Lawful Professional Private Police v.02

As a supporter of many Libertarian ideas I anticipate that governments would face a state where the police departments would be understaffed. In such occassion the government would gather funds from the people and finance private police entities that had the professional education to be professional police forces. Then the role of the original police would be changed into becoming reviewers or overseers of the new "mercenary police forces". I mean this in the context of occassionally not permanently.

This is pretty flexible in a way that we would want a stable income for the police but we also want no incentives to play any "crime farming" game. We could choose an insurance style setup where the "mercenaries" were employed by insurance companies, or just a dedicated company. We could also choose a kind of militia setup where regular people were rewarded for doing police works as long as they were disciplined in the law (because it is imperative for them to not be draconian for their own unjust desires). To have this be more potent we should have better lives for those who otherwise wouldn't conscript.

Is charity unjust? v.11g

Before I get to other points I'd say that charity is not always unjust and so not always just. The thing is monopoly exists in this world, meaning that you could look for systems and procedures that had prevented selling below cost in the past, if such were not found then pretty likely injustice had happened in the economy, there was a mutilation (the cutting off of competitions by selling unprofitably), unless the monopolizers were angelic. The problem is that people had been cut off from being able to contribute to the economy, I blame monopolistic practices for this however I was wrong in judging all monopolies as bad, I shouldn't have said that and instead should've pointed out that some unfair competition schemes are and have been difficult to address.

So in the face of injustice you'd want to make it right, using whose money? Robbing other people? even if you robbed the monopolizers, it is still an act of injustice and its going to build the momentum of injustice, To use your own money?, yes this is good although other times it is not going to be enough (2024). The popular best way would be to gather up the disposable income of the public, for example collective charities for ex-cons that were clearly and officially wrongly punished and haven't been compensated enough by the country.  Another example would be to gather up charities for orphans those who because of the injustice of either nature or humans were orphaned, such orphans are like us, the embodiment of human beings, and for them to be in this world without being evil is virtuous. Another, the elderly who were inadequately rewarded. Such Just charities would increase the prosperity of the economy (because its meritocratic).

The lack of such adjustments in the economy are going to encourage evil behaviors more and more, making everything unsafe and bad for business scaling ups. Obviously because it is the glorification of evil/injustice or ignorance of the presence of injustice, which is also evil. 

Charities like those are important but what if charity went to those who were arguably not like that but its legal to do so? This is the purpose of this blog post. 

Evil in the economy attacked the opportunity of prosperity, meaning what is your faith? How prosperous could the minimum of every relatively non criminal people were supposed to be if the economy wasn't evil? Based on that figure, if charity lifted some people out of poverty to that point, that would be a correction. Still the argument would be, wouldn't it supposed to go to productive people or merit based, rather than charity? Justice is when "everyone" gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed it, if we weren't being meritocratic we would be sabotaging the progress towards justice therefore unjust. But then who would be the judge and what would be the remedy? Cause if the remedy means taking away from those who legally owned properties, that means a violation against the law and the law is the progress of humanity, it is not to be taken lightly. 

If you hosted and nurtured unjust behaviors especially out of despise of the law, to act upon your own judgemental sentiments, it may not be impossible for you to be able to attack your targets and improve the prosperity of your targeted economy, but after that the administration that had been nurtured is going to want to go for the inside (since the outside accesses had been depleted). For illustration if you took the properties of those who had received charities but deemed to be non contributive to the economy, and successful in doing so, the next target would be the people who were deemed worthy but not as much, and its going to keep on and on until the economy became poor, and everybody would be equally poor but one guy, the supreme leader. And its only logical then to say that that guy too would be poor (in terms of value). 

So meritocracy is not always tied to individuals, it could be an organization, a configuration, or a spirit. If you were to be a reciprocal person you should care about this as well, embrace your instinct to connect with new people or to be interested in new things, such are reciprocal as well. 

The Aim

To be honest I rather have a robot as my boss, except when I'm doing human to human work, but for a mechanical pre programmed work I rather have a robot as my boss, not an AI cause they're weird, just a plain old robots. The robot would pay me based on pre programmed assessments, no drama, no politics, just payments and performance. Yet AI would be able to do the job so I might not be able to see that future for me.

So many resources, so little attribution. Why is it that the world is so big and full of energy, but for us we are poor?

Actually farming is supposed to be able to be done by individuals, and not just few specialized varieties but most nutritions that we needed. We ourselves should be able to trade with the people who grew the missing nutritions, at least just within one network, not over myriad of steps like we have right now (2024). In that case having AI replacing us is fine, cause the attribution would be to us, the sole owner of the venture. 

Such I meant not for everything, cause it is great to have a global community. To have local essensialities and global party is the aim. When we had reached sufficiency on essensialities but its still in the hands of the people far away, we are not there yet.