Justice people are not being difficult, the focus is different

Good and Evil is not about neuroticism or not. Today some neurotic people might feel like doing injustice for the excuse of their intense feelings, tommorow the less neurotic people might be the ones who were unjust for this and that.

Justice is hard enough to achieve, like an arrow might not hit the bullseye even after being aimed, those that are aiming would not hit the bull's eye unless its a coincidence. 

To make it harder for those that are trying or specifically prevents those that are trying to be Just is being too adversarial, unnecessarily adversarial. People we should talk responsibly

Turn based community credit system v.02

So 3 people made collaterals (same sizes), and the bank gave for them an overdraft account. Each could take 90% of 1/3 freely, but if at a moment one would take, say, 130%, the next turn he/she could only take 50%

Each turn period was determined beforehand, maybe 6 months, maybe 8 months, or else.

You'd want to use this for...

This could reduce gang fights, maybe

Because gang disputes are evil, when you remove a chunk of the evil the interests would reduce. So if you legalize gang fights, maybe create a special area like special economic tax free territories we have now, and then you inform to the gangs that you knew were in a tension with each other, you'd reduce the chances of that happening. 

Maybe an increase for non deadly fights, but deadly gang battles should be able to be reduced just by the act of legalizing and organizing it. Because they were fueled by evil.

If they wanted to do it without supervision anyway, then I don't know, but still my point if you organized it and legalized it, they should be less likely to want to do it. Such event should add nuances to the way of the gangs and eventually reduce the chances of "traditional" practices.

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.  

I don't know what the title is supposed to be... "Women"? v.02c

What's the most irresponsible Gender in the world?

That's not fair, not all women, and I agree that's right, but that's the problem. When you're scrutinized you went spread, when you're attacking you went united, "Believe all women" really? is that really the solution? and you knew that it is wrong as well, but I think not all of you knew that the solution is the opposite of that? But hey who cares not that I'm going to be responsible for perpetuating all that, right?

Harvey Weinstein for example or people like that, let's not use him in particular. People like him could've been just a regular perverted guy who started of just keeping it to himself, but because of his position lots of women, or guys, gave him plenty of sugars, and then he got addicted. I'm not a psychologist, just seeing the news and rumours that kept on being repeated about some high stakes deals in businesses. So, "Believe all women" should be "Scrutinize all women" wouldn't it? like we scrutinize men. Where were all of those cookie monsters, the sugary dealers when Harvey Weinstein went to court? Where were all the women judges in the layer of the undocumentable unwritten gossip world (unproperly speakable), the part of the world that doesn't supposed to exist. The maintainers of this filth, where are your judges? Then after that some would blame men for not believing women, no, you victimized yourselves by going out into the market world, the business world, forcing people to not be able to scrutinize you like everybody else, defining a new kind of cruelty that's not actually cruelty, and would not be culturally cruelty when applied to men. 

I don't hate women I hate the fact that they get away with things and ended up making the reality of what actually are good, their enemies because of that.