Melki Hassa's Blog

Everyone deserves everything in this world, but because of limited resources we respect thousands of years of history, of humanity's wisdom to allocate resources such as properties.  Justice is when everything that we wanted and needed is fulfilled whenever we wanted and needed it, perpetually, forever, truthfully.  However, since that's not yet, the path towards that is Justice... so to answer the question how should we share the rewards of solving problems to the contributors, the answer is Justice. The increase of the level of availability of mutual solutions perpetually, forever, and truthfully.  It is still not easy to quantify, but at least we shunned some confusion out of the way, communism for example, doesn't accurately represent Justice, in its promoting of careless, baseless, equal distribution of resources.  Government in all its wisdom and power and synergy is lacking in the diversification of point of views. The market in all its richness of point of views, is

Communism = An Insult to Human Contribution Capitalism = A Compliment to Human Contribution If I were to get the same amount of money, I would have it on the premise of capitalism rather than communism, even if the communism pot were more, I'd prefer the lesser capitalism for the worth of it.  Communism breeds resentment, Capitalism breeds sense of fairness, appreciation, patience, refusal to degradations, solidarity, allegiance to productivity, diverse ways of acknowledgements, and many more positivity.  Yes resentment is a complex sentiment, but the sentiments from Capitalism are rich... resentment is poor. Poor resentment... F U ---------------------------------------------- Which one is more valuable? 10 years worth of work not consumed, compacted in a form of asset being bet in the economy in order to contribute to it? (risking of losing everything or huge chunk of it)... Or 1, 2, or 5 years of work fully consumed already? But in the end, what's important is the problem be

The idea is to have a range of time of when the debate/the discussion would be ended, and then at the moderator's discretion the end of the debate/discussion would be executed within the range. It is for the sake of letting the parties debate freely without the restriction of particularities, so it would be like they would do it on the "streets".  So instead of saying that the debate must finish in an hour, we have between 1 to 2 hours. Both parties would be given the same amount of time, but it would not be specified, one party started talking and then the other party answers, they would go back and forth freely as long as they don't talk over each other relatively speaking. Each time a party talked, their timer would be run, like chess, and eventually the moderator would end the debate by informing the party whose time is lower to match the speaking time of the other party.  (When the speaking time for both sides have equalized, the debate were completed)  Now... I

Living beings have the ability to choose and reject in order to stay alive, I'd like to use that as the definition of life itself.  Living beings could adopt some inclinations and reject some inclinations, they could change the order of priorities of their way of choosing and rejecting. Any reduction of this ability is the larger definition of sufferings. So not just pain, and, not just in terms of power, a better dimension for that is wisdom.  Reduction of one's ability to choose and reject, changing their order of priorities (of inclinations) is suffering. Putting time in perspective, you could suffer in your spirit for your short term as well as for your long term. So knowledge is power, but wisdom is better. The Inclination to keep people away from wisdom might incorporate the inclination to perform transactions, to produce deceptions, however the inclination to perform transactions (commerce) might have the mind of its own.  As we improve our wisdom in the practice of comm