1. Institutionalized Drug Distribution - A Proposed Solution to Drug Use Problems and Mental Health Problems

    Lets think about how distribution of recreational drugs can allow us to easily identify and reach out to those who need mental help.

    If we legalized drugs in such a way as to require distribution centers to be staffed with doctors that require a mandatory health check upon distribution, then the doctors could identify mental problems and offer help, and (possibly) refuse distribution if the help is not accepted.

    If a system like this is done carelessly then we can open up a pandora’s box of societal problems and create a tool of exploitation for use by the state, and a tool of profit for the use of those who run the facilities and supply the drugs.

    If the right precautions are taken, then we could have a system that pays for itself, reduces crime, and helps combat the problems of mental illness. 

    Some precautions to take:

    Don’t allow centers to individually profit off off distribution, otherwise they would sell anybody drugs, encourage the use of drugs to everybody including those who should not be taking them, and push drugs onto the black market in order to sidestep restrictions that prevent them from making larger profits. Centers would all receive the same amount of money (relative to local economy) for their services, and the amount all of the staff make would always be transparent to the public, as well as the quantities or each type of drug each center distributes.

    Satiate the staff with good salary so they don’t have incentive to sell on the black market.

    Heavily regulate the facilities, production, and distribution networks using 3rd parties.

    Restrict patients from taking certain drugs off the premises (like LSD, Heroin, Psilocybin, and other hard drugs which significantly impair people for long periods of time or are addictive and can seriously disrupt communities if distributed via the black market). This could be achieved by administering certain drugs immediately on the premises, instead of just giving the drugs to the customers to administer to themselves, and by requiring customers to deposit their car keys, etc. before administration of any such restricted drug.

    Keeping specialized security guards there for the customers protection, meaning that the guards are trained to safely restrain people if they freak out, and to prevent people from leaving the premises with restricted drugs.

    Privacy agreements between distribution centers and customers that don’t allow the centers to share information about the customers’ identities with any outside parties (especially not governmental institutions).

    Centers can (possibly) keep track of the amount of times customers have used certain drugs in order to limit the usage and identify addiction, or use this to identify mental afflictions.

    Provide customers with full information about any substances, including warnings of drug interactions, ingredients, production history…, and historical information about drug usage

    Make group or peer “therapy” sessions mandatory before use of certain substances, like addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. so potential customers can talk to those who have addicitons before making their choice to consume.

     
  2. 22:27 20th Jun 2013

    Notes: 199558

    Reblogged from drunkonstephen

    Are we teaching kidz to process knowledge or retain knowledge?

     
  3. Arguments for Machine Dependence - Instant Feedback vs. Learning Curve

    Consider the argument that we acquire so much knowledge and make it digestible and preserve it in such a short amount of time, even if the period spent intensively acquiring information is unsustainable and counter-beneficial to the short term acquisition of learning or thinking skills, when the knowledge acquisition system exceeds its capacity or otherwise breaks down, we could be left with such a wealth of well preserved information that future life ability is increased greatly and thus life forms with increased ability are left able to easily and dynamically cope with the stress of withdrawal from the knowledge acquisition systems and support systems that came with them or were supported by them, and are also easily and dynamically able to cope with subsequent maintenance of the collective life form in the absence of such knowledge acquisition systems.

    In today terms, the manifestation of the systems mentioned above involve human lifeforms coupling with electronic and mechanical machines, which require a large amount of energy and resident infrastructure and to maintain and develop. The acquisition of the energy required to create, develop and maintain these machines involves destructive pollution with is in many ways and possibly overall counter-beneficial to the survival of the collective human life form.

    This may mean an inevitable end to the ability of human life forms to use these machines, or to use these machines in any meaningful way related to knowledge acquisition or high level computation or maintenance of life support systems.  

    However the knowledge gained through intensive periods of knowledge discovery could unlock many secrets that could prove to be so valuable as to make up for any adverse effects of the retirement of the knowledge acquisition machines or supporting infrastructure.

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-60043-4_49#page-1

    We can especially see prospects for benefit from implementing this type of strategy when we speak within the human context, because of this life form’s generational nature, generations that did not develop problem solving skills and habits can readily generate subsequent generations that have the ability to (relatively) easily acquire the problem solving skills and habits which are necessary for those life forms to substitute for or supplement or knowledge acquisition and processing technology, when exposed to an abundance of information that could be preserved by the previous generation(s) using intensive knowledge acquisition systems.

     
  4. Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation - Corporations and Political Speech

    Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation


    Community should set price and value of product, or determine reasonable compensation for a company’s employees, in the case of high paid employees, typically executive level, who have control of money simply because of claim to ownership of the company and executive decision making powers.



    Community should be able to guess the salaries of company workers and executives and there should be some mechanism of civil restructuring that conforms wages and salaries to the current will of the public, and maybe particularly of the corresponding consumer base.



    Tools would inevitably be established for the community to measure and easily evaluate performance and value, and do so in a unified manner. The power of currently available computerized networks (such as the Internet) would make it extremely cheap to establish these tools.







    End Corporate Personhood, Corporations are not People - Money is Not Speech, it is Valued Property


    When you buy goods and services, you are doing so in a willing exchange. One might say that the consumer should know what goods and services they are purchasing. Regardless of whether one should be entitled to know all the goods and services they purchase, one might predict that the consumer may make different decisions about their purchase if they were aware of this information before (or at the time of) the purchase.


    Further, if consumers could not only know the goods and services intended for distribution upon purchase, they should also know the work collateral or work value they are also purchasing.


    Information could become readily available about the political contributions that are being made, or that have been made, by the organization or its major beneficiaries. Information also could become readily available about the effects of the work or type of work implemented to construct the product.

    Using the state as a means of enforcement vs. Public enforcement of consumer information standards.


    What are the tools the public might have to enforce information standards that products are “packaged with” or associated with, without the help of an authoritarian state apparatus?


    One tool many of us are probably familiar with is the boycott. One might suggest that the consumer community could boycott products until the producers submit to higher information standards and greater transparency. As is true of many boycotts, this task would prove extremely difficult to achieve for a relatively poor and hard working public without access to many raw resources (without having to go through the producers they would intend to boycott). This is very much the situation around the world in current times, especially considering the mainstream cultural and societal value of property rights, and prevalent authoritarian policy enforcing property rights. Boycotting so many products on such a large scale may prove enormously difficult, especially considering the size of the population in current times and the relative inability to effectively coordinate across large segments of the population, although this strategy may actually be possible if a high enough degree of coordination was achieved across large enough segments of the population.


    Another tool the public might have would be consumer based labeling practices. If consumers were willing, they may be able to label all products they consume, or at least all those they deem relevant or a highly important selection or products, the method perhaps dependent upon community resources or perceived need. Again, this would prove challenging in current times, due to authoritarian property protection and allocation practices that consider consumer products the property of the producer or generally whomever the producer chooses to give that property (although this is a generalized oversimplified statement about the mechanisms by which producer based property is distributed). There are many state enforced laws that would serve to punish the community for adopting such a strategy and ultimately prevent this kind of strategy from being freely realized, and thus rendering any strategy of this kind ineffective to varying degrees.


    If corporate personhood privileges were explicitly banned by state apparatuses (such as constitutional amendment), presumably in coordination with the will of the public, then cases could be made by the community at least pertaining to political speech that is being bought with their money.


    Now this is an important distinction to make, and the reason why money should not be considered speech, but rather, property. Speech can be made freely by any individual, and apparently, the mostly unspoken (within the Mainstream Conversation) yet legally accepted trend is that those individuals can amplify their own speech or the speech of others using their own resources to purchase tools to amplify that speech. At what point does an individual or organization own another individuals resources? When the producer asks for additional resources from another individual under the pretense of exchanging the resource for known goods and services, but with the hidden ulterior motive to use those resources for the amplification of political speech. In that case, who should now own the amplification devices used to amplify that speech?




    The reason why consumer control over value and compensation was mentioned previously (in the Consumer Evaluated Value, Performance, and Compensation section) is that the transfer of enough resources over to individuals that are coupled with, however do not wholly constitute, the producer organization (such as a large corporation), such that political speech expenses can be made at a much higher capacity than that of the consumer individual (on average), can be essentially viewed as a loophole in the mechanism of value or property exchange that takes place during a purchase (depending on the defined and considerably useful goals of the purchase).


    If the organization is not making the political expenditures any more as a result of different pressures, but the resources used to make the organization’s political contributions are now going to particular individuals who presumably purchase political speech amplification resources of their own will (although there would also be extreme pressure to make the same purchase the organization is interested in due the the property and compensation schemes that are prevalent in current times)


    The reason why corporations should not be considered people - Corporate decision making structure - Personhood is a dangerous oversimplification

     

     As stated in a previously written article: “

    It has to do with the power structure. Corporations are constructed of many people, who work together, presumably in order to benefit themselves. Under this model one might argue that since a corporation consists of persons entitled to full constitutional rights, then the corporation itself should inherit those rights.

    However, the decision making structure of the corporation is what makes it unreasonable to assume that it should be entitled all constitutional rights associated with persons. Each individual person has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Only one person or a few people within a corporation have the ability to make decisions within a corporate structure. And not every person the corporation agrees with the decisions that get made. In many cases all the persons comply due to the need to accumulate wealth to stay alive and comfortable in some capacity. If any of the persons disagree with the decision, the one or few decision makers have the ability to remove the dissenting person(s) from the corporation. The non-decision maker persons however, do not necessarily, and in practice very rarely have the ability to remove the decision makers from the corporation or its property.”

     

    Also, if one were to assert that producers, notably that sustain themselves ultimately due to consumer based purchases, were intrinsically coupled with the consumer on this basis, we could say that the decision making structure extends then from the decision makers (regarding resources obtained via purchase) down to the consumer about what to do with the resources. This is especially apparent when the resources that are purchased by the producer using the resources obtained by the consumer purchase are used in ways that are unknown to or intentionally hidden from the consumer, because when the resources are being attributed to a purchase unknown to the consumer, the control regarding how to distribute resources is ultimately taken out of the consumer’s possession.

     
  5. Don’t just write some bullcrap so you can Claim It As Your Own

    Collaborate

    (…using the Internet)

     
  6. Corporate Personhood

    Hey, here is a good argument for why corporations shouldn’t be considered persons.

    It has to do with the power structure. Corporations are constructed of many people, who work together, presumably in order to benefit themselves. Under this model one might argue that since a corporation consists of persons entitled to full constitutional rights, then the corporation itself should inherit those rights.

    However, the decision making structure of the corporation is what makes it unreasonable to assume that it should be entitled all constitutional rights associated with persons. Each individual person has the ability to make decisions for themselves. Only one person or a few people within a corporation have the ability to make decisions within a corporate structure. And not every person the corporation agrees with the decisions that get made. In many cases all the persons comply due to the need to accumulate wealth to stay alive and comfortable in some capacity. If any of the persons disagree with the decision, the one or few decision makers have the ability to remove the dissenting person(s) from the corporation. The non-decision maker persons however, do not necessarily, and in practice very rarely have the ability to remove the decision makers from the corporation or its property.

     

    Person = Person

    People =  Zero to Many Persons

    Corporation = People + Formal Decision Making Structure + Formal Assignment of Property

    Because of this unequal relationship between the decision makers and the rest of the persons that make up a corporation, the corporation cannot be said to fully reflect or even resemble a single person. Therefore, personhood should not apply to a corporation in any legal sense.

    The ability for a corporation to claim personal rights against the democratic decisions made by governmental structures undermines democracy because decision making power that dictates and affects many persons is being focused into the hands of one or a few persons, exactly the problem democracy is intended to prevent.

    (Source: movetoamend.org)

     
  7. On the subject of rape, I believe that they most persuasive case for most men is the prospect of being sent to prison. Men fear prison primarily because it is an environment where the statistical likelihood of being raped or coerced into a sexual act is 1 in 5. This is something nearly every man has thought about at some point, and nearly every man has conjured up some scenario of how they’d survive prison if it ever came to it.

    What most men never seem to consider (why, I cannot fathom) is that our worst-case-scenario survival fantasies are an everyday calculation for most women in our society.

    So the question to ask, when a “bro” has a moment to let his imagination run on the topic, is “how would you feel if it was your first day in lock-up and you were out in the yard and overheard a group of six or seven of your fellow inmates, all much larger than you, making rape jokes as they looked you over? How would you feel about it if it was your second day and you’d been raped the night before?”

     
  8. 13:51

    Notes: 2

    Symbols are Machines,

    they work on your mind.

     
  9. You just broke something I spent 1000’s of man-hours working on!

    It drained your life away.

    image

    moments in the past.

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    image

    Mem stand in line, smash these ATMs.

     
  10. The Leadership Complex

    We might assume leadership to be a thing that humans in the present and into the future are predisposed to do, somehow by nature or as a matter of the course of history.

    If this were the case, any leaderless governmental solution we create will have the problem, or the potential problem, of leadership structures forming.

    Some or all people under uncertain circumstances may be driven to leadership, like a bad habit, or compulsion that must be appeased by imposing rule on others.

    So, if this were the case, what would we need to do prevent leadership from happening?

    Jail any leaders? If you exhibit behavior with some resemblance of leadership, would you be in danger of imprisonment?

    Create mental health programs to identify and attempt to suppress the leadership impulse or relieve leaders of their compulsion through some sort of therapy or manipulative system of education?

    Could you create a governmental structure that is impervious to the effects or otherwise prevents leadership structures from forming or sidesteps leadership structures and thus avoids or mitigates the effects?

    How could the prevention of leadership ever be accomplished?