kill some of the insects in the greenhouses.

Communication

The Communication Department of the city government would design, produce, and maintain the telephone network, Internet, radio, television, and the city's computers. They will have tremendous options available to them. For example, instead of providing people with desktop or laptop computers, they could provide everybody with smaller desktop and laptop terminals that connect to the city's computers. This would provide us with higher speed processors and virtually unlimited amounts of memory, storage space, software, and data. Our terminals would not need hard disks, DVD drives, or CD-ROMs. We would never have to install software, either. The city computers would have lots of software, and we would use whatever we pleased.

Of course, it must be noted that this particular option requires creating a government of truly honest people so that we can trust them with our computer data, and it requires a law enforcement agency that is capable of standing up to corruption in the government.

The Communication Department would also allocate radio frequencies. In a free enterprise system, there are so many hundreds of businesses broadcasting radio and television shows that we are running out of frequencies, but it would be better to design a city to send television signals through cables. In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit by sending television through both cables and radio, but when we are in control of the economy, it is idiotic to provide both methods.

The Communication Department would also make decisions about how many radio stations the city will operate, and what those radio stations will broadcast. In a free enterprise system, there is so much advertising money available that businesses can afford operate a radio station that is broadcasting virtually the same music as several other stations in the city, but when the government is in control of the economy, every radio station has to justify its existence by showing that provides a benefit to society that is worth the burden that it imposes. It is conceivable that a Communication Department decides that radio stations are not worth the burden, in which case the people would be told that if they want to listen to music or audio shows, they must download whatever they want to an MP3 player. By eliminating copyrights on music and other entertainment, everybody would be free to listen to whatever they please.

The Communication Department would maintain the city's telephone network, but the world government would be involved with telephone design and production because it would be best for every city to use compatible telephones and communication equipment. This would allow cell phones to work everywhere, and the telephone equipment would be mass-produced for the entire world.

We should also design the new cities specifically for modern telephone systems. This will allow us to place cell phone towers in appropriate locations to reduce the power requirements of both the phones and the towers, and to increase audio quality. It is also possible that we don't need to bother with a separate telephone network. Now that we have the technology to put Internet, telephone, and television signals on one cable, we may not need a separate telephone network. The cell phone towers could also offer positioning signals that are more accurate than the GPS signals from satellites. It could provide extremely accurate three-dimensional positioning data for robots, drones, animals, and equipment.

In a free enterprise system, the cell phone companies want to provide coverage everywhere, but is there any sensible reason to provide cell phone coverage outside of the city? People might enjoy that feature, but we should not do what people enjoy. We should do what makes the most sense for society. Is the benefit to having cell phone coverage outside of a city worth the burden of providing that service? I don't think so. The people who go outside of the city for hiking, kayaking, camping, or other recreational purposes do not need chat on a cell phone. Those people would only need a radio transmitter in case of an emergency. They would not need the radio for chatting.

If we don't provide cell phone coverage outside of the city, then every train station outside of the city could have a supply of radio transmitters that people pick up as they go out of the city, and drop off as they come into the city. These train stations could also have boxes for people to drop off their cell phones, shoes, books, delicate clothing, purses, or whatever else they did not want to carry with them. If the city can keep its crime levels to extremely low levels, nobody would work at these locations, and none of the boxes would need doors or locks.

As I mentioned at the end of Part 7, I don't expect many women to be interested in becoming government officials, or qualifying for the positions, but I think they should play an active role in society, primarily the social activities. I think we should create a division of the government that is specifically set aside for women. The Women's Issues department would be open to all women, but not to men.

Unlike the other government agencies, the Women's Issues department would not have any direct authority over anybody. They would not have any authority over factories, schools, hospitals, farms, or businesses. Furthermore, none of the women who work for this agency, other than the top leaders, would have to make any commitments. They would participate only when they want to. From the point of view of the women, it would be like a casual social club. The purpose of the division is to make it easy for the women to get together for meetings so that they can:
1) Play a role in the culture of the city, such as designing social, courtship, recreational, and entertainment activities for children, women, couples, retired people, and families, as well as getting involved with the decorations and art of the city.
2) Develop their complaints and suggestions into proposals that they pass on to the other government officials.

Since there are too many women in a city for all of them to get together in one meeting, some of the women would have to be willing to organize meetings. They would discuss whatever they were interested in, and pass their ideas to the top officials.

Since the women would only discuss their complaints and develop proposals, all they need to accomplish their work is some rooms for them to hold meetings. Every city has lots of banquet rooms, auditoriums, theaters, and conference rooms, and most of the time they are vacant, but the free enterprise system does not support the concept of sharing buildings. In most cities, only a few churches and public libraries offer free use of their meeting rooms. However, when the government is in control of the economy, then the government owns all of the buildings, not the businesses, and that allows all of the buildings to be shared. This allows the women to schedule meetings at any vacant room that is large enough for that particular meeting.

I mentioned in Part 8 that many of the activities in the city could be shut down while people are working. The restaurants, for example, would be open briefly for breakfast and lunch, but most of the day they would be closed. This would allow the banquet rooms to be available for the women. Likewise, the auditoriums would not be putting on shows while people are working. Therefore, the auditoriums will frequently be available during the day for the women to use for meetings.

Furthermore, the conference rooms in office buildings would also be available for the women. The city owns all of the buildings, and the businesses merely work in the buildings. The city would maintain a publicly accessible database that keeps information about vacant office rooms, warehouses, conference rooms, auditoriums, and banquet rooms. The city officials want the buildings to get as much use as possible rather than letting them sit vacant. Therefore, if a business is not using a conference room during a particular morning, or if a restaurant has a banquet room available during one particular afternoon, or if an auditorium is empty during one particular day, then the women would be able to use any of those rooms for their meetings.

If the women in a city are responsible, they could share meeting rooms with both government agencies and businesses.

I will once again remind you that this level of sharing would be possible only if society consists of truly responsible and considerate people. If you work at an IBM office, for example, imagine different groups of women coming in on a regular basis to use your conference room when you were not using it. Or, if you work at a restaurant, imagine groups of women coming in on a regular basis to have meetings in your banquet room when it is vacant. This type of sharing would not be practical with women who leave trash on the floor, lipstick on the furniture, or a mess in the bathrooms. It would also be impractical if the women wanted to bring their pet dogs or children to the meetings. If the women wanted to bring dogs or children to a meeting, they would need the sense of responsibility to arrange the meeting where dogs and children are acceptable, such as at a city park.

The Women's Issues department would not need a budget because they would not need their own buildings, supplies, or equipment. They would not need to worry about finances, accounting, or salaries. All they need to do is schedule meetings, discuss ideas, and produce electronic documents.

It is conceivable that the women's division would not need their own computers. If we can create a government that is so honest that we can trust them with computer data, then most people would not need a standalone computer. Instead, we would have terminals that connect to the city's computers. This would allow the Women's Issues department to keep all of their data on the city's computers. They would have to put restrictions on which of the women have permission to edit the data, but all of the women would be able to access the data at any location in the city.

The women's division would need some type of hierarchy, and so they would have to vote among themselves for leaders, but their leaders wouldn't have any authority over any of the women, so the women wouldn't have to worry about abusive leaders. Their division wouldn't have a budget, so the women wouldn't have to be concerned about embezzlement or other financial problems, either.

The lower-level leaders would be responsible for organizing and arranging meetings, and the top leaders would be responsible for looking over the ideas that have been created by the women and passing judgment on which ideas to reject and which to develop into formal proposals that they give to the other government officials.

This women's division may seem silly or even insulting, but it is a more advanced, more sensible version of what women have been doing for centuries. Specifically, women have been getting together on a regular basis to discuss issues, arrange for social events, and give their ideas and complaints to the men. For example, during the 1880s, a group of women with wealthy husbands got together in their leisure time and decided that Santa Barbara needed a hospital, and so they presented their proposals for the Cottage Hospital to people in the city. The women did not build the hospital. Instead, they convinced the men that the city needed a hospital. A few years later some other wealthy women created the Santa Barbara Women's Club. As with the Cottage Hospital, the women came up with the idea, but men did the construction of the buildings.

By providing the women with their own government division, it makes it much easier for the women to get together, develop their ideas into proposals, and pass suggestions and complaints to the other government divisions. Furthermore, and more importantly, by having a special division of the government just for women, a woman's influence in society will depend upon her talent rather than her wealth.

The Cottage Hospital and the Women's Club were created by women with wealthy husbands. In America, the wealthy people have much more influence than the rest of us. By creating a division of the government for women, every woman has the opportunity to get involved in society. When they have their own government division, a woman's influence has nothing to do with her husband, father, or wealth. Her influence will depend entirely upon her ability to create proposals that other people are impressed by.

Unlike other government divisions, none of the women would have to commit to any particular schedule or duties. They would attend meetings only when they were in the mood, and only for the issues that interested them. Some women might take a very active role and participate in lots of meetings, and other women might go to a meeting only once a year.

To understand how this division would work, imagine if a group of women want to arrange a social event, recreational activity, or music concert. Or perhaps they want to complain about some government official, or some government policy. They would begin by discussing their ideas at one or more meetings. Their goal would be to develop their ideas into one or more proposals that they present to their top officials. Those top officials would pass judgment on which proposals need to be altered or rejected, and those that are accepted would be submitted to the appropriate government division that is responsible for dealing with that particular type of project. Proposals for social activities would be sent to the Social Technology department (described later in this document), and complaints about government officials and policies would be sent to the Quality Control department (also described later).

Unlike the Women's Issues division, the Social Technology department would be like other government agencies; namely, dominated by men who have to qualify for government positions and who are under scrutiny. That group of men would handle the task of arranging for the labor and resources to carry out the women's suggestions. The women would not have to be concerned about labor or resources. They simply develop the ideas. For example, if the women decided to have a particular musical concert on a Saturday afternoon, they would send their proposal to the Social Technology department, and that department would arrange for the auditorium, musicians, and whatever else is needed. The women could offer to assist the Social Technology department with the musical concert, but the women would not be required to participate in arranging it.

The Social Technology department would try give the women whatever they asked for. This department will be described in more detail later in this document. For now consider the department to be a government agency that is responsible for the city's culture. They would have the authority to arrange for the labor and resources to support social events, and they would maintain a website that shows the upcoming events. They would also offer email notifications of events. This would allow people to be notified of certain events so that they could either participate in the arrangement of the event, or participate in the event itself. For example, the people who register for notifications of musical events would get messages every time a musical event was planned, and that would allow them to decide if they want to assist in the arrangement of the event, or become one of the musicians.

By not giving the women's division any authority, the women don't have to worry about finding leaders who can supervise teams of people, or who need any particular technical skills. Their leaders only need to be capable of organizing meetings and developing intelligent proposals. The other government agencies would be told to give the women whatever they asked for, unless they had a valid reason to reject their proposal, in which case they would discuss their complaints with the women and work out some type of compromise.

The Women's Issues division would be able to use a very simple hierarchy because all they do is have discussions. It would essentially be only three levels of the hierarchy. At the bottom would be the individual women, and above them would be the "event organizers", and at the top would the three officials. It is conceivable that the women get so thoroughly involved with society that they create more proposals than the top three officials can handle, in which case they would need another level in their hierarchy.

The "event organizers" would create, arrange, and supervise the "events". In some cases, the events would be simple meetings in a conference room, but some women might want more entertaining or complicated events, such as a group of women who are trying to develop a new recreational activity, and who get together at a park to experiment with the activity. Some of the events might be a combination of a meeting and a lunch. It makes no difference what the event is. The women are not under any obligation to do anything in particular. If all they want to do is have a meeting, then they would arrange for a meeting, but if they want to mix the discussion with a lunch or a recreational activity, they can do so. It would be similar to what women do right now, which is get together to talk, except that they would be doing so for the purpose of how they would like to influence society rather than to entertain themselves.

Any woman could become an event organizer, even if she only wanted to try it once. None of the women would have to make commitments to the job. It makes no difference how many events a woman organizes. Some women might be willing to organize one event per year, and some might want to do it on a weekly basis. The Women's Issues division is simply a method to help the women influence society, so they only need to organize events when they want to do something. They would not have to create events according to a schedule. They would create events only when they had something to complain about, or some suggestions for society, or when they wanted to discuss some issue.

A woman would become an event organizer by herself. She would not need to get permission from anybody. She would first need a purpose for her event, such as to create a social activity, or to complain about a government policy, and then she would pick a date, place, and time for her event. If all she wanted to do was have a discussion, she would pick an available conference room or meeting room from the government's list of available rooms, and if she wanted to combine it with a lunch or dinner, then she would schedule it at a restaurant or picnic area. She would then put her event on the website where all of their events are listed. If other women came to her event, then she would supervise the discussion and try to develop her proposal, possibly having additional discussions at a later date. When she had a proposal that she felt was worthy of passing on to the other government officials, she would send it to the top officials of the Women's Issues department. If she wanted additional help with her proposal, she might have more meetings, or talk with some of the other event organizers to get their assistance.

The women would participate in an event only if they were in the mood. The Women's Issues department would have a website that would announce which woman was having an event, and when, and for what purpose. The women would be able to look through the events that are coming up, and they would decide if they want to go to an event based on the woman who was giving it, and its purpose. There would be no requirement that any woman attend an event. Some women might want to attend events on a regular basis, and some might want to do it only once a year merely to observe what is going on.

At the top of the hierarchy I would suggest three directors. They would look through the proposals and make decisions on which ones to authorize for sending to the government agencies that will implement it, and which should be rejected, and which should be sent back for modification or clarification. By having three directors, they would never have a tie when they voted on proposals. As with other government agencies, the three top officials would have to post responses when they reject a proposal so that the other women can see which proposals were rejected, and why.

It is conceivable that the top three officials receive only a few sensible proposals each month, in which case they would authorize every proposal that they receive, but it is more likely that they will occasionally receive some that they consider idiotic, detrimental to society, unrealistic, or too expensive in terms of resources or labor. They are also likely to receive some nearly identical proposals from different women, and which case they would reject all that one of them, or they would tell the women to combine the best features of their proposals into one proposal.

The top officials would not want to be "nice" to the women by authorizing all proposals they receive because if they sent a proposal to another government agency for implementation, and the other government agency rejects it as stupid or absurdly expensive, then whichever women authorized it will have that listed as a failure. The women want the proposals that they authorize to be accepted by the other government agencies so that they don't look like idiots and have to listen to complaints that they are incompetent.

Although the top three officials wouldn't have any authority over the women, they would be able to provide guidance and inspiration. The women would compare their top three officials according to their ability to provide guidance, and according to the proposals that they are reject and approve. The women would be expected to regularly pass judgment on which of their three leaders should be replaced so that some other woman has the opportunity to be a leader. One method that they could use for selecting a replacement would be to schedule meetings in which the women discuss the candidates, and only the women who participate in at least one of those meetings would be allowed to vote.

When we allow voting to be secretive, then we need equipment, security procedures, and security people to conduct the voting, and there are lots of opportunities for criminals to cheat the process. I suggest that people exert the self-control necessary to vote without secrecy. In such a case, voting becomes a simple procedure that can be done with a computer or cell phone. In the case of women, every eligible women would be listed in the voter's database, and the software would allow each woman to vote one time, and they could even be allowed to edit their vote up to the deadline. Everybody would be able to see the results. There would be no way to cheat.

Social Technology

The Social Technology department would be responsible for everything that we would describe as "culture". Since no government has yet been involved with social technology, the people in this department will not be able to look at history to get ideas on what to do. They will have to use their imagination. They will truly be on a journey into the unknown.

Giving the government control over culture provides us with phenomenal options. For example, this department can determine whether we have any holidays, and if so, on which days, and what the holidays are for. They can also decide if we will follow the same holidays every year, or if the holidays change once in a while. Furthermore, holidays don't have to be on specific days. We can design holidays that "float" according to the weather.

To understand the concept of a floating holiday, imagine that the city decides to eliminate Christmas and replace it with a floating winter festival that is somewhere near the end of December. The exact day will depend upon the weather. If the holiday depends upon snow, then during the final week or two of December the city officials would begin watching the weather predictions for a pleasant, snowy day. If one evening they find a prediction for appropriate weather on the next day, then the city would update its website to show that the winter holiday has now been scheduled for the next day. As weather forecasts become more accurate, they would be able to schedule the floating holidays farther in advance.

America already has some floating holidays, such as Thanksgiving, which floats to the fourth Thursday of November, and we have other holidays which float to a Monday, but instead of having holidays float to a calendar date, it would be more sensible to let them float according to the weather. In such a case, a holiday would be on a particular Monday, unless the weather was inappropriate, and which case it would be rescheduled for Friday, or the following Monday, and so on.

The city officials could design a notification system that people could subscribe to. Everybody would designate an email address and/or phone that they want messages to go to, and everybody would receive a message from the Social Technology department that the weather is now appropriate for the floating winter holiday, and rather than go to their job, they are invited to participate in the holiday celebration.

The advantage of scheduling holidays according to the weather should be obvious. In the world today, we are restricting ourselves to holidays that fit the calendar, and this can result in us working on days when the weather is wonderful, and having a holiday when the weather is inappropriate. The businesses in a free enterprise system would probably resist holidays that float according to the weather because they would be a scheduling burden to the management, but we should change our philosophy towards life from doing what is best for businesses, to doing what is best for humans.

Private social events, such as weddings and birthday parties, could also float according to the weather. Rather than pick a particular day or evening for the party, we could give an approximate date and pick a particular type of weather. People would be notified when the date was finalized.

The Social Technology department would have two divisions

Almost everything an organization does does can be described as consisting of three phases: 1) The design phase, which is when people are thinking, discussing, and researching in order to develop a proposal; 2) the production phase, which is when some labor and resources are allocated to implement the proposal; and 3), the review phase, which is when some people analyze the results of their work to determine if they need to make any changes or improvements to it.

In some government agencies, the three phases can be accomplished by the same group of people, but for the Social Technology department, it might be best to separate the people involved with the production from the people doing the design and the review. The reason is because the government would encourage everybody - including pregnant women and elderly people - to participate in the design and review of social activities, but some of those people would not have the physical ability, experience, and/or knowledge to implement their proposals. For example, a lot of people have the ability to design or review a plaza or a footbridge, but they do not necessarily have the time, ability, or experience to create such items. As a result, I would separate Social Technology agency into two primary divisions:

1) Design and Review

2) Production

This purpose of the Social Technology department is to encourage people to look for ways to improve life for all of society. The people in the Design department wouldn't follow any traditions or rules. Instead, they would experiment with different holidays, sports, recreational activities, and other affairs. They would not be concerned with making profit, pleasing religious groups, or even please the majority of people. Rather, they would be experimenting with culture in order to make life more enjoyable for the entire city. They would not necessarily give us what we want. Rather, they would try to create the overall best life for all of us.

The Design division would not have many, if any, full-time officials. I think it would be best if most of the officials in this department were working on a part-time and temporary basis. Unlike some government agencies, which require specific technical skills or experience, the officials in the Design department are simply experimenting with culture, and it is not yet possible for us to say that some people are more qualified to do this type of job. Therefore, it would be better to encourage a lot of people to participate in this department, even if it's as seldom as one evening each year, so that we get a lot of variety, and to reduce the possibility that a small group dominates our culture.

When we are looking for a plumber, mechanic, or dentist, we look for specific skills, but how do we determine who should be an official of the Social Technology, Design department? What do we look for? How can we say who is better with the design of social technology?

The officials in the design department would spend their time discussing and creating proposals to experiment with. The only way we can pass judgment on which of them is doing an appropriate job is to prevent them from having secrecy so that we can see what their decisions are, and then we have to pass judgment on whether we approve of their decisions. We have to pass judgment on whether we like the way their suggestions for city artwork, recreational activities, and holiday celebrations.

If it seems bizarre to pass judgment on somebody's tastes in culture, consider that businesses are doing this right now to a certain extent. There are people in some businesses who arrange for anniversary parties, Christmas parties, artwork, decorations, holiday celebrations, furniture, flower arrangements, the pattern of the carpeting, the type of vegetation that is in the front of the building, and other "cultural aspects" of the business. Those particular people could be described as officials of the "Business Culture Department". It should be noted that many of those "cultural officials" have full-time jobs doing something else, and they get involved with the business culture department only occasionally, such as when carpeting needs to be replaced, or somebody has an idea to change the Christmas party. It should also be noted that the executives and employees of the business regularly pass judgment on whether they like their tastes in business culture, and if enough people complain about them, they will be told that they can no longer influence the business culture.

If the employees and executives of a business are so apathetic that they never complain about the officials in the "Business Culture Department", then those officials will be able to decorate the building in any manner they please, and they will have whatever style of vegetation in front of the building that they please, and they will create whatever type of Christmas party they please. If those officials are as psychotic as the leaders of communist nations, then the employees would be told to put photos of the officials on their wall and refer to them as "Dear Leader", and they would authorize giant statues of themselves for the garden in front of the building, and they would authorize their office to be furnished with absurdly expensive, goldplated items. The employees and executives of a business should participate in their business culture.

These concepts apply to an entire city. The Social Technology department would experiment with culture, and it is the responsibility of the citizens to occasionally take a look at what those officials are doing and pass judgment on whether they approve of their decisions. This requires that we prevent the government officials from operating in secrecy so that we can see which proposals they approve of, and which they reject, and why they made their decisions.

The Design department wants lots of participation

It is important for the citizens to get involved with their city's culture. Since the Design department would be responsible for developing culture, the citizens need to get involved with that department. There are different ways to allow the citizens to participate in the design of their culture, such as allowing them to participate in the discussions that the Design department officials are having, allowing citizens to submit proposals to the department, and allowing citizens to work part-time and temporarily in the department.

By comparison, the Production department does not develop culture, so it is not important for citizens to participate in this department. The people in this department are analogous to a group of construction workers, factory workers, and maintenance workers. They must have specific skills and talents. As a result, it is not practical to encourage citizens to participate with this department. Only the people who have certain specific skills and talents should participate with this department. However, there will be some tasks that do not require any specific skills, and in those cases the Production department would have the option of encouraging citizens to participate in order to reduce the burden on themselves. For example, a lot of people would be able to participate in the construction or placement of decorations for a city festival.

To summarize the differences between these two departments in regards to participation of citizens, the Design department encourages participation in order to get more people involved with the culture of the city, and the Production department encourages participation simply to reduce the burden of their own employees.

You might wonder why somebody would want to spend some of his leisure time helping the Production department. Why would somebody choose to work when he has the option to lounge? As I have pointed out in other files, if we create a city in which we enjoy the people we live with, it would feel as if we are living in a big family, and in that type of environment, we will sometimes want to get out in the city with our friends and neighbors and do something as a group that we all benefit from.

The Production department would provide guidance
Since the leaders of the Production department have to organize and supervise teams of people, allocate resources, and create things, they need the ability to analyze proposals so that they can estimate the labor and resources each project needs, which in turn allows them to pass judgment on whether the proposals are realistic. Their job is to implement proposals, but they are not submissive slaves. They should play a role in checks and balances. It is likely that they will occasionally receive proposals from people who have little or no understanding of manufacturing, construction, ceramics, gardening, and other issues. They need to provide some feedback to those groups on when they are asking for too much, or when they should ask for something more complex. When people don't understand manufacturing or construction, they can easily make mistakes and assume something is difficult when it is actually easy, and assuming something is easy when it is actually difficult. Therefore, the officials in this department will sometimes have to provide guidance and advice to the people who are providing them with proposals.

For example, somebody might give them a proposal to build a decorative footbridge so that they can walk over a creek, and the Production department might point out to them that creating all of the CNC programs and fixtures to cut the wood, rocks, and other items that they are asking for is going to take so much time that it would be silly to make just one, small bridge. The Production department might reject the proposal and tell the people to consider whether they can find locations for at least 10 more bridges so that they can create the bridges in a more efficient manner. The design team might also be told to provide subtle artistic differences between the bridges so that they are not identical copies of one another.

If you wonder why people in the Production department would consider rejecting a simple proposal and asking for a more difficult, more complex job, which adds a burden on them, put yourself in their situation. They are not doing their job for money. Their purpose for going to work each day is to implement the proposals that come from the Design department and the Women's Issues department, and their goal is to improve life for everybody in the city. When they get a proposal, they will not consider it to be a profit opportunity or as a successful sale. They see it as a potential to improve life for everybody in the city. They will therefore wonder how their efforts are going to benefit other people. When they get a proposal for a project, they will have to analyze the labor and resources involved, and they may have to put a lot of time and effort simply into the preparation for the job. If they like the proposal, they they might prefer to find a way to expand the project. This will put a burden on them, but they and everybody else in the city will benefit. Their incentive is to provide advice and guidance to improve the projects so that everybody benefits from their efforts. They want to help the design teams rather than profit from them.

In a free enterprise system, people do whatever makes profit, even if the job is worthless or detrimental. For example, the people who create advertisements to manipulate children are doing something that is detrimental. When we take control of our economy, we can pass judgment on which jobs are truly beneficial. We can eliminate the jobs that are detrimental or only mildly useful, and this will increase the number of people who have job satisfaction. We will focus on the value of a job rather than its salary. More people will want to do a good job because they will realize that people are benefiting from their work. There will be fewer "circus seals" who do their job only to get a paycheck. In a free enterprise system, people work for money, but when we control the economy, we work for society.

The citizens must get involved with government

The top officials in the Social Technology department will have tremendous influence over the city's culture. They will receive proposals from citizens and other government officials for sports, festivals, city decorations, concerts, and other cultural issues, and they will also be able to create their own proposals. How are they going to make a decision on which proposal to authorize and which to reject? Look around the world right now and notice how different people are in regards to activities. For some examples, some people want skateboard parks; some "Goths" want graveyards to play in; some people want onion eating contests; and some people in Venice want a gondola race through the city canals while the people are dressed in historic costumes.

It might seem nice to give everybody what they want, but that is not possible. The leaders of this department will have to pass judgment on whether a proposal should be accepted, rejected, or modified. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove that one proposal is more sensible than another. Every social activity will seem idiotic to the people who do not enjoy it. Since the officials are going to have their own personal bias, most of the citizens (other than those who have been classified as unfit to influence society), should approve of their bias. We need to ensure that the people in the city are reasonably compatible with one another, and we must observe the leaders of the Social Technology department and pass judgment on whether we like their decisions.

People should not be passive observers who whine about government officials. We should encourage citizens to observe the issues that the Social Technology department is dealing with, and get involved with the agency on a temporary and part-time basis whenever the department is dealing with issues that are of interest to them so that they can participate in the discussions. When lots of people get involved in the discussions, we not only end up with a greater variety of ideas, but we also get to observe other people's leadership skills, which can help us figure out who we want to put into the top positions.

As you read this document, you might find yourself wondering, "How are people going to find the time to participate with so many government agencies on a part-time basis?" To answer that question, just look at what people are doing right now in their leisure time. Some people are spending hours a day on collections of stamps or glass bottles, and others spend hours a day watching television, getting drunk, playing with their dog, or painting their fingernails. There are not many people who couldn't spend a few hours a month getting involved with society. Most people's leisure time activities are pointless, and it would be better for them and everybody else if they got together once in a while with other people and became an active participant in influencing television shows, recreational activities, educational materials, holiday celebrations, or other cultural issues.

Furthermore, consider that all of us will have more leisure time if we switch to a society that provides us with free food and other necessities because we will not have to waste time shopping for food, paying bills, fixing meals, figuring out which items to purchase, or cleaning up the kitchen.

If we also switch to living in apartments, then we don't have to waste any time with yard work or home repair, and if we don't have private automobiles, then we don't have to have to waste time maintaining automobiles. If we also reduce crime to extremely low levels, we won't have to provide security for our children or waste our time on security-related issues. If we are willing to live in dense apartment complexes that are connected with high-speed trains, we will waste less of our time traveling to and from our jobs.

The more efficient our society becomes, the more leisure time will have, and that makes it easier for us to spend some of that leisure time getting involved with society. Many of us who have no desire to work with society today would enjoy doing so if we were living in a more pleasant society and enjoyed the people we lived with. For example, a person who likes to collect items might want to occasionally get involved with the Social Technology agency that is responsible for museums. He might want to participate in the Design division of that agency so that he could get involved with proposals for new museums and modifications to existing museums, or he might want to participate in the Production division so that he can participate in the work of creating and maintaining the museum displays. People who like to do arts and crafts might want to occasionally get involved with the Social Technology division to participate in proposals for artwork for the city, or to participate in the creation or maintenance of the artwork.

The idea of people volunteering to work with the city might seem strange, especially to Americans. Most Americans do not want to volunteer to do any work for their city because they don't feel an emotional connection to their city. Most people feel as if they are surrounded by strangers, weirdos, and criminals. We spend most of our evenings inside our home, or at a friend's home, rather than the city. Our cities are dangerous, especially at night, and there is not much for us to do in our cities because they are designed only for business activity. We consider our homes to be sanctuaries within a dangerous city. However, if we lived in a city that was attractive, free of crime, and full of free restaurants and activities, and if we enjoyed the people we were living with, the city would feel as if it was an extension of our home, and the residents would feel as if they were friends and family members rather than strangers or criminals. Who would want to sit at home every evening and weekend in that type of city? We would enjoy spending time in the city, and as a result, it would be fun to occasionally get together with other people and do something for the city.

Although the Social Technology department has to deal with issues that have no right or wrong, they will analyze proposals from the point of view of their value is to society. They will not judge an activity solely according to whether people enjoy it. They want people to enjoy the activities, but they also have to consider whether the activities are beneficial. It is very easy to design an activity that people like but which is destructive or wasteful. For a simple example, young children enjoy activities that allow them to throw food at one another. An activity should not be judged solely according to it's popularity. We have to control our emotions and take into consideration whether the activity is beneficial in the long run.

The Social Technology Department would indirectly dominate culture

The officials in the Social Technology department would analyze holidays, city festivals, birthday parties, weddings, and other activities. The officials would not be able to force anybody to do anything, but by passing judgment on what type of activities the city will support, they would indirectly dominate us.

For example, if they decide to completely eliminate Halloween, then the city would stop providing Halloween candy, Halloween masks, and other Halloween items, and therefore, if some people wanted to continue having Halloween, they would have to create their own Halloween supplies. This would make it impractical for people to continue the same style of Halloween that we have today. They could still have Halloween, but it would be a much simpler version.

For another example, if they decide to remove religion from the Christmas holiday, then there would be no production of religious products for the holiday. The officials might also decide to encourage people to develop variations of the Christmas songs that remove the references to Jesus and God. Songs about the Jesus, such as What Child Is This, could be changed to be a song about the birth of a generic child, thereby making it a song that every parent could relate to. When the city has a Christmas Festival, they would sing non-religious versions of the Christmas songs. The people who want religion in their Christmas would have to do so in the privacy of their home. They would not have the support of society.

This concept also applies to sports. If the Social Technology agency decides they are tired of supporting javelin throwing, then there will be no javelin production, or any support for children to practice the sport. The people who want to continue such an activity would have to create their own javelins, practice during their leisure time, and hold their own contests by themselves.

You might be concerned that this type of society would break down into different groups of people, each of whom is practicing their own versions of Halloween, Christmas, and sports, but in reality, anybody who tries to break away from society and follow their own culture would become a social misfit, and there would be tremendous pressure on them to conform. The end result is that the people in the Social Technology department would have tremendous control over the city's culture, but indirectly. The officials would not force anybody to do anything, but social pressure would force people to conform to the official city policies.

For another example, the government would be able to influence the behavior of the audience at social events, such as musical concerts and sports. The custom in America is for the audience to applaud very loudly and scream before, during, and after a performance. My personal preference is for the audience to keep quiet. I find it especially annoying when somebody behind me is applauding or screaming at a very high audio level.

In a free enterprise system, businesses pander to the audience, but when society is in control of the social activities, every city can set rules of etiquette for the audience. We already provide rules for the people who are giving performances, so why not the audience also? For example, many years ago the American football players were told to stop their "dances" in the end zone when they scored a touchdown. This rule was created because the players were doing increasingly elaborate dances, and if nobody had stopped this behavior, the dances would have evolved into even more time-consuming and elaborate performances, and they might eventually get to the point at which some of the players are are setting off fireworks during their touchdown performances.

The issue of football players doing increasingly elaborate dances brings up an interesting issue that I have mentioned before; namely, men have a craving to compete with one another for status, and if we mindlessly follow our emotions rather than think about what we are doing, we can easily get carried away. A man's natural tendency is to compete with other men and try to outdo them with something even more impressive. This can lead to some ridiculous and even dangerous competitions.

For example, when a man proposes marriage to a woman in a manner that women find exciting, other men will be stimulated into competing with him and trying to make their proposal even more exciting than his.

Some men are now making their proposals a public spectacle, such as proposing while on television or at some public affair. The men are not simply proposing marriage. Rather, they are competing with one another for the imaginary title of "Most Spectacular Wedding Proposal". This competition to titillate the women might seem harmless, but it can get to the point at which it becomes annoying, and the proposals along the side of the road can be a distraction to drivers. Furthermore, we can be certain that some men will not have the sense of responsibility to remove their signs and clean up after themselves.

Recently a group of motorcycle riders in the Los Angeles area momentarily blocked one lane of a highway so that one of them could make a proposal to his girlfriend. In America there are over 2 million marriages every year, which is over 5000 every day. Imagine if every day there were 5000 public proposals at restaurants, sports events, public beaches, and schools. Imagine if television news reports, press conferences, and other televised events were being interrupted every few minutes by a marriage proposal. Imagine highways being blocked every day around the nation for wedding proposals, and imagine how much smoke would be created if they were all burning tires as those motorcycle riders did.

Furthermore, imagine if this behavior spreads to other activities. For example, imagine men making public displays of their request for a job, or to ask their wife for another child, or to invite people to their birthday party. And imagine people making these proposals while on television, riding the train, and at public events. And then imagine children doing it, also. And, finally, imagine it spreading to even more bizarre activities, such as a man making a public spectacle of asking his wife for anal sex.

There are a lot of activities that we tolerate when they are on a small scale, but which would be irritating or disgusting on a large scale. We should continuously watch over people, especially men, and pass judgment on when they are getting carried away in their competition to feel special.

Professional sports have referees who pass judgment on when the athletes are behaving inappropriately, but there is no nation yet that has the equivalent of referees to control the behavior of "ordinary" people. We have police departments to arrest people for committing crimes, but we don't have referees to stop people from doing legal but irritating activities, such as abandoning food at a supermarket, or proposing marriage in a public area. Every nation follows the philosophy that the majority of people are innocent, honest, and wonderful people, and that we should tolerate their irritating behavior.

We allow the ordinary people to do virtually anything they please, but I think the behavior of the ordinary people is often worse, as a group, than the athletes. The athletes of a professional sports event, for example, are almost always better behaved than their audience. The audience is constantly screaming, throwing food, getting drunk, making a mess of the bathrooms, and sometimes fighting with each other. Even the hockey players, who seem to enjoy violence, are better behaved than some of the people in the audience.

We have to face the reality that the majority of people are just "ordinary", and half of them are substandard. We set rules of behavior for athletes, but we have a tendency to let the ordinary people behave in any idiotic manner that they please. If an "ordinary" person fights with the police or runs from the police, the police are supposed to remain calm and control their temper. If the passenger on an airline is irritating other passengers or the stewardess, the stewardess is supposed to remain calm. The police, stewardesses, retail store clerks, teachers, and other people who are in contact with the public are supposed to behave better than the public. They are supposed to control their temper regardless of how badly behaved the public is.

We could describe this as a "double standard", or as hypocrisy, or as irrational. The citizens are allowed to behave like crude savages, but at the same time, they are allowed to vote, have babies, and influence society. It would make more sense to set standards of behavior, and put restrictions on the badly behaved people. Why should we allow crude savages onto our airlines or in our restaurants, for example? Why not restrict air travel, restaurants, social clubs, and schools to the people who can behave properly? Why should we tell the airlines and the retail stores to tolerate a mixture of humans and savages?

By putting the government in control of culture, we will be able to set standards of behavior for the ordinary people at sports events, musical concerts, and city parks, and we can also pass judgment on when the people are getting out of control with their wedding proposals and cell phone usage. We can also pass judgment on when they are getting out of control in their displays of love for one another. The "Love Locks" are an example.

At many entertainment and social events, a recorded message will play over the loudspeakers to ask the audience to turn off their phones. Do we really need to play such messages? Imagine a more ridiculous situation, such as, "The performance will start in 10 minutes. Have you gone pee-pee yet?" It would be more sensible for the officials in the Social Technology department to create rules of etiquette for cell phones and other aspects of society, and let everybody know what those rules are. Friends can remind one another to turn off their cell phones, or whatever is appropriate for the situation.

We should set rules of etiquette for audiences. Do we want people in the audience to eat food? How about chewing gum or eating candy? How about taking pictures with flash bulbs? When the President of the United States gives a speech to Congress, the congressmen and Supreme Court judges applaud, scream, boo, and hiss every few seconds. They also frequently stand up while making these noises. Is this how we want government officials to behave during a speech?

When the government is in control of culture, each city can decide how they want the audience to behave at sports events, musical concerts, and other events. My personal preference is to stop the applauding, hissing, booing, and other noises, but if I am in a small minority, then most cities will encourage such behavior. One city might prefer foot-stomping instead, and another might prefer whistling.

I would not give a government the authority to force people to behave in a certain manner, but the government would have the ability to pass judgment on when people are deviating too far from their standards of behavior. The people who misbehaved would be treated differently depending on why they are misbehaving. People who forget to turn off their cell phones would simply be reminded of the rules of etiquette, but the people who showed an inability to control themselves could be restricted from certain events or areas. For example, the people who had trouble controlling their craving to grab at flowers and plants in a botanical garden could be prohibited from entering the garden. This would allow the garden to provide people with direct access to the plants without fear that they will harm the plants.

Some casinos in Las Vegas supposedly keep a list of people that they don't want in their casino, but most businesses, gardens, sports events, and social events would be afraid to maintain such a list. Many businesses would also be afraid to prohibit children. However, there is nothing wrong with restricting some museums, musical concerts, sports events, social activities, or restaurants to adults only, and there is nothing wrong with prohibiting the adults who don't behave properly. Once we get control of culture, we can experiment with whatever we please.

Professional sports should become more entertaining

The Social Technology department would be able to exert a lot of influence over sports. For example, consider the Olympic events. Cities spend an enormous amount of money to host these games, and the athletes put a tremendous amount of time and effort into preparing for them, but their performances last only a few seconds. Most of their performances are never noticed by more than a few dozen people. If an athlete makes a mistake, all of time and effort he put into preparing for the event was wasted.

I recommend that we change our attitude towards both amateur and professional sports. Instead of intense competitive battles for trophies, I think sports should become more entertaining and recreational.

The sports events today are such intense battles for trophies that the athletes frequently risk their health with drugs, and occasionally they are caught sabotaging one another. The athletes are focusing almost entirely on the trophy. The spectators are focusing on the competitive battle, not the performance. As a result of focusing on the battle rather than the performance, people want to watch sports events that are live, rather than recorded events from the past.

I think sports should become more useful if we put less emphasis on the winning of the event and more emphasis on the athletic performance. For example, I remember watching Terry Bradshaw throwing a football to Lynn Swann, and I was amazed by the two of them. I don't remember or care which team won those games. Even after many years, I am still impressed by their athletic talent, not by their collection of trophies. Likewise, when I watch gymnastics, I don't care which of them has the most trophies. I am only impressed by their abilities.

If a particular athlete has an interesting performance, I don't care whether I watch it live or recorded. The abilities of a talented athlete of previous generations are just as impressive today as they were years ago. The only problem with the old events is that the video quality is low compared to today.

My recommendation for sports is to consider athletes as being similar to musicians, singers, and actors. All of these people should be considered as artists, or as entertainers, but in the case of athletes, their performances are physical. An athlete entertains us with "athletic art", or with an "athletic performance".

When athletes perform a sports event in front of an audience, we should expect them to make mistakes rather than make critical remarks about their mistakes. Athletes should also have the option of doing what musicians and singers do, which is to perform in front of cameras in a studio so that they can create edited versions of their performances, with slow motion video, and with video from different angles. They would also be able to edit the mistakes out of the video and create some interesting entertainment.

The rhythmic gymnasts, especially when they perform as teams, are moving so quickly that it is absurd to watch them live. How is it possible to watch five gymnasts at one time? Their performances have to be recorded and played back in slow motion from different angles. Their performances would be even more interesting if they were not in competition with each other, in which case, they would not have to follow rules. That would allow them to design their performances purely from the point of view of entertainment, just as if they were a team of dancers or musicians. Eliminating the competition would allow the athletes to become "athletic artists" rather than as "competitors".

The same concept applies to dancers. Although it is enjoyable to watch dancers give live performances, I think that the dancers who are exceptionally talented should occasionally perform in front of a high resolution video camera with a high frame rate. This would allow them to provide us with a more perfect version of their dance, and we would be able to watch them from different angles, and we wouldn't have to be bothered by an audience that screams, coughs, and applauds.

With a high frame rate, we would be able to slow down any portion of the video without the frames becoming blurry. For example, although this dance is slow, I think some parts of it would be interesting in slow motion, and this dance is so fast that it is much more appropriate on video that we can replay in slow-motion. If those two had performed some of their dances in a studio in front of high-quality video cameras, the video might be enjoyed centuries from now.

Being able to watch a video in slow-motion requires a city be able to provide television with high frame rates, which is not available today through either television or the Internet. In other files I pointed out that a city could provide recreational centers with high-resolution television monitors, and I suggested that instead of always watching television in your home, you go to one of these recreational areas. These television rooms do not need windows, so they can be placed in the portions of the buildings that we don't want to use for homes or offices.

Imagine living in a city in which there are lots of small television room scattered around, with most of them holding between 4 and 12 people, and some of them holding a few dozen people. When you want to watch video in high quality or in slow motion, you would go to one of these television rooms. These rooms would have much higher-speed video connections, and they would provide you with much higher quality monitors and audio equipment than would be practical in your home. Also, they would all use the same remote control unit so that you don't have to deal with the incompatibility of different brands.

If people are living in large apartment complexes, it is also possible for a city to go to the extreme of not bothering to provide televisions for home use. Instead, high quality television rooms that hold 4 to 12 people would be scattered throughout each apartment complex and in the city so that everybody is within walking distance of several of the rooms. In that type of city, the apartment units would be small, and people would spend almost all of their leisure time outside of their home. Or, the city could provide the homes with small, simple television monitors and tell the people to go to a television room when they want to watch high-quality video.

Getting back to the issue of sports, when people sing, play music, dance, or do any type of theatrical production in front of an audience, we expect them to occasionally make mistakes. We don't let their mistakes bother us. We also allow them to perform in a studio so that they can create a higher-quality, recorded version of their performance. We allow them to edit the recordings to remove mistakes and add whatever they think will make the performance more interesting. The edited versions of the performances of musicians, dancers, singers, and actors are usually more popular than the live performances. When artist is talented, nobody cares whether his song, painting, movie, or music was created yesterday, 40 years ago, or 400 years ago.

Why not apply the same concept to athletes? Why not consider athletes to be "artists"? Instead of having intense competitive battles, let them give us performances for entertainment. When they give performances in front of an audience, we should expect them to make mistakes, and in some cases they can just start over and do it again. They should also be able to perform in a studio when they want to create more perfect versions of their performances. Their studio performances could provide us with slow-motion video, and video from different angles. Some of their studio recordings might be so interesting that future generations enjoy watching them.

People are still enjoying music that was created by Mozart, and they are still enjoying paintings that were created by Michelangelo. If athletes and dancers were creating spectacular performances in a studio, and doing them for entertainment rather than for trophies, they could provide us with spectacular performances that might be enjoyed for thousands of years.

When athletes are treated as artists, then their edited performances become "timeless". If Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swann had created some videos of their athletic abilities, including slow motion, people centuries from now would be entertained by them. By comparison, people in the future are not going to be interested in watching hundreds of hours of football games merely to see a few brief moments of Bradshaw and Swann.

You might find it interesting to imagine what singing would be like if we treated singers the same as we treat athletes. Imagine if singers were not allowed to create edited versions of their songs. Imagine if all singers had to participate in competitive battles for trophies. Imagine them being judged on their singing ability, not on the artistic value of their song. Imagine a group of singers going on stage one at a time in front of a panel of judges, and singing according to some arbitrary rules. Imagine television commentators making critical remarks about their performances. Would you enjoy singing if it was a competitive battle for a trophy? Would you want to listen to judges make critical remarks about their performances? Would you want the singers to follow some arbitrary rules?

Judges are valuable for people who are training, in which case the judges can provide constructive criticism and advice, but the judges in the Olympic sports events are not providing constructive criticism. They are trying to determine who should win an award, but all of the athletes are talented, so what is the benefit to making them compete for awards? Athletes are competing in events all throughout the year, and they do this year after year. Who among us is benefiting by having them compete for thousands of awards? Sports competitions with judges are useful to determine which athletes are the most talented, but once we figure out who the most talented athletes are, they should do something more useful than compete for awards.

If we were to treat sports as athletic performances rather than competitive battles for trophies, we would discover that some sports are extremely boring, and we would notice that some of the athletes are wearing drab clothing. The women in rhythmic gymnastics are always dressed in interesting outfits, and the military drill teams wear attractive uniforms, but many of the athletes are dressed in dreary outfits or bland uniforms. Some athletes, such as automobile races, wear clothing with corporate logos.

The rhythmic gymnasts are not afraid to wear an incredible variety of colors and patterns. Why can't other athletes be visually entertaining, also? And why not provide ourselves with interesting clothing for social affairs and holiday celebrations?

The solution to these problems is to eliminate the boring sports, and modify the other sports to make them more interesting. The athletes should become "athletic artists". They should impress us with their ability to use their body as a piece of art.

In a society without copyrights, we would have access to all of the music that has ever been produced, and free of charge. The music would be kept a publicly accessible database, and it would be categorized. We would be able to listen to rock 'n roll from the 1960s, or jazz from the 1930s, or disco from the 1980s. We would be able to listen to recordings that were made in studios, or watch live performances on video. We would be able to download any of the songs to an MP3 player. If that database existed right now, almost everybody would occasionally listen to some of the music, and many people would listen to some of the same songs more than once.

Without copyrights, we would also have access to video recordings of all of the sports events that have been produced. We would be able to watch college football games from the 1970s, bobsled competitions from the 1980s, and 400 meter races from the Olympics of the 1990s. We would be able to watch high school basketball games from the 1950s, professional tennis games from the 1960s, and Olympic pole vaulting from the 1970s. However, I don't think a database of sports events would be as popular as a database of music.

People around the world are regularly listening to recorded music, even if it was recorded centuries earlier. Sometimes people listen to the same song dozens of times during their life. By comparison, there are very few people, if any, who are watching video of old sports events, and even fewer people are watching the same sports event dozens of times during their life. Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes by selling music, television shows, movies, and books, but how much money would they be able to make from "iSports" in which they sell us video of old NFL football games, Olympic javelin tossing events, or bobsled competitions? How many people would be interested in purchasing recordings of old high school or college basketball games?

People around the world have posted thousands of songs on the Internet, but most of the sports events are never posted. This is not because of copyright issues. Rather, it is because most people do not want to watch sports events of the past, and almost nobody wants to watch the same sports event twice. Most people only want excerpts of sports events, such as the crashes of the auto races, or the spectacular passes of the American football games.

We should face the fact that most professional sports are boring, and the aspect of the sport that people enjoy is the competition, not the performance of the athletes. Only some professional athletes are entertaining without competition, such as the Harlem Globetrotters, and some of the gymnasts, ice skaters, and dancers.

When we take control of our culture, we are going to have access to all of the information about sports, such as how much money we are putting into Olympic events, and how much money is being put into training of children for various sports, and how much medical care the athletes need for different sports. This information will allow us to have intelligent conversations about the burdens and benefits of different sports.

I think it would help us set policies for sports by categorizing all professional sports as being either a competitive sport or an entertaining sport. These categories can help us analyze our sports and figure out how to design them.
1) Competitive sports
A competitive sport sets up a battle between two or more teams. When we design a competitive sport, we should focus on designing a competition that we find entertaining. A competitive sport does not need expensive equipment, dangerous stunts, or prizes. A competitive game of golf, for example, doesn't become more exciting simply by increasing the expense of the balls or clubs. Auto racing is an even better example of this concept. There is no evidence that the people who watch the expensive auto races are having more fun than the people who watch the inexpensive races. A soccer game doesn't require expensive equipment, but people can enjoy the competition just as much as with an expensive auto race.

The competitive sports should be designed to be simple, inexpensive, and safe. The athletes and the audience should focus on the competition between the rival teams rather than focus on equipment, prizes, or risky stunts.

2) Entertaining sports
Some athletes do not need competition in order to be entertaining. They entertain the audience with their athletic performance. Examples are the gymnasts, ice skaters, and dancers. Some of them put on performances that are so entertaining that we enjoy watching the many years later, and sometimes more than once. These sports do not benefit from competition. Actually, competition inhibits their entertainment value by forcing the athletes to follow arbitrary rules, which in turn limits the artistic freedom of their performances.

The entertaining sports should be designed to show off the athletic talent of the athletes rather than be designed to put athletes into competitive battles. The athletes should be artists, not rivals. These sports do not need winners or losers to be entertaining. Actually, all of the athletes can be considered winners because all of them put on an entertaining performance. When people watch these athletes, they should focus on the athletic performance, not on a competitive battle.

Basketball, football, and other competitive sports can be transformed into the entertaining category simply by having the athletes entertain the audience with their talent, as the Harlem Globetrotters did, rather than competing with one another.

To be accurate, the athletes in this entertainment category are actually in a competitive event, but they are not competing with one another. Rather, they are competing for the attention of the public. This is a more complex competition. These athletes do not know how successful they are until many years after their performance. If they are very successful, they will discover that people are continuing to watch their performances many years later, and sometimes more than once. The athletes who are truly phenomenal will be impressing people with their performances for centuries, just as Mozart is still impressing people with his music.

How many full-time athletes do we want?

No nation yet is doing much of anything to control professional sports or the number of people who become professional athletes. We are letting free enterprise make these decisions for us. By letting the government get control of society, we can discuss these issues openly and make decisions about which sports to support, what their rules will be, and how many people we are willing to support as full-time and part-time athletes.

Modern nations are supporting thousands of professional football players, basketball players, hockey players, and other athletes, and we have thousands of expensive stadiums, golf courses, and racetracks for those professional athletes. We are putting a lot of labor and resources into these sports, but what is the benefit? Is it worth the burden? Furthermore, do we really enjoy all of the sports? How much of the popularity of sports is because we enjoy the sports, and how much is due to other reasons, such as loneliness or boredom?

I suspect that if we could create a more pleasant city for ourselves, we would notice two changes in regards to sports. 1) There would be a decrease in the interest in professional competitive sports and an increase in the interest with professional entertaining sports. 2) More people would become interested in participating in sports and other recreational activities rather than watching other people.

Another issue to consider is whether we want a particular athlete to be working full-time on his sport, or only part-time. In a free enterprise system, a person can become a full-time athlete simply by finding a way to cover his expenses. Some athletes do this by getting sponsorship from corporations. When the government is in control of society, businesses do not advertise themselves or provide sponsorship to anybody. The government will be in control of sports, and government officials will make all of the decisions about who is authorized to become an athlete, and which sport(s) each athlete will be supported for, and which athlete will be a full-time athlete and which will be only part-time. The government officials would be in the same role as the military leaders who must set policies for the military employees who play musical instruments or sports.

A person would have to be very talented to justify becoming a full-time athlete. It would be easier for a person to be authorized as a part-time athlete. In a city that does not have a peasant class, we need a lot of people to share the work that needs to be done, and so a person would have an easier time becoming an athlete if he did so only part-time, and his other part-time job was something that more directly benefited society. In addition to doing "ordinary" jobs, such as factory work, engineering, plumbing, or farming, the part-time athletes might be ideal for the jobs that are related to physical activities, such as arranging recreational and exercise activities for children and adults; working at exercise or medical centers to help people monitor and understand their health; and arranging for activities at city festivals or schools, including activities that people participate in rather than merely watch.

In our free enterprise system, the athletes and the businesses are encouraging us to sit in front of a television or sit in a stadium and watch other people play sports. I think it would be better if more of the athletes were involved with society in a leadership role. Many athletes could take a role that is similar to Chris Powell on the television show Extreme Makeover Weight-Loss Edition in which Powell is helping obese people to get some exercise and lose some weight. That television show is only for entertainment, but imagine if athletes were doing something similar for normal people, such as arranging for physical activities, such as hikes, bicycle rides, snorkeling, sports events, and rowing. Their role would be to provide motivation and inspiration. It might even be beneficial to have some of them occasionally visit a business at lunch to encourage the employees to get outside and engage in some physical activity.

You might respond that sending somebody like Chris Powell to a business at lunch would be treating the employees like babies, but we should face the fact that humans are sociable animals, and that we have a tendency to become physically inactive when we don't have to do anything, so we benefit from the emotional encouragement to get some exercise.

Military personnel sometimes chant songs while they exercise. That might seem silly, but we should face the fact that we do not like exercise, and exercise is boring, so if we can figure out how to keep ourselves in good mental and physical health, then we are being smart, not silly.

An interesting experiment would be to have some athletes visit businesses at lunch to inspire the employees into getting some exercise by playing volleyball, square dancing, or riding bicycles, and then the business would compare the mental and physical health of their employees to those who are not involved with such a program. We might discover that a society benefits by having some athletes who wander around the city to encourage recreational activities during lunch, evenings, and weekends.

Professional athletes are perhaps the most physically active of all people, but even they benefit by having somebody motivate them, such as a coach, their teammates, or their family members.

We should experiment with society in an attempt to figure out what is best for us. We want to sit in a chair, listen to praise, eat excessive amounts of food, win awards, and watch other people play sports, but that is not necessarily what is best for us. It might be better to tell the athletes to inspire us to get out of our chair, put down the food, and get some exercise. In that role, the athletes would be doing something useful for society rather than merely entertaining us.

There are a lot of businesses providing us with a variety of activities, but most of what they provide is entertainment. They offer is what we want, not what we need. They provide us with Disneyland, summer camps, and vacations to other countries, but most of their customers remain physically inactive and eat excessive amounts of unhealthy foods. The businesses in a free enterprise system cannot put any pressure on their customers to do anything. Businesses are in a submissive role, and they tend to pander to their customers.

By comparison, when we put the government in control of society, then we can alter our culture, business activity, city design, and social activities to give us what we benefit from even if it is not exactly what we want. For example, we can set a work schedule to provide us with enough time during our lunch breaks so that we can get exercise, and the city can be designed so that the businesses are surrounded by grass fields, bicycle paths, and swimming areas so that the employees have easy access to exercise opportunities. We can also arrange for part-time jobs for athletes and dancers to inspire people into getting some exercise during lunch, evenings, and weekends. The people who enjoy working more than eight hours might be more productive with two lunch breaks.

The people who are physically active should use their talents for something more useful than fighting for trophies, such as inspiring employees to get exercise, and arranging hikes, snorkeling trips, bicycle rides, and other activities for both adults and children. With equipment for medical analyses becoming increasingly more advanced and simple to operate, some athletes could learn about medical issues and help people use equipment to monitor their heart rate, blood pressure, kidneys, hormones, lungs, and whatever our medical devices are capable of monitoring.

Incidentally, the typical way of measuring a person's temperature is by putting a thermometer in their mouth, but almost every person is maintaining the same internal temperature. It might be more useful to measure the temperature of people's skin or fingers because if a person is having trouble with circulation, or with the production of energy, it might be easier to determine that they have a problem by measuring their skin temperature. Also, it is so easy and safe for us to measure skin temperatures, that we could be doing it on a regular basis. If you had a graph that showed your skin temperature throughout your life, you might be able to notice subtle changes that signify a medical problem.

When athletes get involved with arranging activities for us, and helping us to learn about our health, they become much more useful for society compared to when they fight for trophies, and they will be doing jobs that they can do even when they are over 40 years of age.

In the world today, there are so many professional sports events occurring every week that nobody sees more than a tiny fraction of them. I doubt if anybody even knows how many professional sports events are occurring every week. Many people are profiting financially from these events, but how does society benefit? Each sport requires a certain amount of labor and resources, and we should seriously ask ourselves such questions as, Which sports provide enough entertainment to justify the burden they impose on society? Which sports should be modified to be more entertaining or less of a burden?

The competitive sports encourage people to focus on meaningless competitive battles. It is possible that the best policy for a society is to eliminate all competitive, professional sports and support only the entertaining professional sports. With this philosophy, the people who enjoy competitive sports would be told to get out of their house and participate in the sports, or watch their friends play, rather than watch professional athletes.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the athletes who are involved with entertaining sports should eliminate the competition between them and design their performances to be artistic and entertaining. They could provide us with entertaining performances during holidays, festivals, and social events. They could also perform in a studio so that they can provide us with high quality video of their performances. The goal of these athletes is to provide us with performances that we find so entertaining that future generations want to watch them. None of these athletes have to be losers. They can all be winners. They would inspire one another rather than fight with one another.

In a free enterprise system, businesses profit from competitive sports in a variety of ways, and governments exploit sports for taxation and to promote themselves. However, when the government has control of society, we have no sensible reason to allow anybody to benefit financially or politically from sports. Instead, we would design sports according to their benefit and their burden. If a sport doesn't provide much benefit, then why should we support it? We should not care if a few people enjoy the sport. We should pass judgment on sports based on their advantages and disadvantages to society.

When we take control of society, we can also make intelligent decisions on how many children and adults we want in sports training programs, and which training programs we should support, and whether the training programs should be part-time or full-time. For example, there may be thousands of people around the world today who are practicing how to throw a javelin, and there may thousands of other people practicing to run 100 meters. In a free enterprise system, businesses profit by training children for sports, even if the children do not have the ability to be among the best athletes.

The ancient Greeks would throw the discus during their Olympic events, but I don't think it was because they considered it to be a wonderful sport. I think it was because their primitive technology didn't give them too many options with sports. Do we want to continue providing support for throwing a discus, pole vaulting, or running 200 meters? How many children do we want to train on riding a bobsled and throwing a javelin?

If we do not provide much training for children to become athletes, then their performances will be inferior compared to the athletes of today, and they will not be able to set any new world records, but does that matter? Does life improve for any of us when a child has been trained so thoroughly that he sets a new world record in a competitive sports event? World records have been broken many times during the past few years. Did you notice any improvement to your life when those records were broken?

What should we do with violent sports?

Boxing and the American game of football is so brutal that athletes are seriously injured every year, and many of the athletes are under pressure to use steroids and other drugs. There are also daredevil types of sports in which people, such as Evel Knievel, risk their lives to perform amazing stunts. Are the benefits of violent and dangerous sports worth the burden? What is the benefit? And what is the burden?

The violent sports put a medical burden on society, but I doubt if anybody knows how serious the burden is. However, it's easy to understand that the burden would be extreme if everybody in society enjoyed playing ice hockey, boxing, and American football. In such a case, almost everybody over the age of 30 would be suffering from sports injuries. A lot of people would have brain damage, and many would be in wheelchairs, and some would be paralyzed.

Violent sports are tolerable in the world today because only a small percentage of the population is involved with them, and we can easily provide medical care to such a small group. However, when society is in control of sports, our government officials can make decisions on how many violent sports we support, and how violent they are. How many brain-damaged and crippled athletes are you willing to support?

We should also make decisions on how much medical care we want to give people who get involved with risky sports or activities that society does not officially support, such as riding skateboards on staircase railings, or abusing steroids. In Part 8 of this series I pointed out that we are foolish to torment or arrest drug users. We should either evict them from society, or tolerate them. We should apply this same concept towards risky sports. We either remove the people who want to engage in risky sports, or, we tolerate them. If we tolerate them, we can do so in different manners, such as providing them with complete medical support, or we could go to the other extreme of not providing any medical support for them at all, and that they will have to suffer the consequences of their injuries just as if they were living in prehistoric times. In such a case, if they break their bones or destroy their kidneys, they have to deal with the problem by themselves rather than expect doctors to provide them with medical care, and rather than expect factory workers to provide them with artificial hips, hypodermic needles, or kidney dialysis machines.

A society should support the medical care of people who are injured accidentally, but we should not feel obligated to help the people who injure themselves because they want to. Every society is currently struggling to force the self-destructive people to wear safety equipment when they play sports, and we struggle to stop them from abusing steroids and other drugs, but we are foolish to try controlling these people. We should either evict them from society, or let them hurt themselves.

Human emotions often cause us to behave in a manner that is opposite of what we should do. The risky sports are another example of this. Our emotions want us to protect other people, and we foolishly assume that we can protect the people involved with dangerous sports by forcing them to wear safety equipment, and by providing them with medical care, but the opposite is actually the best way to reduce the problem.

Our tendency to help the people involved with dangerous activities is actually encouraging more of this behavior because we are providing those people with a safety net. Whenever they hurt themselves in their risky activities, even if it is a criminal activity, a team of medical personnel, police, firemen, and/or other people will rush to their rescue and provide them with support. Sometimes the rescue personnel will risk their own lives to save a self-destructive person. By providing a safety net, we encourage people, including criminals, to take idiotic risks.

It might seem cruel to take away the safety net and tell people to suffer the consequences of their idiotic behavior, but why should people today be less responsible than our prehistoric ancestors? We actually need the opposite situation; we need people today to think more often and be more responsible and more considerate than during prehistoric times. People today need to be less selfish, less foolish, and less like an animal. When people are told that they are going to suffer the consequences of their risky activities, many of them will be more careful.

Watch some of the videos that are described as "fail videos". They are compilations of people hurting themselves in accidents. Some of the accidents are meaningless, such as doing a bellyflop into a swimming pool, but some people hurt themselves because of stupid decisions that they made. For example, some people have such a poor understanding of science that they don't realize that they are taking a risk when they dance on top of glass tables or plastic chairs. There are some people who hurt themselves in stunts that they realize are extremely risky, such as riding a skateboard down a staircase railing. There are some people who hurt themselves because they don't have a good understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and they foolishly believe that they can do some of the stunts that they see on television.

A monkey that makes a mistake when he jumps from one branch to another will not get medical attention when he hits the ground, and a bird that makes the stupid decision of flying in a snowstorm will not be saved by a search and rescue team. For millions of years the humans who made poor decisions have had lower reproduction rates. This helped create humans who are capable of contemplating risks and making wise decisions. We are now pampering the people who make stupid decisions, and allowing them to reproduce, and this will cause each generation to become more foolish and risky.

We all have accidents on a regular basis, so we cannot complain about people having accidents. However, we should keep track of accidents and pass judgment on when a person is having "normal", acceptable accidents, and when he is so stupid, obnoxious, or psychotic that he is a burden on society as a result of his destruction of material items or his need for medical care. Those extreme people should not be reproducing, and we ought to consider telling some of them to deal with their injuries by themselves rather than expecting medical personnel to help them.

Analysis of children's products

The Social Technology department would not be responsible for developing or manufacturing products, but they would play a role in analyzing and influencing children's products. They would arrange discussions about children's products, and encourage people to participate, but the purpose would not be to figure out how to provide children with products that they enjoy. Rather, the purpose would be to figure out what is best for the children. Instead of analyzing the popularity of a product, they would analyze the effect that the product has on children, as well as adults and the environment.

For example, some children might like playing with noisy toys, but that would irritate people in their area. The Social Technology department would analyze the noisy toys and make decisions about which of them should be restricted to certain areas of the city, which should not be produced at all, and which should be limited in their noise level. The Social Technology department would send their decisions to the agencies that are responsible for developing and manufacturing the products. The other agencies might reject the suggestions, but if they did so, they would have to provide intelligent reasons.

For another example, if the Social Technology agency decides that children are spending too much time on text messages and wasting too much of the city's bandwidth on sending video to one another, then they can put together a proposal to the other government officials to restrict children's access to these activities in some manner, such as by limiting their messages, or by restricting their messages to only a few hours after dinner.

Clothing design

The Social Technology department would be responsible for designing clothing and shoes, but they would not be involved in the production of the raw materials, such as wool, cotton, rubber, zippers, or nylon, and they would not be involved with the factories that produce the clothing or shoes. The would be able to produce prototypes, and they might sometimes make small quantities of specialty items, such as children's costumes for city festivals, but they would not make clothing in large amounts.

In a free enterprise system, clothing styles are determined in a haphazard, irrational manner. Businesses produce a variety of clothing and shoes, often with no regard to comfort or practicality, and consumers choose between them. The decisions that consumers make are usually irrational, especially with children, because people are easily influenced by what their friends and Hollywood celebrities are wearing.

When the government is in control of the design of clothing and shoes, we can bring some sense to this process. Furthermore, we don't need the type of fashion shows that we find occurring all over the world. Some of the fashion shows are displaying clothing that is not designed to be worn. Rather, the businesses display absurd clothing as a way to bring attention to themselves and advertise their name. These type of fashion shows make sense in a free enterprise system, but they are a waste of labor and resources.

The people who join the Social Technology department, including those on a part-time and temporary basis, would be able to get involved with the design of clothing and shoes. They would design prototypes either independently, or in groups. Every few months, or every year, whatever the cycle happens to be, the prototypes would be displayed at a more sensible type of fashion show. The audience would be officials in the Social Technology department who were interested in participating in the issue of clothing. However, instead of having professional models walk briefly in the clothing, the people in the audience would be able to try on the clothing so that they could determine which prototypes were comfortable and practical. Some of the people will put on clothing and walk around in front of other people so that the other people can see what it looks like and how it fits, but they would not need professional models to do that.

There is no reason for society to support the job category of "fashion model". We don't need people to specialize in walking a short distance in clothing. Our clothing should be designed to fit real people, so real people should try the prototypes. Besides, a fashion show in which sexy, young women prance around in front of men is not really a serious display of clothing. It would be better described as "mild pornography". It is as ridiculous as having a "tool show" in which sexy, young women prance in front of men while carrying plasma torches and crescent wrenches.

When the Social Technology department has a fashion show, the purpose would be for the government officials to wear the prototypes, determine which prototypes are most comfortable and practical, and make decisions about which of prototypes to put into production. These type of fashion shows would be serious jobs, not sexually titillating entertainment.

After the Social Technology department selects some of the prototypes for production, they will observe the reaction of the public. They want us to enjoy the clothing, but they also want the clothing to be safe and practical. For example, shoes should not cause damage to our feet, and the clothing designed for factory workers should not tear easily or get caught in conveyor belts or machinery.

The most sensible philosophy for this department to follow is to design clothing for specific purposes. Clothing design for work should be practical rather than sexual, and clothing designed for courtship, social activities, and holidays can be more frivolous and decorative. We already have a few categories for clothing, such as "weddings" and "bathing suits", and I think we should expand upon this concept by creating more categories. In such a case, the clothing stores would offer clothing in different categories, such as "machine operators", "office workers", "bicycle riding", and "social activities".

By having different categories of clothing, and by providing people with free access to clothing, it would be practical for businesses to restrict employees to wearing only the clothing that is appropriate for their particular job. Nobody would have any excuse that they cannot afford appropriate clothing for work, recreation, dinner, or social activities. Of course, I should once again point out that providing people with free access to clothing requires that the people in the city have a certain level of responsibility.

A person who designs clothing that turns out to be a success will be credited with an achievement, and he will have an easier time getting his prototypes approved in the future. The designers whose clothing is a failure will have a more difficult time getting their prototypes approved, and if they fail often enough, they would be told to get out of the clothing department and quit wasting their time and society's resources.

Will culture change every few months?

Since the Social Technology department will have tremendous influence over culture, and since one of the three top leaders would be regularly replaced, you might wonder if we are going to have the problem of culture changing wildly as different people come and go in this department. For example, it is possible to imagine a situation in which the leaders of this department decide to remove religion from Christmas, and then, when they are replaced a few years later, the new leaders decide to put religion back in, and then, a few years later, the next group decides to take it back out.

We can easily frighten ourselves with these scenarios, but whether such a scenario comes true depends upon our ability to deal with the problems of modern society. For example, if we have the emotional strength to control immigration and evict misfits, then we can create a city in which we have a certain level of compatibility with one another, thereby reducing the desire of different groups to radically change the city's culture. If we also eliminate secrecy, keep track of what everybody does, set higher standards for people in leadership positions, and become active participants in society, then we will further improve our chances of creating a pleasant, stable city. If we also pass judgment on which citizens should be allowed to influence society, then only the "better" people will even be able to influence our culture.

The frightening scenarios of wild and irrational changes in culture will come true only if we foolishly create the type of societies we have today in which a city is a chaotic mixture of people with incompatible personalities, religions, and mental disorders. Don't be terrified of potential problems; be excited about future improvements.

The concept of allowing a government agency to pass judgment on clothing and shoes might seem crazy, but there are already people in businesses and in the military who are passing judgment on the clothing styles and shoes of their employees. Some businesses and military units also provide uniforms, protective clothing, and special boots or shoes.

Furthermore, some businesses and military units also pass judgment on cultural activities. For example, they arrange for certain types of sports events, anniversary parties, holiday celebrations, retirement parties, day care options, and cafeterias.

Allowing a government agency to control our culture is simply expanding upon what businesses and the military have been doing for centuries. There are already people in businesses and militaries who are doing what is essentially creating and controlling culture, but they are doing it on a small scale for their own particular organization. All we have to do is apply this concept to an entire city.

I would give the department of Social Technology three directors of equal authority, but I don't think it would be practical to give them three different regions of the city. Instead, we would compare them according to which proposals they approve of and reject. For an example of how this works, let's assume somebody makes a proposal for a new sport. The proposal may come from an ordinary citizen, or it might come from a government official. Regardless of who created it, it would be sent to the officials in the Social Technology department. If some of the lower-level officials decide to approve it, it would be sent to the top three officials for its final rejection or approval.

All of the officials would have the authority to modify the proposal, or add details to make it more complete. They would even be allowed to create several different variations of the proposal. The person who created the proposal could not copyright it, and he would have no control over what happens to it. If his proposal turns out to be a success, he will get credit for creating it, and if it turns out to be a failure, he will have that failure listed in his database entry. If a government official modifies his proposal and the modifications turn out to be useful, then the government official will get credit for useful modifications, but if his modifications turn out to be a failure, then his database entry would show that he failed in his attempt to improve the proposal.

By keeping track of how each government official approves, modifies, and rejects the proposals, we can pass judgment on which of them we want removed from the government. Over time, some people will accumulate achievements, and others will accumulate failures. This will allow us to pass judgment on who among us is better at influencing clothing, holidays, sports, and other activities. We would regularly replace the worst performing of the top three leaders so that other people have the opportunity to show us their talents.

Incidentally, none of the officials in this department have to be full-time employees. There might be a lot of people who are willing to get involved with the Social Technology department, including being one of the top directors, but they may not want to do it on a full-time basis. The reason it would be possible for people to be part-time government officials in the Social Technology department is because the officials do not have to supervise teams of people, and they do not handle real-time problems, such as fires, heart attacks, or broken water pipes. They would be the "guidance counselor" type of leaders, not the "supervisory" type of leaders. The officials in this department do not have to be in an office all day, every day, ready to deal with problems. Rather, they analyze cultural issues and proposals, and they can do that on a part-time basis, and they can do it anywhere they please.

When a person who works in the government on a part-time basis, he will not have the time to analyze as many proposals as a full-time official, but we should not judge anybody by how many hours he works. We should judge a person by the value of his work; by his overall effect on society. If a government official is contributing something of value to society, then he is useful, even if he is working in the government only one afternoon each month.

There are several reasons for designing the government to offer part-time and temporary jobs. One is that I think it is psychologically better for us to work for the government on a part-time or temporary basis because it will make us less emotionally attached to the government job. When we have a primary job outside of the government, and when the government is just a part-time or temporary job, then the government job will seem more like a contribution to society, rather than as a career. I don't think we would feel as protective of a part-time government job, or be as worried of competitors. By comparison, when a person has a full-time government job, he will be more protective of it and more concerned about competitors. He will be more likely to think of himself as a government leader rather than as a person who is contributing to society, and he will be more likely to feel threatened by competition for his job.

Another reason for offering part-time and temporary jobs in the government is because it encourages more people to get involved with society. A lot of us could spend one evening a month helping one government agency, and another evening a month at another government agency. As more people get involved with the government, we need fewer full-time government employees, and we have more people contributing to society. Our existing governments make people feel helpless, but by offering part-time participation, we encourage people to get involved with the decisions about our schools, holidays, transportation systems, city decorations, and recreational activities.

Of course, as I mentioned in the beginning of this article, we cannot give every citizen the right to have a part-time government job. The jobs have to be restricted to the people who have shown an ability to think properly, and who have shown a certain level of honesty, responsibility, and consideration.

City Maintenance department

As I mentioned in Part 8, I think it would be best to start the design of a city by laying out the train lines according to that city's particular land area, and then adding apartment complexes, office buildings, factories, and recreational areas along the train routes so that so that we can easily travel everywhere in the city. Transportation should have a very high priority because we have to travel every day, and so it should be as efficient and pleasant as possible.

	Each city would be designed for a particular population level, and the government would maintain that level, thereby preventing cities from growing and shrinking, as they are today. By designing very large apartment complexes that hold between 2000 and 8000 people, each apartment complex would be like a village. At the base of an apartment complex would be train terminals, bicycle storage, exercise facilities, restaurants, snack bars, and facilities for babies and young children, such as nursery schools, simple medical facilities, and playgrounds. The base of an apartment complex would be more similar to the social areas of a cruise ship rather than a shopping mall because it would be designed for human life rather than for sales.
	By keeping crime to very low levels, the city would not need bright, white, security lights, and we would not have to worry about graffiti or vandalism, so everything in the city, including factories, warehouses, and train stations, could be beautiful. Decorative artwork could be everywhere. Some walkways and bridges could be illuminated with low level LEDs, or made of illuminated panels or decorative tiles. When we use lights for decoration, we can change the colors and patterns occasionally so that we don't get bored. We are limited only by our imagination and our courage to experiment.

 
Designing a city is a lot of work, but once a city has been built, the government only has to maintain it, and occasionally make modifications. Therefore, instead of a City Planning agency, every city would have a City Maintenance department. This department would fix problems in the city, deal with changes in technology, and deal with changes in human activities. They would not need many full-time employees. Instead, when they had to deal with a problem, they would put together a team, and that team would be dissolved when the work was over.

For an example of what this agency would do, sometimes buildings or bridges will be damaged by tornadoes, storms, or earthquakes, and structures also occasionally need maintenance or replacement. When a problem occurs, the government officials figure out what sort of skills they need to fix the problem, and how many people they need, and then they ask the people who have those skills if they can leave their existing work to help with this particular problem. Since the government is in control of all of the jobs, the entire city behaves as if it is one corporation or one military unit, and so an electrician who works full-time for a business would be able to temporarily take time off to work on the team that the government is putting together to deal with the tornado damage, and a plumber could take time off from his job to deal with damage caused by an earthquake. When the team is finished with its project, the people return to their regular jobs.

By taking people away from businesses, the government will interfere with the operation of those businesses, but the businesses are not competing for sales or customers, so everybody in the city will be told to find a way to work around the interference. It is analogous to an employee of a business being called for jury duty, and the customers and other employees finding a way to deal with it.

This agency would also have to deal with changes in the way people are living. For example, the officials might need to alter some bicycle or foot paths to deal with the changes in the way people are spending their leisure time, or because more people decide to ride a bicycle to work.

This agency would also have to deal with improvements in technology, such as updating train equipment, or reducing the number of conventional farms and increasing the number of greenhouses or hydroponic farms.

Our cities today need a city planning agency rather than a city maintenance department, because they are in a constant state of change and growth. Our cities are a haphazard mixture of buildings, utility lines, and transportation systems of different ages and qualities, and since the population is growing, the city is constantly expanding its roads, bridges, utility lines, and buildings. However, if we can keep the population steady, then we can eliminate all of the projects related to growth. We can eliminate or reduce the severity of a lot of other problems by designing a city in a more intelligent manner, such as by making it easy to access utility lines as opposed to burying them underneath concrete and asphalt.

Some underground train lines can be near the surface, thereby making them easier to build and maintain. This would also reduce the time that people spend walking down into the subways. In some areas of the city, the trains could be just barely under the surface, which would allow the roof of the subway to be large, removable, concrete or steel panels that can serve as walkways or bicycle paths, similar in concept to the old-fashioned computer rooms that had cables running underneath a false floor.

When a city is operating properly, it is conceivable that the City Maintenance agency has so little to do that it shuts down for many months at a time. It would become activated by somebody complaining about something, such as a leaky roof, overcrowding on a particular plaza, or cracks in a bridge. The complaints would be sent to the people designated as officials for this department, they would decide if the complaint is valid, and if so, they would create a temporary team to deal with the problem. When the problem was over, the people would go back to their regular jobs in the agency would shut down again.

Eventually the buildings in a city become so old that they need to be torn down and replaced. The severity of this problem can be reduced by designing all of the buildings within an apartment complex or factory complex to have the same lifetime, and then the entire complex is replaced. By comparison, our cities today are a haphazard mixture of new and old buildings.

I would design a city with the utilities and primary transportation underground so that the surface area of the city is parks, bicycle paths, gardens, canals, ponds, and walkways.

The Transportation department of the City Maintenance agency would be responsible for the maintenance and upgrades of all of the transportation systems, such as the trains, bicycle paths, foot paths, and airport. If any boats or canals are used for transportation, rather than for recreation, this department would be responsible for them, also. This department would not be responsible for vehicles that are purely for recreational use, such as recreational rowboats, rubber rafts, snowmobiles, and bumper cars for children. The recreational equipment would be the responsibility of the Social Technology department.

The Food and Restaurants department would be responsible for providing the city with restaurants, growing food for the city, and requesting food from other cities. This department would decide how many restaurants the city needs, what hours they are open, where they are located, and who works in the restaurants.

Each city would be designed for a certain population level, and it would remain at that level year after year. Nobody would be living in a city illegally or secretly. The government would know exactly how many babies, children, adults, and pregnant women are in the city. This would allow them to know how many people the restaurants need to feed each day, and how much food the farms must produce. If people get over their paranoia of being watched, the city officials may notice some interesting and possibly useful patterns in people's eating habits, such as how our eating habits change according to the weather.

The city would be designed with more restaurants and dining room space than is actually needed so that if a lot of people are in one area of the city for breakfast or dinner, there will be enough restaurant space for all of them. Exactly how much extra space is needed would have to be determined by trial and error. Some areas of the city might need only 10% extra space, whereas other areas might need a lot of extra restaurants because they attract a lot of people during holidays or festivals.

All cities today have sections that have been specifically designed for people to shop, socialize, or have festivals. However, these sections are an ugly, haphazard jumble of buildings, telephone poles, plazas, parking lots, and automobiles because the businesses are concerned only with selling products, and the government officials are concerned only with taxing the financial transactions and entertaining tourists. We are not yet designing cities according to what is best for humans.

We should design our cities for human life rather than for sales and taxes. We should create factories and office buildings that are beautiful and surrounded by trees and parks, and we should design certain sections of the city specifically for socializing, recreational activities, music festivals, holidays, and other events. These "social sections" would be designed specifically for our pleasure. There would be no parking lots, telephone lines, or automobile traffic. They would be a mix of gardens, plazas, walkways, restaurants, and facilities for social clubs, music concerts, museums, recreational activities, and whatever else we want.

The city could have some social sections for adults only, and others for children. Teentown would be designed for teenagers, but a city could have some social sections for teenagers. The social sections for children might resemble Disneyland, but they would not have any free enterprise, so there would be no vendors pushing gifts or candy.

The current philosophy in a city is to mix everybody together, but I think life will be more pleasant when we provide different sections for different people. The sections that were designed for adults would allow adults to get away from children, and when adults are in the mood to be around children, they would go to the areas for the children. We could also have special sections for elderly people, and sections for mothers with babies. Our options are limited only by our imagination. We should experiment with our options and figure out what makes our life more pleasant overall. Compare that to the cities of today in which nobody is in control of anything, and there are no special areas for anybody.

It should be noted that the level of people in these social sections of the city would rise and fall dramatically during the day and weekends. These sections would be empty during the weekday because the adults would be working, and the children would be in school. Only the areas that were designed for mothers with babies, elderly people, and young children would have people in them during the day. Most of social sections would be open only during the evenings, weekends, and holidays.

It is not practical in a free enterprise system to have sections of the city that shut down during the weekday because businesses cannot easily survive when they are open only during evenings or weekends. As a result, many businesses remain open even when it is inefficient for them to do so. Some businesses try to deal with the shortage of customers by having somebody stand outside their business to talk to people as they walk by in an attempt to lure them inside. Some businesses pay people to stand on street corners in animal suits, dressed as a slice of pizza, or holding signs in order to advertise their business. Nobody enjoys doing this type of work, and nobody enjoys being pressured by these people, so why are we torturing ourselves by continuing this nonsense?

The free enterprise system encourages businesses to look for ways to manipulate us into spending money, but we should encourage businesses to look for ways to improve our lives. When the government is in control of the economy, then we can operate the city in a much more pleasant manner. No business would be allowed to push anybody into doing anything. The businesses that are not needed during the morning or afternoon would shut down, and if they are needed only on the weekends, then they would shut down during the weekdays. This would be considered inefficient in a free enterprise system, but so what? We should design the economy to fit human life, not the other way around.

Perhaps the issue of public bathrooms will help you understand this issue. In a free enterprise system, businesses have to cover the cost of bathrooms, and so they provide the minimum necessary. As a result, when a lot of people get together in one area, such as for festivals or concerts, there is usually a shortage of bathrooms in the area. Sometimes the shortage is so severe that businesses bring in portable bathrooms.

We have two different paths to chose from. We can continue building cities with a minimum number of bathrooms and use portable bathrooms when the shortage becomes extreme, or we can design a city so that the plazas, parks, stadiums, theaters, and other areas have enough bathrooms to handle the number of people that they were designed for, which means that many of the bathrooms are idle most of the time.

In a free enterprise system, no business wants to create bathrooms that are vacant most of the time, but why should you care if some bathrooms are used only on the weekends? If bathrooms were expensive or large, then we would need to be concerned about how many we build, but in our era, we can afford plenty of bathrooms. We spend billions of dollars every year on Israel, and we could take a portion of that money to provide our cities with plenty of bathrooms.

A related issue is drinking water. Restaurants, coffee shops, and many other businesses do not want to provide drinking water or drinking fountains because they want to sell drinks. However, from the point of view of society, water is an inexpensive and safe drink, and so there should be no shortage of drinking water anywhere in the city, from either fountains or from businesses. A cafe would be upset if some people sat at a table, asked for drinking water, and then relaxed at the table, but from the point of view of society, the city should feel as if it is our home. We should be able to use the restaurants the same way we would use our dining room. If you want to sit at a cafe table to have a glass of water, either by yourself or with your friends, then you should have that freedom.

In a free enterprise system, issues are analyzed from the point of view of profit, but we should switch to analyzing issues from the point of view of their benefit to society. What is the harm to society for allowing people to sit at a restaurant table simply to relax and drink water? Nobody suffers from this activity. Instead, we benefit by having another option to relax, socialize, and enjoy life.

It is also important to note that one of the reasons businesses do not want to provide bathrooms or drinking fountains is because so many people are irresponsible, sloppy, and destructive. Bathrooms and drinking fountains are regularly vandalized, and a significant percentage of the population is sloppy. Providing our city with extra bathrooms and fountains will not do us much good if they quickly become filthy, stinky, and vandalized. Also, if we don't have a peasant class, who is going to clean and maintain the bathrooms and fountains? In order for a city to truly become better than the existing cities, we have to restrict immigration to higher quality people who are capable of handling this advanced lifestyle, and we must evict the misfits.

Instead of designing a city according to the needs of businesses, we should design a city according to what would be most pleasant for all of us as a group. Another example is the issue of food at festivals, sports events, theaters, weddings, recreational events, and holiday celebrations. In a free enterprise system, businesses are allowed to sell almost any type of food at these events, and they can sell them from pushcarts, temporary stands, trucks, and restaurants. The end result is that many events are full of visually unappealing food stands, and the people eat messy, sloppy food from paper or plastic containers, and they create a lot of trash. Some of the food vendors also produce smoke, fumes, or stinky garbage.

At some events it is difficult for the people to wash their hands after eating, such as when they are eating inside a theater, or they don't have access to sinks, such as when they are at an outdoor festival, and the end result is that food products accumulate on cell phones, doorknobs, chairs, windows, and clothing. Some of the messy food and drinks occasionally spill on the floor and furniture. In a free enterprise system, a lot of businesses benefit by producing the messy foods, cleaning up the mess that the people make, and delivering and cleaning portable toilets, but who is going to do that work if we don't have a peasant class in the city?

We should analyze the issue of food at social events from the point of view of what is best for society as a group. The food provides people with momentary entertainment, but it adds what could be described as an "unskilled labor burden", and I don't think that burden is worth the benefit. It would make more sense to restrict meals to restaurants, and to prohibit food in theaters, gardens, museums, and certain other areas in the city.

If we decide to provide food at some event outside of a restaurant, it would be more sensible to provide tiny appetizers that we can eat with our fingers without making a mess, such as those in the photo.

When we design a city, we should think about what is best for society, not what is best for businesses. For another example, consider the hours that businesses are open. Businesses prefer to remain open all day, every day, and sometimes during the night, but if we create a society without a peasant class, we should try to provide everybody with desirable working hours, and we must increase efficiency as much as possible by shutting down businesses when they are not truly necessary.

In some European nations, some businesses are required to shut down on Sunday, and we could expand this policy by shutting down businesses during the day if they are only needed in the evening, and shutting down businesses during the weekdays if they are needed only on the weekends.

This policy will increase the number of people with part-time jobs, which is undesirable in a free enterprise system, but if we switch to a society in which everybody is provided with the basic necessities for free, and the government is handling retirement and health care, then it becomes practical for people to have two or more part-time jobs.

We should design jobs for human life, not for businesses. Ideally, every job would be so pleasant that everybody enjoys going to work. We are not likely to achieve that ideal situation, so the people who must do boring or physically difficult jobs ought to have the option of doing their unpleasant job on a part-time basis, and have some other part-time job to give their muscles a rest or to reduce the monotony.

The Food and Restaurant division will set policies for the type of foods and drinks that are provided at social events, and where food and drinks are prohibited. They will also set hours for the restaurants to be open. Since every city would be able to experiment with their own policies, it is conceivable that cities will devise some significantly different food policies.

Nobody centuries ago could have imagined the material items that we have today, and it's possible that future generations will experiment with food policies that we could not possibly imagine. For some examples that I am capable of imagining:
• A city might decide to restrict candies to Saturday.
• A city might restrict alcoholic drinks to dinners on Friday and Saturday night.
• A city might restrict the sweet desserts to the people who have engaged in some type of physically strenuous job or recreational activity.
• A city might allow the people doing physically demanding jobs to have more access to beer and sweet desserts than the office workers, and use beer or sweet desserts as a reward for people who participate in physically strenuous community activities, such as gardening or repairing tile plazas.

Another function of the Food and Restaurant division would be to help people become chefs and farmers, as well as continuously replace those who are doing the worst job so that there is always somebody else getting an opportunity to try his skills. In a free enterprise system, a person who wants to start a restaurant or a farm has to do so on his own, either with his own money or with borrowed money, and if he fails, somebody loses a lot of money. The people who benefit from this chaotic system are the landlords, banks, and government officials, all of whom make money regardless of whether the restaurant is a success or a failure.

When the city government is in control of all of the restaurants, buildings, kitchen equipment, furniture, farms, and everything else related to food, then nobody needs money to start a restaurant. All a person has to do is make a simple proposal to the Food and Restaurant division to start a restaurant. A person would be able to propose anything he could think of. For example, a person could offer to operate a restaurant on a full-time basis, or he could offer to operate a restaurant only for breakfast, or only on Saturday. If the government approves his proposal, then he would be given access to whatever building, equipment, and food that he needs. He would not have to worry about landlords, taxes, equipment, or furniture. It would be analogous to a person being hired by a corporation to manage their cafeteria.

It is difficult in our current economic system for people to start a new restaurant. One reason is that the existing restaurant owners do not want to quit their job, so a person who starts a new restaurant has to compete with the existing restaurants for limited supply of customers. In order for a new restaurant to be a success, one or more other restaurants must suffer. It is similar to the life-and-death struggle of animals. This brutal process causes business owners to look for ways to sabotage their competitors, such as demanding that the government force new restaurants to get permits for alcoholic drinks.

Since one duty of the Food and Restaurant division is to continuously replace the worst performing chefs, the government officials would encourage people to make proposals to operate restaurants. The attitude of this department is to give everybody the opportunity to test their abilities.

This department would be much more lenient in granting proposals for restaurants compared to the division that grants proposals for scientific research or engineering projects because there is no harm to society if a chef is a failure. If a chef turns out to be unpopular, nobody suffers. Since the chef does not own the building, equipment, or supplies, he simply gets another job, and the building and equipment become available for somebody else. No equipment has to be auctioned or sold, and there are no contracts with landlords to worry about. The new chef who takes over the building might want to redecorate the dining room, but that is not a burden to society because the city owns all of the furniture, artwork, and other decorations. Every chef would be free to go to the city's warehouses and swap out whichever dining room furniture and decorations they don't want, and they could do it whenever they were in the mood to redecorate.

A chef can quit whenever he gets tired of the job because he doesn't have to worry about getting out of leases or selling his equipment. He simply gives notice to the government that he is no longer interested in operating a restaurant. The government will then make the building and equipment available for somebody else.

Of course, if a chef doesn't have a sensible reason for quitting his job, it could affect his future job opportunities. For example, if a chef quits after only one week, It could cause people to regard him as mentally unstable, especially if he also quit other jobs after short periods of time. By comparison, if a chef quits after a year, he could justify getting a different job, or switching to a different type of restaurant.

This system gives us some options that would never be possible in a free enterprise system, such as allowing people to operate restaurants on a part-time basis by sharing a building and its equipment. For example, seven chefs could share one restaurant, each of them on a different day of the week. The sign or flag in front of these restaurants would be either switched each day, or the sign could be an LCD screen that changes each day to let people know what the restaurant is on that particular day.

If each of the seven chefs was making similar types of meals, then they could use the same foods, refrigerators, pantries, and kitchen equipment. If they were making different meals, it would require "just in time" food deliveries, or additional refrigerators and pantries, but these are not difficult problems to solve. If we can fake a man on the moon, we can figure out how different restaurants can share the same kitchen.

In a free enterprise system, a restaurant has a business name, and the customers are usually unaware of who the chef is. Furthermore, most restaurants have more than one chef, and all of the chefs at a particular restaurant try to mimic one another so that the customers do not see any change in the food when the chefs change. When people go to a McDonald's or a Hooters restaurant, for example, they are going for a particular meal and environment, not for a particular chef.

With the system I propose, individual chefs, not businesses, would operate the restaurants, and so the restaurants would not have a business name, and there would be no restaurant chains or franchises. Each restaurant would be identified by its chef. In front of every restaurant would be a sign or LCD panel to identify the chef and a description of his food, such as John Doe's Pancake House, or Jane Doe's Bakery, or Joe Smith's Sushi Bar. Customers would become accustomed to recognizing a chef's name rather than a business name.

If seven different chefs were sharing one restaurant on different days of the week, then the sign in front of their restaurant would change each day to show who the chef was that day, even if all chefs providing virtually the same meals. If those seven chefs wanted to provide only dinner, then the building and equipment would be available during the day for lunch and breakfast. Therefore, seven other chefs could agree to do lunch one day each week, and seven more chefs could agree to do breakfast. That would provide 21 separate restaurants operating part-time with the same dining room and kitchen. The sign in front of the restaurant would change 21 times every week. This situation may never happen in real life, but I want to bring the possibility to your attention to help you realize that we can do whatever we please once we take control of the economy. We are not helpless!

In a free enterprise system, it is very unlikely that separate businesses would share one restaurant, but when the government is in control of all of the buildings and equipment, it is equivalent to a group of construction workers sharing a forklift, or a group of doctors sharing an operating room, or a group of roommates sharing a kitchen. As long as the chefs are responsible, they will have no problem with sharing a restaurant. From the point of view of society, this type of sharing is acceptable because the building is put to use, and the people are given meals. Nobody loses; everybody benefits. Also, from the point of view of society, it makes no difference if people have 10 part-time jobs or one full-time job. All that matters is that people are doing useful work for society.

In a free enterprise system, the goal of businesses is to appease consumers and make lots of money, and so food markets and restaurants are open for very long hours, sometimes 24 hours. However, most people do not want to work during the night, and so our goal should be to design society so that we have the fewest number people working during the night. We can reduce the number of nighttime restaurant workers by telling people that they must eat dinner during the scheduled time during the evening, and if they miss dinner, they either go without dinner, or they pick up something that doesn't need preparation, such as fruit or snack bars.

Only a few people need to work at night, and so we only need as many nighttime restaurants as is necessary to feed those particular people. Furthermore, the restaurants that serve the nighttime workers only need to be open when those workers want lunch. No city needs to provide restaurants that are open 24 hours a day. Parents do not provide their children with meals 24 hours a day. We can apply the same philosophy to a city.

Since the nighttime restaurants only need to operate for a few hours, some of the nighttime workers could take off early from their job to work at the restaurants, and then when they are finished at the restaurant, they go back to their other job. With that system, the nighttime workers feed themselves.

The Food and Restaurant division would be responsible for setting hours for different meals, similar to what parents do for their family. By scheduling the restaurants to be open for only a few hours during the day for breakfast and lunch, we can schedule the distribution of food to occur while the restaurants are closed to prevent deliveries from interfering with the production of meals. Also, the cleaning operations can be scheduled for those times so that the restaurant workers don't have to stay late at night in order to clean the restaurant.

For some examples of what a city might want to experiment with, a city could restrict breakfast to between 7 and 9 AM. Some cities might want to restrict breakfast to simple foods that don't require much preparation from the restaurant employees so that the employees don't have to get to work early, and it is conceivable that some cities will not bother to offer any food prior to 10 AM. Dinner would be extended over a much longer period of time since that is when most people want to eat more slowly and socialize. Of course, some cities might want to make lunch the longer, slower meal.

Incidentally, it is possible for the restaurant workers who provide breakfast to provide fresh yeast bread without getting to work early in the morning. My personal experiences with making bread show that we can speed up the process tremendously. For example, we can get the yeast growing very rapidly if we put only a small amount of flour in the water, and if we use plenty of yeast, and 30 minutes later we can add the rest of the flour and other ingredients. The dough is ready to bake after only an hour. We can also speed up the baking of bread by making sheets or muffins rather than thick loaves. Nobody wants a large loaf, anyway.

If a chef has customers, then he justifies his job
Restaurants would be judged according to their ability to feed people efficiently. The process would be similar to how business executives judge their company's cafeteria, and how the managers of a cruise ship judge their restaurants, and how the military leaders judge the people who provide meals on ships and military bases. Specifically, the officials in the Food and Restaurant division would analyze each restaurant's consumption of food and the number of people they are serving, and pass judgment on whether they are serving enough people efficiently to justify having their particular building and equipment. If a chef was attracting people, and serving food efficiently, then he justifies his job. However, without free enterprise, the government officials must continuously replace the worst performing chefs so that other people could get their opportunity.

Since none of the chefs own their building or have to sign lease agreements, they could easily move from one location to another. This would allow the government to provide each chef with the amount of space that they need. For example, if a chef was attracting up to 20 people each night for dinner, he would need a restaurant that held 20 people. If a chef was becoming so popular that people were waiting in line to get into his restaurant, and if he was willing to expand his operation, then the government would offer him a restaurant that was larger. Conversely, if a chef had a large restaurant but was not capable of filling it with customers, then he would be told to move to a smaller location if some other chef needed that larger restaurant.

In a free enterprise system, a restaurant tends to stay in a particular location for a long period of time, especially if they own their property rather than rent it. Since the restaurants are known by their business name rather than the chef, and since they stay in a location for a long time, the signs that identify restaurants are usually large, expensive, and permanent. Some signs are attached directly to the building, and some are placed in a concrete foundation near the road, and some are placed on tall posts so that they can be seen from far away.

When the government is in control of the restaurants, we have more options available. Restaurants will be able to move locations as easily as people are allowed to move from one home to another. As a result, restaurants will not use permanent signs to identify themselves. They will have some other type of removable sign, flag, or LCD screen.

It might seem confusing to live in a city without McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and other familiar restaurants scattered around in permanent locations, because it would require you to choose between hundreds of different, independent restaurants that are known by their chef's name, such as John Smith's Soups and Jane Doe's Non Dairy Pizzas, but as mentioned earlier, learn to enjoy the adventure! For example, you could use the variety of restaurants as a topic for lunch or dinner. You could talk about which of the restaurants you've tried, and what you thought of the chef. Look for opportunities to enjoy life.

A city might also want to create some restaurants that are known by their meal rather than by the chef. These would be especially useful for young children. The chefs at these restaurants would try to create a particular style of meal rather than doing what they please. The name in front of these restaurants would identify the type of food rather than the chef. For example, the restaurants might have such names as "Sandwiches", "Pizzas", or "Burgers". These type of restaurants would be similar to the McDonald's and Pizza Hut franchises, except that the city would be the owner rather than private businesses, and that allows everybody to have the opportunity to manage and work at those restaurants.

We could have restaurants for toddlers, also
Since the city I propose doesn't provide people with their own kitchens, the city would provide special restaurants for mothers with young babies. The restaurants would be designed with tables that fit a mother and her baby, and the restaurant would have different styles of baby food for her to choose from. The tables, chairs, and floor would be waterproof and easy to clean. The floor could also have a rough surface so that it doesn't become slippery when wet, similar to the stickers that some people put into their bathtubs. These restaurants would allow mothers to easily feed their babies while they socialize with other mothers.

The apartment complexes would have these restaurants scattered around so that mothers can feed their babies by taking a short walk or elevator ride. A mother could pick up some of the food and carry it with her so that she could feed her baby wherever she pleased, but I would design the city with enough of these restaurants so that none of the mothers have to bother carrying food around for their babies. I suppose some mothers believe that they must be able to provide their children with food at anytime of the day or night, and that may be true while the babies are breast-feeding, but it is not true once they begin walking around and talking. The older children can follow schedules.

Another possibility is to enclose a garden to protect it from the weather, add some tables and chairs for mothers and babies, and leave the "floor" of the restaurant to be grass so that nobody has to worry about food spilling on the floor. The babies could also crawl around on that type of floor.

I should point out that this system of feeding children would be practical only if the children were well behaved. In a city that doesn't provide kitchens in the apartments, the mothers would have to go to restaurants to feed their children. There would be restaurants for mothers within the apartment complex, so they would be only a short distance from their apartment, but this would be irritating if the children are whining throughout the day and night for food or drinks.

Our prehistoric ancestors could not possibly have provided food to their children at all hours of the day or night. Animals regularly suffer temporary shortages of food. The children who demand food and drinks at inappropriate times should be regarded as defective. During prehistoric times, their whining would irritate their fathers, possibly resulting in them being killed, but today we tend to pamper them. The solution to this problem is to keep track of which children are the most troublesome, and prohibit them from reproducing. Eventually this will result in children who are truly a pleasure to raise.

Restaurants don't need menus
Another option for restaurants, for both adults and children, is for chefs to dispense with the menus. Their restaurants would be analogous to art galleries, except that instead of being presented with the artist's paintings or sculptures, you are presented with his meals. You would have no idea what you were going to eat. You would have to like the chef and be willing to trust his judgment. Going to one of these restaurants would be similar to going to a friend's home for dinner. Your friend doesn't provide you with a menu, and he may not ask you what you want to eat. Instead, you trust his judgment.

Restaurants without menus might be especially useful for children. Children evolved for an environment in which their parents gave them food. Prehistoric parents did not ask their children what they wanted to eat for lunch or dinner. Today many parents ask their children what they want to eat, and some parents also ask their children what type of clothing and toys they want. Are we helping children when we ask them what they want to eat? I suspect that we are encouraging the children to become demanding, arrogant, and spoiled. I suspect that it would be better if the restaurants for children provided the children with meals. The children who put up a fuss and make demands of the adults should be regarded as defective, and they should be prohibited from reproducing. Eventually this will create children who are grateful for what the adults are providing them.

Restaurants for adults don't have to provide complete meals
We also have the option of supporting a cluster of restaurants that together provide a complete meal, but individually are providing only partial meals. For example, one restaurant might provide only salads, and another might provide only breads, and another might provide only meats, and another might provide only pies. Getting a complete meal with these type of restaurants requires going from one restaurant to another. This is not easy to do in the cities of today. For one reason, each restaurant has overhead to deal with, and that makes these type of meals very expensive, and for another reason, most cities are so ugly, full of crime, noisy, and filthy, that most adults do not consider it enjoyable to wander from one restaurant to another. Another problem with this type of restaurant is that unless they are within walking distance of one another, not many people would be interested.

When the government is in control of all of the buildings and businesses, we can put the specialty restaurants within walking distance of one another, and they can be mixed with social clubs, recreational areas, parks, museums, gardens, and entertainment centers. This makes it very easy for a group of women to meet at a restaurant that offers salad for a few hours in the evening, while their husbands are having a beer at a social club. Later the husbands and wives can walk down the street to meet at a restaurant that serves only meat, and then they might all walk together to some theater, concert, or recreational activity, and when that is finished, they might walk back to the restaurant that served salads, but that restaurant closed hours earlier, and now a new chef is operating in the same dining room to produce desserts.

Restaurants, entertainment, exercise facilities, and recreational areas should be clustered together so that people can walk between them, although the drawing below is a plan for the Tianjin financial area.		The city streets would be for bicycles and people, not automobiles or trains. By reducing crime, the lights at night could be at very low levels to reduce light pollution and be more decorative.

I should point out that these type of restaurants would be inappropriate for the majority of people, and especially for children, because it allows them to eat whatever they please. These type of restaurants would provide us with a similar situation that we have right now in our own homes. When we have our own kitchens, we can choose what we eat, and most people have such low self-control that they tend to overeat the sweet and fatty foods, eventually suffering from obesity or malnutrition. A city that provides clusters of specialty restaurants would need citizens who have above average self-control.

Regardless of what type of restaurants we decide to provide for ourselves, the areas of the city that have the restaurants would be similar to the way Disneyland mixes restaurants and entertainment in an attractive, quiet area that allows people to walk around in comfort and safety. In our cities today, Disneyland is just a tiny section of an ugly, chaotic, disorganized city. Botanical gardens and parks are also tiny areas within a big, ugly city. However, we have the intelligence, technology, and resources to make the entire city into one giant garden, with beautiful buildings, lots of social activities, recreational areas, and swimming areas.

There could be some areas of the city for adults only, and other areas for single adults, and other areas for families. We could also have some areas that prohibit all wild animals and pets, and other areas that allow certain wild animals and/or pets. It would also be possible to have a section of the city that is designed only for women, or only for men.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are concerned about money, not human life, and so they don't want to restrict their customers to only adults, or only women, or only teenagers. What is best for us? Until we start experimenting with life, we are not going to be certain.

We need a department of City Decor
In a free enterprise system, it is virtually impossible for us to control the decorations of a city because each business is responsible for its own building, and the city government doesn't do much of anything for the city. However, when the government is in control of society, then the city owns all of the buildings, plazas, walkways, flowerpots, restaurants, and artwork. The city belongs to the people, not to individual businesses. We can create a City Decor Department to decorate the city, and to change the decorations once in a while to prevent boredom. As with other departments, people would be encouraged to join this department on a part-time and temporary basis so that the people can get involved with planning the city decorations, and/or to participate in creating those decorations.

In the cities of today, some businesses that surround plazas put flowerpots, fountains, benches, or dining tables outside of their business. Normally the businesses do not change their decorations very often. However, when a city agency is responsible for decorations, it becomes practical for us to build stronger, higher-quality, and larger flowerpots on wheels, which allows them to be moved around for various purposes, such as opening up areas for concerts or festivals, adjusting their access to sunlight or shade, and to redecorate the area. We could also design the statues in water fountains to be removable rather than permanent so that we can change them once in a while.

This promenade on a cruise ship is analogous to a city's Main Street, but the ships don't put steel gratings over their windows, and there is no problem with graffiti or crime. Why not? Because they remove the troublesome people.

The lights that we use to decorate the city at night could also be designed to make it easy for us to change their patterns and colors so that we don't get bored with them.

A cruise ship is essentially a miniature city. We make cruise ships decorative, quiet, and free of vandalism, pedophilia, sex slavery, and other crimes, so why not make our cities attractive and safe? Also, some ships have separate restaurants and activities for adults and children, but nobody on those ships are suffering as a result of "discriminating" against adults or children, so why not expand this concept to an entire city?

Most people today are wasting their talent on methods to make money, but if we shift our attention to figuring out how to make our lives more pleasurable, we will eventually come up with some useful ideas.

Why not design plazas in which the artwork can be moved around and changed? Why not design murals for buildings that can be changed or moved around? Why not build all factories and trains to be beautiful, quiet, and decorative? Why not experiment with different areas of the city for children, adults, men, and women? We have nothing to lose by experimenting with our future, and we have a lot to gain. Don't be afraid to let your imagination run wild!

The city would be divided into thirds
I would divide the Food and Restaurant department into thirds, and each division would have one third of the city and one third of the farms. Each section would have one director. This would allow us to compare the three directors to see which of them is doing the best job, and the worst performing director would be continuously replaced so that somebody else would have an opportunity.

The directors would not be judged according to their ability to please people. As with other people who have influential positions, they would be judged according to their overall effect on society. In the case of the Food and Restaurant department, we want them to provide us with restaurants that we enjoy, but we don't want them competing to titillate us. If they are under pressure to please people, we can end up with the idiotic situation that we have in America in which restaurants titillate children with toys and sweet foods (eg, McDonald's happy meals), or titillating children with loud and silly entertainment (eg, Chuck E Cheese), or attracting men with partly naked women or pornography (eg, strip clubs).

We want the officials of the Food and Restaurants department to provide us with meals and restaurants that we enjoy, but we must also consider the effect that the restaurants are having on our health and on society. By dividing the city into thirds, we will be able to compare the mental and physical health of the people in each section. For example, if the children in one section of the city start becoming increasingly fat, bratty, or obnoxious, it would not necessarily be due to the Food and Restaurant department, but we should investigate to determine what is different in that section, and which government official is responsible.

We also have to judge the officials of the Food and Restaurants department on the use of electricity, fertilizer, labor and other resources at the farms and greenhouses. We would also compare their ability to distribute the food to the restaurants, and how efficiently their restaurants are operating. We also have to judge them on the health and morale of the employees who work on the farms and in the restaurants.

It might seem difficult to make these judgments, but it is similar to what businesses, schools, and military units are doing right now when they pass judgment on the supervisors of their cafeterias, farms, warehouses, and distribution centers.

Incidentally, if you are becoming overwhelmed at the thought of doing all of these complex analyses and participating in all of these government agencies, it may be because you are imagining yourself doing all of this work alone. That would be the case if you were the only human in the city and everybody else was a sheeple, but if a significant percentage of the city population is willing to participate in society, then there will be plenty of people to help with the analyses of government officials and policies, participate in the discussions, and work with the government agencies. Nobody will have to do it all by themselves.

One agency would control both farms and restaurants
The Food and Restaurants department controls both farms and restaurants. By giving one government agency control over both production of food and the serving of meals, we allow them to do what would be impossible for free enterprise system, which is to plan food production to match the food consumption.

As I mentioned in a previous file, if citizens are tolerant of temporary shortages of a particular food, we can increase efficiency to a very high level. For example, if the government officials arrange for a certain amount of mushrooms to be produced based on average mushroom consumption, and if during one year there is a problem with mushroom production, then there will be a temporary and slight shortage of mushrooms. If the citizens are capable of dealing with shortages without whining, it allows us to significantly reduce the amount of labor and resources that we put into food production because we don't need to produce a large excess of food.

Judging a director of the Food and Restaurant department would be difficult if we did not split the city into thirds and give each director a different section. Splitting the city into thirds makes it easy to compare the three directors to one another and pass judgment on which of them is doing a better job of managing the production and distribution of food.

In a free enterprise system, managers are judged primarily according to their ability to make profit, but we have to judge government officials by their overall effect on society. This will be complicated. For example, when the city is divided into thirds, we might find that the restaurants in one third of the city are using more electricity, water, and cleaning supplies, which would make the director of that third of the city appear less efficient than the other two directors, but we need to analyze why his section of the city is consuming more resources before passing judgment on him. We might find that his restaurants are cleaner and more attractive, and that the extra resources are being used to maintain his restaurants to a higher standard. In that case, we have to pass judgment on whether he is being excessively clean, or whether his inefficiency can be justified.

Years ago I knew a manager of a restaurant franchise who had fooled the corporate management into thinking that he was very efficient because he had accomplished such amazing feats as reducing the electricity consumption compared to the previous managers. However, the reason he could make so much more profit than other managers is because he was ruining the production of food and making life miserable for the employees. For example, he removed a lot of the light bulbs from the basement. Many businesses have an excessive number of light bulbs, but he didn't simply remove the unnecessary bulbs. He removed so many that it was interfering with the work of the employees.

Some of his other money-saving tricks were decreasing the quality of the food, and the customers were complaining more often about the low quality. However, that particular manager was making so much profit that the corporate management promoted him into corporate management under the assumption that he was a spectacular manager. They didn't care, or didn't notice, that the customers were complaining more often. They were more excited by the profit. When they promoted him, they put another very successful, but undesirable, man in corporate management. Eventually the sales at their restaurants started to drop as a result of the lower quality, and years later they had to sell their restaurants, but I doubt if the executives took responsibility for ruining their company. They probably blamed their failure on changes with the economy or changes in the desires of consumers.

A different manager I met came up with the brilliant idea of injecting carbon dioxide, from the soda machines, into the mayonnaise, which caused the mayonnaise to become foamy and increase in volume. His reasoning was that the employees would use the same volume of mayonnaise on sandwiches, but when the mayonnaise is foamy, the employees will use less mayonnaise, thereby saving money on mayonnaise. Somebody who knew a bit about chemistry heard about this technique and told him that he should stop it because the carbon dioxide can react with the mayonnaise.

Our free enterprise system is encouraging us to look for ways to make money, and the result is that we are abusing one another, and the people who are the best at abusing us are often promoted to corporate management. Imagine what would happen if we put our efforts into looking for ways to improve society, and if we promoted the people who excelled at finding ways to improve society.

The officials in the Food and Restaurants department must do more than look at statistics. They must occasionally get out of their offices and visit farms and restaurants to determine what is actually going on. This might seem difficult, but there are some business executives who are already watching over departments or franchises by visiting them and observing what they do. To make this type of government work properly, we must find people for government positions who are truly interested in working rather than goofing off, and working for society rather than for themselves.

Incidentally, in order to make it practical for government officials to watch over restaurants, farms, factories, schools, recreational activities, museums, and other groups of people, we must remove secrecy. Government officials must be able to inspect every business, museum, and school, and without any warning. Parents should not have to warn their children that they want to inspect their bedroom, and government officials should not have to warn businesses or schools.

Another technique to improve business management is to remove the fear that employees have of losing their job. Many employees are willing to be silent about corruption or pedophilia in their business because they are afraid of losing their job. Therefore, by providing everybody with their basic necessities for free, and helping people to find jobs, the employees don't have to be afraid of losing their job. This will make it easier for employees to complain about their management, and if the government doesn't believe that the management is bad enough to replace, then the employee can quit and go somewhere else. Employees will not fear homelessness, hunger, or being blacklisted for jobs.

It is also necessary for a society to create an honest police force so that the citizens feel safe about exposing a crime, and it is necessary for the citizens to have confidence that they can expose crimes without retaliation by the crime network. How many people were aware that Jerry Sandusky was a pedophile but were afraid to complain because they worried about retaliation by his crime network? There may be thousands of employees around the world who are aware that their management is involved with crime, but they are afraid to expose them. We must stop feeling sorry for criminals and remove them from society so that we can create a social environment in which people can trust the police to such an extent that they will expose crime.

The employees and other "ordinary" people should not have any secrecy, either. The police and other government officials need access to information about what the people are doing in order to properly supervise society and eliminate crime. If people can control their paranoia of being watched, then the only people who will insist on secrecy will be those who want to engage in activities that they know we would disapprove of. We should not feel sorry for them or give them the secrecy to do whatever it is that they know that they should not do.

Efficiency Department

The government needs an efficiency agency that is analogous to our immune system. The number of employees in this agency would increase and decrease as they are needed, just as the quantity of white blood cells increase and decrease throughout our lives. The efficiency department could be broken into two divisions:
1) Government Efficiency.

The purpose of the Government Efficiency department would be to watch over other government agencies and try to eliminate as many of the jobs as possible. The officials in this division would look for ways to combine government jobs together, eliminate jobs completely, or reduce a full-time job to a part-time job. They would especially be concerned with reducing the number of leadership positions.

Since most government employees do intangible work, such as analysis, data collection, or supervision, increasing the efficiency of government requires figuring out which tasks are truly necessary, and how we can most efficiently deal with those particular tasks so that we can reduce jobs to a minimum.

The people in this Efficiency Department would also be concerned about the working conditions, cubicles, clothing styles for work, activities at lunch, and other aspects of what we could describe as the "job culture". Their goal would be to make employees more productive and more satisfied with their lives and jobs.

2) Business Efficiency.

The Business Efficiency department would be a larger department. They would have the same tasks of eliminating jobs and improving the "job culture", but they would concentrate on businesses rather than on government agencies.

Unlike government employees, who do intangible work, businesses produce items or services. Therefore, increasing the efficiency of the businesses requires government officials who can analyze manufacturing procedures and equipment. The government officials would help the businesses figure out the most efficient procedures, help them to select the proper equipment, help them increase the safety at their factory, and help them reduce the consumption of raw materials and utilities.

For example, the officials in this department would make decisions about whether the CNC controllers should be modernized to eliminate the floppy disk drives and the serial ports, as I mentioned in Part 9. In order for this agency to function properly, we need to find people who truly enjoy learning about new technology, and who truly enjoy experimenting with ways to make manufacturing more efficient, cleaner, and safer.

If the officials working for the Efficiency Department are not finding anything to improve, they would be replaced so that somebody else could have a chance to try. This would ensure that the officials in this department are always looking for ways to improve the factories, working conditions, social affairs, and everything else about society.

People who have the talent to figure out how to eliminate jobs are disliked in a free enterprise system. Unions complain about them, and business executives will support them only if they are eliminating the lower-level jobs rather than the top management positions. Furthermore, it is especially unlikely for a person in a free enterprise system to look for a way to eliminate his own job.

However, when the government is finding jobs for us, we don't need to worry about losing our job. Therefore, a person who can figure out how to eliminate his own job or other people's jobs is a valuable person with a very useful talent. People who have demonstrated a success in eliminating jobs would qualify for the government's Efficiency Department.

One of the areas that the Efficiency Department will focus on is the distribution of information. In our society today, virtually all organizations are distributing information in some form, such as newsletters, websites, and pamphlets. Businesses also produce descriptions of their products, warnings, and user's manuals. The Efficiency Department needs to occasionally analyze the organizations to determine whether they are providing us with sensible information, and in a sensible manner. For example, in the city that I live in, the agency that provides us with water mails a paper newsletter to us to tell us about the latest chemical analysis of our water, and a few other issues, but why do we need a paper copy of this information? It would be more efficient for the agency to maintain the information on their website.

The Efficiency Department should pass judgment on the value each job has to society. Their goal is to eliminate the most useless jobs and keep the jobs that have the most value. We don't benefit much from people who produce paper newsletters. We benefit much more from people who are providing us with decorative colored windows, more advanced robots, better educational materials, more useful social activities, better medical technology, and trains that are safer, more reliable, and more comfortable.

People would work for the Efficiency division only while they are in the process of bringing some type of improvement to society. When they are finished making some improvements, and if they cannot think of anything else to improve, then they go back to their primary job. This requires that we set some time limit for an official to do something, such as two months. If, after two months of analyzing society, an official has not found any way to eliminate a job or increase efficiency somewhere, then he returns to his primary job.

This agency will also work with people outside of the agency in order to spread ideas and coordinate improvements. As an example, let's assume that you are working for a factory that produces the solar powered lights that are placed along footpaths, as in the photo to the right. Let's assume that you take it upon yourself to analyze some of the jobs at the factory, and you come to the conclusion that by changing certain operations, machinery, or raw materials, you can eliminate some of the factory jobs, or reduce the electricity that the factory uses. And let's assume that your ideas are implemented, and they prove to be successful in improving efficiency.

In a free enterprise system, your achievement in increasing efficiency would be kept a secret, but it would be better for society if you or your boss contacted the Efficiency Department to let them know of your achievement. The Efficiency Department would then pass that information to other businesses and Efficiency Departments around the world, so that other businesses could decide whether it would apply to their operation, also.

Furthermore, in a free enterprise system, your boss might thank you for your achievement, but it would be better for society to keep everybody's job performance in a publicly accessible database so that people get credit for their successes, and have to take responsibility for their failures. The database would allow us to determine everybody's talents and weaknesses, and the people who show exceptional abilities to improve efficiency and eliminate jobs would be especially useful as one of the temporary officials in the Efficiency Department. 

If a person's idea to increase efficiency doesn't require much of a change to a factory, then the managers could implement the change by themselves without bothering to ask for assistance from the Efficiency Department. However, some changes are either very complex, or they require changing some other business, or more than one business, and that requires the government to get involved to provide supervision.

For example, let's assume that you take it upon yourself to analyze what happens to the solar powered lights after they become worn out or broken. Let's assume that you notice that people are throwing the broken items in the trash, and that many of the batteries are being put into the trash, also. You think about the issue and come to the conclusion that by redesigning the device, you can use a battery that is already in production and which is easier to recycle, or by changing some of the plastic in the device to a different type, the entire item becomes easier to recycle. Or perhaps you figure out how to make the LEDs easier to remove and recycle.

You would not be able to implement those type of improvements by yourself because it requires making changes to more than one business, and possibly businesses in different cities. These type of improvements may require coordinating several different factories, recycling centers, and/or raw material suppliers. These type of improvements cannot be implemented in a free enterprise system because there is nobody to coordinate and control the businesses, but when the government has total control of the economy, then it's easy for government officials to make dramatic changes in manufacturing, recycling, energy distribution, and everything else.

The Efficiency Department would set up a temporary team to analyze the issue and figure out how to implement it, and since you had come up with the idea, you would be eligible to participate in this group by becoming a temporary government official. You would take some time off from your primary job, or temporarily suspend your primary job, and then work part-time or full-time on the efficiency improvement. Whether you choose to be part-time or full-time would depend upon how much work you needed to do.

By joining the team of government officials, you would have the authority to implement the changes rather than merely suggest changes. Also, when you become a government official, you will have contact with the other people in this division, and they can give you ideas and assistance. When you are finished making the changes, your job as a government official is terminated, and you return to your primary job. Or, if other businesses could benefit from your achievement, you could remain in the government for a while longer and help other businesses to implement your procedure, or some variation of it.

In a free enterprise system, the management would not want one of their employees taking time off to help other businesses become more efficient, but in this system, everybody works for society, so everybody benefits when we are helping one another.

The results of your work will be recorded in the database about you, so every time you are successful, it will show as an achievement, and every time you make a mistake, it will show as a failure. The people who have the most success in improving society will have the easiest time getting people to listen to their ideas, and being promoted to high level government positions.

Most people would be working for "world businesses" rather than "city businesses", but regardless, each city government would be responsible for finding jobs for their citizens. From the point of view of employees, there would be no difference between working for a city business and a world business. It would be similar to the situation we have today in which a city has a mixture of local businesses and international businesses. However, when all of the basic necessities are provided for free, none of the jobs provide any health care, retirement, or salaries. People would select jobs according to what the job is, not according to its financial benefits, or according to whether it is a city business or a world business.

The Jobs and Education department would maintain a database of jobs in their city to allow people to figure out which jobs are available at that moment in time, and which will be available in the future as a result of businesses that plan to expand, or as a result of people who plan to retire or change jobs. In a free enterprise system, people are usually very secretive about looking for a new job, and some people are secretive about their plans to retire. Businesses are also secretive about their plans to expand and hire people, and they are especially secretive about their plans to eliminate jobs. As a result, people in a free enterprise system usually don't know which jobs will become available in the near future.

However, when the government is in control of the entire economy, everybody is a government employee, and the Jobs and Education officials have to help people find jobs and help businesses fill vacancies. Those officials will want businesses and employees to provide them with as many details of their future plans as possible, such as who is planning to retire, who is going to get a promotion, which businesses are planning to hire more people, and which jobs are likely to be eliminated.

The more details the officials have about future events, the better they will do at helping people, schools, and businesses to deal with employment issues. For example, school officials will be able to look at the jobs that existed years ago, those that exist today, and the jobs that are expected in the future, thereby allowing them to do an analysis of how technology is changing the jobs. The school officials can use that information to adjust the school curriculums, and to help the students decide what jobs to prepare for.

Everybody benefits from this type of honesty and openness. Secrecy about jobs doesn't help anybody. We will all benefit if we can control our selfishness and cravings for secrecy, and work together as a team.

In the world today, there is so much crime, selfishness, mental illness, vandalism, and crude behavior that many employees are afraid to give advanced warning that they are going to quit, and many businesses are afraid to give advanced warning to their employees that they are going to be fired or that their jobs will soon be eliminated. A few years ago some of the employees who worked at the Raytheon office near my home arrived for work one Monday morning and were told that they are no longer needed due to changes with the economy, and that they must go home, and that somebody in the company will pack their personal items in a box and ship it to them. Nobody benefits from this rude behavior. We are tormenting one another, but for what reason? Who benefits from this?

Another problem in America is that many businesses and government agencies are under pressure to make it appear as if they are giving everybody a fair opportunity to apply for a job, and so they often advertise a job and interview people even though they already know who they are going to hire for the job. These people are wasting their time and everybody else's time in these fraudulent, deceptive attempts to satisfy "equal opportunity" laws and feminists.

If we can find the emotional strength to set standards of behavior for people and evict those who cannot fit in, then we don't have to be afraid of one another. Businesses will be able to warn employees that their jobs are going to be eliminated, and they can provide estimated dates. A respectable employee will react to that warning by looking for a new job while continuing to work properly until the time he is no longer needed. The people who react with tantrums, violence, and vandalism should be regarded as savages who don't fit into this modern world.

Likewise, managers would be able to honestly tell the substandard employees that if they don't improve their job performance, they will be fired. A respectable person will react to this warning by taking a critical look at himself and deciding whether to keep the job, in which case he must make a serious attempt at improving his performance, or whether he should give up and find a job that is more suited to his talents and desires. The employees who react to such warnings with tantrums, vandalism, or pouting should be regarded as savages who don't belong in society.

Everybody should face the fact that we all have abilities and limitations, and that it is in everybody's best interest to figure out what jobs we can do properly. The people who cannot understand or follow this philosophy should be evicted. We should not live in fear of one another, and we should not have to worry about violent, angry employees who want revenge for being fired.

Another of the reasons that I think Teentown would be useful is that it makes it very easy for the adults to provide the teenagers with a variety of different jobs. However, they would not be pampered in their jobs. The purpose of treating them "harshly" in different jobs is to help them figure out their talents, desires, and limitations, and to help them understand that they are not as talented as they think they are. No teenager, no matter how smart, talented, coordinated, or strong, will be excellent at every job. By forcing the teenagers into a variety of different jobs, all of them will occasionally be put in a job that they are average or substandard at, thereby giving all of them several opportunities to be reprimanded and fired. Both their job performance and their reaction to being fired should become part of their public school records. By keeping a publicly accessible database of everybody's life, it will be easier for us to pass judgment on who is better able to deal with modern life.

I would also force the teenagers to have several opportunities to supervise one another, and I would design those jobs so that every teenager must regularly fire the worst performing member of their team. The purpose would be to 1) let the teenagers try their management skills so that they can determine whether they like management and are good at it, and 2) get them accustomed to the philosophy of analyzing a person's job performance and routinely firing the worst performing member.

The government I propose has departments in which there are three top officials, and the worst performing of the three should be regularly replaced so that somebody else can have the opportunity. This system requires finding a certain number of adults who have the ability to analyze the performance of our leaders, make a wise decision about which of them is the worst performer, and then fire that person. The teenagers should be given experience with this philosophy so that they become comfortable with the concept, and to determine which of them shows an ability to do it properly.

The attitude in America is that nobody needs any training, practice, or education in order to do a good job of voting. America doesn't even demand that a voter be literate or pay attention to the election. However, virtually every job requires at least a bit of training, practice, and education. Voting is treated as if it is the most unskilled job in the world. Voting is the only job that nobody is expected to know anything about or need any training for. The people who are hired for unskilled labor are given more training for their job than a voter. Is there even one school in America that spends even one hour teaching the students about voting?

America is based on the philosophy that the voters can select submissive representatives without any training or advice, but in a more sensible government system, the government officials are leaders, and the voters are the Personnel Department for society. The voters should analyze the leadership abilities of candidates. It is idiotic to expect people to do this properly without some education and practice. Furthermore, it is idiotic to assume that everybody is equally capable of doing these analyses. If we could measure a person's ability to analyze people for leadership positions, we would find that most people have "average" talent, and half the population is "below average". Do you want people who are "below average" in their analytical skills to influence your government? The people who influence the world should demonstrate above average analytical abilities.

It requires more than intelligence to select somebody for a leadership position. It requires a person to have a certain amount of control over his emotions. Many people show signs of intelligence, but when they select leaders for government or business, their low level of self-control causes them to pick somebody who gives them praise or promises, or they are so arrogant that they look for somebody who has the same opinions, or they are so biased towards their friends and family members that they select one of them rather than a stranger.

Schools should give the teenagers some education and practice with the analysis of people and issues. The students who show the lowest level of interest or ability should not be allowed to have much of an influence over government policies, or over who gets promoted to top positions in government, business, schools, and other organizations.

Any adult who wants to participate in the selection of government officials should be able to demonstrate an ability to perform intelligent analyses of a person's leadership abilities. Determining whose analysis is so intelligent that they deserve to be classified as a "voter" is as difficult as determining who has the necessary talent to be classified as a pilot, a dentist, or a plumber, but we can and must make these type of decisions. A person should be told that he lacks the intellectual and emotional ability necessary to be a useful voter if his analysis of a political candidate is as crude as, "His view on abortion is correct!"

Teentown would be an excellent way of putting teenagers through various types of educational programs, and starting the process of classifying their intellectual abilities, and determining their talents and limitations. Since Teentown would be a training program rather than a summer camp, the teenagers would have lots of different jobs to do, such as making meals, cleaning the kitchen, janitorial duties for their apartment complex, bicycle maintenance, and gardening. As medical instruments become simple to use, the teenagers could do some medical analyses on themselves and one another, such as checking blood chemistry and determining their allergic reactions.

I would also force teenagers to practice the creation of recreational, entertainment, sports, and social activities for themselves, and occasionally change the artwork and decorations in their apartment complex. Instead of teaching teenagers to mindlessly follow the customs of their ancestors, we should force the teenagers to create their own cultural activities and decorations. They will get into the habit of learning from their ancestors rather than following their ancestors, and they will become accustomed to the concept that they can set the course for their future rather than wonder what the future will be.

Everybody is accustomed to analyzing kitchen appliances, bicycles, airplanes, computers, and cell phones, and magazines routinely provide reviews of material items, but not many people are accustomed to analyzing social technology. Some magazines and television shows provide reviews of music concerts, sports, and holiday celebrations, but those reviews are for entertainment rather than to analyze how the activity is affecting society. By forcing the teenagers to work in teams to analyze and create cultural activities, they will become accustomed to working with people in the experimentation and analysis of social technology.

I would also ensure that all of the teenagers are forced to occasionally explain what they dislike about art, music, recreational activities, or other cultural issues. This will help them become accustomed to the idea that criticism of cultural issues is just as acceptable as criticism of cell phones or computer software, assuming that the criticism is constructive rather than idiotic whining. This will help the students become accustomed to the idea that serious criticism of cultural issues is beneficial, not traitorous or unpatriotic, whereas grumbling and whining are detrimental.

People are regularly experimenting with new types of solar cells and farming equipment, but most people defend their culture rather than analyze and experiment with it. Critical reviews of hobbies, museums, sports, and city festivals should be just as acceptable as a critical review of a digital camera or a cell phone. Suggestions on how to improve Christmas, Halloween, Valentine's Day, a sports event, and a music concert should be as acceptable as suggestions on how to improve light bulbs or laptop computers.

It is acceptable for people to demand that defective and dangerous products be removed or fixed, and it should also be acceptable to suggest removing or fixing the aspects of our culture that we consider detrimental or useless. For example, I would describe "feminism" as a defective cultural concept that interferes with relationships between men and women, and which encourages pouting and hatred, and I suggest that we remove feminism from society.

During the first few months of 2013, some people were having discussions about whether the lithium batteries in the Boeing 787 should be replaced or modified, and we should have the same type of serious discussions about whether we want to continue Halloween, Easter, Christmas, weddings, sports, and city festivals exactly as they are right now, or whether we should modify some of them, or whether we should eliminate some of them.

We should not need job applications or resumes
Everybody's school records, job performance, medical information, and personal information would be in a publicly accessible database, so nobody would have to be bothered by filling out resumes or job application forms. The Jobs and Education department would maintain a database of jobs that are available at that moment in time, and those that will be available in the near future. A person would apply for a job simply by clicking on a job. That would send a message to the business that the person was interested in the job, and in the message would be a link to that person's database entry.

This department would also help people figure out if they should take training courses before applying for a job. This department would be in control of the educational courses for both children and adults, and so they would be able to provide people with advice and training programs.

The Jobs and Education department would force teenagers to experiment with lots of different jobs. In a free enterprise system, businesses do not want to deal with teenagers who are experimenting with jobs or who need training because it is inefficient for the business, but society needs to consider children as the next generation of adults, and we need to prepare them for society. When the government is in control of all businesses, then it becomes possible to allow some businesses to operate inefficiently by providing job opportunities for teenagers.

The government would not want to force any business to accept teenagers. Ideally, the adults who have the necessary personality to deal with teenagers would occasionally volunteer to accept some teenagers and provide them with some job training or job experience.

If we do a good job of educating children and giving them lots of work experience, then by the time a teenager is ready to leave Teentown, he will have a good idea of his abilities and limitations, and what sort of jobs he would be interested in. Figuring out how to prepare teenagers for adulthood will be difficult and require a lot of experiments, but through the years we will become increasingly better at it, and that will be worth the effort because it will allow the young adults to rapidly integrate into society and become productive members.

A few decades ago it was common for adults to believe that they should remain in one company forever, but we should not be obligated to dedicate our lives to a particular business or job. Businesses and other organizations should be considered as temporary associations of people. We should focus on society and human life rather than on businesses. We should not expect to work in the same organization or job throughout our life. There are lots of reasons why people will change jobs or organizations. Improvements in technology, for example, alter which jobs and organizations are in existence. There will be jobs in the future that do not exist yet, and you might want to switch to one of them.

We also need to face the fact that we deteriorate with age. The people who do physically demanding work cannot be expected to do such work when they are 70 years old. In the free enterprise system, the people who do physically demanding jobs tend to retire at about age 55, and then they either get bored, or they find some other job. Some of the retired policemen, firemen, and government officials are collecting retirement benefits while working at a new job, and when they retire from that second job, they may get another set of retirement benefits.

It would be better to design our economy to deal with the fact that we age. I already mentioned that we should allow businesses to operate inefficiently by allowing teenagers to get some job training, and we should also apply this policy for older people. Many retired people can do useful work, and many of them have useful knowledge and experience, but we need to provide them with less demanding tasks, and/or fewer working hours. In a free enterprise system, businesses do not want to deal with the less productive older people, and they don't want to provide them with medical care, but when the government is in control of the economy, the government takes care of retirement and medical care, so businesses don't have to be concerned about those expenses, and businesses don't have to worry about operating at maximum efficiency, so it is practical for businesses to provide part-time jobs for older people.

The Jobs and Education division should help people change jobs as they get older. We would not set a particular age for switching jobs or retiring. The age at which a person changes jobs will depend upon his particular mental and physical health.

People should also be able to temporarily switch to a different job and/or different working conditions or hours when they become pregnant, injured from an accident, or are recovering from surgery or illness. In a free enterprise system, businesses have a resistance to allowing employees to take time off, or have different working conditions, but when the government is in control of all businesses, the government's duty is to provide everybody with a job. From the point of view of society, it is in everybody's best interest to keep everybody working. There is no benefit in tormenting the people who become injured or pregnant.

We could experiment with such policies as setting aside some jobs specifically for mothers with babies. We would provide the women with their own offices that have all of the supplies they need for taking care of babies, and we could provide the mothers with the type of work that they could do while being interrupted by babies. Those mothers would be less productive than women without babies, but we should not worry about corporate profits. It is better to provide everybody with something useful to do, even if they are inefficient.

Jobs and education belong together
In our society today, jobs and education are completely separate activities. Schools are providing an education without any feedback from the organizations that have jobs. As a result, the people who are trying to fill jobs cannot influence the school curriculum, and schools have no idea if their school courses are of any value to the students. It would be better to put education and jobs under the control of one department so that the education can be altered to fit the available jobs.

When one group of government officials is responsible for finding us jobs, and when that same group is also responsible for educating children, then they will become much more aware of when their educational programs are giving students the necessary skills to function in society and get a job. Also, when a person is fired from his job, or when he quits because he doesn't like it, that same group of officials has to find him another job. Therefore, these officials will be under pressure to not only prepare students for jobs, but to also help them figure out what they are good at and what they enjoy so that there are fewer firings and quittings.

The officials in the Jobs and Education department will be under pressure to teach students information that will truly be useful to them in their jobs. The officials will want the curriculum to be practical rather than entertaining. They will be under pressure to eliminate as much irrelevant information from the school curriculum as possible.

Since this department will also be responsible for managing and developing the training programs for adults who want to switch jobs, the government officials will want to ensure that students have a lot of useful skills when they graduate so that adults don't need training programs for simplistic issues, such as how to use a computer.

This agency will also be able to deal with a problem that cannot be solved in the free enterprise system; namely, an excessive number of students training for certain jobs, and a shortage of students training for some other jobs. This agency will maintain a publicly accessible database of jobs, and that will show the students, teachers, and government officials exactly how many people are working as doctors, dentists, mechanics, and pilots, and they will guess about which jobs will be available 10 or 20 years in the future as a result of changes in technology and retirement. They can use that information to ensure that there are not too many or too few students training for those particular jobs. They will never be able to accurately predict the future, but they can certainly do better than what the schools are doing today, which is nothing.

If this department doesn't properly prepare students for jobs, then some adults will have trouble getting a job, or holding onto a job. This department will have to deal with those unemployed adults, such as by creating adult education programs to provide them with additional training. As a result, the officials will be under pressure to reduce the number of unemployed adults by providing the children with such a good education and training that they can get and hold onto jobs.

Encourage participation in educational materials
The people who have the best idea of which information and skills the students need for a particular job are the adults who are currently working at those particular jobs. Those adults should get involved with the creation or editing of educational materials. To make this easy, the Jobs and Education department would encourage people to join the department on a temporary and part-time basis to help with the creation and editing of educational documents and videos.

If the people who have experience with jobs are too apathetic to occasionally participate in the creation of educational materials, then those materials will either never be created, or they will be created by people who don't have the experience. From the point of view of society, it is best to encourage people with jobs to participate in the creation and editing of educational materials.

For example, if a scientist is doing research in stem cells, he should have a much better understanding than any government official or teacher about the type of skills and information that a student needs in order to become a productive member of his research lab. Therefore, he should occasionally get involved with the department of Jobs and Education to help create educational materials, tests, and projects for the students. As technology improves, he should revise his materials.

All of the experienced farmers, machinists, technicians, engineers, scuba divers, and ranchers should also consider occasionally getting involved with the creation of educational materials for their particular job category. Some farmers and engineers may not have any idea of how to create educational materials all by themselves, but by joining the government on a temporary basis, they will be working with other government officials, some of whom will have experience in creating educational materials, and together they can help one another create materials that are more useful than what the students have today.

America's philosophy towards education is to provide the students with a wide variety of information in the hope that some of it is useful. Our schools provide students with thick, paper books on biology, carpentry, math, and other issues. The books have a lot of information, but none of it is actually intended to help the students perform at a job. Most of the information that the students learn is of no use to them when they finally get a job.

A better philosophy is to provide them with useful skills so that they can get a job. Instead of creating generic paper books, we should have lots of smaller electronic documents and videos on specific issues. A job training program would consist of a list of suggested documents and videos for the students, along with tests and projects.

A particular farmer or machinist may assist in the creation of only one or two short, educational documents during his life, but the quality of the education materials is more important than the quantity. If a farmer contributes only one paragraph to an educational document about farming, he has contributed something of value. If thousands of other people also contribute a paragraph or two, it adds up to a lot of useful information.

In the world today, scientists are under pressure to publish documents in scientific journals, but scientists should also get credit for creating educational materials. If more of the experienced adults would get involved in creating educational materials, we could theoretically produce a tremendous amount of truly useful materials. The students will waste less time memorizing useless information and spend more time learning useful skills.

Divide a city into three school districts
As you might expect, I would divide the city into three districts, and the Jobs and Education department would have three directors, one for each district. Each of them would be in control of the schools and the training programs for their district, and they would be responsible for finding jobs for the people in their district. By dividing the city into thirds, we have an easy way of comparing the directors to see which of them is educating students with the most useful knowledge in least amount of time, and which of them is doing the best at helping people find jobs that they are productive at and enjoy.

The three directors would not be compared according to their popularity with students or job seekers. Rather, we would judge them by how well the graduates are finding useful jobs, and how well the students function in society. The issue of "functioning in society" is another issue that the free enterprise system is ignoring. There is no profit in training children to function in society. As a result, children are graduating from school without any understanding of how to start a business, purchase a home, or put on an airline seatbelt.

When we divide a city into thirds, we can compare the students of each of the districts to see which of them are fitting into society easier. We would see which group of children are better mannered, and which group has a better understanding of how to use the transportation systems, start a business, and get involved with the government on temporary and part-time basis.

The officials in the Jobs and Education department would be involved in managing the operation of the schools, setting the curriculum, hiring teachers, and designing school classrooms. By switching to an electronic education, it is very easy for the department to make changes in the school curriculum because the schools do not need to worry about printed books.

Students should be given lists of links, not books
In an electronic education, the school "curriculum" is just a list of links to documents, videos, tests, and experiments. Each student would be independent of the others and learning at his own pace, and so each of them would have their own curriculum. The teachers would help the students develop a curriculum, and they would occasionally suggest changes to the curriculum according to what the student likes and is good at. Changing the curriculum for a particular student would be easy. It simply requires changing the list of links to documents, tests, experiments, projects, and videos, and/or changing the order of items on that list.

For an example of how and why teachers might alter a students curriculum, if the businesses complained that the students who graduated from school as machinists were frequently showing signs that they don't know enough about the concept of "tangent arcs" to use CAD/CAM systems properly, then the school officials could change the school curriculum for machinists by suggesting the students watch some particular videos or read some particular documents on the issue of tangent arcs as it relates to machining and CAD/CAM systems. If there were no videos or documents on that issue, then the Jobs and Education department would create them. The government officials would also alter the testing of the students in the machining program to ensure that the students had adequate knowledge about the issue of tangent arcs.

Some adults complain that children are no longer reading books, but as computers become more advanced, paper documents have less value. The schools could provide every student with a laptop computer terminal with a touchscreen. Very young children could be provided with desks in which a portion is a durable touchscreen, thereby eliminating the need for paper, pencils, books, and laptop computers. Eventually the touchscreens will be replaced by "pressure screens", and that will make the computer terminals even more useful for education, artwork, and creative activities.

In our current society, schools are dependent upon printed books, and the Jews are in control of our publishing industry, so the Jews are interfering with the education of students. By switching to electronic education and by eliminating copyrights, all of the educational materials can be put in the educational area of the Internet. As of today, there is no section of the Internet for education, but we can easily set aside an area of the Internet for the school system. It would be an archive of videos, documents, audio files, and other materials that are intended to be educational rather than entertaining. None of the materials would be copyrighted, so all of them could be continuously improved. Without the Jews interfering with education, we won't have idiotic Holocaust propaganda, UFO propaganda, and other nonsense mixed into the educational materials.

In this type of electronic educational system, the curriculum for a particular course is just a list of links to documents, videos, tests, and projects. All of the students would be independent, so the teacher would not talk to the students as a group. Instead, a teacher would spend some time with one student to help him with his curriculum, answer questions, and give him suggestions. Then the teacher would talk with another student.

When a student became confused about something, the teacher could help him in the conventional way; namely, by explaining the issue to him. However, with electronic educational materials, the teacher has the additional option of altering the curriculum by adding some links to other videos and documents to the student's list, or changing the order of items in the list. If a student is continuously having trouble with a subject, the teacher also has the option of suggesting he try some other subjects to see if he is better at any of those. With electronic educational materials, a student can switch from one course to another in a matter of seconds, and then switch back if he wants to.

In our current educational system, a teacher provides information to a group of students as if they are identical robots being fed data, but in an electronic education, a teacher has to spend time alone with each student and analyze his particular situation. This type of teaching can be done on a part-time basis, which makes it easy for retired people to become teachers, as well as people who have full-time jobs. For example, a retired person, or a technician with a full-time job, might be willing to be a teacher one afternoon every week. In that short period of time he might be able to deal with only five students, but if he is helping the students, it doesn't matter that there are only five in his "class". Those five students would have access to other teachers on other days, so they would not be dependent upon just one person.

Since the teachers must spend time alone with students, both the students and teachers must have a certain compatibility. Therefore, we need to allow the teachers and students to choose one another. This also requires that we do a better job of preventing the sexually disturbed and lonely people from becoming teachers.

In an electronic education, school materials are electronic, which are easy to produce by individuals and small groups, so we don't need publishing companies to provide us with educational materials, and that prevents Jews from controlling the production of educational materials. All we need to do is set aside a certain area of the Internet for educational materials. Only the department of Jobs and Education would be authorized to put materials into this section, but everybody would have access to it, even if they were not students. When we do a search of educational materials, only the materials in this section will appear in the search.

Since the government would have control of this section of the Internet, we have the potential problem of what we see today in which the Jews secretly get control of the government and manipulate the educational materials. There are different ways for us to deal with this problem. One is to eliminate copyrights and encourage everybody to get involved with the creation and editing of educational materials. We need a certain percentage of the population to become active participants in the creation or supervision of educational materials, and to complain about inaccurate historical information, or that a scientific "fact" is actually only a "theory", or that a particular photo or diagram is confusing and should be replaced with a better version.

Everybody would be encouraged to complain about educational materials, and everybody would be free to make their own versions of the materials. However, people would not put their complaints or modified materials into the educational section of the Internet. Instead, people would post their complaints, suggestions, and modifications to a particular website of the Jobs and Education department. The officials in that department would be required to post a response to each of them.

By putting all of the suggestions and government responses on the Internet, everybody would be able to see the suggestions on how to improve educational materials, and how the government officials are reacting to the suggestions. This openness and lack of secrecy would allow us pass judgment on which officials are rejecting the sensible suggestions, and which people are coming up with the most useful suggestions. The people who accumulate successes would be more likely to be promoted, and the people who accumulate failures would be demoted and ignored.

Compare that situation to what we have in America today. Our history books are lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and many other issues. You can complain to the authors and the publishers, but only those few people will see your complaints. There will be no public record of your complaint. The authors and publishers can ignore your complaints because they are under no obligation to respond to complaints. They can do whatever they please, and secretly. There will be no public record of their response to your complaint.

By creating educational materials in a more open and honest manner, and by keeping track of everybody's successes and failures, the people who are successful in improving educational materials will have an increasingly easy time getting other people to seriously consider their suggestions, and it will be easier for them to get top-level government positions in the Jobs and Education department. This allows us to provide ourselves with government officials who have useful talent.

At the other extreme, the people who accumulate failures will have an increasingly difficult time getting people to take their suggestions seriously, and if they fail often enough, they could be classified as a "public nuisance" and banned from posting their idiotic suggestions on the website.

Likewise, the government officials who post responses to the suggestions will also build up successes or failures as they approve or reject the suggestions for improvements to the educational materials. The officials with the most failures would be regularly replaced so that somebody else is always getting an opportunity.

There is no way to prevent corruption, incompetence, mistakes, and cheating, but by increasing the number of people who are watching over educational materials, we reduce the chances of mistakes and propaganda.

This philosophy of encouraging citizens to get involved with the creation of educational materials would also be useful for creating on-the-job training materials. For example, if a scientist finds that he is frequently training new employees on a particular piece of DNA analysis equipment, instead of suffering silently, as he does today, he could create a video that explains how to use the equipment. He could then post that video on the site for suggested improvements for educational materials. The officials in the Jobs and Education department may agree that the video is useful, but they would not necessarily put it into any school curriculum. Instead, they may decide that the students already have too much information to deal with, but that the video would be useful for on-the-job training. Therefore, they would put his video into the educational database, give that scientist credit for developing a useful educational video, and when a student graduates in that particular field, he would be given a list of that and other materials for his on-the-job training, thereby reducing the burden on the scientists. Instead of the scientist training the newly hired employees, the students would watch the video, and then the scientist would only have to answer their questions.

Our schools today create courses only for students while they are in school, but if we also start accumulating educational materials for on-the-job training, then whenever a person gets a job, he will be given a list of materials to start learning so that he understands how to do the job.

Schools could also provide educational materials for "adult education" for adults who have jobs, but who occasionally need to refresh their memory or who need to learn about some concept or new machine. For example, a particular machinist might be given a task that he has never done before. Instead of asking other people for help, he would first look in the educational database to see if somebody has created some information to explain that particular task. This type of educational material could be described as "online job help" rather than as "adult education".

Ideally, the adult education materials would be developed with the assistance of people who are actually working at the jobs so that they can make sure that the materials are relevant. For example, airline pilots, scuba divers, and technicians occasionally find themselves explaining some piece of equipment over and over, or they have to occasionally refresh their own memory about something. When a person finds himself explaining the same concepts, techniques, or equipment over and over, he should consider creating an educational video or document. When a person finds himself confused by a particular educational document, he should consider editing it and trying to make it better. When a person cannot find some subject in the educational database, he should consider whether other people would be interested in that information also, in which case he should consider making whatever is missing.

Some people might have an idea for an educational video or document, but they don't have the time or technical skills necessary to create it by themselves. In such a case, they could post a proposal for their educational material on the website for the Jobs and Education department, and if the government officials consider his idea to be potentially valuable, then they will provide him with the assistance that he needs, and he could supervise the project. He would in effect become a temporary official in the Jobs and Education department in order to create that educational material.

If a lot of people participates in the creation and editing of educational materials, we would eventually build up a very valuable educational database. As cell phones become more advanced, people will be able to access the database from their phone. When robots become more advanced, we will be able to ask them questions, and they can search the educational database and give us the answers both verbally and on a monitor. Compare that to the situation today in which we search the Internet for educational materials, and most of what appears is idiotic material, propaganda, and entertainment.

We could also apply this concept to creating a database to replace the "help files" for software. Most software comes with "help files", but these files are created by the developer, and so they are limited to what the developer can create. When everybody in society is encouraged to participate in the editing of those help files, then we could potentially provide ourselves with help files that are much more useful. The users of the software know what they need help about, and they also know which parts of the existing help files are confusing, and so by participating in improving those files, we would end up with more useful help messages.

There are lots of printed books that offer the details of how to use AutoCAD or Adobe Photoshop, but from my personal experiences, these books are written by authors who are trying to make money or start a career as a writer. They are not really interested in educating us. Furthermore, a paper book is not nearly as easy to search through as an electronic document, and it is impossible for people to edit paper books. It would be better to have everybody contributing to an electronic database of help messages.

I should point out that an educational database is only as valuable as the people can make it. If we create a government of criminals and idiots, and if the majority of people are apathetic sheeple who refuse to contribute to the database, then it will be worthless. The value of this database depends upon the quality of the material, and the ease at which we can find material. The Internet could be described as an educational database, but most of what is on it is worthless, and it takes a long time to find something of value. When we do find something of value, it is of limited value because most of the educational materials were created by just one person, and usually during his leisure time, and educational materials from one person are not nearly as good as those that have evolved over decades.

Furthermore, the Internet is completely disorganized. There is no educational area, and to make the situation worse, the Internet seems dominated by idiotic information, entertainment, and Jewish propaganda. Also, many people are making copies of videos and documents and posting them on their own site, and the end result is that when we search for something, we often find dozens of copies of the same material. The educational materials need to be separated from the rest of the Internet, categorized in a more sensible manner, and duplications need to be removed.

Imagine if the Internet had an educational section that was maintained by the people who create the Encyclopedia Britannica, without, of course, the Jews. That section of the Internet would become an online encyclopedia, but without the limitations of paper. When we searched for a topic, we would have access to serious and useful educational materials. We could potentially find information so quickly that employees could regularly use the database on their job. Medical personnel would be able to access medical information faster than they could from paper books. You might be able to access information so easily that you occasionally use your cell phone to learn about the plants or animals that you encounter as you take a casual walk in a city park. You might even access the database while you are eating in order to learn about the foods or spices in your meal. Since computers can now read documents to us in an artificial voice, we could access an educational document through our phone, tell the computer to read it to us, plug in some earphones, and then take a bicycle ride while listening to the information.

What language should an educational database be in? Should we have only one database for the entire world? If different cities insist on speaking different languages, then each city will have to maintain their own educational database. With the educational materials in a constant state of change, everybody would end up with a slightly different database. This is a situation that we have right now with paper books, software, magazines, and encyclopedias.

Some people believe that computers will be able to do translations, but a computer translation is only useful for picking up the general point of a document. It is not useful for education. Human languages are too imprecise for computer translations.

It's important to understand that educational documents cannot be easily translated. The value of an educational document depends upon its sequence of words. By picking different words, or by rearranging some of the words, the document can become easier to understand or more useful. When translating an educational document, the educational value of the translated document depends entirely upon the talents of the translator to create educational materials in that particular language. Furthermore, if somebody edits the original document to improve the wording in some of the sentences, the translator may not be able to figure out how to carry those improvements over into the translated document.

It is best if educational materials are not translated. I predict that eventually the human race will become tired of different languages and switch to one language, and that they will also make that one language much more rational. The people in the world today may be too much like animals to tolerate just one language, but eventually humans will evolve into a more advanced creature. The future generations will then maintain just one educational database for everybody.

It should be easy to apply for a job

Applying for jobs today requires creating resumes and/or filling out job applications, and often there is an interview. Sometimes there are several interviews, and sometimes interviews are on more than one day. Some applicants also have to take drug tests, lie detector tests, or some type of intelligence, psychological, or performance test. Is it really necessary for people to go through this abuse whenever they want to apply for a job? I don't think so. I think we can improve the situation by making two changes in our attitudes:

1) Stop feeling sorry for the "Underdog".

America promotes the concept of feeling sorry for the loser. Nobody gets in trouble if they lie about their education, work history, military history, or criminal history. Actually, the Supreme Court recently said that we have the right to lie about our military history. As a result of this philosophy, people who are trying to get a job will benefit by being deceptive. We are rewarding deception, not encouraging honesty.

A person might get fired from his job if his employer discovers that he was lying about himself, but most lies will never be exposed because we cannot verify what a person says about himself. Even if a person is caught lying, and even if he is fired, he may not suffer from it. For one reason, he can lie about why he was fired, or he can deny that he ever had that particular job. For another reason, it is very difficult in America for an employer to say something critical about an employee. An employee is allowed to sue his former employer for giving him a bad recommendation. As a result of these idiotic attitudes, some employers give good recommendations to employees who are dishonest, incompetent, violent, or psychotic.

2) Stop allowing people to be secretive.

Every society follows the "frightened rabbit philosophy". Specifically, we believe that everybody should be able to hide almost every aspect of themselves. As a result, it is impossible for us to verify a person's educational history, job history, or criminal background. We cannot even easily determine if a person is married. By allowing such a high level of secrecy, people can easily lie about themselves and their history.

America's philosophy of feeling sorry for losers and allowing people to be secretive is creating a terrible environment for finding jobs and for finding employees. Businesses cannot trust job applicants, and there is no way they can verify anything that the job applicants say about themselves. The risks for lying are minimal, and the potential benefits are significant. This is an idiotic situation.

We will create a much more pleasant economy if we eliminate secrecy, and become intolerant of lies, deception, and abuse of all kinds. We can also eliminate the need to create resumes and fill out job applications if we maintain a publicly accessible database that has everybody's school records, job history, medical information, and everything else.

We should also put employee performance reviews in a publicly accessible database. Some people are afraid to have their job reviews become public because they worry that if they have an incompetent or psychotic boss, he will give them a bad review, thereby giving them a bad image. However, a performance review is also a review of the manager's ability to analyze his employees. If a manager gives terrible reviews to employees who turn out to be useful, it will make the manager look incompetent, not the employee. A performance review is useful for analyzing the performance of the employees, and for analyzing the manager's ability to analyze employees. When performance reviews are posted in a public database, every supervisor will want to make sure that his reviews are intelligent and impressive, not idiotic or biased.

A concept that badly behaved people try to ignore is that a person's reputation is dependent upon his behavior, not on remarks by other people. It is impossible to ruin a person's reputation unless he doesn't bother to defend himself, or if he cannot defend himself because he is dead. For example, after Jim Morrison, Michael Jackson, and Whitney Houston died, Jews created lots of articles about their mental instability, drug use, sexual problems, and psychotic tendencies. Since dead people cannot defend themselves, the Jews can easily create false histories and unpleasant images for them.

Each of us is responsible for our reputation as long as we are alive. We don't have to worry that an unpleasant review from our supervisor will ruin our life. By removing secrecy and putting everything out in the public, everybody will be able to see what is being said about them, and everybody will be able to defend themselves, and everybody will eventually figure out which supervisors are making terrible judgments, and which are making good judgments. Without secrecy, everybody is essentially striped naked and put in front of the world for all to see. We don't have to fear other people's opinions about us.

Each of us already does critical reviews of other people, but most of our reviews are spontaneous, simplistic, biased, and worthless. For example, when you go to a restaurant with your friends, you might provide them with your opinions about the employees or the other customers. When you are home, you might provide your family members or friends with your opinions of one of your neighbors, or their children, or the way they decorate their home. When you are at work, you might tell some of your coworkers about your opinions of other coworkers. When you watch sports events, a singer, or a music band, you will sometimes provide your friends with your opinion of the people.

All of us are arrogant, especially the men, and we regularly provide other people with our analyses of events, people, religion, crime, and life. Each of us behaves like a God, and we assume that our analyses are so brilliant that other people should hear them. There is nothing wrong with passing judgment on other people. Actually, the ability of the human mind to analyze people and issues is a very valuable trait. Unfortunately, most people today are not putting much effort into their analyses. They are merely blurting out simplistic comments based on emotional reactions.

Schools should give students practice with the analysis of both people and issues, and students should spend more time practicing how to express their opinions clearly. When managers review employees, and when teachers review students, they should put enough effort into their analysis so that it is worthy of putting into a publicly accessible database. The length of the analysis is not important; rather, it is the quality. The purpose of the review should be to help other people understand the person's abilities and limitations. At the same time, the review gives us an indication of the analytical abilities of the manager or teacher.

The government agency that maintains the database would allow us to complain about the reviews that are in our entry. We could also complain about other people's entries. It would be similar to the manner in which people today can take complaints to a court. For example, assume your manager gives a review to one of your coworkers, and you felt that some of his remarks were inaccurate. Perhaps the manager had praised the employee's skills or ability to work with other people, or perhaps he complained that the employee was incompetent or dishonest. Regardless of what you disagreed with, you would be able to develop your complaints into a document in which you specify the particular remarks that you disagree with, and you would explain why you disagree with them. You would post your complaint on the government website, and the agency would have to respond. If they agreed with you that the review was inaccurate, then the manager would have that as a discredit in his database, and you would be credited as doing a better analysis of the employee.

The idea of allowing people to file complaints about the information in their database might cause you to worry that a significant percentage of the population will frequently file complaints, thereby creating such an enormous burden on the government that they couldn't possibly find the time to deal with them all. However, these type of disputes would be unusual because people are not going to file frivolous complaints. Unlike the American court system, everything a person does will be recorded in his database, and it will affect him in the future. For example, when a person's complaint is judged to be idiotic, it will be recorded in his database as a failure. If a person fails often enough, he will be classified as mentally incompetent, and then the government will ignore everything he does, and he will not be allowed in any type of influential position.

At the other extreme, people who make complains that are judged to be intelligent will have an increasingly easy time of getting the government to look at their cases. They will be given first priority by the government, and they will have an easier time getting jobs in influential positions.

This philosophy rewards people for good work and penalizes them for bad work. This will cause people to realize that they should not file a complaint unless they truly have something intelligent to say. Likewise, managers will be under pressure to provide serious reviews because if they provide inaccurate reviews, it will make them look incompetent. The managers whose reviews of employees are judged to be the most accurate will be considered the most valuable managers, and the most worthy of a leadership position.

In the American legal system, lawyers profit from court cases, and so they have a financial incentive to bring cases to court, even if the case has no chance for success. However, in this system, the government officials do not profit in any way from people who complain, and there are no lawyers in the system. The complaints are a burden on them. The complaints provide the officials with additional work to deal with, and it is the type of work that everybody would describe as an irritation, not as enjoyable. Therefore, the government would not want frivolous complaints.

The previous paragraphs may make it appear as if I am proposing of radically different society and a radically different court system, but we are actually following this philosophy right now, but in a very informal manner. Everybody is already applying this philosophy in their family life, school classrooms, and jobs. For example, when children complain to their parents about something, the children are essentially filing a court case, and their parents are essentially creating a temporary court. The parents listen to the complaint and then pass judgment on whether the children have a valid complaint, and if so, the parents are more likely to listen to the child the next time he complains, but if the parents decide his complaint is idiotic, they are more likely to ignore the child the next time.

Teachers in a school classroom also follow this philosophy. Teachers have to listen to complaints from the children about broken chairs; being irritated by another student; or getting a lower grade on an assignment than they believe they should have received. The children are essentially filing a court case when they complain, and the teacher must essentially create a temporary court and become the temporary judge and jury. The teacher will listen to the complaint and then pass judgment on whether the student is making a valid complaint, and if so, the teacher will be more likely to listen to the child's next complaint, but if not, the teacher will be more likely to ignore the child the next time he complains.

It should be noted that when parents and teachers have to resolve complaints, there are no lawyers, and nobody profits from the dispute. Why not apply this philosophy to an entire society? We should remove the incentives for fighting, and we should also keep track of the results of each court case so that the people who file idiotic complaints will tarnish their reputation, and those who fail repeatedly should be classified as mentally incompetent.

Teachers should create reviews of students from the point of view of what would be most beneficial to businesses and government officials who are trying to match people with jobs. The teachers should give a serious description of a student's desires and abilities for welding, plumbing, engineering, carpentry, farming, or whatever subjects the student was interested in learning about. When a student graduates from school and applies for a job, employers should be able to trust the analyses of the teachers. Employers should not have to put job applicants through extensive interviews or tests. After a person gets a job, his manager will add job performance reviews to his database entry, and other employers should be able to trust those job performance reviews.

In an ideal situation, everybody's school and job reviews would be so honest and accurate that employers could look through the person's entry in the database to learn about his abilities, desires, limitations, successes, and failures. The same applies for selecting government officials. Ideally, we would be able to judge political candidates by reading the reviews and descriptions in their database entry.

When people apply for jobs today, they behave like a male peacock that is trying to titillate a female. Most people are fearful or worried, not relaxed, and they try to create an impressive image of themselves. Their resume is deceptive and manipulative, not honest or accurate. They list their job titles and duties, and the projects that they worked on, but that doesn't tell us anything of value. We need honest reviews of their abilities, limitations, successes, and failures. What exactly have they been successful at? What have they been a failure at? What did other people like and dislike about working with them? We don't benefit from resumes or job applications. We need honest reviews from other people, and since everybody has their own opinion, we need more than one review.

The official policy in America is that the person who is "most qualified" for a job should be hired. If all humans were genetically identical, this policy would work fine, but America is a nation in which there are extreme differences between us. Americans speak different languages, and there are a wide variety of religions, races, educational levels, and mental disorders. The American philosophy towards jobs is allowing people to file complaints of discrimination by claiming that they were the most qualified for the job but were rejected because of their sex, race, religion, or obesity.

Even if we create a more homogenous city, I don't think we should follow the philosophy of hiring the most qualified person. Almost every person today is working in a team, and therefore, the team members should be able to select people that they want to work with. If a particular group of men want to discriminate against women, they should be allowed to do so, and if a particular group of women don't want a man on their team, they should be able to discriminate against men. Likewise, people should be able to select members according to their personality.

When a business is looking for an employee, they should have the same attitude as people who are looking for a friend or spouse. The business should pick a person that they want to work with, and they should not have to justify their decision to anybody. Nobody should be allowed to complain that they were the most qualified for the job, and that they were discriminated against.

In a free enterprise system, people fight for jobs similarly to how they fight for a spouse. This is creating tremendous fear of unemployment. This fear is causing people to take jobs that they don't want, and to work with people who dislike one another. Most people are struggling for an income, not casually looking for a job that they enjoy, and a job that is useful to society, and a team that they enjoy working with. By putting the government in control of the economy, the government will help people to find jobs. Nobody has to fear homelessness or hunger. This will allow people to relax while looking for jobs.

Applying for jobs should be a simple and pleasant procedure. By keeping a database of everybody's life, we don't have to fill out job applications or resumes. All we have to do is let an employer know that we are interested in a job. The employers would be able to trust the information about us that they find in the database. Employers will not have to waste their time verifying what we claim about ourselves. They would conduct interviews only to determine if they wanted to work with the person, not to ask about his performance in school or his previous jobs. For some jobs, such as factory workers, the employers might not bother with interviews. They might hire people solely according to their previous job reviews.

If, after a person is hired, the employer discovers that some of the information in the database is inaccurate, then they would be able to point that out when they post a review in the database. For example, if a business hires a person to be a technician because his school records and previous jobs reviews showed that he had the ability, but if he turned out to be incompetent in certain tasks, then the employer would provide some details on what exactly the person was unable to do properly. As long as teachers and supervisors give accurate descriptions of people, we will eventually build up useful descriptions of one another.

This system also allows lies (and honest mistakes) to be corrected. For example, if a teacher or supervisor lies about a particular person in order to be help him (or to hurt him), somebody may eventually discover the lie. Instead of quietly tolerating the lie, the Jobs and Education department should be told of the lie, and they should investigate, correct the information, and the person responsible would be dealt with in some manner. This system would catch and expose many, perhaps most, of the lies and honest mistakes. This system will reward people who are honest, and it will expose the people who are arrogant, incompetent, psychotic, or dishonest.

Testing intellectual abilities is difficult
If we can create an accurate database of people's abilities and limitations, employers will have no need to test a person's skills or intellectual abilities. If an employer needs somebody with above average skills in TIG welding, the database should show him who those people are. He should not have to put job applicants through welding tests. Ideally, no employer would bother putting job applicants through drug tests, either. Ideally, the database would have everything about us, such as our medical history, hobbies, drug use, and interest in alcohol. Ideally, employers would not have to test anybody for anything.

In our world today, we are so tolerant of crime and secrecy that many employers put some of their job applicants through a variety of tests and interviews. In addition to wasting people's time and irritating people, I think only some of these tests are even practical. For example, it is possible to test a person's welding abilities by giving him a torch and telling him to weld two pieces of steel together, but it is not practical to test a person's intellectual abilities.

In October 2012 I noticed that Facebook was looking for computer programmers, and their method of determining who has the necessary talent was to ask each job applicant to write a short computer program to solve a particular problem. They give each applicant a limited amount of time, such as an hour, to complete the task.

Those tests are based on the assumption that a person's programming skills can be determined by a simple test, but if that were true, then schools would be able to determine a person's programming skills with a simple test. A more sensible situation would be for the schools to put the students in computer programming courses through a variety of tests, and for the teachers to provide an analysis of the student's abilities and limitations. The reviews from the teachers should be put into a public database. Employers should be able to trust the review from the teachers. The attitude among employers and teachers is that the teachers are preparing the students for jobs and working with employers to analyze the talents of the students. Our schools today, by comparison, have no interest in preparing students for jobs, or in providing analyses for employers. After a person gets a job as a computer programmer, his boss should add to the database with additional reviews.

Facebook managers consider school records and recommendations by previous employers to be worthless, and so they put job applicants through tests, but this is the wrong way to react to this problem. If school records are useless, we should change the school system so that they become useful. We could create a government department that is responsible for both jobs and education, and that would allow the officials to ensure that the schools and employers are working together. Teachers should be preparing children for jobs, and providing useful analyses of the student's abilities.

Incidentally, I decided to take one of Facebook's sample problems that required only 30 minutes, but I never bothered trying to write the code because I wasted almost half the time just trying to understand the problem. This brings up an important issue that I know thousands (or millions!) of people are aware of because I've seen people complaining about it for decades, but there are still a lot of people who don't understand it. It applies to all types of tests. Specifically, a person's ability to do a test is dependent upon 1) his ability to solve the problem, and 2) his ability to understand the problem. Understanding a problem is difficult because human languages are crude and inaccurate, and different people grow up in different areas, thereby picking up slightly different meanings to words and phrases.

Because of this concept, it is possible to train people to become better at intelligence tests. If a person is taught the terminology that is typical in a test, then he will do better at solving the problems because he will do better at understanding the problems. For example, here is the Facebook problem that I tried to solve. The sentence that had me confused for about 15 minutes is a description of the input data:
Each integer in the second line is in the range 1 to K where the i-th integer denotes the peg to which disc of radius i is present in the initial configuration.

I was confused as to what "i" referred to, but I suppose that the students who are taking computer programming courses in America today are regularly seeing problems stated in that manner. That would explain why the person who wrote the test did so in that manner.

Another problem with intelligence tests is that they usually have time restrictions, so unless the restrictions are lenient, that means that the tests are also measuring the rate at which a person can answer the questions. In a free enterprise system, businesses are under pressure to be the first at everything, and so they want people who are fast, but without free enterprise, we can be more concerned with a person's final achievement.

Most of the projects that we work on today are very complex and require years of effort, and so we should be more concerned about a person's ability rather than his speed. Some people are slow simply because they are considering more options or being more careful, not because they are stupid. For example, I met a computer programmer who would rarely have bugs in his software because he spent a lot of time writing his programs correctly the first time. He would probably write software at a faster rate if he was less of a perfectionist.

Incidentally, that particular computer programmer was Japanese, and I wondered if his Japanese personality was causing him to be so careful. If we could control our obsession with secrecy and observe people as thoroughly as we observe animals, we might discover that there are subtle differences between the races and sexes in regards to how we develop computer software, how we use screwdrivers and hammers, and how we fly airplanes.

We should be encouraged to improve documents

My confusion with the Facebook computer programming problem is another example of why it is beneficial to eliminate copyrights and encourage people to propose changes in wording to educational videos, software help messages, repair manuals, instruction manuals, tests, educational documents, and government documents. The process for improving documents would be the same as I described for improving battery terminals in Part 8. Specifically, each of us would be free to make a proposal to improve the wording in a document or video, and we would post our suggestions and improvements on the page for the government agency that is responsible for improving documents. If they approve of the change, then we would get credit for improving the wording of a document.

For another example of how our language can cause confusion, I saw the following sentence in a news report:
South Carolina authorities say a shotgun-toting man kicked in a church door during Sunday services before being disarmed by congregants who saw him coming through the windows.

My first interpretation was that the congregants saw the man with the shotgun climbing through the windows, and after he got inside the church he kicked down a door, and was then captured.

When people purchase a cell phone or an automobile, they expect the engineers and factory workers to put a lot of effort into making the item nearly perfect. Some people whine about trivial imperfections, such as blemishes in the paint. We need the same attitude with social technology. We should want our educational materials, instruction manuals, job performance reviews, school records, medical records, warning labels, software help files, and other documents to become increasingly useful to us and easy to understand.

We look forward to new versions of computers, phones, and robots, and we should also look forward to improved versions of our video documentaries, instruction manuals, and other educational materials. Citizens can participate in the evolution of documents by identifying the sections that they are confused by, or by pointing out the issues that the authors forgot to write about.

No society yet provides citizens with the ability to complain about educational materials or make suggestions on how to improve them, but it would be easy to do so. It is entirely possible for us to create a Complaint Department for the government, and allow people to send all types of complaints to them, such as complaints in the wording of an instruction manual. By giving that Complaint Department some authority to edit documents, fire people from their jobs, and alter government policies, the citizens will have a way to fix problems and deal with government officials that are causing trouble.

Our languages are crude. Ideally, we would switch to one language, give it more sensible grammar and spelling, standardize the use of words, and set higher standards for materials that are intended to educate compared to those that are intended to entertain. The educational materials should be as efficient as possible in transferring information, concepts, and images into our mind.

People should be encouraged to look for ways to improve our educational materials, including reducing unnecessary words. An example of an unnecessary word is "sheer", as in, "The man was climbing up a sheer cliff". What is a sheer cliff? How does it differ from a non-sheer cliff? That word has a sensible meaning when describing fabrics, but people are applying it to items that it makes no sense for. We need to create a government agency to be in control of our language to correct the improper and confusing use of words.

I also think we should separate entertainment materials from educational materials. In a free enterprise system, businesses are competing to attract customers, and the end result is that journalists who are supposed to be creating serious documentaries or news reports are frequently making their materials entertaining or sexually stimulating. The television weather reports are perhaps the best example of this. They could be described as a "comedy weather" because the reporters are mixing serious weather information with entertainment. For example, they use such expressions as, "The mercury plunged to a frosty 5° today." I prefer news reports get to the point as quickly as possible, such as by saying, "The temperature was 5° today" or "It was 5° today." Here is an amusing compilation of Los Angeles television reporters struggling to dramatize the Los Angeles winter. Television companies benefit by making their news reports entertaining, but I don't think it makes our lives any better.

In Part 2 of this series, I pointed out that animals do whatever they please, wherever they are, and whenever they want, but during the past few thousand years, humans have been putting restrictions on our behavior. I think we should continue this trend and start restricting entertainment to the activities that are designated for entertainment.

By separating education from entertainment, we can encourage people to improve the wording in our educational videos and documents. The easier it is for us to understand our historical documents, educational materials, instruction manuals, and software help messages, the less of our life we will waste trying to figure out what other people are saying to us, and the fewer misunderstandings we will have. We all benefit; nobody suffers.

A document is "linguistic DNA"

Our documents, videos, instruction manuals, warning messages, and school tests are "social technology". Their sequence of words is like a strand of DNA. The sequence of words, not the words themselves, determine whether the document has a meaning to us. Anybody, even a computer, can put words together into a sequence, but it's not easy to put them into a sequence that accurately and quickly transfers intelligent thoughts or images from one person's mind to another.

All living creatures are created by virtually identical strands of DNA, but subtle differences in the sequences of the molecules determine whether it is a dog, a bird, a retarded human, a Neanderthal, or a healthy human. Likewise, all documentaries, instruction manuals, warning messages, and other documents are created from the identical set of words, but the trivial differences in the sequences of those words can make a significant difference on what we learn from them, and how rapidly we learn. We should think of our documents as linguistic DNA, and we should strive to improve them. We can improve a document simply by rearranging a few of the words, or by removing a section of words, or by adding a section. It is similar to evolution, except that we are in control of the process.

The English classes in our schools are encouraging the students to use words in entertaining manners, which is acceptable for entertainment, but when we are trying to convey intelligent thoughts, we have to follow different standards. The goal of intelligent writing should be to convey intelligent thoughts as quickly and accurately as possible. Also, our instruction manuals, educational documents, and warning messages should "evolve" through time so that they become increasingly easier for us to understand. For documents that are electronic, we can easily make even tiny improvements, such as changing one word.

The narrators of the educational videos that are produced by PBS and Nova are often dreary, or they try to be exciting, but educational material should be precise and clear. We must eliminate copyrights for intelligent material so that everybody can participate in their improvement. Everybody should be encouraged to identify the confusing sections of instruction manuals, educational materials, and warning messages. That type of feedback can help us in two ways: 1) it helps the schools determine whether different people are interpreting words differently, and if so, the schools will realize that they need to do a better job of standardizing the use of those particular words, and 2) it helps us improve our materials so that they become more easily understood.

The people who write intelligent material should occasionally check to determine whether people are interpreting their writing accurately. Sometimes people assume that they interpreted the writing correctly, but they did not. I don't get much feedback on my documents, but I have noticed that some people misinterpret some of my sentences. This is the reason that I mentioned, at the beginning of the first article of this series, but I will occasionally explain the same concept in different words. Hopefully by restating concepts differently, there will be less confusion about what I am saying.

An educational document is supposed to convey thoughts from one person's mind to another, and we should be concerned with the accuracy of the transferred information, the speed at which the information is transferred, and the value of the information that is transferred. By combining jobs and education in the same agency, the government officials can analyze how accurately and quickly the students are learning, and how much of that material has value to them.

No engineer is expected to produce a "perfect" product, and we cannot expect anybody to create a perfect instruction manual, educational document, or warning message. We need to be able to improve other people's documents. This requires eliminating copyrights; encouraging people to look for ways of improving documents; and creating a government agency that is in control of language. There are already lots of school teachers involved with language, but they are passive observers of language. We need government officials who are actively involved in controlling and improving language, and ensuring that documents are understandable.

Journalists are "chefs" who serve "information"

In a free enterprise system, journalists have to compete with one another for the attention of consumers. This is a ridiculous method of providing ourselves with serious information, and to make the situation even more ridiculous, a network of Jews has gotten control of virtually every nation's media. We must be more concerned about the people who provide us with information, and the quality of information they provide.

We are extremely demanding with the job performance of farm workers, stewardesses, and assembly-line workers. They are fired if they repeatedly make mistakes. We are also very demanding with waitresses. Many people make snide comments, refuse to leave tips, or write insulting messages on their bill if their waitress makes a mistake, or if they don't like her personality. At the other extreme, Hollywood celebrities, professors, journalists, and government officials can abuse us without worrying about anybody complaining. Journalists and teachers, for example, are routinely covering up such crimes as 9/11, the kidnapping of the Bollyn family, and the Jewish involvement in the world wars.

A waitress serves us something tangible, namely food, and she also gets physically close to us, so she directly interacts with our emotions. By comparison, a journalist and a teacher provide us with intangible information, which does not directly affect our emotions, and we don't usually get physically near to them, which reduces the emotional interaction between us. As a result of these differences, a waitress has much more effect over our emotions, and most people misinterpret the emotional stimulation to mean that the waitress is more significant to our lives than a journalist or a teacher. However, the opposite is true.

We have to think about what the journalist and teacher are doing in order to understand the significance of their job. They are actually much more important to us than a waitress. A waitress is a luxury because we are capable of providing ourselves with food. We could design restaurants without waitresses. In such a restaurant, the customers would serve themselves, like a buffet. Everybody is capable of looking over the food items and picking out the items they want to eat.

By comparison, journalists and teachers are not luxuries. We cannot simply walk into an Internet cafe when we are in the mood to become educated about some subject, and then browse through the information on the Internet. We depend upon journalists to create news reports, and we depend upon other people to create educational materials about science, math, and history, and we need teachers to help us figure out which materials to look at, and to answer our questions, and to test us.

Journalists and teachers are more important to us than waitresses. A waitress who lies to us about 9/11 or the Holocaust is not nearly as dangerous as a journalist or schoolteacher who lies to us. Therefore, journalists and teachers should meet higher standards than waitresses. We should be more tolerant of incompetent waitresses than incompetent and dishonest journalists and teachers.

The job of a journalist is to create sequences of words that provide us with some useful information. If you understand my analogy of how a document is "linguistic DNA", then you should understand that when a journalist writes an article, he is essentially giving birth to a "linguistic creature". When journalists give birth to useful documents, everybody should participate in helping those documents grow and evolve by identifying inaccuracies and confusing sections. By switching to electronic documents, the errors could be corrected rather than creating another document to identify the errors.

At the other extreme, when journalists give birth to idiotic or deceptive documents, we should consider those documents as "retarded linguistic creatures" that need to be put to death. We should not tolerate their lies or stupid remarks.

The process of complaining about journalists would be the same as the process of complaining about educational documents. People who have a complaint would post it on the particular website of the Jobs and Education department that collects complaints about journalists. This allows everybody to see what the complaints are, and the officials would have to post a response to each complaint, and we would see their responses.

People should be able to complain about anything, such as how a journalist is referring to "temperature" as "mercury", or that he is using idiotic expressions, such as "cool features" or "hot features", or that he is biasing his report in the favor of some religion. If a person's complaint is judged to be sensible, then the article that he complained about would be corrected, and he would be credited with a "success" in analyzing documents. The people whose complaints are judged to be idiotic will be credited with a failure, and they will have an increasingly difficult time getting people to listen to them, and eventually they may be banned from posting complaints.

The government should regularly replace the worst performing journalists so that other people get the opportunity to try their skills. We should not tolerate a small network of people getting control of the media. Every type of job category should have a continuous replacement of the worst performing people. We should not think of this replacement process as "cruel". Rather, we should think of it as a necessary part of maintaining a modern society and helping us to figure out what our talents and limitations are.

It should be noted that replacing the worst performing people is not enough. We must ensure that the replacements are coming from the general population, rather than being restricted to a very limited group of people. For example, in America, journalists are replaced occasionally, but their replacements are other Jews and criminals. Nobody else is given an opportunity. When replacing people, we must ensure that everybody with appropriate talent has the opportunity, and that nobody is restricting the replacements to their friends or a network of criminals.

I mentioned earlier that when people are hiring an employee, they should be allowed to pick somebody they want as a team member, and they shouldn't have to justify their decisions. This allows them to pick their friends, if they want to. However, that concept applies only to employees, not to the people in leadership positions. A person in a leadership position is not a "team member"; he is a "leader". People in leadership positions need to meet higher standards, and follow slightly different rules. People in leadership positions must compete with one another, and although the competition is supposed to be friendly, we cannot allow them to keep their particular friends in control of society.

It will not be easy for us to determine whether people in leadership positions are being replaced in a fair manner, but we cannot let the complexity frighten us. It is necessary for us to watch the replacements of our leaders and pass judgment on whether the replacements are being conducted fairly, or whether some group is trying to control society and eliminate competitors. This is simply another responsibility of living in this modern world. We must participate in the maintenance of society.

Journalism should be treated as a serious scientific field. We should consider a journalist to be similar to a scientist, but instead of studying rocks, chemicals, or animals, a journalist studies current events. Their reports are essentially a scientific report of what is happening in the world. They are like historians, except that they study events that are too recent to be called "history". We can and should pass judgment on which journalists are doing a proper job of providing us with reports that are both accurate and have some significance to our lives.

For example, this article about Paris Hilton watching her boyfriend at a fashion show is indeed "news", and after many years it could be added to historical documents that describe human life in this particular era, but we can't report every event in every person's life. We have to pass judgment on which events are significant enough to be considered "news", and which of them are significant enough to be added to "history". I would describe the articles about Paris Hilton as "entertainment", not news or history.

We should make a distinction between serious material and entertainment, and the serious material should meet a higher standard. Furthermore, we must pass judgment on which entertainment is appropriate for society. We cannot let journalists give people whatever they are titillated by. For example, it is possible that the articles about Paris Hilton are destructive to society by causing a small percentage of the population to become "celebrities", and causing other people to be put into a role of a peasant who worships his King and Queen.

We do not yet distinguish between or separate entertainment from education, and so the material that we refer to as "news" is a mixture of serious information, entertainment, and propaganda. By making a distinction between education and entertainment, and by encouraging everybody to look for ways to improve the educational materials, and by regularly replacing the worst performing journalists, we will eventually provide ourselves with journalists who provide us with useful news reports, documentaries, and historical analyses, and those materials will slowly evolve through the years and become increasingly useful and understandable. Of course, this assumes that there are a certain number of people in society who become active participants in watching the journalists and complaining about them.

I think we should experiment with a society that doesn't promote the concept of "celebrities". I think the concept of a celebrity is detrimental to society, and I suggest experimenting with ways to reduce this problem. One method is to force a high turnover rate in the jobs where celebrities are likely to develop, such as the entertainment programs on television.

For example, we could make the jobs of news reporter, talk show host, and game show host available only on a part-time and temporary basis so that lots of people can have the opportunity to do them. By having a high turnover rate in those jobs, the television audience doesn't become emotionally attached to any particular person. Furthermore, each of us will occasionally see somebody on television who we personally know, and that will further reinforce the feeling that the people who appear on television are just "ordinary" people who are having fun.

If you wonder how this type of participation would work, one person might be willing to read the news one evening each month for a year, which means that he would be contributing 12 evenings of his life to television, and another person might be willing to spend an evening every month for a year to participate in some type of talk show, and somebody else might be willing to spend an evening a month hosting a game show. These people would not be contributing much time, but with thousands of people willing to contribute some time, there will be enough people to have a significant impact on television.

We could go even further and encourage people to participate in acting, singing, music, and other television shows. By encouraging participation, we will reduce the "quality" of some of the programs, thereby giving television a somewhat amateurish aura, but entertainment jobs are not as critical as surgery, dentistry, or flying airplanes. It doesn't matter if a person doesn't perform well on television. We have to judge a policy by its overall effect on society. I suspect that our lives will be more pleasant overall if we encourage people to participate in their entertainment compared to allowing a group of professionals dominate television and become "celebrities".

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, we can use the amateurish qualities of the television shows as topics for dinner conversations. We can talk about and laugh about a friend of ours who frequently messed up the words as he was reading the news reports, or who was not doing a very good job of hosting a talk show. We need something to talk about, so why not talk about our experiences on television? The more activities we experiment with, and the more people we meet, the more subjects we will have to talk about. You might also enjoy pushing some of your friends and coworkers into participating in television.

Population Quality Control

All organizations, including businesses, military units, and sports teams, have to occasionally deal with badly behaved members, and so they all need some type of legal system. Businesses, for example, have to occasionally pass judgment on when employees are stealing items from one another or from the business, or when one of the male employees is behaving in a lewd manner around other employees or customers, or when an employee has such behavioral problems that he becomes disruptive to the business.

When somebody in a business complains about another employee who is misbehaving or cheating, that person could be described as "accusing an employee of committing a crime". The management of the business will react by investigating the complaint. For example, they might look at security camera video, or they might talk to some of the other employees to find out what they know about the situation, or they might talk to the employee who is accused of the crime. That investigation could be described as a "criminal investigation", and the managers who get involved could be described as "taking some time off from their normal duties to become part-time, temporary police investigators".

After the management has gathered information about the employee's crime, they will discuss it among themselves. That discussion could be described as a "trial" for the accused criminal employee. After the management has made a decision about what to do, all of the managers return to their regular tasks.

Businesses and other organizations are not allowed to put their disruptive members in jail or beat them physically, and most of them would not want to do so even if it were legal. Most organizations prefer to evict the disruptive members. The exceptions are crime networks, which might react by chopping off a fingertip or beating a person. Some groups of children also react to bad behavior by physically hurting their badly behaved friend.

Most organizations of adults realize that punishments are useless for fixing bad behavior. Rewards and punishments are useful only when people are training one another, and only when the rewards and punishments are trivial. For example, when a person is trying to learn how to use a particular piece of machinery, his boss or teacher can help him by using rewards and punishments, such as reprimanding him when he makes a mistake, and praising him when he does the operation properly. In those cases, the rewards and punishments are used to inspire and motivate the person. This technique can also work with animals. The reason punishments help these particular students is because they want to learn, and as a result, they react to the punishments by trying to learn whatever it is they are supposed to be doing. However, if a student is not interested in learning, then he will react to the punishments with anger, and in that case, the punishments are worthless.

Sometimes a business or organization will threaten to evict or fire an employee if he does not behave in a more appropriate manner, and that may appear to be similar to a society that is trying to cure a badly behaved person with threats of jail, but it is not the same. When a business threatens an employee, they are not threatening punishments, and they are not trying to cure the employee of his bad behavior. Rather, the business could be described as giving the employee an ultimatum. The business is telling the employee that if he continues to follow the same path, then he will be fired. The business is not trying to cure the employee of his problem. Rather, they are telling the employee that if he wants to continue working, he must change himself. It is entirely up to the employee to make the change. The management will not make any attempt to change him.

Some organizations, especially schools and the military, will provide counselors of some type to help their members deal with some of their emotional or family problems, but those are also attempts to help the person to help himself rather than an attempt to cure the person.

Schools have been using various types of punishments to cure badly behaved children for centuries, but none of them have ever fixed a badly behaved child. Christian schools have tried to control children through Bible studies, threats of hell, and possibly sexual abuse, in addition to beatings, but the Christian schools have also failed to fix badly behaved children. Adults have also never been cured of their bad behavior through jail, Bible studies, beatings, rapes, or cutting off their fingertips. How many more centuries are we going to continue believing that we can fix bad behavior through torture?

Apply the legal system of a business to a city

The legal system of a business could be described as managers who become part-time and temporary police investigators and judges whenever the business has to deal with the troublesome employee, and who evict the badly behaved members. Why not expand this concept for an entire city?

The legal system of most organizations could be described as consisting of three stages:
1) Investigation. Some of the managers take some time off from their normal duties to investigate the troublesome employee.
2) Trial. Some of the managers discuss the evidence and make a decision about whether the employee is guilty.
3) Verdict. The managers decide what to do with the guilty employee.

One significant difference between the legal system of a business and the legal system of America is that the American legal system authorizes a group of lawyers and judges to have total control of the trials, and to have a supervisory role in the investigations. For example, the police must ask judges for warrants in order to gather certain information, and lawyers can be present during interviews of witnesses and defendants in order to restrict the interview.

The lawyers and judges are supposed to provide checks and balances to the police and government. For example, by making the police ask a judge for a search warrant, the judge supposedly plays a role in checks and balances in order to prevent the police from abusing us with unnecessary searches. This concept may have worked centuries ago, but in our era, judges are not capable of providing checks and balances to the police.

In order for a person to play a role in checks and balances, he must have an incentive to counteract whatever quality we want him to control. For example, nature designed men with a strong craving for sex, but women have a natural resistance, and so women can provide checks and balances to a man's sexual craving. However, a man cannot take that role. Homosexual men cannot truly provide checks and balances to one another in regards to sexual activity because all of them have the same incentive.

For another example, a person who has no interest in alcohol can provide checks and balances to somebody who craves alcohol, but two alcoholics cannot provide checks and balances to one another.

Judges and lawyers would be able to provide checks and balances to the police only if they had an opposing incentive, but judges and lawyers do not have any incentive to ensure that the police are honest or responsible. In America, the judges and lawyers are treated in a similar manner as we treat religious leaders. Judges and lawyers can do virtually anything they please, and the Supreme Court judges cannot even be forced into retirement. Judges and lawyers can be senile, just like the Pope. How can a senile person provide checks and balances to anything? The only incentive that lawyers and judges have is to please their Jewish friends, and to help one another keep their jobs and eliminate competitors.

Centuries ago, when the Kings and Queens were in control of a simplistic police force, and the people who were in the role of a judge were somewhat independent of the monarchy, the judges may have truly been able to provide checks and balances on the government police force.

In America today, the government officials cannot directly control the police departments, and the Jews have taken control of our courts. Nobody is providing checks and balances over the Jewish lawyers or judges, or their legal schools, and they are not providing checks and balances to anybody else, either. The lawyers and judges are behaving like Kings and Queens of the Middle Ages.

You might respond that I am allowing my anti-Semitism to influence my thoughts, but if you think I am being overly critical of the Jewish lawyers and judges, consider the recent cases in America in which an Arab was put on trial for conducting the 9/11 attack. Or consider the case of Sirhan Sirhan who was found guilty of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. It shouldn't take much intelligence for you to realize that the only way those cases could occur is if the lawyers and judges are doing whatever they please with no regards to the evidence.

In case it never occurred you, consider that the trial that convicted five Arabs for the 9/11 attack is as disgusting as a trial that convicts you for the assassination of President Lincoln, or something else that you obviously had no connection with. How would you feel being a defendant in a trial for Lincoln's assassination? Now imagine being convicted for that killing. That is the type of court system that we have in America.

The checks and balances in the American court system are not working. By requiring the police to get search warrants, judges can interfere with investigations, and the requirement that there be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" would not protect you from being convicted of Lincoln's assassination. The fact that our courts can blame Arabs for the 9/11 attack should prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legal system of America needs to be tossed in the trash. Anybody who cannot see the corruption in our legal system should be described as either emotionally unable to look critically at his own society, or suffering from some very serious intellectual disorder. It should also be easy to see that the Jews are dominating our legal system.

The American court system makes people put their hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, but almost nobody gets in trouble for lying, especially not the lawyers or judges. One reason that people can get away with lying is that it is difficult to prove that a person has lied. People can easily claim that they were stupid, ignorant, or mistaken. Our courts do not consider omitting crucial information to be lying, and lawyers can fake incompetence and ignorance over and over without any repercussions. We don't have any standards for lawyers or judges. They can be senile without anybody noticing or complaining. There are no checks and balances for the lawyers or judges.

Allowing lawyers to be present during police interviews may have been beneficial during the Middle Ages when interviews were conducted in secrecy and there was no video of the interview, but today the police can provide video of the interviews. Our lawyers and judges are not helping us to understand or reduce crime or corruption. They are interfering with interviews and investigations; helping criminals get away with their crimes; and helping their Jewish friends abuse us to an extent that is truly shocking. We must find the emotional strength to experiment with changes to our legal system rather than allow this abuse to continue.

A city can deal with crime just like a business

I suggest that we give the city government a Population Quality Control department, and one of its departments would be the legal system. It would supervise the police departments and the courts. Instead of focusing on whether people violate laws, they should behave like farmers who pass judgment on the value of their animals and plants. They should be more concerned with the quality of our behavior rather than whether we are technically following the laws.

The typical legal system in the world today consists of two separate groups of people; namely, 1) the police and 2) the courts. Note: I use the word "police" to refer to the entire department, which includes the officers, the detectives, the prosecutors, the forensic scientists, and anybody else involved with investigating and capturing criminals, and I use the word "courts" to refer to everybody connected to a trial.

A legal system needs somebody in the role of a judge in order to settle disputes, but I don't see any benefit to having lawyers. When businesses must deal with badly behaved employees, some of the executives will take the role of police investigators or judges, but none of them take the role of lawyers. I think we should design the legal system for a city to be a more advanced and formal version of what businesses are using. There would be no lawyers, and the people taking the role of judges could do so on a part-time and temporary basis. Without lawyers to censor information, interfere with interviews, and dominate trials, everybody would be allowed to participate in the discussion of the evidence and what to do with the defendant.

For an example of how this system would work, assume that John Doe has just been arrested for a crime. The police would do what they do right now, which is investigate the crime, but they would not have any lawyers interfering with their interviews, and they would not have any judges interfering with their collection of evidence. After they are finished with their investigation and have come to a conclusion, they would post their evidence and analysis on their website so that everybody could see what they had uncovered and what they were proposing to do with the defendant. This would not only document the trial, it would allow everybody to see what the police had uncovered.

The police proposal would have all of the evidence of his criminal behavior, such as photos, fingerprints, and video of their interviews. The police would also include an analysis of his previous behavior to give us their opinion on his value as a member of society. Everybody would be free to look through their evidence and analyses. The police would also include their suggested verdict for the criminal. Since I suggest we eliminate jails, none of the police would suggest putting people in jail. Instead, the police would make such proposals as:

1) For a person who is only a minor irritation, the police might propose restricting his access to certain jobs, children, chemicals, areas of the city, or activities. This would be especially useful for business leaders who obey the laws but behave in an undesirable manner. It would allow us to remove them from positions of importance and prohibit them from getting a leadership position again.
2) For a person who shows undesirable qualities but who is not destructive to society, the police might propose restricting him from reproduction or preventing him from adopting children.
3) For a person who is a social misfit or who doesn't want to follow the laws, the police may propose evicting him to a city where his behavior will be accepted.
4) For a person who is dangerous or unwanted by other cities, the police might propose exiling him to the City of Misfits, executing him, or using him for medical purposes.

The police would post the proposal on their website for everybody to see and analyze. The police who are involved in creating the proposal would identify themselves as the authors of the proposal. The police would not be allowed to operate secretly or anonymously. Every policeman would be held accountable for his actions.

In America, the police are in a subservient role when they investigate crimes. For example, they must ask permission from a defendant for a DNA sample, and they must ask for permission to look through his personal information, school records, or job history. It would be better to prevent people from keeping secrets about themselves. Everybody's life history should be in a publicly accessible database so that the police do not have to ask anybody for their job history, medical history, fingerprints, or DNA.

In America, the fourth amendment requires the police to get search warrants in order to search a person's home or monitor his activities. This philosophy puts the police in the role of a child, and the judge in the role of his wise father, but I think it would be better to tell the police to take responsibility for their investigations and searches. If the police department managers are too incompetent to make wise decisions about searching people's homes, then we should replace them and give somebody else a chance to supervise the police department. Requiring that the police ask somebody else for approval to search a home is simply adding a delay and additional work to their investigation.

It would be more efficient to let the police detectives have the authority to do searches and interviews, and hold each detective responsible for his actions. By removing secrecy, we will be able to see which detectives are authorizing searches, how they behave during the searches, and how they are interviewing people. That would allow us to determine if a particular detective is irritating us with his excessive or abusive searches, or his idiotic or abusive interviews. In America, there is no way for citizens to complain about the police, but by providing the government with a real Complaint Department, the citizens will be able to send complaints to a department whose sole purpose is investigating complaints and trying to improve society.

To summarize all of this so far, the first stage of dealing with crime is for the police to do an investigation. When they are finished, they post their evidence and suggested verdict on their website. With modern technology, it is more sensible for the police to post their information on their website for both documentation purposes and to allow people to see it before the trial starts.

The American court system was designed during an era when the primary communication method was the human voice, and many people were illiterate, and so a trial in 1776 was a group of people getting together in a room to discuss the evidence, and to interview witnesses and the defendant. Most of the information in that era was verbal. Furthermore, America was designed to allow people to hide their criminal history, and so the police are not allowed to give us free access to the information they uncovered during their investigations.

A more sensible system for our era is for the police to post their evidence on the police website, which gives everybody a chance to analyze it. There is no longer a need for police to present evidence at a trial. It is much more efficient for them to just publish it. Also, we do not need lawyers to censor any of the information. The police should include any information that they consider relevant, and the citizens can decide if the police are adding unnecessary information. In our era, a trial is needed only to debate the evidence, ask some additional questions of the witnesses or defendant, and debate the verdict.

After the police have posted their proposals, the citizens and the defendant would be able to post a response. A citizen could request that a person be interviewed again, or he could ask questions about some of the evidence, or he could complain about some of the police assumptions, or he could suggest a different verdict. The citizens would also be able to complain about the behavior of individual policemen. The defendant would also be free to post a document to defend himself, and he could include whatever photos, video, or other information that he felt was relevant. His friends and family members could help him create his document, or post their own documents.

You might also worry that the citizens will post stupid responses that waste everybody's time, but in a society that judges people according to what they do, the citizens who repeatedly post responses that are judged to be stupid will eventually be labeled as too incompetent to influence society, and they would be prohibited from posting on the police website. The citizens will be under pressure to make sure that their responses are sensible.

The police would then have to respond to all of those complaints from the citizens and the defendant. By allowing the citizens and defendant to post responses to the police, and by requiring the police to respond to them, we allow the citizens to have direct participation in the criminal cases. You might worry that the police will simply dismiss the complaints by the citizens, but by requiring all responses be posted, there will be a record of who is doing what, and that will allow people to pass judgment on which of the police are responding in an intelligent manner, and which are either stupid or trying to cheat. When nobody is allowed secrecy, and everything we do is documented, the police who misbehave will eventually be noticed and replaced, assuming that society doesn't consist entirely of sheeple!

By comparison, the American legal system does not allow the citizens to directly influence the process. The American citizens are allowed to sit in a courtroom and observe a trial, but they are not allowed to participate. If a trial has a jury, some citizens will be jurors, but jurors do not truly participate in the trial, either, because they are in the role of a computer that is being fed censored data by lawyers.

I think we should get rid of the lawyers and allow the citizens to be the opponent to the police. The defendant and the citizens would provide the best checks and balances to the police because they are the only people who truly have an incentive to ensure that the police are behaving properly. Lawyers cannot contribute to a court system because their only incentive is to keep their job, eliminate competitors, and help their friends get away with crimes.

Although the citizens would be allowed to complain about the police proposals, they would not be allowed to conduct demonstrations in the streets. The citizens would be required to post a document on the police website to explain their complaints, and they would have to identify themselves as the author. Nobody would be allowed to post a response anonymously or secretly.

The police, citizens, and everybody else who gets involved with the trial must be held responsible for their behavior. The police who repeatedly make decisions that are later judged to be stupid will be replaced, and the citizens who repeatedly make idiotic complaints would be classified as "mentally incompetent". Some of the police might even be classified as mentally incompetent if they make some truly stupid decisions. The people with that classification would be prohibited from posting complaints on the police website.

If neither the defendant nor the citizens posted an objection to the police proposal, then there would not be a trial. Of course, most of the time there would probably be objections from either the defendant or the citizens. This would require some type of trial to be conducted in order to resolve the issue of what to do with the defendant.

A trial should be similar to what occurs in a business when the executives discuss the issue of what to do about a badly behaved employee. The executives have a serious discussion about the evidence and the employee, as opposed to the type of trial that we have in the American legal system in which lawyers and judges are censoring information and trying to manipulate a jury with facial expressions and body language.

Trials would occur in public, and be open to the citizens, but unlike the trials in America, there would be no lawyers to censor the questions or evidence. The people who participate in the trial would determine for themselves which information was relevant, and they could even debate the relevancy of some information. Also, no defendant, policeman, or witness would have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Everybody would be required to answer questions, or be considered guilty of obstructing a trial. The trial would resemble a public discussion or debate rather than an American trial.

It is conceivable that during the trial, the defendant, citizens, and police come to an agreement with one another about the verdict, in which case the trial would be terminated due to a unanimous agreement. The most likely scenario, however, is that the defendant, citizens, and police disagree with one another, which could result in a trial that continues for decades. There would have to be somebody in the role of a judge to terminate the trial and determine the verdict when the people could not agree.

The job of a judge should be available to anybody who has shown the intellectual and emotional stability to moderate and supervise a criminal debate. We should not promote the theory that only people with some mysterious "legal experience" should be able to be judges. Law schools are teaching students about the arbitrary and complex rules of the American legal system, and it also teaches students about previous law cases so that they know about the concept of "precedent". However, we should simplify our legal system so that people can participate without knowing complex rules, and we should not follow "precedent". A person who is accused of a crime should be judged according to what we think is best for society at the time, not according to how our ancestors judged similar cases. We have to stop following our ancestors and think for ourselves.

A criminal case should be a debate, similar to what scientists and engineers do when they discuss new products and technology. The difference between a criminal case and a debate between scientists is that a criminal case directly stimulates our emotions, and therefore, the people involved in criminal cases need more than the intellectual ability to debate. They also need the ability to control their emotions, remain calm, and suppress their bias so that they can make decisions that are best for society.

Students should be put through a variety of different debates so that teachers can get an indication of their ability to debate, and their ability to control their emotions. Anybody who shows signs of handling emotional debates should be allowed to apply for the job of a judge. If a judge turns out to show undesirable qualities, he can be replaced.

There is no need for judges to wear powdered wigs, although because of the emotions involved with the trial, it is conceivable that there is a psychological benefit when they sit in a throne-like chair. That might make it easier for them to keep other people under control. I doubt if there is an advantage to referring to them as "Your Honor", however. That seems a bit too medieval. I think they should be referred to by their names.

The judge would schedule the trial and provide guidance to the participants. His primary duty would be as a moderator of the debate over the evidence and verdict rather than as a medieval king who is ruling over his peasants. He would supervise the debate and provide guidance and suggestions. He would ask questions and discuss issues. He would not be a silent observer. He would not censor information or questions, either. If he did not consider a question to be relevant, he would explain his objections rather than censor it.

In America, everybody is theoretically able to become a judge, but in reality, a network of Jews is dominating our legal system. We have to watch over the people who become judges so that we prevent a small group of people from selecting the judges for us. Anybody who has shown an ability to conduct an intelligent debate over emotional issues should be able to try the role of a judge, including on a part-time and temporary basis. The advantage to encouraging people to become a judge on a part-time basis is to bring more people into the legal system. The more involvement from the public, the less likely a small group will have control of us.

The American lawyers and judges have created so many arbitrary and complex rules for conducting a trial that we cannot participate in a trial without their assistance, but a trial should be a debate, not the legal equivalent of a Rube Goldberg contraption. When business executives debate what to do with an employee who is accused of bad behavior, they simply discuss the issue.

This system allows us to see the evidence that the police have collected; see which policemen are making the proposals; see which of the citizens are posting responses; and see what the judges are doing. This in turn allows us to pass judgment on which of the people in the police department we want to replace; which of the citizens are wasting our time with biased or idiotic responses; and which of the judges should be removed from their position.

Although the citizens would not be able to directly replace anybody in the police department or classify any citizen as mentally incompetent, we would be allowed to send our complaints about people to the government agency that accepts complaints, as previously discussed in the section that advocates we provide the government with a real Complaint Department. The officials in the Complaint Department would be required to investigate and deal with our complaints. Compare that to the situation in America in which judges and lawyers have virtually permanent jobs regardless of how many people are disgusted with their behavior and opinions.

The American court system allows lawyers to profit from court cases, and that encourages them to extend a case over a period of years. It would be more sensible to require the citizens to respond to police proposals within a certain number of weeks, unless somebody can come up with sensible reasons as to why he needs more time. We could also restrict trials to a few weeks, unless somebody can explain why they need more time.

The American court system promotes the paranoia that we must be extremely careful that we do not convict an innocent person, but there are two aspects of this issue to consider that might reduce the paranoia:
1) False convictions are not random. Certain people are more likely to be falsely convicted of a crime. They tend to be the people who have a criminal history, or a history of psychotic behavior. By taking everybody's history into account, the people who are the least likely to be falsely convicted are those who have an impressive history.
2) Perfection is impossible. Our attempts to achieve perfection by increasing the number of checks and balances is simply adding complexity and inefficiency. We must face the fact that we will always make mistakes. Rather than believe that we can eliminate mistakes, we should design our social systems to be biased so that the mistakes are in the favor of the higher-quality people.

Many television shows have a plot in which people are suspected of a crime because they behave suspiciously when interviewed by the police, and later it turns out that they were innocent of the crime but were behaving suspiciously because they were trying to hide something else, such as some other crime that they had committed, or some embarrassing aspect of their lives, such as alcoholism, drug problems, gambling problems, or adultery, and sometimes they are trying to hide the problems of their children or friends. These people do not necessarily lie; sometimes they merely withhold information from the police.

Although these are only television shows, I suspect that these situations occur once in a while in real life because there are a lot of people trying to hide unpleasant aspects of their life, or that of their children's lives. These people should be considered as criminals because they are interfering with police investigations and trials. We must stop feeling sorry for people who are ashamed of themselves or who try to cover up the bad behavior of their children. If a witness to a crime interferes with a trial because he is embarrassed to expose his alcohol problems, he should be described as interfering with other people's lives. Why should he have a right to do that?

One advantage to this legal system in which people post everything on the police website and citizens are allowed to file complaints is that it puts pressure on people to be honest. By comparison, the lawyers in the American court system are expected to be biased. The lawyers are not supposed to be honest; rather, some lawyers defend the defendant, and others defend the police, and everybody expects all of the lawyers to hide crucial information and lie to jurors. Lawyers are also allowed to manipulate the jurors, such as by putting the defendant and witnesses in certain type of clothing, and by helping them practice certain types of facial and body expressions. The American court system is similar to a fight between two dogs over territory. Neither dog has a desire to be fair or honest. They are fighting for selfish reasons. I would summarize the primary problems with the American legal system as:

1) Our legal system was never intended to reduce crime. It was designed by people who were frightened of the government, and who wanted to feel sorry for the "Underdogs". They made it very easy for people to avoid responsibility for their bad behavior, and to hide their horrible history. The lawyers and judges are exploiting this miserable system rather than helping to make it better.

It is not easy to measure crime levels, but there seems to be much more fear of crime today than there was centuries ago. However, the lawyers and judges are not considered to be failures, and they are never fired for incompetence. Instead, they profit from additional crime. Imagine hiring a plumber to clean your drains, but the drains never become any better, or they become worse. Would you hire him week after week to do the same useless work over and over?

The purpose of a legal system should be to help us understand and reduce crime, and if it is not accomplishing its goal, then we need to replace officials and/or experiment with different policies.

2) Most of the population are apathetic, selfish sheeple who ignore corruption, and a significant percentage of the population is so dishonest that they assist the corrupt lawyers and judges with their crimes.

The only solution to this problem is to ensure that a certain percent of the population is willing to play an active role in the maintenance of society. A certain percentage of the citizens needs to occasionally observe what the police and judges are doing.

3) We don't have any sensible checks and balances on our legal system. None of us have any influence over the lawyers, judges, or court procedures. The president is the only person with the authority to appoint Supreme Court judges, but nobody can fire a judge.

The solution to this problem is to provide the citizens with some influence over the legal system, such as by allowing citizens to post responses to the police decisions, providing citizens with a real Complaint Department, and by forcing the government to regularly replace one of their leaders. Of course, whether people use these checks and balances depends upon whether they are sheeple or humans.

A legal system should focus on a person's value

The American legal system focuses on whether a person has violated a law, but I think we will do a better job of reducing crime if we focus on a person's value to society. The police would not have to wait for a person to commit a crime in order to arrest him, and they would not have to worry about finding tremendous amounts of evidence of his crime.

This system would allow the police to do "maintenance" of the human population, which is impossible in nations today. For example, a man who often makes lewd remarks to women on public trains is not technically violating a law, but if he were to cause enough complaints, the police might decide to arrest him. In such a case, the police would create a proposal that provides an analysis of that man's life, and they would show that he is continuously irritating people, especially women, and that it would be best for society to evict him. The police would not have to provide any evidence that he technically violated any particular law. They would merely provide sensible reasons as to why he is unfit to be a member of our society.

In America, people are regularly irritating one another with their violent dogs, badly behaved children, or psychotic personality, but when people complain to the police, the police respond that they cannot do anything until a serious crime has been committed. Women are complaining on a regular basis about their violent ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands, and some men complain about their psychotic ex-wives, but the police cannot do anything about abusive or irritating people. Some people have such psychotic neighbors that they attract the attention of news reporters, such as this 20/20 episode. Some of the psychos are eventually arrested, such as Patricia Immendorf, but she will spend only a year in jail.

When we keep track of what everybody says and does, and when we judge people according to their value to society, we don't have to wait for somebody to commit a serious crime to arrest or evict them. They simply have to be considered "undesirable" by enough people. This system will penalize people who are regularly lying, manipulating, abusing, deceiving, and irritating us.

This system may seem to give the police the authority to evict and execute whoever they don't like, similar to what we see in communist nations. This is indeed a valid concern. If the city consists of sheeple and criminals, and if the government is dominated by pedophiles, alcoholics, and criminals, then of course this frightening scenario could come true.

Although this system gives the police tremendous control over society, it also provides the citizens with plenty of opportunities to keep corruption under control. For example, by removing secrecy and putting everybody's life history in a publicly accessible database, everybody will be able to see what everybody else is doing, including what the police and government officials are doing. As long as a certain percentage of the city population is willing to get involved in the maintenance of society by watching over the police, citizens, teachers, business executives, and government officials, it will be difficult for somebody to abuse the system.

The American court system expects the family members and friends of a defendant to give biased testimony, but we should put pressure on people to treat everybody fairly, even if they are closely related to them. Parents who lie for their children, and friends who lie for one another, would be considered as "destructive influences on society" as a result of their lying. They would not have any special privileges to lie simply because they are friends or relatives of the defendant.

Hollywood movies and television programs often promote the concept that parents should do anything to save their children. The movies frequently show parents killing or abusing other people in order to help their child. Some television programs show policemen violating laws to help their child avoid embarrassment or jail for their drug use, drunk driving, or other crimes. Most people consider it "normal" for parents to be biased in favor of their children. Although this behavior makes sense for animals and primitive humans, we should consider this as crude behavior that is inappropriate in this modern world.

The idea of putting pressure on parents to reduce the bias for their children might seem bizarre, but imagine how much nicer the world would be if parents were fair to all children. Those parents will be able to see the good qualities of other people's children, and the bad qualities in their own children. They would judge a child according to his behavior, not according to who his parents were. If you happened to have a wonderful child, then other parents would appreciate your child and want to help him and protect him, even though they are not related to him.

Parents who can be fair to all children would do what is best for the human race, not what is best for their own biological children. It would be similar to the attitude in a military unit in which the soldiers protect one another even if they are not closely related to each other. It would create a much more pleasant environment for us compared to when every parent is selfishly protecting his children and treating other people's children as expendable, inferior pawns.

Our legal system should penalize people who lie, manipulate, deceive, abuse, make stupid remarks, or are an irritation. The police should be expected to create intelligent proposals, and the citizens and judges should be expected to respond in a serious, honest manner. If a citizen posts a proposal that is judged to be stupid, dishonest, or biased, he should get a "failure" listed in his database, and after a certain number of failures, he should be prohibited from participating on the grounds that he is intellectually or emotionally unable to contribute to the legal system.

The purpose of a trial in the American court system is to determine whether a person has violated a law, and if so, what type of suffering he should be subjected to, but our legal system should not focus on laws, and it should not inflict any type of pain on a person. The police and the citizens should focus on whether the person was a valuable member of society, and if not, whether he needs restrictions or should be evicted from society.

If this type of legal system seems bizarre, consider that it is happening all around you right now. Both businesses and military units will remove people from their organization if they become tired of their irritating attitude or abusive behavior, even if they did not commit any serious crimes. You behave this way with people, also. For example, you will stop being friends with a person if you get tired of his irritating qualities, and you will get a divorce from a person that you become irritated with.

Businesses, militaries, and ordinary people are allowed to terminate relationships with people without providing evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person has violated a law. We should apply the same policy to an entire city. A city must eliminate the dirt in their transmission, even if that dirt has not actually committed a serious crime. We must maintain the morale of a city. Humans in this modern era must form cooperative teams rather than behave like selfish savages who fight with one another.

Some people might complain that this system puts the stupid people at a disadvantage because when they get arrested, they and their stupid friends will have trouble coming up with intelligent responses to the police proposals. My response to that concern is, so what? It is not our responsibility to help stupid people complain about the police or defend themselves from accusations of being an undesirable citizen. We need to reduce the number of stupid people, not feel sorry for them. Besides, if only a few stupid people oppose a police proposal, then we ought to consider the policy to be sensible because if the police were to truly do something idiotic, then some of the intelligent people would respond, unless, of course, everybody in society is a sheeple.

Will we want the burden of this legal system?

According to census report 324, there were 11 million arrests in 2009. If America was following my suggestions for a legal system, that means the citizens would be expected to read through 11 million arrest proposals every year. Let's assume that America has 110 million adults of the proper age, literacy requirements, and mental qualities necessary to participate in the legal system. If each American adult observed only 10 trials each year, then there would be only one citizen reviewing each trial. It would be better if there were several citizens reviewing every arrest, but that would require every American adult deal with perhaps 30 or 50 cases every year. Would you want to deal with several arrests every month?

If we create a new city, and if crime is as extreme as it is right now in America, dealing with all of the arrests would put a significant burden on us. Then consider that many of the crimes in America are not even reported. For one reason, many of the criminals are getting away with their crimes because they work for the government, legal system, or media, and for another reason, some of the victims don't bother to report their crimes because they don't believe the police will do anything about it. If all crimes are reported, then there would be significantly more than 11 million arrests every year.

The legal system I propose requires participation of the citizens, and the only way that burden will be tolerable is if we find a way to reduce crime, and not by just a little bit, but dramatically. We need to reduce crime to such low levels that citizens rarely have to participate in a trial.

If a business was having so many problems with criminal behavior that the executives were spending most of their time investigating complaints, they would experiment with methods to reduce the problem. They would not allow the crime to ruin their business. We must also be willing to experiment with methods of dramatically reducing crime in a city, and we must face the fact that nobody has developed a pleasant technique to reduce crime. Reducing crime means making sacrifices of some type; it requires suffering.

For example, one method to reduce crime is to evict criminals on their very first arrest. However, evicting criminals on their first arrest means evicting a lot of teenagers, and a lot of your friends and family members. Are you willing to make that sacrifice?

Many Americans, especially those who refer to themselves as "conservatives", promote "tough law enforcement," or "cracking down on crime", but despite what they say, the majority of Americans push for leniency and pity because criminals are coming from everybody's family. Virtually every conservative becomes a "bleeding heart liberal" when he is caught committing a crime, or when one of his children or friends are caught.

Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno were Republicans. How many Republicans demanded that Joe Paterno be investigated to determine if he was helping to cover up Sandusky's pedophilia network, or if he was helping to cover up the murder of a District Attorney Ray Gricar? How many Republicans demanded tough law enforcement with Jerry Sandusky? How many Republicans are demanding that the police be tough on the pedophilia of the Catholic Church?

Another example are the women who blackmail or abuse men, such as Monica Lewinsky and Anna Chapman. How many conservatives demand that those women be arrested? Most men have so little control over their sexual emotions that they tend to regard female criminals as innocent, young girls, especially if the woman is pretty. Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old when she was trying to manipulate Bill Clinton with sex, which classifies her as a fully grown, adult woman. She should be considered a dangerous criminal; a con artist who was trying to blackmail a government official. Instead, many people considered her to be an innocent, young girl.

You could respond that in Bill Clinton's case, he should have known better than to get involved with Lewinsky, but I'm using that particular case because it is well known. There have been lots of other women who have faked a romantic interest in a man simply so that they could use him for money or publicity, or to set him up for blackmail, or to steal items from him. However, these women are not considered guilty of criminal activities. Most people do not regard those women as deceptive, diabolical criminals.

Some of the women who behave in this manner can become wealthy and famous by talking about what they did. Monica Lewinsky, and some of the women who deceived Tiger Woods into relationships, are examples. I would say that allowing women to profit from this behavior is equivalent to a man who rapes a woman, but instead of being arrested, he is invited on television talk shows to promote a book that he wrote about his rape, and Time magazine makes his book a cover story and puts his smiling face on their cover.

Many years ago in the city where I live, a woman was walking along a sidewalk in the morning, and as a man walked by on his way to work, she asked him for help with something. I forget what she asked for, but perhaps her high-heeled shoe had broken. When the man stopped to see what he could do, her boyfriend jumped out of the bushes, hit him over the head with something, and robbed him. Those two were not caught, at least not at the time of the news report, but if they had been caught, many men would have given the woman special treatment on the grounds that she didn't directly participate in the beating or the robbing. However, when men and women commit crimes together, the men will naturally do the more physically demanding tasks. This also occurs when a crime network consists of men of different sizes and ages. The smaller and older men tend to let the stronger and younger men do the physically demanding tasks. That doesn't mean the smaller or older men are less troublesome for society.

Men are simply looking for an excuse to feel sorry for female criminals because of our sexual cravings and desire to protect women. In this modern world, we have to control our emotions and pass judgment on which women are worthy of protection, and which of them are destructive creatures who should be removed from society.

Some men feel sorry for women who are so stupid that they get involved with crime simply because of their crude boyfriends, but regardless of whether a woman is an active participant in crime or a submissive participant, if we allow the abusive women to live among us, we allow them to abuse more men, and we ruin the morale of society. If we allow them to reproduce, we will have more of these stupid and abusive creatures in the future generations.

The point I want to make is that there are a variety of policies that we could experiment with in order to reduce crime, but all crime reduction policies are going to be unpleasant. Are you willing to experiment with unpleasant policies, such as evicting criminals? If so, do you understand what that requires of you? It requires that you control your sexual emotions when women are caught abusing people, and it requires controlling your craving to protect your own children and relatives when they are caught abusing people. Do you have that much self-control? If the people in a city do not have the ability to evict criminals, then we will continue to arrest the same people over and over, and we will continue to allow psychotic neighbors to irritate us year after year, and we will continue to allow the undesirable people to reproduce.

What type of lawyers do we need?

When businesses have a problem with an employee, they don't allow lawyers to get involved. They don't want lawyers profiting from the problem, and they don't want lawyers censoring information, and they don't want lawyers training employees on how to appear innocent. Businesses want problems dealt with as efficiently, quickly, and quietly as possible.

If lawyers truly helped businesses to resolve problems with employees, then businesses would use lawyers, but lawyers have no incentive to help organizations deal with problems. The only incentive that lawyers have is to profit from problems, and to help their criminal friends appear innocent. Lawyers are parasites and manipulators. They are not contributing anything of value to society. The lawyers who help businesses and citizens file lawsuits or circumvent laws are not beneficial to society, either.

We don't need lawyers to get involved with criminal cases. The only type of lawyer that we would benefit from is a person who helps businesses, government agencies, and other people to write contracts so that people can clearly understand what they are supposed to do, and who help resolve disputes when there are disagreements with the contract. For example, when a government official authorizes a research proposal or a manufacturing operation, the document should clearly explain what is being funded, and what is expected of the person doing the work. That document could be described as a "legal document", and it would be beneficial to have some lawyers with excellent writing skills and analytical abilities to help create those documents. If a disagreement develops over the contract, the lawyers should be embarrassed that people are misunderstanding their contract, and they should help resolve the issue as quietly and quickly as possible rather than encourage fights and lawsuits.

That type of lawyer is not the same as a lawyer who gets involved with a criminal case. This type of lawyer is an expert in the English language. His purpose is to help people communicate and negotiate. He would help people to create precise documents that are easily understood. When there is a dispute over what the contract says, then the lawyer could get involved to help resolve the issue.

This type of lawyer would be judged according to how accurately people were interpreting his documents. For example, if the documents of a particular lawyer were causing more confusion or arguments than the contracts from other lawyers, then he would be considered as less competent. Lawyers should be under pressure to write documents that are clear and understandable to everybody.

I suppose lawyers would respond that they are indeed trying to make their documents precise and understandable, but I think that many lawyers are deliberately trying to write documents in a manner that nobody can understand in order to force us to use their services whenever we need contracts to be written, and whenever we need some other laywer's contract to be deciphered into ordinary English. The free enterprise system puts pressure on lawyers to sell their services, not be honest, understandable, or moral. Lawyers are under financial pressure to make their documents so confusing that we want to pay a lawyer whenever we need to deal with legal contracts. They don't want legal documents to be so simple that we can create them on our own.

In a society in which everybody has the same material wealth, lawyers cannot profit from problems. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, every city should have an Efficiency Department to look over all of the jobs and try to remove as many unnecessary jobs as possible. The Efficiency Department will want to reduce the number of lawyers to the bare minimum because lawyers are not directly contributing to society. The fewer lawyers, the better.

In this type of society, we would judge the lawyers according to the clarity of their documents. The lawyers whose documents are the most confusing and cause the most arguments should be regularly replaced so that somebody else can try his skills at being a lawyer. We should not allow lawyers to keep their jobs forever. Just like everybody else, they should continuously earn their job. We should regularly replace the worst performing lawyers.

These type of lawyers could operate on a part-time and temporary basis. A scientist, for example, might occasionally be willing to help create or edit a document for a research proposal. In America, the lawyers try to stop people from writing their legal documents by insisting that we know all sorts of confusing rules about the use of words, but our attitude should be that anybody who is excellent with communication has the necessary skills.

If people of above-average intelligence have trouble understanding a legal document, then we should consider it to be poorly written. If a particular document turns out to be so confusing that it causes arguments or other problems, the lawyer who edited it would have that listed in his database as a "failure". Over time, this would allow us to determine who among us has the skills necessary to be a lawyer.

It would be useful for people to offer to be a lawyer on a part-time and temporary basis because our business contracts are becoming increasingly complicated, and the people who are best at creating them will be people who are familiar with the subject, which are the people who are working in that field. Some scientists could offer to help write legal contracts for research proposals, and some engineers could offer to help write contracts for engineering proposals.

In a society in which everybody's basic necessities are provided for free, the lawyers cannot profit from creating or editing legal documents. The lawyers in this system would be like dentists, nurses, carpenters, and plumbers. The government would hire these type of lawyers to help them with their documents, and sometimes to help businesses and organizations with their documents. These lawyers would simply be doing a job just like other government employees. The lawyers would be in the role of an editor who is trying to create a clear and understandable document as opposed to an American lawyer who is trying to create a complex legal document that nobody else can understand.

In America, lawyers compete for money, and so they advertise their services to ordinary citizens. The lawyers are encouraging the citizens to file lawsuits and to fight with one another and fight with businesses. The lawyers are also deliberately trying to make life so confusing that we need to go to a lawyer in order to get a divorce, create a will, and start a business.

When the government has a Department of Efficiency, and their sole purpose is to eliminate as much unnecessary work as possible, then they will counteract the tendency of lawyers to make life complicated. The Department of Efficiency will try to make our personal lives and business activity more efficient so that we don't have to waste so much time with lawyers and paperwork.

Cheating, deception, and manipulation is no longer appropriate

In the previous article of this series, I suggested that you go to a courtship activity by suppressing your selfish cravings for a spouse and working with the supervisor to help other people understand you and make a decision about whether they want you as a spouse. Now I would like you to consider that students in school should have a similar attitude.

Our schools and businesses put emphasis on diplomas. Many students are foolishly making the mistake of considering school to be a hurdle that they must overcome in order to acquire a diploma. As a result of this attitude, they are willing to cheat in order to get that diploma. They are behaving like a lonely man who is looking for a spouse, and is willing to manipulate and deceive a woman so that he can achieve his goal of marriage.

A more appropriate attitude for school is that the students should work with the teachers in order to develop some useful skills and to learn about themselves and life. When a student has that attitude, then it should be obvious to him that it makes no sense to cheat. How can you cheat when your goal is to learn about yourself? How can you cheat when you your goal is to learn a useful skill? A student who cheats is hurting himself. He also becomes a problem for society.

A more extreme example might make this concept more clear. Imagine if a student wanted to be an engineer, and all throughout school he cheated. Imagine him getting a job to help design a factory that processes chemicals. Since he doesn't know how to do his job properly, his section of the factory could be seriously defective. Imagine that one day his section explodes, causing serious injuries to thousands of people.

If you had been in school with him while he was cheating, you would have likely ignored his cheating rather than complain that he should be evicted from school, and you might have felt that you should cheat in order to compete with him. If anybody had complained about him cheating, he might have responded that they were a "tattletale". However, if his factory exploded and burned the skin off your face, you might realize that his cheating was a very serious problem.

Some people would probably need to have their face burned away from such an accident before they would be willing to stand up to the students who who cheat, lie, deceive, and manipulate. We must stop ignoring, being frightened of, and tolerating people who lie, cheat, abuse, and deceive. Don't be intimidated by them when they accuse you of being a "tattletale" or a "goody two-shoes". They are the ones with the problems, not those of us who complain about them. The people who cheat are hurting not only themselves but everybody else. We should stop tolerating such crude, animal-like behavior.

When a student cheats in his school work, he may get to join a team of people that he doesn't actually have the skills to contribute to. He will become a burden on that team, and he might be fired. In some cases, he will put other people's lives at risk. Furthermore, when a student who cheats is given a job that he doesn't have the ability to do, some other person is denied that job.

If the students understood this concept, then they would resist cheating. If they were taking tests while sitting next to one another, they would avoid looking at what the other students were doing because they would want to know what their abilities are. Teachers would not have to waste any time trying to stop cheating.

Now consider how this applies to courtship. When you are looking for a spouse, everybody involved benefits when all of you are honest, and you all suffer when some of you are deceptive. For just one example, if you are a man, and if another man is deceiving the women in order to get a spouse, he may end up with a woman that is much better suited to you. People who deceive potential spouses will waste their time by getting into relationships that they should not be in, and they are wasting the life of their partner, and they will be denying somebody else the particular spouse that they have deceived into marrying them. Nobody benefits from such deception, not even the deceptive person himself. Animals benefit from this selfish behavior, but not modern humans.

We should start seriously looking for a spouse during our late teenage years or early adult years, and those should be considered the prime years of life. We should be appalled by people who waste that portion of our life.

If people truly understood this concept, then they would be honest when they were looking for a spouse. They would want a spouse that they truly fit with, not somebody who has been tricked into marriage.

It is necessary for animals and prehistoric humans to behave in a selfish manner and fight with one another for food, territory, and reproduction, but now that we are living in technically advanced cities, the human race must evolve into a creature that can understand why honesty is truly the best policy. Ideally, an adult would not have to be told to be honest. Ideally, the human race will evolve into a creature that figures this out during its childhood.

In the world today, and for the foreseeable future, people are going to have to lie once in a while simply because we are living among people who cannot handle the truth. We often have to lie about whether we like somebody's hairstyle, artwork, children, or pets. Many people today, when presented with the truth, will become angry or have a temper tantrum.

To confuse the issue, sometimes we lie to simplify complicated situations. For example, if somebody were to ask you if you enjoy having dinner with them, or going to the beach with them, you might say "Yes" rather than give a long, vague, and confusing explanation about how on some days you enjoyed it a lot, and other days you mostly enjoyed it but not all aspects of it, and on other days you didn't care for it too much.

Life is becoming complicated. Although we could say that nobody would lie in an ideal world, is such a world practical? Perhaps a few million years from now, but not during our lifetimes. However, we should pass judgment on when a person has crossed the line from "acceptable lying" to "destructive lying".

We cannot force people to be honest, and we cannot force students to want to learn. Humans must evolve into a creature that wants to be honest, wants to learn, and wants to contribute. Animals fight for food and reproduction, but humans must enjoy cooperating with other people, participating in society, and being honest, responsible, and considerate.

Children need a probation period

The quality control for humans needs to be different than it is for material items. When a factory produces items, the quality control inspectors can reject items anywhere along the assembly process. However, I don't think we should apply this policy to people. Instead, our quality control should be only at the beginning of the process, such as the first six years of life.

If we set six years as being the probationary period, then during the first six years of a child's life, the Population Quality Control department would routinely analyze the child and pass judgment on whether he is showing undesirable qualities. This department would execute the physically or mentally defective children in an attempt to get rid of all of those who might become troublesome, lonely, sickly, miserable, anti-social, stupid, or mentally ill.

If a child gets past the probationary period, the Quality Control department would become much more lenient with him. Teenagers and adults would not be executed unless they were truly a problem for society.

The reason I would limit this probationary period to the first six or so years of life is because during those first few years, a child doesn't have a good understanding of anything, and so it is possible to execute young children without them understanding why their friend disappeared, or that they may be next to disappear. This allows us to kill young children for such reasons as they are ugly, they cry a lot, they seem weird, or they are stupid.

At a certain point in time, children start becoming aware of the concept of death. If we were executing teenagers for such reasons as being ugly or antisocial, we would cause emotional turmoil among them. Therefore, the goal of the Quality Control department is to figure out which people need to be executed while they are still very young. The children who get past that probationary period will be able to relax. Some of those children will eventually be classified as unworthy of reproduction or unworthy of adopting children, and they may have restrictions imposed on them in regards to the type of jobs they can do, but they will not have to worry about being executed unless they truly present a threat to society.

If the department was capable of doing this job with 100% perfection, then they would remove the misfits during the first few years of their life, and everybody who survived the probation would be happy, healthy, and well-adjusted to society. There would be no crime, no people who hate themselves, no envy, and no misfits.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect 100% perfection. As a result, some of the children who pass through the probation period will eventually become troublesome adults, or misfits of some type. Therefore, the Quality Control department would have to continue to watch over everybody.

The police departments and courts in the world today focus on whether people are following laws, but the Quality Control department would focus on a person's overall effect on society. By ignoring whether people obey the laws and judging them by their overall effect on society, we avoid the problem of people who justify their undesirable behavior by whining that there is no law against what they did. The opposite is also true. Specifically, sometimes people will violate a law, but nobody is harmed, so why should we care? The best example of this are the traffic laws that most of us regularly violate.

The Quality Control department would also consider whether a person is capable of enjoying his life. For example, some of the people who are born with a stuttering problem or a defective hand are wonderful, honest people. As young children, they will be happy, but eventually they will begin wishing that they were normal. We are not being nice when we torture these people. We would be nicer to put them out of their misery, and give life to a child who is healthy.

Would killing children create an unpleasant environment?

Some people might worry that the killing of defective children will create an unpleasant social environment. I agree that killing a child will cause lots of emotional trauma for his parents and the other children in his family, and it may also cause emotional trauma for some of the people who knew the child. However, simply because a policy created some unpleasant emotional reactions doesn't mean that it is "bad". We have to consider the overall effect a policy has on human life rather than focus on an individual act. If we focus on the act of killing a child, then of course our conclusion will be that it is a horrible thing to do.

Perhaps a good way to understand this issue is to consider how easily we deal with death in other situations. For example, consider car accidents. Children, teenagers, and adults are regularly killed and permanently injured by car accidents, but who is complaining about the death and destruction? Parents will cry for a while if their child dies in a car accident, but they quickly resume their life. The people who have no emotional connection to the accident victims do not even cry. Rather, they enjoy the images of broken cars, dead bodies, blood, and body parts. They take videos of the accidents and post them on the Internet for entertainment.

The satirical Crashvertise marketing company is taking advantage of the gawking at car accidents by offering to rush a few pretty women to the scene of a car accident to hold up whatever advertising sign you want the drivers to see.

Why are we able to deal with the death and suffering of automobile accidents, but we are traumatized over abortions, assisted suicide, and the execution of defective children? I think it is because we have strong emotional inhibitions about killing our own species, but if the killings are caused by something else, such as an automobile accident, we consider it to be just an unfortunate aspect of life.

If a pregnant woman is in an automobile accident, and if her fetus pops out of her and onto the street, she will cry a while, and then she resumes her life. The people in the other cars will be entertained by the dead fetus, and many will laugh as they watch the fetus fly through the air, and many people will post videos of the dead fetus. Lots of people who saw the incident will giggle with their friends about watching the fetus fly through the air. The story will circulate around the world, and it will entertain millions of people.

If that same woman had been driving to an abortion clinic, and if she did not have an accident, then she would have killed her baby at the clinic, but in that case, many of the people who were entertained by her dead fetus and who were posting videos of it would be outraged that she killed the fetus. Obviously, people don't really care about a dead fetus; they care about how it was killed. If people really wanted to reduce killing, they would do something about all of the automobile accidents, false flag operations, wars, etc.

The people who complain about abortion, euthanasia, and the killing of retarded children do not really care about the deaths. Rather, they are upset that humans did the killing. When nature does the killings, they are entertained, and sometimes giggle, but when humans do the killing, they are horrified.

When we see a fetus killed by "natural causes", our minds will react to the death in a certain manner, but when we see a human kill a fetus, a different portion of our brain is stimulated, and the reaction is much more intense. That portion could be described as "inhibitions" that are designed to prevent stupid animals from killing their own species. Most people interpret that unpleasant emotional feeling as a sign that there is something inherently wrong with killing, but there is nothing wrong with killing.

Animals have inhibitions about killing because animals do not have the ability to make wise decisions about these issues. Animals can kill only when their inhibitions are overridden by a more dominant emotion, such as hunger or fear. As monkeys developed into humans, they needed stronger inhibitions about killing, especially about killing their own species. Today, however, humans must control their inhibitions and make decisions about which animals and people need to be killed. We are allowing animal populations to grow excessively, and we are allowing the human population to become contaminated with criminals and retards.

All of us experience an unpleasant emotional reaction to an abortion and the execution of retarded children, but we don't have to mindlessly respond to those emotions by becoming hysterical. At least some of us have the ability to control our emotions, think about the issue, and pass judgment on which type of killing is sensible, and which killings should be prohibited. You have lots of options in life. You can chose to waste your life crying over the execution of a retarded child, or you can regard the execution as an unfortunate but necessary aspect of modern life.

People are suffering and dying every day because of car accidents, crime, pedophilia, diseases, sports, Jewish false flag operations, wars, lightning, tornadoes, and attacks by pet dogs. There is also tremendous loneliness, awkwardness, pouting, suicide, and misery as a result of people who hate themselves because they are ugly, stupid, neurotic, or deformed. Orphans are suffering because they are unwanted. We are not relieving any of the suffering by becoming hysterical over abortions or the killing of retarded children.

If we can figure out how to identify and execute the miserable and defective children while they are very young, we will cause their parents to suffer a bit of emotional trauma, but we have the potential of creating a world in which the teenagers and adults are happy with themselves and can trust one another. There would be no cravings for cosmetic surgery, no retards, no children in orphanages, and no people pouting or suffering because of their physical or mental disorders.

People are suffering everywhere in the world every day, and there always will be some suffering. However, if we start the process of learning how to identify and remove defective children, through the years we will do an increasingly better job of reducing the number of miserable people. This will create a world in which people enjoy life, treat one another with decency, and can trust one another.

Millions of people react with horror to an abortion, but giggle at a car accident. They have a tantrum when they hear about assisted suicide, but they ignore the unhappy teenagers who commit suicide. They think they are wonderful, loving people because they become hysterical over abortions and euthanasia, but they are actually just stupid animals who are doing nothing to stop the misery around them.

There is going to be suffering and death no matter what we do. Killing retarded and defective children will cause some suffering, but it will eliminate other types of suffering. We have to consider what is best overall for the human race.

Ugly babies should be killed

Allowing an ugly baby to live is torturing a human. A recent example is Nadia Ilse, whose entire childhood was wasted as result of being rejected and insulted by other children. Children have a natural craving to torment defective children. This is a vicious and cruel aspect of animals and humans, but what is the solution? In the case of Nadia, she was given free cosmetic surgery by the Little Baby Face Foundation. However, surgery is useful only for the children whose ugliness is trivial. There are a lot of children who are so ugly that medical technology cannot help them.

Even if surgeons could fix all forms of ugliness, that would help only a small number of the defective people. Surgery would be useless for the children who are suffering from weird personalities, intellectual disorders, migraine headache, allergies, stupidity, Tourette's syndrome, stuttering problems, speech disorders, defective livers, and faulty memories.

Nadia Ilse now looks much better, and she might be able to attract a husband and reproduce, but if we allow ugly people to reproduce, we are going to have more ugly people in the next generation. The human race will become increasingly ugly and deformed.

As medical technology improves, we will be able to help a greater percentage of the ugly people, but if let the ugly people reproduce, they will create even more extreme variations of ugly people, thereby pushing medical technology to its limit. Medical technology may never advance fast enough to deal with the degradation of the human race. Even if medical technology does become capable of correcting all of our medical disorders, do you want the future generations to be so incredibly ugly and defective that every child has to be given hundreds of hours of surgery to correct their cleft lip, deformed hearts, holes in intestines, club feet, and twisted fingers?

A better solution is to restrict reproduction, and to kill the defective babies. Our goal should be to create a world in which all children are happy, healthy, intelligent, talented, good-looking, nice smelling, and have nice personalities. It is cruel to raise children who suffer from mental or physical disorders. We are not "loving" a child when we give life to a child who will never be happy. People who give life to defective children are torturing children. Furthermore, some of those children will torment us because they will grow up to be angry, bitter, envious adults. It would be better to control our emotions and kill the ugly, deformed, and sickly children while they are still too young to understand what is happening to them.

The people at the Little Baby Face Foundation are helping a small percentage of ugly people feel less disgusted with themselves, but they are doing nothing to eliminate the underlying cause of ugliness. The only sensible solution is to improve the genetic quality of the human race.

It's also important to note that many - probably most - of the people who promote giving life to ugly and deformed children refuse to assist with the care that these children need. Imagine if the government decided to provide all of the ugly and deformed children with whatever cosmetic surgery and medical technology we have available today. That policy would require that we build a lot more hospitals and surgical centers, and a lot more people would have to become surgeons, doctors, and nurses. We would also need more people working in the factories that produce medical supplies and drugs. Who is going to do all that work?

How many of the people who oppose the killing of defective children are willing to go to medical school to become a doctor, surgeon, or nurse? How many of them are willing to work in a factory that produces medical supplies or equipment? How many of them are willing to take care of some of the unwanted children?

The people who oppose the killing of unwanted and defective children are following their stupid emotions to protect children. They are not interested in studying or discussing the problem, and they do not want to help with the care of the unwanted children. Most of them do not even want the defective children to live in their neighborhoods. They want to push the defective children aside, as if they are trash. They want the defective children to live, but they want somebody else to be responsible for them.

Don't be intimidated by the people who oppose abortion and euthanasia. Don't be fooled into thinking they are loving people. They are cruel, selfish savages who cannot deal with the problems of modern society, and who are inadvertently torturing children and causing the human race to degrade.

Kill the fetuses that survive an abortion

Melissa Ohden (in photo) is a woman who was aborted very late in her mother's pregnancy with the saline solution technique. She suffered some damage from the procedure, but she survived it. Melissa is not the first fetus to survive this abortion technique. Most of the fetuses that survive this technique are so seriously damaged by the saline solution that they have a very short life, but Melissa had only minor damage. She was later adopted and is now 31 years old and on a crusade to reduce abortions.

Her story is very interesting and emotional, but she's not helping us to deal with the problem of abortion or unwanted children. She complains that her mother wanted to abort her, but she doesn't tell us why her mother wanted to abort her. She wants to stop abortion, but how can abortion be stopped if we don't understand the cause?

No woman wants an abortion. Women hate abortions. However, the people who crusade against abortions are insinuating that women are choosing abortions with a casual, carefree attitude.

Melissa Ohden gives speech after speech about how her mother wanted to abort her, and she complains over and over about abortions, but she doesn't do any research into why her mother or the millions of other women are having abortions. She is not helping us to understand our problems, and she's not offering any solutions. She is simply upset by the concept of abortions. It is as idiotic as a person who goes on a crusade to stop people from having cavities filled in their teeth. Nobody wants a dentist to drill into their teeth. We pay dentist to do it only when we don't know what else to do. We all hate doing it. Therefore, crusading against it is not going to stop people from doing it. Killing dentists will not stop people from having their teeth drilled, either. The only way to stop people from having dentists drill their teeth is to understand the cause of cavities and offer people a method to prevent them.

Likewise, killing abortion doctors and reprimanding women for having abortions is not going to stop abortions. The anti-abortion people are worse than idiots; they are causing trouble for society with their constant whining, murders, arsons, and fighting.

A lot of people believe that they can stop abortions by making women feel guilty, or by making abortions illegal. This is similar to the people who think they can stop cigarette smoking by frightening people with photos of cancer patients on the packages of cigarettes, or stop drug use by making drugs illegal.

The only way to stop abortions is to study the issue, make guesses at policies that will prevent abortions, and experiment with those possible solutions. Unfortunately, Melissa and the others who oppose abortion have no interest in studying the issue or experimenting with society. Melissa is not even interested in enjoying her own life. She is not grateful for being alive. Rather, she is wasting her life by feeling sorry for herself and spreading misery to other people. She cannot forget about the issue and become a productive member of society.

The fact that Melissa is still alive brings up another interesting issue that I've mentioned in previous files. Humans are often described as violent, but we are so opposed to violence that when an unwanted child is aborted and turns out to be alive, very few people are capable of killing the child. Instead, they just back away in shock and let the child live, even if they realize it will be seriously deformed, and even if they know that it will suffer a slow, miserable death. If people were truly violent, they would have no trouble killing a seriously damaged fetus that survived an abortion.

If the people in the abortion clinic had killed Melissa after birth, then she never would have suffered the emotional torture of growing up as an unwanted, aborted child, and she would not have suffered whatever medical problems the saline solution caused. Also, none of us would have to listen to her whining. Letting her live was a mistake. She is not grateful for life. She thinks she is helping the world, but who among us is benefiting from her existence? She is just dirt in the transmission.

Allowing aborted babies to live is torturing those children. It is idiotic to allow an unwanted child to live after you have tried to kill him. Unfortunately, people have such inhibitions about killing our own species that we have trouble fixing our botched attempts at killing unwanted fetuses and criminals. We also have trouble killing unwanted pet dogs and cats. We can kill wolves, bobcats, and other animals that frighten us, but we cannot kill the deer, pigeons, opossums, or other animals that reproduce in excessive quantities as a result of our killing of their predators. There is a city in South Africa where the penguin population has become so large that the penguins are wandering around the city streets and into people's homes. Penguins, koala bears, and pigeons might be adorable in their natural environment, but they're not adorable when they have reproduced to such extremes that they are wandering around our house.

It makes sense for animals to take care of all of their babies because animals do not have the intelligence to make wise decisions about which of their babies to kill. Likewise, it was best for prehistoric humans to support all of their children. Modern humans, however, not only have the ability to make wise decisions about which baby lives and which dies, we have no other option. We are now interfering with nature so we must do what nature used to do. We can actually do a better job than nature because we can put the defective babies out of their misery very quickly, whereas nature often causes animals and humans to die a slow, torturous death. We can also make the sensible decision of killing a child before the parents have wasted a lot of time and effort to raise him. Nature, by comparison, allows parents to spend years struggling to care for a defective child that eventually dies a slow death. Nature is extremely cruel.

We have to control our emotions and make intelligent decisions. We are being cruel when we let defective or unwanted children suffer a life of misery. We are also fools to think that killing animals is cruel. Nature designed animals to reproduce excessively because that is how evolution works, and the animals are also designed to be food for one another. Animals are supposed to eat one another alive. Animals are not supposed to reach old age. Animals actually have a much nicer death when humans kill them.

“But where do we draw the line?”

Don't be intimidated by the people who complain that if we start killing babies who are seriously defective, then we will eventually lower our standards and start killing babies for trivial defects, and then we will start killing adults for having acne pimples or stained teeth. Yes, if we allow pedophiles, criminals, and psychos in top government positions, then we would be taking a risk to give them the authority to kill defective children. The solution to this problem is not to be afraid of euthanasia. The solution is to raise standards for citizens, and especially for our leaders.

I would not want Henry Kissinger, Rahm Emanuel, Abe Foxman, or Barbara Walters to be in control of determining which children live and which die, but if we can create a city with higher-quality people, then it would be practical for us to follow this policy.

The men we put into leadership positions need to understand that a woman has an intense craving to take care of babies, but the female mind was never designed with a concern about the quality of the baby. Women don't even have any concern about what they are taking care of. Women will take care of defective babies, animals, dolls, and babies that don't have brains.

A mother will spend an enormous amount of time crying and screaming if we kill one of her babies, and our emotional reaction is to assume that we are inflicting incredible pain on the woman, but the woman is simply "reacting" to the death like a stupid animal. During prehistoric times, nature killed human babies on a regular basis, and we can be certain that the women cried every time a baby died. However, the women survived.

The cycle of giving birth, crying when a baby dies, and then having another baby, is simply a part of being a woman. It is similar to the cycle that men go through of struggling to achieve some goal, failing at it, becoming upset with the failure, and then getting over it and starting on another goal. Feeling sorry for a woman whose baby has died is encouraging her to pout rather than deal with it. It would be as foolish as encouraging a man to feel sorry for himself for failing at something. If a man wasted more than a few hours crying over his failure to get a job, or achieve some other goal, his wife would likely tell him to stop crying like a baby and get over it. Men should provide the same inspiration for women. After a mother has spent a certain number of days crying about the death of her baby, the men should tell her that it is time for her to forget about it and move on with life.

When somebody joins the military or is hired by a business, the other people in the organization don't assume that he is going to be a productive member. Instead, new employees are given a probationary period, and the military goes one step further and puts new members through training programs to identify and remove the misfits. We should apply this type of policy to all baby humans. Let each new person prove they are worthy of becoming a member of the human race.

Should jail guards remove babies from toilets?

The news reports do not provide a serious or detailed description of what happened to Lisa Allison, but from what I can understand, she had been arrested while she was pregnant, and she was taken to jail, but something was wrong with her pregnancy. She began bleeding, and her baby slipped out and into the toilet. She did not take her baby out of the toilet, and neither did anybody else. She lost so much blood that the jail guards sent her to the hospital for a blood transfusion. Eventually one of the guards flushed the baby down the toilet.

The journalists do not provide a serious report of the incident. Instead, they try to stimulate pity for the pregnant woman, and anger towards the guards, with such idiotic remarks as:

"It was her one and only time in jail, and it was her birthday while she was in bible study when the pain began."

Why should we feel sorry for this woman? We could say that she is lucky to have been put in jail for her crime rather than evicted from society or executed. During prehistoric times, people who misbehaved were sometimes abandoned or killed. Furthermore, if she had been born in any other era, she may have died from the loss of blood. We could say that she is lucky she lives in an era that has the medical technology and equipment necessary to keep her alive. She could also be thankful that people donated blood. We could say that she should thank the guards for sending her to the hospital rather than ignoring her problem. And she should also thank the medical personnel.

None of us owe any favors to any criminal. We do not owe them blood transfusions, and none of has an obligation to reach into a toilet that is full of blood and whatever else, to retrieve their fetus.

Some news reports emphasize that this was her first time in jail, and that she was in Bible study, thereby implying that we should be more sympathetic to her compared to the criminals who have been in and out of jail several times, or who are atheists or Muslim. If society followed my guidelines, nobody would ever have a first time in jail because the troublesome people would either be evicted or executed.

It's also important to note that some news reports tell us that it was her birthday when she first felt her pregnancy pains. The journalists are trying to manipulate the emotions of the readers. The journalists could be described as criminals or con artists who are using news reports to manipulate us rather than inform us. We should set standards for journalists and fire those who are incompetent and evict or execute those who are destructive to society.

It's also interesting to consider how many additional idiotic issues we create for ourselves if the courts insist that jail guards are obligated to remove a fetus from a toilet. For some examples:

We should design laws according to what is best for society, not according to our emotional reactions. How does society benefit by telling the police to take care of a criminal's fetus? Lisa Allison's attorney said that "No matter how guilty a person might be, that child is innocent." However, if a person is a criminal due to their genetic qualities, then their children should be considered as potential criminals.

Children are the responsibility of society

Most of the babies that were born during prehistoric times died before they became adults, but today we put phenomenal resources into keeping every baby alive. Our emotions fool us into believing that children are beautiful bundles of joy, but in reality they are just random collections of genetic material, and now that nature is no longer taking care of us, we must pass judgment on which of those genetic jumbles are worthy of our time and resources.

In this modern world, one person can influence everybody else on the planet, including the future generations. As a result, children should be regarded as a responsibility of society, not as toys for parents to play with. Children belong to everybody, not to the parents. As I described years ago here, the best example are the Neanderthal creatures, such as Henry Kissinger, who were born in central Asia, and who ended up causing suffering for billions of people around the world.

If there was a shortage of people, then we could justify saving the fetus of a criminal, but there is no shortage of people, especially not of dishonest, psychotic, or stupid people.

An episode of a Swedish television show was about two rival gangs that were fighting for control of the heroin trade in their city, and the leader of one gang kidnapped the daughter of the other gang's leader. Near the end of the show the two gang leaders and the kidnapped daughter were together in an isolated location, with police snipers secretly hiding all around the area. The police could have easily shot and killed all three of them. Instead, several police risked their lives to save the kidnapped daughter, and then they struggled to save both gang leaders.

The Swedish television shows are propaganda to encourage pity for criminals and to make it seem as if killing a criminal causes serious psychological trauma for policemen.

To a person who follows his emotions, every child is a precious creation, but in reality, we are fools to risk our lives in order to save the children of destructive or psychotic people. Their children are no more valuable to us than the larva of fleas. We must control our craving for children so that we can treat children in a more serious manner.

The world government officials would be primarily guidance-counselor type of leaders rather than supervisor types. They would analyze issues and make plans, but not directly control any of us. They would do the type of tasks that the top management of corporations are doing, such as deciding which products to produce; where to put factories; how to distribute products and food around the world; which scientific research projects to fund; how many bananas to grow each year; and how many communication satellites are needed.

One way to understand the concept of the world government is to consider how Toyota builds a factory in America. The executives in Japan decide how big the factory will be, what sort of equipment it will need, and what type of automobiles it will produce. Those executives remain in Japan, and they give their plans to other people in America to build the factory, work in the factory, and operate the factory. Those Toyota executives are analogous to world government officials. They do most of their work in offices, and their decisions affect a lot of people, but the executives do not directly control any of the people who are influenced by their plans.

I would give the world government three departments: 1) Economy, 2) Resources, and 3) Population. The economy department would have the most people, and it would be the primary activity of the world government. A lot of people would be in that department because it would essentially be a unification of all of the top managers of all of the corporations. Imagine putting all of the corporate executives into different departments of one, world government. The executives would be competing with one another, but not for corporate profits. Instead, they would be competing to bring improvements to the production and distribution of material items, food, transportation products, scientific research, and medical technology.

As with city governments, none of the world government officials would be allowed to operate in secrecy. All of their proposals would be posted on the world government website for everybody to see so that we can pass judgment on who is making the better decisions. We would be able to look at the history of any official to see what they have done for the world, and that allows us to pass judgment on whether they are bringing improvements to our lives, or making life worse, or merely maintaining everything as it is.

World government officials should telecommute

When America was created, the communication and transportation systems were so crude that government officials had to live within walking distance or a short horse ride of one another in order for the government to function. In our era, government officials can live anywhere in the world. This allows the world government to function without their own land area, or their own buildings. This in turn means they don't need their own police or military force.

The world government officials would need buildings, electricity, water, and other items, but they could use the supplies that are in the city that they live in. Every city could provide some buildings for world government employees.

Perhaps a good way to understand this situation is to visualize a group of Toyota employees in Japan who are making plans to build a factory in America. They are doing their work in an office building in Japan, but their work is going to have an effect on people in America. Now try to visualize some businessmen in America who are involved with exporting wheat, tractors, steel, or other items to Mexico, China, or Russia. Those Americans are working in some offices in America, but the results of their work is to distribute material items around the world. Now visualize some executives in England who are arranging for bananas to be produced in Ecuador and shipped around the world. Those particular executives are working in offices in England, and the results of their work are affecting the entire world.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that executives of international corporations don't have to live in the nation that they are affecting. They can live anywhere. All they need is some office space and communication equipment. The reason they can live anywhere is because they don't directly supervise people. All they do is analyze information and make plans. The same concept applies to the world government. The officials can live anywhere on the planet.

Our cities today are a haphazard jumble of buildings, and not all buildings have high-speed communication lines. However, if we design cities in a more sensible manner, it will be easy to connect the office buildings with a high-speed communication network. This would make telecommuting more practical than it is today. The buildings that are set aside for the world government officials would be able to communicate with each other as if they were physically next to one another.

By allowing the world government employees to remain in their own city, they will remain with their friends and families, and this would encourage more people to be willing to become an official in the world government, including on a part-time basis. There are likely to be a lot of people who would be willing to work with the world government, but not if they have to move to another city, or if they must travel long distances on a daily basis.

Another advantage to telecommuting is that it makes it psychologically easier for us to fire the people in the world government because we will not feel as if we are hurting them. The officials who are fired don't have to pack their bags, move to another city, and look for a job. They remain in the same city, in the same home, and with the same friends. All they do is get a different job.

If we would put some effort into developing human-controlled robots with feedback from its sensors, then people would be able to travel via a robot rather than in person. For example, if a scientist was working part-time for the world government and wanted to inspect some earthquake damage at an electric power generator, he would not necessarily have to travel to the area. As robot technology becomes more advanced, it will become increasingly practical for him to put on the virtual equipment and control a robot to walk around the area and provide stereo images, temperature information, or whatever else was necessary.

That type of robotic technology would also allow scuba divers, technicians, and mechanics to telecommute. People who repair satellites, nuclear reactors, pipelines, undersea oil wells, and sewers could be living in different cities and work together as a team on the same job at the same time. They could even explore the moon together.

Incidentally, I mentioned that we should be more tolerant of part-time jobs, and this is an example of a job that I think most people would want to do only on a part-time basis because with today's technology, it is irritating to wear that equipment for long periods. It might also be unhealthy to wear it for long periods of time because it can leave impressions in the skin, interfere with blood flow, and allow moisture to accumulate.

Another advantage to having the world government employees remain in their own city and telecommute is that it can prevent friendships from forming between different government officials, which in turn can reduce bias, conspiracies, and collusion. Telecommuting increases the chances that the world government employees will have intellectual interactions rather than emotional.

Incidentally, I should remind you that if we cannot find enough people with the proper emotional qualities, we could end up with a government in which the officials are wasting enormous amounts of their time having "virtual sex" with one another. There are already a lot of government officials wasting a lot of time with phone sex and pornography. Since virtual sex will be more exciting than phone sex, this problem is going to get worse once virtual sex becomes practical. The human race has to evolve to fit this technically advanced era. Are there enough people with the necessary qualities to be world government officials? Or are we still too much like monkeys to create such an advanced government?

Getting back to the world government, it would not need to operate in secrecy, so the officials would not need to conduct secret meetings, and they would not need their own secret computers to hide information from us. In the world today, governments are secretive because they are fighting and cheating their own citizens and other nations, but if the entire world is willing to have only one world government, then we would not have to worry about the world government officials hiding information from other governments. It would be possible for them to hide information from the people of the world, but when the world government consist of officials who are scattered around different cities, as opposed to one particular ethnic group or religion who are living and working in one location that belongs to them, how are they going to conspire against us, and what could they possibly gain by conspiring?

If there is only one world government, and if it consists of people from different cities, it would be in everybody's interest for the world government to be required to operate openly so that we can see what they are doing and ensure that they are not being corrupted by criminals.

By allowing the world government officials to telecommute, and by designing the world government to encourage part-time government officials, then some of the people who are currently not interested in becoming a government official would consider joining the world government. The end result would be a world government in which some of the officials would be working on a part-time basis, and their primary job would be in business, industry, scientific research, law enforcement, or schools. These part-time officials would not be "career politicians". They would instead be businessmen, teachers, scientists, engineers, policemen, or whatever, who work with the world government on a part-time and/or temporary basis. I think that these type of government officials will be valuable additions to the government because they will have a much better understanding of what is actually going on in the world compared to full-time government officials. Their experience in the "real world" will be useful to them as a government official.

For an example of why a person might want to work part-time or temporarily in the world government, consider a scientist who designs and builds communication satellites. That type of business would be classified as a "world business". Therefore, the top management decisions for his business would be made by the world government, and as a result, he might want to work part-time for that world government so that he can get involved in those high-level decisions about which satellites to develop; which satellite research programs to fund; and how many satellites to develop.

Another reason that a person might want to work part-time or temporarily with the world government is for variety. For example, a business executive who is involved with satellites might want to get involved with the world government agency that is responsible for trains, computers, or robots simply to add variety to his life and prevent boredom. After a few years he might want to switch to a different world government agency, perhaps something totally different, such as the agency that is responsible for the production and distribution of tropical fruits.

Cities do not need equal representation

Since the world government doesn't have any authority over anybody, and since it doesn't have its own military force, it is not a threat to any city. If it becomes corrupt or incompetent, it simply becomes ineffective. Since it is in control of the global businesses and research projects, if it degrades, then the coordination and planning of the global businesses diminishes, which interferes with everybody's life, but that is not as dangerous as a world government that has its own land, factories, people, and military force, in which case it would be theoretically capable of subverting or destroying the cities that they do not like.

The world government officials would be responsible for supervising world businesses and resources, but none of them would have the authority to control the culture of any city, or authorize any projects that are for their own personal benefit. No official would be able to order an airline company to build a private jet for him, and no official would be able to ask a construction company to provide him with a giant mansion. Every official would have to justify his projects by showing that they have some benefit for the world. None of them would be able to authorize projects secretly or without justification.

Governments today have phenomenal authority over us, and as a result, people are very concerned about representation in the government. However, the world government that I am describing would seem almost harmless compared to existing governments. We would not have to worry about them starting a war, sending a police force to arrest us, or using us as their personal slaves. Our primary concern with this type of government is that the officials are incompetent, selfish, obnoxious, or irresponsible.

The inability of this type of government to start a war, arrest us, or take our material wealth would make it possible for the cities to ignore the issue of "equal representation". It makes no difference if a city has a lot of its citizens in the world government, or only a few. Actually, the world government officials could be described as a burden on a city because the world government officials are working for the world rather than for the city that they live in. The more people a city has in the world government, the fewer people the city has to work for the city.

It might seem that a city with thousands of world government officials would have more of some benefit compared to a city that had no world government officials at all, but the world government has no authority to do anything selfish, so a city cannot benefit from having employees in the world government. Consider two extreme examples to understand this. At one extreme is a city that doesn't have anybody working for the world government, in which case everybody in the city can be doing something for the city. At the other extreme is a city in which every person is working for the world government. In that particular city, nobody would be available to work in the restaurants, schools, or transportation system.

Try to visualize a city in which every person is working for the world government. They would be able to authorize the distribution of food and products to their city, but who will take the food off the train when it arrives? Who is going to distribute the food to restaurants, and who is going to make meals with the food? Who is going to provide them with water, electricity, and plumbing services? If everybody is a world government employee working in an office, there is nobody remaining to make the city function.

You might respond that the world government officials would simply order the people in another city to take care of them, but they would not have the authority to make anybody do anything. The officials in this world government are analogous to business executives, not communist dictators. Their authority is to supervise and manage the world businesses and resources. They cannot order people to be their slaves or servants. They cannot demand that somebody leave their city and work at another city. They have no control over any city's culture, immigration, or police force.

Because the world government employees are a burden on a city, the pressure will be on every city to share the burden and be a contributor to the world rather than a parasite. If a city is dominated by people who are so stupid that they can't do much of anything except feed themselves and play video games, they will be a burden on the world. They will be under pressure to control their reproduction so that they produce people who are more functional and productive.

You might also worry that the world government officials might cheat us by having large amounts of resources shipped to their particular city, such as shipping bars of gold to their city, or taking the entire world supply of truffles. However, if we remove the secrecy that government officials currently have, then everybody will be able to use any computer to observe which resources are being produced, and where they are being shipped, and which cities are producing which type of products, and where those items are being shipped. We would be able to see how many bananas are produced each year, and how many were shipped to each city, and we would know where all of the bars of gold are, and where they are being shipped to.

In a free enterprise system, corporations keep this type of information a secret, but when all of the business executives are working for the world, they have no justification for keeping this information a secret.

You might then respond that some corrupt world government officials would find ways to cheat, such as creating bars of gold that are actually gold-plated tungsten, which is a problem in the world today. Or you may worry that the corrupt government officials will lie about the production and distribution of material items in order to secretly ship items to themselves and their friends. These type of problems are occurring today because: 1) We are allowing incredible secrecy for government officials, banks, businesses, and private citizens, and 2) We feel sorry for and try to rehabilitate criminals rather than evict them.

We have created a world in which we cannot trust government officials, college professors, scientists, doctors, policemen, FBI agents, military officials, or car mechanics. We are so tolerant of crime and abuse that we cannot even trust a potential spouse when they tell us that they have never been married before and do not have any venereal diseases.

An individual citizen can get away with certain types of crimes, such as burglary and rape, but individual criminals cannot get away with some of the incredible crimes that are occurring right now, such as gold-plated tungsten bars, pedophile networks, and false flag operations. All of the truly destructive crimes require a lot of people to assist with the crime, ignore the crime, and cover up the crime. The most destructive crimes require: 1) organized crime networks, and 2) hordes of selfish, apathetic sheeple who don't care about being abused.

Our attitude towards crime is making our lives miserable. All of our problems are our own fault. We have nobody to blame for our crime, corruption, and chaos except ourselves. We will never prevent crime, but we are capable of experimenting with different policies and finding ways to reduce the problem. Are you willing to experiment with different methods of stopping crime? Or are you so traumatized by changes that you would rather keep everything as it is and whine about the crime? Will you take an active role in society rather than be a passive sheep that tolerates abuse?

The world government does not need taxes

If the cities in this system were operating on money, rather than providing the basic necessities for free, then the world government officials would have to be paid. Where would that money come from? The world government would have to impose taxes.

By switching to a society in which we simply divide up the food and material wealth evenly among everybody, we can disregard who works for the city and who works for the world. It makes no difference who is a government employee, who works for a business, and who has part-time jobs in both business and government. We simply provide everybody with food, housing, and other necessities with no regard for what their job is. We don't need to bother with taxes.

If it seems bizarre that the world could operate without money or taxes, remember that this type of world is very similar to a gigantic corporation, or a military. Each of the cities in this world can be considered as a department of a corporation, or as a military unit, and the world government can be considered as the corporate leaders, or as the military leaders.

We simply keep a database that shows us everything about society. This allows us to know exactly how many people there are in society, where each of them live, and their ages and weights. In order to feed those people, we need to produce a certain amount of food, and we need to distribute that food to a certain number of restaurants and markets. We also need a certain number of houses, and a certain amount of furniture, bicycles, computers, and other devices. The government officials simply make decisions about how much resources we need, how many items to produce, and how to distribute them.

The world government officials would do a job that is very similar to that of corporate management. A corporation has a certain number of employees, and so they need to provide a certain amount of office space; a certain number of desks; and a certain number of computers. If they provide food for their employees, they need a certain amount of restaurants or cafeteria space. The corporate executives don't require their employees to pay rent for their office, and they don't require them to pay for their electricity or their furniture. Everything is given to them for free.

The military is probably a better example because they do more than just provide desks and computers. They also have to provide housing, meals, clothing, and lots of equipment and supplies. They also have to provide training programs and transportation. When the military sends a group of soldiers somewhere, they provide them with food, clothing, and other supplies, and for free.

This concept of the management of an organization distributing supplies to its members is working on a regular basis for all militaries and corporations, and it can work at the level of a nation, or an entire planet. However, this system requires the people in society to be responsible and, most important of all, they must be willing to do work that is beneficial to society. They must contribute to society rather than be a parasite. This type of society requires a team.

This system also requires that society provide itself with much more competent leadership because, unlike the free enterprise system, which uses money to handle the production and distribution of items, this system requires the government leaders to do all of the work themselves. This type of system will not automatically maintain itself. This system requires leaders we can trust, work with, and depend upon. It requires leaders who will work for society rather than for themselves and their friends.

Free enterprise is an automatic system, so nobody has to do anything to make free enterprise work. Free enterprise will work with ignorant savages, criminals, and retards. The reason free enterprise can work so well is because it takes advantage of our selfish nature. It encourages everybody to selfishly do whatever is in their best interest. Encouraging people to be selfish will result in abuse and inefficiency, but it has the advantage of not requiring any outside force to keep the system operating. Our selfish nature is the "energy" or the "stimulation" that keeps the free enterprise system operating.

By comparison, when we put the government in control of the economy, we are going against the grain of human nature. Government officials have to do what is best for society rather than what is best for themselves, but this is not natural for us. It is also unnatural for citizens to take an active role in watching over their government officials and participating in society. We want to selfishly entertain ourselves, not participate in society's problems or do what is best for society.

This system will not work automatically. This system sets up a conflict between our intellect and our emotions. Our intellect will tell us to do what is best for society, but our emotions will be constantly pushing us into doing something for ourselves. Our emotions will cause a city using this type of system to slowly degrade into selfish tribes that fight with one another. The only way this type of system can be successful is if a certain percentage of the population can control their selfish cravings enough to do what is necessary to keep this system functioning properly. It requires people in leadership position who can force themselves to work for society, and it also requires lots of "quality control" personnel who have the ability to watch over people, and pass judgment on whether a person is contributing something of value to society. It also requires people who can force a person to get a more useful job, and who can evict the people who are causing trouble. This requires a higher quality group of people. This system will not work with selfish, irresponsible, arrogant savages.

The world government would have three leaders for each department

I would suggest the usual three leaders for each of the three departments. I would let the world government officials vote for the top positions, and they would choose people from among themselves. This would be equivalent to telling all of the managers of all of the corporations to select three people among themselves to be their top three leaders, and to routinely replace the leader that they think is doing the worst job in order to give other people an opportunity to try.

I don't think it is practical to expect the citizens to be able to watch over world government officials to such an extent that they can make wise decisions about which of them should be promoted to the top positions. The citizens will have enough work watching over their city officials, and getting involved with the culture of their city.

I think the best way of managing the world government is to let the officials in the world government choose their leaders. This would be yet another reason for people to get involved with the world government on a part-time basis, even if it is as seldom as one evening a month. Everybody who was willing to get involved with the world government in a leadership role would be eligible for voting for their top officials. However, I would not allow the voting to be by secret ballot. A database would have a list of all of the officials who are eligible to vote, and they would enter their vote in the database so that everybody in the world could see who was eligible to vote, and how they voted. This would make it almost impossible for people to manipulate the votes.

This method of selecting world government officials would not give the majority of people any direct control over the world government officials, but everybody would be able to watch the process. If a person had a complaint, he would be able to send it to the Complaint Department of the world government. By comparison, in the world today, we have no control over corporate executives, no idea what they are doing, and no Complaint Department.

The reason there would be three officials in the top positions is to settle disputes. There will be endless disputes about which prototype to put into production, and which research project to fund, and how much resources to give each research project. Somehow these disputes have to be settled. With three top officials, there will never be a tie when they have to vote among themselves for a proposal they cannot agree upon.

Since none of the government officials are allowed to operate in secrecy, everybody, including the lower-level government officials, will be able to observe what the top leaders are doing, and why. This will allow everybody to pass judgment on which of the top officials is making the most intelligent decisions, and which of them is doing the best job of settling disputes, providing guidance, and helping to keep the government running smoothly. As long as there is a certain percentage of the population actively involved in watching over the government officials and removing those who are incompetent or dishonest, the system should work fine.

The three divisions of the world government

1) The Resources division

The Resources division would be dominated by scientists who work for this agency on temporary and/or part-time basis. They would supervise the earth's resources. For example, they would analyze farmland to determine if any minerals are being depleted, or if any chemicals are accumulating, and if so, they would recommend methods to fix the problem. They would provide recommendations on the best way to mine coal, such as whether the underground tubes should be filled in with dirt after the coal has been removed, or whether the area above the mine should be allowed to collapse into it, or whether the coal should be strip-mined and later restored.

They would help cities figure out which areas are safe to put buildings, trains, roads, and utility lines in order to reduce problems caused by sinkholes, landslides, and floods. They would help figure out how to control the animal populations so there are not excessive amounts of deer or pigeons. They would analyze the water, land, and air and ensure that we are not ruining the environment with chemicals or radioactive waste, and if so, they would recommend solutions to keep the environment clean.

Since this division will be responsible for maintaining the land that is used for farms, ranches, forests, fishing areas, and greenhouses, they will have to develop policies for organic foods, natural foods, artificial flavors, and genetically modified crops. Recently the McDonald's restaurants reacted to the public fear of GMO potatoes by refusing to purchase them for french fries, but we should not make decisions based on emotional reactions. In a free enterprise system, businesses want GMO crops because of their profitability, and some consumers want to prohibit GMO crops because they are terrified of the concept, but we need to make decisions about this issue from the point of view of what is best for society.

It is possible that some of the GMO crops are sensible, but from what I know about the GMO potato, it is based on an unrealistic theory. Specifically, the potato plant was given a gene so that it can produce a natural insecticide. The theory behind this creation was that the farmers would not have to spray the plant with insecticide since the plant was producing it by itself. To a person who doesn't understand evolution very well, this theory makes sense. In reality, creating a plant that produces an insecticide merely changes the environment for the insects. Whenever the environment changes for any living creature, there is death and suffering, but eventually the creatures adapt to the new environment.

This concept applies to humans, also. In Part 8, I pointed out that Thomas Peterffy and other wealthy people claim that our society will collapse if we eliminate the wealthy class and treat people in an equal manner, but in reality, changing our economic system, schools, government, or other aspect of our culture, merely changes who is successful and who suffers, and that in turn alters who rises to the top of society and who is pushed aside. We simply adapt to the changes.

Likewise, when we create a potato plant that produces its own insecticide, we simply change which of the insects are best suited to the environment. Eventually they will adapt to the new environment. Evolution follows the philosophy, "No pain, no gain", which could also be stated as, "Lots of pain, lots of gain." If the environment remains the same, not much changes. When the environment changes, there will initially be some suffering, but eventually the creatures adapt to it. The more significant the changes are to the environment, the more suffering there will be, and the more extensively the creatures change in response. The more we hurt the insects, the faster they evolve.

If you want to improve a plant, an animal, or the human race, then you increase the competition between them. The tougher the competitive battle, the faster they evolve. The more deaths, the more they improve. By comparison, if you want to destroy a species, then you help the defective members to survive and hurt those that are the best adapted to the environment.

Our use of antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemicals is merely breeding the insects and bacteria. I wouldn't be surprised if our production of moldy cheeses is helping bacteria evolve a resistance to whatever antibiotics those particular molds produce. And what happens when chemotherapy chemicals, such as Fluorouracil, get into the rivers and oceans?

It might be sensible to develop GMO potatoes that grow faster, or require lower levels of fertilizer, but it doesn't make sense to have them produce insecticides. The only way to beat insects with pesticides is to develop new versions faster than the insects can adapt to them, or to develop a pesticide that kills 100% of them. Since we do not have that technology, our best options today are to use greenhouses for some of the most sensitive crops, and to use insects to control other insects.

The Resources department also needs to provide us with sensible definitions for such terms as natural, organic, and artificial. For example, if an electric power plant in the Sahara desert is burning methane, and if water in the exhaust is condensed, would they be able to provide that water to tourists for drinking purposes? If so, how should they describe the water? Would it be artificial water? Pure water? Imitation water? Synthetic water?

Imagine astronauts using magnets to cause protons and electrons coming from the sun to combine into hydrogen, and then combining those hydrogen atoms with hydroxyl molecules that are floating around in space, thereby creating water molecules that they can drink. What kind of water would that be?

Our language is such a mess that some of our words are used in contradictory manners. For example, the word "artificial" is sometimes used to refer to items that are only similar to whatever they replace, and possibly quite inferior, such as an "artificial heart". At the other extreme, when a factory converts regular carbon into diamond, some people will refer to it as an "artificial diamond" because it is identical to the natural diamonds.

What does the word "natural" mean? What is the difference between a natural food and an unnatural food? Businesses imply that the natural foods are better than the unnatural foods, but that is not necessarily true. A lot of of poisons, mind altering drugs, and radioactive items are "natural", but they are dangerous. At the other extreme, some of the man-made, "unnatural" items are beneficial for our health. Furthermore, some of the unnatural, man-made items are identical to the natural items. For example, whether you drink "natural" water from a river or "unnatural" water that has been condensed from the exhaust of a electric generator, you drink the same water molecules.

Ideally, people would suppress their pride of their language and allow a world government agency to control our language. Ideally, people would not be allowed to use words in whatever manner they please. Our language is a tool to communicate with, not a toy to play with. We should also prohibit people from modifying language for amusement purposes. We need to come up with some useful definitions for natural, artificial, organic, and other words. We could even consider changing the phrase "natural gas" to something else, perhaps a word from another language, such as erdgas, ziemny gas, or dogal gas. We don't refer to coal as "natural solid", or to oil as "natural liquid".

This concept also applies to the artificial vanilla flavor. Natural vanilla extract is a mixture of a lot of chemicals, but one particular chemical is primarily responsible for the vanilla odor. Chemists are now synthesizing that chemical in one of two forms; namely, vanillin and ethylvanillin. If the factories are producing exactly the same molecule that nature produces, then it is identical to "natural" vanilla flavor. We could describe it "synthetic vanillin". Likewise, when a factory converts carbon into a diamond, we could say that they have created "synthetic" diamond, not "imitation" or "artificial" diamond.

Businesses combine the synthetic vanillin with other chemicals, such as propylene glycol, and then refer to their mixture as "imitation vanilla". If all of the chemicals are safe, then the imitation vanilla is just as healthy as "natural vanilla".

Propylene glycol is poisonous in large quantities, but oxygen will kill us in large quantities, also. Which chemicals are safe for us to eat? The Resources department needs to study these issues without any concern for profit.

The Resources department also needs to bring some intelligence to the issue of "organic". What is organic? If a farmer were to irrigate his crops with water that was condensed from the exhaust of an electric power generator, would he be an "organic" farmer? What if he were to use ocean water that has been through a desalination plant?

Most people would allow an organic farmer to put "synthetic" water on his crop, but not "artificial" fertilizers. What is wrong with artificial fertilizers? Are artificial fertilizers bad for the crops, the environment, or human health? Some people complain that farmers use too much of the artificial fertilizers, thereby contaminating rivers, but that doesn't justify complaining about the fertilizers. That only justifies complaining about the quantity of fertilizers they use, or the manner in which they apply the fertilizers, or the drainage of the fields. Some people complain that the artificial fertilizers are deficient in trace minerals, but if that is the only problem with the fertilizers, then we can easily fix the problem by adding the trace minerals.

We cannot let our emotions cause us to become frightened by the phrase, "artificial fertilizer". The department of Resources needs to bring some intelligence to the issue of fertilizers and "organic farming". They need to occasionally inspect farms, rivers, and oceans, and provide sensible guidelines on how to produce food without ruining the environment.

In order for us to use the word "synthetic" in a description of vanilla or water, scientists need to provide a sensible definition for the adjectives for foods, and the schools need to alter their curriculum so that they can teach children what these words mean so that children do not grow up to be ignorant adults who become frightened at the thought that they are drinking "synthetic water". Our school curriculum needs to be adjusted as technology changes. This is another example of why I suggest that everybody be allowed to edit school materials. We need the scientists to regularly assist with the production and updating of documents and videos to explain modern technology, including such words as organic, synthetic, natural, and artificial.

A lot of people who are involved with environmental issues seem to be suffering from mental illness or a defective intellectual unit. Some of them want us to become vegetarians; some want us to stop producing leather; some want us to reduce carbon dioxide production; and the most extreme want us to eat algae so that we can have an even higher population while using fewer resources.

It is becoming increasingly important that we analyze everybody's thinking ability and pass judgment on who among us has the intellectual ability necessary to influence modern society. The people who show signs of defective thinking or dishonesty should be prohibited from influencing society.

The world should belong to everybody

In the world today, each nation owns its land and resources, and this creates ridiculous inequalities, such as the families in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that have more money than some small nations. China has enormous amounts of tungsten and rare earth elements. When we allow families, cities, businesses, or nations to control resources, we have endless fights over territory, and we have problems of people drilling oil wells at an angle in order to bypass boundaries, and we have fights over the fish in the ocean.

A better solution is to say that each person is simply living momentarily on this planet, and the planet belongs to all people. The resources of the world should belong to the human race, not to any particular family, business, or city. However, the concept of sharing the world's resources would be practical only if all of the cities are equal in regards to their abilities to take care of themselves and contribute to the world. It would not work if some of the cities are dominated by idiots or irresponsible people. We can see this problem today with the euro. It is idiotic to have a group of societies using the same monetary system when they are of unequal economic abilities.

For example, during the past few thousand years, the people in Greece have been ignoring immigration issues, and allowing their nation to degrade into uneducated, dishonest, and irresponsible idiots. Greece has more people and land than Denmark or Switzerland, but they cannot compete against either of those nations, or against Germany, Britain, Taiwan, or Japan. They have allowed their nation to degrade into a group of unemployable losers. Today they cry for handouts and pity, but their problems are their own fault, and they can do something to help themselves whenever they decide to stop crying and start experimenting with more sensible policies.

However, I do not mean to imply that Greece is the only nation that has degraded. All nations are in this process. All nations are allowing crime networks and corrupt government officials to run rampant, and all nations are allowing their people to give birth to unwanted, mentally ill, and retarded children. No nation shows much of a concern about the quality or quantity of its immigrants, either.

In order for the world's resources to be shared with all people, we must all be team members. We cannot share the world's resources when some groups of people are irresponsible, dishonest, stupid, or unskilled. All people must be contributing to the team.

If we could create a group of cities in which all of the people are truly responsible, then those cities could share all of their resources among themselves. Furthermore, sharing the resources would make business activity more efficient. For example, there are farmers in the Central Valley of California growing rice, but that area is very dry, so the farmers need an enormous amount of water to irrigate their fields. Those farmers are wasting resources. It would be more efficient if everybody in the world would agree to grow crops that are more natural for their particular area, and if we shared the food. Bananas should be grown in the tropics, and rice should be grown where it is naturally wet.

When we are living in a world in which nations are suspicious of one another and fighting with each other, then it makes sense for farmers in a California desert to grow rice, and it makes sense for the Japanese government to subsidize beef cattle. However, when people are willing to be more cooperative, then we can behave in a more efficient manner. Everybody will benefit when we operate more efficiently.

Today we have the technology to easily ship live animals and frozen meat, so Japan could get most of their beef, lamb, and pork from other nations. If we create a better method of harvesting and shipping avocados, then Americans could get avocados from Mexico, and the avocado farms in California could grow something more suitable for their climate.

Some foods are too delicate or have too short of a life to survive transportation, and so it would be best to have greenhouses near the cities for those particular foods. However, grains, bananas, avocados, and certain other crops are very tolerant of transportation and storage. This allows us to produce those items where it is natural for them, and then transport them to other areas. Furthermore, when we grow crops in their natural environment, the insects that are pests to the crop will have a natural predator, and that allows us to take advantage of the situation by letting insects control one another.

Eventually biologists will be able to modify bananas, avocados, and other plants so that they can be easily grown in greenhouses, just like carrots and radishes, but until then, it would be best if everybody could think of themselves as "humans" and be more cooperative.

I previously mentioned some reasons to eliminate nations and create semi-independent cities, and the sharing of resources is another reason. When people are living in these cities, I think it will be psychologically easier for them to think of themselves as "people" who are sharing the planet. By comparison, when we live in different size nations, the people in the larger nations are likely to become arrogant and think of themselves as the special people who have a right to dominate their smaller neighbors. Living in semi-independent cities of relatively equal size would help people to feel more equal to one another. Also, each city will have a limited amount of resources, and that will help people to realize that the best policy for all of us is to work together and share our resources.

China is an example of how this could be psychologically beneficial. China has phenomenal resources, but if China was broken into dozens of semi-independent cities, then one city might have a lot of tungsten, another might have some rare earth elements, and another might have a lot of hydroelectricity, but none of the cities would have a lot of everything. It would make it easier for each of the cities to realize that they need to cooperate with each other.

The opposite is also true. When all cities are virtually the same size and are sharing the world's resources, there are no smaller nations to complain that they are being abused, mistreated, discriminated against, or cheated. When Thailand, Malaysia, Tibet, and other small nations are broken down into semi-independent cities that are the same size as the cities in China, America, and India, then none of the cities will be able to feel sorry for themselves for being smaller than the others. There will not be any small nations to complain that large nations have an unfair advantage. There will not be any small nations to beg for handouts or pity. When all cities are virtually the same, it will become more apparent to everybody that if any city fails to take care of themselves, it is their own fault.

2) The Economy division

Although each of the cities would have cultural independence, the world government officials would ensure that their businesses are operating as if they all belong to the same economic system. They would all use the same measurement system, and they would all follow the same standards for machine tools, bolts, and radio frequencies. Every city should also follow the same electrical system so that all electrical items work in every city.

Although each city would produce some of its own food and other items, every city would have to import and export a lot of food and supplies. In a free enterprise system, every business is on its own to deal with foreign nations. The government doesn't help or supervise anything. The governments watch over all import and export operations, but only to tax them and restrict certain products and weapons. The governments are not making import and export operations easy. Actually, importing and exporting is so irritating that there are businesses profiting from the chaos by offering to handle the paperwork and shipping problems.

In case you are not aware of this import/export problem, a business that wants to ship its products to a customer in another nation cannot simply put some items into a box, put an address label on it, and drop it off at the post office or at United Parcel. There are forms that must be filled out by the shipper, and the receiver in the foreign nation is likely to be charged custom taxes, and there may also be a delay as the custom people inspect the package.

Furthermore, when you ship products to foreign nations, you cannot always track them to determine if they were delivered. For example, around 2005 Jimmy Walter requested a box of my books on 9/11 to be shipped overnight from Santa Barbara to his hotel in Venezuela. His secretary took the package to the post office and paid a very high price to have it shipped "next day", which, in the case of Venezuela, the post office estimated would be 5 to 7 days. However, about two months later the box was returned as undeliverable. When you ship a package to a foreign nation, especially a corrupt, primitive nation, it may be delivered to some other address, or it may be stolen, or it may be sent back to you without any explanation.

We would impose a burden on ourselves if we were required to fill out customs forms when we wanted to export products, and we would impose a burden on ourselves if we had to inspect packages as they entered the city. I cannot see any benefit to that type of burden. It is also wasteful to collect custom taxes because those people are not doing work that has a benefit to society. We should eliminate government jobs that are not truly necessary. Furthermore, when we ship items, we need to be assured that the items will arrive, and in good condition.

The world government would operate the world post office, which would be responsible for shipping items between cities. Packages could be shipped to locations or businesses by specifying a physical address, as is true today. However, if people can overcome their paranoia of being in a database, then we could ship letters and packages to individual people simply by putting their ID number on the address label. The computer would figure out where the person is, and send the package to him. If people can allow computers to keep track of them as they travel around the world, then we would be able to deliver letters and packages to people even if they are traveling. The computer will figure out where the person will be at the time the package will arrive, and it will schedule the delivery to be at the appropriate location at the appropriate time.

People would not need to put a return address on their letters or packages. Instead, they would put their ID number. If the post office could not deliver a package, instead of sending it back, they would send a message to the person that there is something wrong with the address, and he would then respond with the correct address, or an alternative address.

Incidentally, the issue of computers reading the ID numbers on the packages is another example of why we must set standards for citizens. We currently feel sorry for people who cannot create legible labels for packages, and the post office has employees who struggle to decipher their sloppy labels, but we don't have to feel sorry for these people. Every city should set standards for intelligence, behavior, handwriting, and even speaking. Businesses do not tolerate employees who cannot function properly in their business, and a city doesn't have to tolerate people who cannot function properly in the city.

Products and research

Part 8 has a section about how the government would create or improve battery terminals, software, CNC controllers, and other products, but I did not give any details about who the government officials were. I will now point out that these would be world government officials, not city officials. It would be absurd to expect every city to develop their own trains, airplanes, telephones, medical technology, and satellites. It would be much more efficient for the world government to handle all of the products and scientific research.

Another advantage to having the world government make decisions on products is that it avoids the problem of different cities producing slightly different variations of a product. For example, if every city had to decide for itself what type of telephone to use, it is conceivable that different cities would choose slightly different phones, which would make their phones incompatible. It would be much more efficient for the world government to decide what type of phones everybody will use, and then that one type of phone would be mass-produced for everybody, and everybody's phone would be compatible.

The world has been heading in the direction in which a few global corporations dominate products, and we may as well face this reality and jump into the future by making it an official policy. For example, most of the cameras in the world are produced by a few Japanese companies. By putting the world government in control of camera production, there would essentially be only one brand of cameras. They would produce different models of cameras for different purposes, but all of their cameras would be compatible with one another, as if they were coming from one company. We would not have to worry about incompatibilities with lenses, memory sticks, or spare parts. It would make it much more efficient for us to manufacture, maintain, and recycle the cameras.

Likewise, it would be more efficient and more pleasant if the remote control units for televisions, drones, and robots were as similar as possible so that an icon on one unit means the same as in every other unit, and the buttons are placed in locations that make them as similar to one another as possible.

We could also produce the equivalent of one brand of refrigerator for all restaurants in the world. There would be different sizes of refrigerators, and different shapes, but they would all be essentially the same brand, thereby simplifying maintenance and recycling, and allowing production to be in larger quantities.

If I seem to be putting too much emphasis on efficiency, keep in mind that I suggest we eliminate the peasant class, and that requires we figure out ways to eliminate as many "peasant jobs" as possible. We must make sacrifices in order to eliminate those jobs, and a sacrifice that is easy to make is to reduce the number of unnecessary variations of products.

The world government officials who are responsible for business activity would be guidance counselor-type of leaders. They would not supervise anybody. They would analyze prototypes and make decisions about which of them to put into production, and they would analyze research projects to figure out which of them deserve funding. However, they would not be involved in operating any of the factories or research labs. Instead, a factory would be under the control of the city officials in which it is located. The city officials would be responsible for hiring people for the factory, including the supervisors who manage the factory. It would be similar to what we have today in which Toyota builds a factory in America. Toyota will send some Japanese employees to America to get the factory up and running, but after it is running, it is under the control of the Americans who work there.

The world government officials would have control over only the products that are produced for the entire world. If a city wanted to produce some products for their own use, they could do so on their own. For example, the world government would produce clothing, artistic decorations, sports equipment, and furniture for the entire world, but every city is likely to produce some of their own artistic decorations, and some might want to produce some of their own furniture and clothing.

The world government officials in the business department will make decisions about which products to put into production for the world. This requires finding government officials who can put aside their personal preferences, make decisions that they can justify with intelligent arguments, ignore what their friends and family members are begging for, and analyze the effect that a product has on society. The officials would not select products according to what is the easiest to manufacture, or what will please the most children or the most adults. They have to think about what would be the best for the human race.

For example, consider the issue of cell phones. Should cell phones have the ability to play games? Should society fund the development of cell phone games? What effect do these games have on human life? The ideal way to determine that would be to set up two identical cities with identical people, and let the people in one city play games on their cell phones. We would then be able to observe life in the cities to see if the games are improving life in any way. We might find that the games reduce boredom or loneliness by giving the people something to do, or we might find that the games increase boredom or loneliness by getting people accustomed to playing with a cell phone rather than looking for more useful activities or human relationships.

The government officials would have to analyze prototypes and provide intelligent reasons for which prototype they think is best for society. After they put a prototype into production, they would be expected to occasionally analyze its effect on society to ensure that the product is indeed beneficial, or if the product should be discontinued or modified. By comparison, businesses today don't care what effect their products have. Businesses are only concerned with selling products. In order to create a better society, the government officials must conduct analyses of their decisions to ensure that the products they authorized are truly valuable.

When people get accustomed to conducting experiments with society, the world government officials will be able to do all sorts of experiments with products. For example, in regards to games on cell phones, they could provide some cities with certain types of cell phone games, and other cities would not have any games. Some of these experiments would be useless, but some may give us some insight into how the human mind functions, or help us figure out which products and services are making our lives better.

For example, consider the issue of ring tones for cell phones. In one city, the people could be given options for hundreds of different ring tones, and in another city, all of the phones would have the same ring tone. This would allow the government officials to make a decision on whether having options for ring tones is making life nicer for people, or whether it is adding an unnecessary burden. The free enterprise system provides us with options because people are attracted to options. We love the idea of being able to select what we want. It makes us feel special. However, I suspect that a lot of our options are just wasting our time. Also, we waste engineering and computer programming talent by producing the options.

By watching two different cities, one with lots of ring tone options, and the other with none, we can observe the people and perhaps figure out whether the ring tones are making life better, or if they are just wasting everybody's time and causing frustration.

I'll give a personal example of this concept. As I described in some of my other files, I have never been interested in playing musical instruments or in singing, and I suspect that I listen to music less often than the typical person. During most of my adult life, I didn't have a radio or any way of playing music, except for the radio in my car. I would listen to music whenever I drove my car, and sometimes the news or a talk show, but the majority of songs and talk shows did not appeal to me, and I didn't like listening to many of the DJs or the commercials, so I was constantly pushing the knob on the radio to switch to a different station. The radio in the first car that I owned had the old-fashioned, pushbutton radio, and I pushed the buttons so many times that after a few years something broke internally that made it impossible to change the station. Rather than replace the radio, I decided to take it out and throw it away. I then had to drive without a radio, and it felt as if I was going through withdrawals. The silence was irritating. My right hand wanted to reach down and turn on the radio. However, after some number of months I began to get accustomed to the silence.

Eventually that car became so worn out that I sold it, and my new car had a more modern radio in which the buttons were electronic. I assumed that I would be able to change the stations with this radio without worrying about breaking the tuning device. However, to my surprise, after about 10 years the radio broke and was stuck between stations, creating static. I didn't bother to fix it, and once again, it felt as if I was going through withdrawals. It took many months before I could get accustomed to the silence.

The point I want to make is that our mind has some ability to adapt to the environment. If we are frequently listening to music, or if we are frequently playing games on our cell phone, or if we are frequently playing with a pet dog, then our mind becomes accustomed to whatever that activity is, and like a train on a track, our mind wants to remain that way forever. If somebody, or some thing, tries to change what we are doing, we feel as if we are being tortured, and we have a tendency to whine about it, but are we really being tortured? No, it is simply our mind resisting a change. We must experiment with our options before we can make a sensible decision about what we prefer the most.

The situation between me and music is complicated. The radio in my car is still broken, and if I had to drive long distances on a regular basis, I would probably fix it, or get an MP3 player, but since I drive for only short distances, I prefer that it remain broken. If my radio worked, I would not be able to resist turning it on, and then I would be annoyed by the songs I don't like and the commercials, and I would constantly switch the radio stations, which is frustrating. After experiencing radios and silence, I would say that neither is desirable, but a radio is more annoying overall.

Perhaps you don't have that problem with a car radio, but you might have it with something else. For example, you might play cell phone games, and if you had to switch to a phone that didn't have any games, you might feel as if you are going through withdrawals, but eventually you may come to the conclusion that your life is actually better without such temptations. You may not be able to resist playing the games if they are available on your phone. You may need a phone that doesn't have the option.

The same situation applies to pornography. If men have the option to look at pornography, most will have a difficult time resisting it, especially the teenage boys, but does it make them any happier? Or would it be better not to give them the option? Humans were not meant for this modern environment, and as a result, we are foolish to give ourselves what we want. We must think seriously about what is best for us.

A lot of the children today are spending a lot of their time listening to MP3 players or playing video games, and if the adults were to try to stop that behavior, the children would whine, and they would feel as if they are going through withdrawals. Are we helping children when we allow them to spend enormous amounts of time with MP3 players and video games? Or are we simply giving the children a temptation that they have trouble resisting? What would be best for the children? Should we provide them with even more advanced MP3 players and video games? Or should we take those options away and experiment with more activities for them so that they have more contact with other people rather than with electronic devices? Or should we provide them with those options but only for limited times, such as only on Sunday or only in the late evening?

What will give us the best life? Are you really enjoying your life when you spend hours playing games on your cell phone? Do you really benefit by being able to choose from hundreds of ring tones? In order to truly determine what we are happiest with, we must be pushed into experimenting with different activities. We cannot trust our own mind. Our mind resists changes, and so it will fool us into thinking that trying something different is going to be miserable. We have to tell our own mind, "Shut Up, and give it a try!" We must force ourselves to conduct experiments with our lives.

The government officials should not behave like business executives who look for ways to please consumers. The government officials should analyze products according to their value to human life. These will not be easy analyses. We need government officials who can think and analyze issues. We need government officials who are truly "social scientists".

Manufacturing

After officials in this department make a decision to put a particular prototype into production, they have to make a decision about how to manufacture it. If they are replacing one item with another, then they might be able to use the existing factory to switch over to the new product. However, they will sometimes have to build a completely new factory. This requires them to make a decision on which city to put the factory in.

In the world today, these decisions are made by corporate executives, and the decisions are influenced by government officials. Usually the city officials want the business, and so they try to convince the executives to put the factory in their particular city. For example, when IBM needs to build a new factory, government officials from many nations will try to persuade the IBM executives to put the factory in their particular nation or city. In some cases, however, a government official does not want a particular factory, so they will try to prevent the business from putting it in their city.

When the world government officials are responsible for making these decisions, they will face some of the same pressures that business executives face today. However, when the basic necessities are provided for free, the city officials will not be able to use financial incentives to entice world officials into putting a factory in their particular city because nobody will care about money. Instead, they will have to use intelligent reasoning, such as showing that they do, or do not, have the appropriate land, labor force, or transportation network.

If a city does not want a particular factory, then they simply point out that they don't want it. It is not likely that every city will refuse a factory, but if that situation does occur, then the world officials would have to pick one of the cities and tell them that they have no choice but to accept it. The next time this situation happens, the world officials could try to pick a different city so that one city does not complain that they are taking all of the abuse. As you can imagine, there is a potential for complaints that the world officials are giving special preference to some cities, and so we must find officials who are capable of providing intelligent justification for their decisions.

In some cases there may be research projects that no city wants, such as those that involve experiments with animals, or the production of radioactive items, and those projects would have to be pushed on cities according to the labor force and other criteria. However, the world officials would not want to force anybody to do unpleasant work. They prefer that everybody be happy with their jobs. Therefore, when they find resistance to a particular factory or research project, they should consider whether the project can be altered to make it more desirable, or eliminated.

In a free enterprise system, businesses do whatever makes profit, and employees do jobs they abhor simply for the salary, but when we have control of the economy, we can make decisions about whether we really need a product. For example, if every city was putting up resistance to a particular factory that was testing certain cosmetics on animals, the government could make a decision about whether the product is worth the trouble. Do we really need that product? Or could we alter the product in some manner to make the manufacturing process more desirable? In a free enterprise system, these decisions are made according to profit, but when we don't have to worry about profit, we can make decisions according to what is best for society as a group.

The world government officials will not force products on anybody. They are not interested in selling products, and they have no concern about promoting any particular product. Their goal is to make life better for the human race. Therefore, if a particular product is troublesome to manufacture, they have the option of canceling the product, or modifying it. For example, in the case of cosmetics, the government might decide to reduce the production of cosmetics to only the simple cosmetics that don't require testing on animals.

The world government would not directly supervise any of the people who work at the factories or research labs, but they would be able to perform a role that could be described as "quality control". Specifically, the world officials would be able to observe the performances of the businesses that they authorized, and if they were unsatisfied with what they saw, they would contact the city officials and discuss their complaints. The city officials would be in control of the employees, and so if the world government officials wanted to make changes to the employees, they would have to go through the city officials. Providing the world officials with this option would simply be another type of checks and balances.

It should be obvious that the world government officials should speak the same language, follow the same number system, and operate on the same measurement system. It would be ridiculous if the world government had to operate like the United Nations in which there are more than 100 different languages, and every time the officials wanted to talk to one another, they had to use a group of translators. It would also be ridiculous if some of them were authorizing items for production that used metric measurements, and others were authorizing products using the Imperial system.

The ideal situation is for everybody in the world to phase in one measurement system, one number system, and one language. All of the User's Manuals, repair manuals, and other instructions should be in one language, and a comma and a decimal point should have the same meaning to everybody.

We should not allow people to become world government officials if they want to maintain the culture of their particular ancestors. The world government officials should be working for the benefit of the entire human race. An Irish government official should be a human, not a prehistoric savage who is promoting an ancient Gaelic language and who wants revenge for being dominated by the English. An African should also be a human, not a black man who wants revenge or reparations because some of his distant ancestors were sold as slaves. A woman in the government should be a human, not a woman who wants revenge for thousands of years of sexism. Each world government official should be working for the human race, not for his dead ancestors.

3) The Quality Control division

The Quality Control division of the world government would be like an international police force that watches over all of the cities to ensure that none of them are becoming a nuisance to the other cities. This division would have to deal with several different issues. One of the trivial issues that doesn't need much of an explanation is whether cities are interfering with the migration of animals or their reproduction. This type of problem could be dealt with the way it is today; namely, by biologists providing suggestions on how humans can coexist with nature.

A more significant concern for the Quality Control officials would be pollution. Every city would create various types of pollution and garbage, so this division would have to watch over the cites and pass judgment on when a city is producing too much. However, cities that were causing pollution problems would not be put in jail or made to pay a fine. Instead, this agency would help them figure out how to reduce their problems. The purpose of this agency is to improve our situation, not profit from problems or punish people.

The Quality Control officials would also watch over the cities to prevent them from developing military weapons. Every city would be able to justify having guns, explosives, and chemicals, so this agency would need a group of people who occasionally inspect the cities and pass judgment on whether they seem to be providing themselves with military capabilities. The world government inspectors would be able to inspect any building in any city without any advance warning. No city would have justification for maintaining secret areas that are off-limits to inspection.

The inspectors would be a nuisance, so they would do inspections only when they had some sensible reason to do so. Normally they would do their inspections by aerial observations and security cameras. No city would have the authority to claim that their city is a no-fly zone, and so the world government could send drones anywhere they pleased. The world government would also be able to install their own security cameras anywhere they please, in addition to having access to the city's security cameras. No city would be able to refuse world security cameras or hide any of their own security video. When robots become more advanced, then the world government would be able to send robots anywhere they please.

It is unlikely that any of the cities would bother trying to create military weapons, but we shouldn't ignore the possibility, especially considering that weapons become increasingly easy to create as technology becomes more advanced. The world is full of violent and psychotic people, and so we should not make any assumptions that we are going to stop violence during our lifetime. This issue will become more serious as technology improves. For example, when robots are doing gardening and assembly-line work, they could easily be transformed into military robots simply by changing their software and giving them some rifles, tanks of chemicals, or biological weapons.

The significance of this problem should not be overlooked. Every year it becomes easier for small groups of people to create destruction on a larger scale. For example, in prehistoric times, it was difficult for one person to kill more than a few people in one day. By comparison, a nuclear bomb can kill millions, and biological weapons could potentially kill even more. By changing the software in a group of robots, one person could provide himself with an army.

As technology improves, it becomes increasingly important to raise the standards for people. We have to become less tolerant of people who fly into violent rages; who are envious; and who suffer from wild mood changes.

Every city would have its own Population Quality Control division, but we cannot assume that every city will do a good job of quality control. The world government should have its own Quality Control department, and that department should watch over the cities to ensure that all of them are doing an adequate job of dealing with badly behaved citizens, and reducing the number of defective humans. The world government would provide checks and balances for the cities.

If the world government decided that some of the city officials were incompetent or too emotionally biased to do their jobs properly, then the world government officials would post a document describing why they believe those particular leaders should be replaced. Everybody could see what the world government is complaining about.

If the city officials could not refute the complaints, then the city would have to replace those particular people. If any city refused to cooperate, then the world officials would have the option of asking the other cities to contribute people for a police force to remove those officials. The other cities would then get involved in the issue, and if they all agreed with the world government, then they would remove those officials by force. They would not put together a military force to fight with the people. Rather, they would put together a police force to remove those particular officials. Any official who required this extreme action would be sent to the City of Exiles or executed. They would not be put in jail or made to pay a fine.

It might seem harsh to forcibly remove a top government official from society, but it is becoming increasingly important for the human race to set high standards for its leaders. The world government should not fool around with this issue. The world government will not help the world if they follow the philosophy we use today of trying to cure bad behavior with fines and jail. This division should demand incompetent leaders be removed, and if they don't go willingly, remove them with force.

It should be noted that it is not natural for us to replace leaders according to intellectual reasons, and it is especially unnatural to allow some other group of people to replace our leaders. Animals have a natural tendency to follow their leaders, and they are naturally protective of their leaders when they are attacked by another group of animals. This behavior is especially obvious with bees, termites, and ants.

Humans have been behaving like termites all throughout history. Even today we can see this tendency. For example, many people can see that Iran and North Korea have disgusting governments, but some Americans believe that the solution is to start a war with North Korea and Iran. A war would be idiotic. It would cause a lot of death and suffering for everybody involved, and it would not solve any problem. The ideal solution would be to send a police force to remove the North Korean and Iranian officials, and then tell the North Korean and Iranian people to select a new government. Unfortunately, this philosophy cannot be practiced in the world today because 1) most citizens are too ignorant to understand this concept; 2) some citizens are too stupid to understand it; and 3) there are not many people who have enough control over their emotions to allow their leaders to be replaced.

When the United Nations wanted to remove Khaddafi, they had to use military force to attack the Libyan people. If the United Nations had sent a small police force into Libya to remove the top officials, an enormous number of Libyan citizens and military personnel would have attacked the police force.

People in Syria have been fighting for more than two years. How many more people are going to die? How many more of their buildings are they going to destroy? What are they fighting about?

You might assume that the people who are defending the Syrian government have spent some time analyzing their government and its policies, and that they have come to the conclusion that President Bashar al-Assad's team is so wonderful that it is worth defending, but most of the people in Syria, Iran, Russia, America, and Japan who boast about "patriotism" don't understand anything about their nation, their culture, or their leadership. They defend their nation for the same reason that termites defend their queen.

For example, on 11 March 2013, almost exactly 2 years after the fighting in Syria began, Syria's Grand Imam said in a television interview that supporting the president is a "religious obligation" of all Muslims. He doesn't defend the president for intellectual reasons. Even after two years of fighting, which is plenty of time to contemplate the situation, he continues to encourage people to behave like termites. People like him should not be allowed in influential positions. The world government should remove those people on the grounds that they are encouraging destructive behavior.

To be accurate, the Jews are certainly manipulating the conflict in Syria, but even without their influence, we can find this "termite behavior" all throughout history. During the Middle Ages, for example, the peasants would defend their Kings and Queens even though they didn't know or like the Royal family, or approve of their policies. During World War I, many nations got into a fight with each other even though nobody could explain why. We have to face the fact that humans are intelligent animals, and we have to remove the people from the positions of influence when they encourage crude behavior, and we have to stop allowing people, especially Jews, from exploiting our animal characteristics.

The reason it makes sense for animals to sacrifice their lives for their leaders is because their leaders are truly the better members of their society, so from the point of view of nature, their leaders are the most valuable members. When there is a shortage of food, it is better for the leaders to eat and let the others die.

The leader of a group of animals must earn his position, and he must earn it continuously. This was true of prehistoric humans, also, but it is not true today. During the past few thousand years, people have been acquiring leadership positions through inheritances, marriage, monarchies, bribery, blackmail, murder, intimidation, investments, and gambling. Furthermore, after people obtain a position of leadership, they may be able to keep it forever rather than earn it continuously. The most obvious examples are the Supreme Court justices and the college professors with tenure.

In this modern world, we have to make intelligent decisions about who to put into a leadership position, and we have to make our leaders continuously earn their positions. Nobody should be guaranteed any job, especially not a position of influence.

In order for a world of semi-independent cities to be peaceful, the citizens must have the intelligence, education, and self-control necessary to treat their leaders as people doing a job rather than as a Queen termite. The citizens must be willing to look critically at their leaders, and allow the corrupt and incompetent leaders to be replaced.

If we can create cities with those type of citizens, then if the world government officials felt that one of the city leaders needed to be replaced, then they could post their reasoning on the Internet for everybody to look at. The citizens would look at those reasons, and if nobody could provide intelligent objections, then the citizens would control their crude emotions and allow the official to be replaced.

The government I propose gives a lot of authority to the government officials. Imagine some of the people who are currently in leadership positions having much more authority than they have right now. Imagine Queen Elizabeth, the dear leader of North Korea, Hillary Clinton, and Henry Waxman having significant authority over a city or the world. This is potentially dangerous. It requires that we be able to make wise decisions about who deserves a leadership position. We must have the emotional strength to classify some people as intellectually or emotionally unfit for leadership.

I would classify Mitt Romney, for example, as intellectually defective for his extensive participation in the Mormon church. We should not be afraid to examine a person's intellectual and emotional qualities and pass judgment on whether we believe that they are unsuited to leadership positions. If Mitt Romney doesn't agree with my opinion of him, he could either ignore me or present reasons as to how I am making a mistake. Passing judgment on a person's leadership abilities should be as acceptable as passing judgment on whether you like their hairstyle. People who react to these judgments with tantrums or crying should be regarded as emotionally unfit for this modern world.

The world government officials would not be authorized to have maintain a persistent police force. If the world government had a sensible reason to remove a leader from one of the cities, they would present their proposal to the city governments and ask the cities to contribute people to become temporary world policemen. That police force would have to be disbanded as soon as their job was done, and there should be a time limit for their existence, also, such as six months. If the world government had to remove another leader after that, instead of keeping the same police force, they would create a new group. The reason for changing them is to prevent one group of people from becoming a persistent police force.

The target of the world police force would be the leaders who are causing the trouble, not the citizens. As long as the citizens of the city could control their emotions and understand what was going on, they would allow their leader to be replaced rather than fight the international police force like a bunch of stupid termites who are protecting their Queen.

Control over racial diversity

One of the problems with having different races of people is that they will diverge even farther through the centuries, eventually becoming incompatible with one another in regards to behavior, food, medical aspects, nutrition, abilities to speak a language, and even physical size. There are already incompatibilities between the different races today, and the situation will get worse if we don't do something to control reproduction.

It's somewhat amusing, but also sad, that some of our world leaders cannot even pronounce the word "world", or my first name, "Eric", and certain races seem to have this problem more than others. If we don't do something to keep the diversity of the races within a certain range, it won't do much good for the world to switch to one language because eventually the different races will slur their words to such an extreme, and in such different manners, that they will not be able to understand one another.

The future humans are going to have to either merge into one race, or figure out how to allow different races to exist while maintaining a certain level of compatibility. Perhaps the future races will occasionally interbreed in order to keep them similar to each other.

Even within a race, if the cities remain genetically isolated from one another, then different cities will slowly become genetically different, potentially leading to such ridiculous situations as the people in one city becoming extremely tall, thereby making them incompatible with everybody else's airplanes, hotels, clothing, and furniture. Therefore, even cities that are the same race of people will have to do something to prevent genetic isolation, such as occasionally interbreeding.

The Quality Control division would have to watch over the cities and pass judgment on when they are diverging genetically too far and becoming a nuisance to the rest of the world. Fortunately, these particular problems are not something that we have to worry about. This is for the future generations.

Can we find people to be executioners?

The people in the Quality Control departments of both the city and world governments will occasionally have to make decisions about evicting or executing criminals. How many people are capable of carrying through with one of these decisions? Some people might be able to execute or evict an extremely psychotic, violent person, but how many people will have the emotional strength necessary to evict or execute a top government or business official? How many people could execute or evict a "celebrity", such as Steven Spielberg?

Earlier I mentioned Melissa Ohden, who survived an abortion. What would happen if an executioner in the Quality Control department tried to execute a criminal, but the execution failed, and the criminal survived? Would he stand back in horror and let the criminal live? We need to find people for this department who will be able to finish the job properly. We also need to find people who can execute defective children, and who can kill aborted fetuses who survive their abortion.

Some of the people in previous centuries who had to execute criminals would wear masks over their face. In some cases the masks were intended to protect their identity in order to reduce the chances that somebody gets revenge on them for being an executioner, but in some cases it was simply because we have such a strong inhibition about killing people that it is psychologically easier to kill when we can hide behind a mask. Therefore, perhaps the people who evict and execute people would have less psychological trauma if they practiced that custom of wearing masks.

Masks will make evictions and executions more entertaining and less traumatic. Masks for evicting and executing: Media criminals VIPs Jews

We don't want to kill anything, but we must control our emotions so that we can treat the killing of animals and people in a more rational manner. Today we must reduce animal populations because their natural predators are not doing the job, and today we need to execute criminals, and we should do it without making a fuss about it, and without arguing about it for decades in court. There is no rational reason for us to give the criminal a final meal, or worry about whether one method of execution is less painful than another.

We should execute criminals in a simple and rapid manner, and then forget about it. Focusing on the execution of a criminal will only make the situation worse. We have to face the fact that some people are a danger to society and need to be executed, just like we execute fleas, mosquitoes, and ticks.

We should not consider one murder to be better than another

In America, and I suppose other nations, murder is considered worse when a person has contemplated the murder. We consider a murder to be less significant if the person did the murder while emotionally enraged or because of mental disorders. In all cases, the end result is the same, namely, a murder. Why do we consider a murder to be worse if it has been planned?

I think the reason we consider a planned murder to be worse than a spontaneous murder is because we have strong inhibitions about murder, and therefore somebody who plans a murder is behaving in an unnatural manner. It is the same reason we consider the death of a fetus to be murder if it happens at an abortion clinic but entertainment for the Internet if it happens in a car accident.

Our policies towards murder are based on our emotions, not our intellect. We should change our attitudes so that all murders are equally bad. We shouldn't allow people with mental disorders or uncontrollable tempers to get away with murder. A man who has a violent temper tantrum when he is fired from his job, or when he finds his wife with another man, or when he loses a sports competition, is just as much of a danger as the men who carefully plan their murders.

Animals regularly fight over females, food, and territory, and during prehistoric times it was justifiable for men to have fights over women, food, and territory, but in this modern world, a man should be able to calmly accept the fact that his wife is leaving him, that he has been fired from his job, and that he has failed in some task. In this modern world, the men and women who cannot handle failure or criticism should be regarded as savages. We should not tolerate their tantrums, pouting, or violence.

Our rules for killing people should be designed according to what is best for society, not according to what our emotions are most attracted to. For example, if a man rapes a woman and then kills her afterwards, people would consider him to be a murderer, but if a man rapes a woman and a few days later she dies from the injuries she suffered during the attack, some people would claim that he is only a rapist and that her death was an accident. We should stop feeling sorry for criminals.

We should not torment the mentally ill

When a child is abnormal in any type of behavioral quality, such as abnormally restless, or abnormally interested in life-threatening activities, or having an abnormally difficult time following rules, the adults, especially his own parents, have a tendency to dismiss his abnormal behavior as due to his youth, but we should consider abnormal behavior to be symptoms of potential mental or physical problems.

Nova produced this documentary that shows the separation of two girls who were joined at the head. I would say that it is extremely obvious that one girl is mentally retarded, but the woman who is taking care of the girls refuses to see the obvious. She makes excuses for the retarded behavior, and so did the journalists who recently interviewed them when they became five years old. I would describe these adults as using these defective children to entertain themselves. It is equivalent to a man who marries an inflatable woman and refuses to face the fact that she is a plastic doll. This behavior is acceptable to animals and prehistoric humans, but it is not acceptable today. Women should raise healthy babies, not retards and freaks.

An airline mechanic who dismissed obvious signs of problems with an airline engine would be fired for incompetence. Everybody would realize that he is putting people's lives at risk by ignoring the defective engines. Parents who raise defective babies should be considered just as dangerous because they are contaminating society with retarded children, many of whom will grow up to be misfits, criminals, drug addicts, and sex offenders. Parents should be expected to observe their children and be aware of mental and physical disorders.

Judging by the news articles about Shane Todd, who recently committed suicide or was murdered, I would say that he showed lots of signs of mental problems. For example, he had such problems sleeping that for three months he was given antidepressants. His parents and a psychiatrist dismissed this problem as "working too hard, trying to do too much." This is equivalent to an airline engine that is spewing flames and smoke, and an airline mechanic dismissing it as, "Well, the engine has been working too hard, trying to do too much."

Shane was also described as "he loved a good party". From my personal observations of people, the people who "like to party" tend to be people who are suffering from some internal pains and looking for relief in drugs, attention, noise, or sex. It is similar to the people who say they "like a drink once in a while". What they really like is becoming intoxicated, and on a regular basis.

Shane also got involved with something he considered traitorous to America, perhaps giving technology to the Chinese. It is possible that he was working with the US government or the Singapore police to investigate a Chinese company, but most of the people who get involved with traitorous activities simply have a defective mind that comes to the idiotic conclusion that they are somehow going to benefit from becoming a traitor.

His guilt about what he was doing with the Chinese company then caused him to get involved with religion, which is another symptom of people with mental problems. When people are suffering from mental problems, and when they don't understand that they have a problem, they are likely to experiment with religion, drugs, money, sex, meditation, fame, or risky activities in an attempt to end their suffering and bring them some pleasure. They are looking for relief.

We must do quality control on the human race. Schools and parents should be helping children figure out what their problems and talents are rather than pretending that every child is a perfect bundle of joy. Parents and schools should also watch children for signs of abnormal behavior. We should not dismiss unusual behavior. The people with mental problems are suffering, and many of them are also tormented by other people, which adds to their suffering. Their endless suffering can result in violent tantrums, criminal activities, or becoming a social misfit.

We should find the emotional strength to make it official that some people are lower-quality than others. This will prevent such ridiculous situations as criminals holding their children or other criminals as hostages. For example, this man, who already had a criminal record, tried to escape from the police, and he used his baby daughter as a hostage. Although children are not exact copies of their parents, we should not allow criminals to use their own biological children as hostages. A more sensible policy is to assume that a person who is willing to engage in such destructive behavior is suffering from very serious defects, and that his children are likely to be defective, also. We should not allow criminals to use their own biological children or other criminals as hostages.

If we can create an honest police force, then nobody would have an excuse to run away from or fight with the police. Anybody who did so should be killed. The police should not risk lives or property in order to capture such people alive.

For example, Marvin Heemeyer spent an hour and a half in a reinforced bulldozer as he destroyed buildings near Denver, Colorado. This man stole a truck that was full of lumber. That news report assumes that the driver was injured by a policeman who fired his gun while chasing after him, but according to this truTV entertainment episode, the bullet injury was due to a policeman on an overpass. Regardless of who injured the driver, he was eventually captured alive and sent to jail. Both of those men are examples of how foolish it is to try capturing criminals alive. It would have been better if a drone had fired a missile at each of them.

Of course, if we cannot create an honest legal system, then we cannot give the police the authority to kill criminals. Criminal governments cannot demand that citizens behave properly. The incident with Marvin Heemeyer is an excellent example. He may have had mental disorders, but he is just one of many people who has become angry at our government officials and business leaders. We could say that his violent rampage was the result of years of being abused by our government.

Our society has a lot of mentally ill people in it, but we do nothing about them. Actually, we torment them. We don't want them as friends, and we don't want to hire them, and we don't want them as neighbors. When they have violent tantrums, whose fault is it? If you allow a wild animal to live in your home, and you regularly torment that animal, and if the animal eventually bites you, would you blame the animal or yourself?

We allow people to raise retarded children, mentally ill children, and other types of freaks, and we allow people to produce children that they don't want, and which are then abandoned in streets or orphanages. When those defective and unwanted children become adults, we torment them. Who's fault is it when they cause trouble for us?

Our free enterprise system is a brutal system that encourages selfishness. We make our situation worse by allowing mentally ill people to live among us. We don't even do anything about the defective teenagers who form gangs. We don't even care about dishonest or abusive businessmen. We allow telemarketers to pester us on the telephone, and we allow religious fanatics to wander through our neighborhoods and push their religion on us. We have absolutely no concern about the quality of our lives. The American policy towards being cheated by businesses is "Buyer Beware". We don't try to stop the crime. How is the "buyer beware" attitude any more sensible than the men in India who tell their women that they can avoid rape by staying inside their house? This is not the proper reaction to crime!

Our crude society is causing a lot of people to become angry with one another, and a lot of people are living in fear of losing their job or business. Businesses, unions, teachers, stockholders, individual citizens, and government officials are struggling to please themselves, often ignoring or abusing other people. The charities, religions, and think tanks are surviving by manipulating people into donating money for hungry children, cancer research, or victims of hurricanes. Thousands of unwanted children are suffering miserable, lonely lives, and some are abused sexually by government officials, policemen, doctors, and business leaders. Some people are marrying one another simply for financial or political benefits.

We have inadvertently created a miserable world in which lots of people are selfishly looking for ways to exploit and abuse one another. No society yet has any concern about the quality of anybody's life. No society cares whether they are living among retards, criminals, illegal aliens, or homeless lunatics. No society is doing anything to deal with loneliness, divorce, prostitution, pedophilia, rape, or unwanted children. Every society is dominated by people who selfishly look after themselves. We are hurting ourselves and one another with this crude behavior.

For example, in the case of Heemeyer, the city government approved the construction of a cement manufacturing plant next to his business, which interfered with his plans for his business. This type of problem is occurring all the time. None of our cities are planned, and none of them are designed for a particular population level, and the end result is that every city is in a constant state of change. In some cases, the businessmen and government officials have the ability to compromise on a policy that everybody is willing to accept, but in some cases, some or all of the businessmen or government officials are selfishly refusing to compromise.

Furthermore, very few people seem to be thinking of what is best for society. The end result is that we end up with such unpleasant situations as houses that are directly next to railroad tracks, highways, floodplains, and airports. This is causing citizens and government officials to hate and fight with one another.

No matter what changes we make to a city, we are going to irritate somebody. It is not possible to build a factory in a city without irritating somebody. We can reduce this type of problem by designing cities for a certain population level, but cities will always need maintenance and modification, and it is impossible to make changes without irritating somebody. However, if we make decisions that are best for society, it will be easier for people to accept them. Compare that to the situation today in which governments and businesses are making decisions to satisfy the selfish desires of themselves or their friends.

Our selfish behavior is creating a miserable existence for everybody. In addition, we are tormenting the misfits. Not surprisingly, some of those misfits eventually become so angry that they have violent rampages.

Creating a more pleasant society requires finding a group of people who can work together for the benefit of society. It requires planning our cities for the good of society rather than building them haphazardly in a selfish manner. It requires finding government officials who truly want to help people find useful jobs so that nobody fears unemployment or take jobs that are worthless to society. It also requires evicting or executing the destructive people rather than ignoring or tormenting them. It also requires men who can control their cravings for women so that they can deal with women who are defective. We should stop giving special treatment to female criminals, such as this one.

When somebody becomes angry with a child, our emotional craving to protect children will be stimulated. Our emotions fool us into believing that the person who becomes angry with a child is the bad person, and that the child is innocent, but in reality, some children are just young criminals, or young psychos, and they irritate people with their disgusting behavior. We must control our cravings to protect children so that we can pass judgment on when a child is so defective that he should be executed.

In this video, the police chase after a teenage boy who is driving an automobile, and they eventually kill him. Some people became angry at the police, but I would say the police went to absurd lengths to give him the opportunity to surrender peacefully. In the process, they allowed him to damage automobiles, and they risked their own lives. That teenager apparently did not have a gun, but this man on a motorcycle did. Why should the police risk lives to capture a person who is behaving in a violent manner? We don't owe any favors to violent people, even if they are children.

Incidentally, the narrator of that video of the teenage boy mentions that some people believe that when policemen chase after a suspect, the mysterious "High-Speed Pursuit Syndrome" can take effect and cause the police to become abnormally violent, resulting in their killing of the suspect rather than capturing him alive. I agree that the police will become more violent when people run away from them or fight with them, but it has nothing to do with "syndromes". Rather, people who fight with the police are going to make the police angry. The police will also be suspicious and fearful of people who fight with them simply because honest people are not likely to do it. Unless the police department has a reputation of corruption, only the truly dangerous people would be interested in fighting with the police.

With the police documenting their actions with video cameras, it is now easy to determine if people are cooperative with the police. We should stop being tolerant of people who fight with the police. If we can create an honest police force, then we can tell people to treat the police with decency or be considered a criminal.

By setting standards of behavior for the citizens and removing those who cannot fit in, we will create a society of respectable people. It may appear as if I am proposing a society in which a violent police force is patrolling the streets and executing people on a regular basis, and sometimes mistaking deaf people for uncooperative criminals, but being less tolerant of crime will not necessarily create fear or misery. It depends upon the people.

An organization is only as good as the people in it. A society of psychos, criminals, pedophiles, parasites, and arrogant jerks is going to be miserable no matter what they do. If we allow the government and police force to become infiltrated by crime networks, and if we allow society to be dominated by apathetic sheeple, then we will create a society that is identical to those in the world today. Nothing will improve.

In order to create a truly better society, we need to identify the higher-quality people, and we need to restrict immigration to those people. If we can create a city in which everybody is honest, then we would not need a police force to patrol the streets. The police departments would be in the role of a Quality Control department. They would quietly observe people, with special emphasis on the young children, and deal with those who don't fit in.

The members of an organization are the most important aspect of it, and the leaders of the most important of all. Imagine a society that was dominated by religious fanatics. They would use the police force to execute, punish, or evict people such as Galileo, as well as people of the incorrect religion. Or imagine a society in which the government and police were dominated by Nambla members. What type of laws with they enforce? Who would they arrest?

Creating a better society requires identifying the people who will become honest policemen, competent government officials, honest scientists, and concerned citizens. It requires analyzing people and passing judgment on their qualities. It requires figuring out if a person is doing a proper job as a welder, machinist, scientist, doctor, dentist, or pilot, and if not, forcing them to try another job. It requires analyzing children and passing judgment on which of them is showing signs of unacceptable mental qualities, and executing them before they become troublesome adults. Can you do any of this? Can you help to create a truly better society?

The drawing below is a plan for FTP City in Danang, Vietnam:

 
The drawing below is a plan for Tianjin, China, which is currently under construction:

The drawing below is another part of Tianjin:

The Asian nations are advancing rapidly. Will the Americans, Europeans, and Japanese change their attitudes and start putting some effort into providing themselves with a higher quality life? Don't just wish for it.  Participate in the process of making it happen!