This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
merge 'corruption' into the current system, truthfully
allow, for example, what are now illegal drugs, to become legal under controlled conditions, whilst still allowing current 'illegal' dealers to make a profit by perhaps offering them training courses for not only dealing drugs but also contributing to the current system.
the same methods could be applied for other areas of corruption, such as conditioning people in human trafficing, etc.
good or bad idea, considering that in the future it won't stop? could this be a way of curbing the future into being a positive one?
steve edwards
griffin tucker 10+
in a world where population is growing rapidly, it seems those that are in power are finding it harder and harder to control new groups of people that form movements directed toward truth. in a world of almost supreme control, chaos is feared, and the 'chaos' that is growing now is truth becoming known.
there are about 20 million (20,000,000) people who are classified as 'displaced,' ie. they have nowhere safe or anywhere they would call home.
the problem with moving these 20 million people, is that if everyone were to suddenly be immigrated to what they (and protestors about detainees) would consider safe, it would reduce the overall standard of living for everyone. for instance, if everyone were share the wealth of the world, each person would only receive roughly $400 per year worth of resources. basically $1 a day.
even those who are moderately better off than these people, and because of the rich/powerful wishing to keep their standard of living the way it is, it will continue to be the case that some people live on even less than $1/day.
btw, the figures represented are only a rough estimate, but i consider the numbers to be accurate as of 2010.
my idea is that any kind of slavery is possible for future generations to curb into different kind of acceptable conditions. the _only_ way I can see this happening is if it were regulated sooner rather than later, with truth being the major focus.
some things are simply unacceptable, and some things are acceptable. what i propose is raising the bar for what is acceptable for some things, and then perhaps lowering it again in future generations, as long as it is planned from the start, i think it would be possible.
turning the blind-eye is just as bad as lying in my opinion, but i am glad in recent times those in power are evolving into a situation of a more positive attitude toward their people.
steve edwards
1. No.. we have to be vigilant. Humanity must progress. Human rights and human dignity are paramount.
We are not at a point where we can't afford such "luxuries" , indeed we are richer than we have ever been and sticking to such principles is not necessarily costly anyway.
2. Some people living on less than a $1 a day, could well have a better quality of life than you. Industrialisation/commercialisation is not automatically progressive
.3. A government that fears its people is a very dangerous animal indeed. Accountability, transparency and due process are key. Fear is not a good driver for progress.
4. You seem to place alot of faith in truth. Whos truth? Knowledge is not absolute, we can all disagree on almost any subject. and almost all facts today have displaced incorrect "facts" (lies, misunderstandings, deceptions,mistakes, superstition,half truths, complete nonsense,prejudice, as well as ideas which have outlived their usefulness ) believed to be true in the past. This is an ongoing process and a large part of human knowledge could still contain such bile , and indeed we are still adding such inaccuracies to the body of human "knowledge" today.
A far better marker for progress and human endeavour is quality.
5. If you want to know the truth, become a Buddhist, and release all emotional attachment to everything you believe to be true.
griffin tucker 10+
what i am suggesting is making anyone's life in the slave trade a better quality life in what you would call human dignity (but this is also relative,) not necessarily through force, but more-so through co-operation from governments to all ties in the slave trade industry.
the cost of sticking to principles regarding inacceptable slavery is that those in charge of slavery have the ability of knowing 'too much' that could be used against anyone who opposes their beliefs of their industry. J E Hoover was more powerful than the president at the time of his leadership of the federal bereau of investigation, because simply he knew 'too much' - ie. he had dirt on everyone, and could use it against anyone.
it wouldn't happen over-night, of course, but unless the governments co-operate sooner, rather than later, the government will fear these kinds of leaders of the slave trade, and it will continue to go on for future generations to come due to fear of truth from those who have it. truth is also relative in this context; it's not what is true, but what you can 'prove.'
for some people, industrialisation and commercialisation is not what they would call having a high quality life, but for some, it is. it just happens to be that for those who it is true for are in power. i don't see a sudden change of this occuring, not even for many generations to come. a gradual change where truth is relevant, though, is something else entirely.
steve edwards
griffin tucker 10+
those in power of the original country they are fleeing will try to stop them from moving away, because it means chaos for their country.
the reason wars are started is to help prevent a future influx of displaced people, by making their quality of life better where they are currently situated, there-by removing some of the number of the displaced people.
when people fight for their power, and not their people, is when it gets messy.
Christophe Cop 500+
As for illegal drugs, I often ponder how it can be made legal, and how it could be integrated in a way that follows the path of least harm and most liberty. ( I follow a lot of your arguments I guess)
- Taxing the products can be an advantage, as it allows for the calculation of the costs to society... hence users would repay the hazard.
- I would consider it on drug by drug basis: as the effects and possible harm are different from each other, different measures might be apt.
- Maybe some form of limited and/or registered access can be arranged: the use will be registered, as to see what the effects on society are and on the persons taking the drugs. Meaning users will not be punished, but observed. So one can think about restricting consumption.
- Making drugs legal gets dealers out of illegality, so they too can be taxed...
- It might enhance the quality of the drugs, making them less harmful (as they don't get polluted by other toxins)
Corruption...
I don't think corruption is a good thing by definition... so maybe you can elaborate on that a bit.
I'm thinking bribes? legal bribes are called trade, and has enough legislation I guess. Bribes do lead to favoritism, which is not good for civil services or other egalitarian rights.
Corruption in politics/law making:
I think governmental decisions may not be made for personal gain, so I'm quite opposed to the idea.
I'd rather have more transparency, so we can all see how the money flows, decisions are made, and law gets executed.
griffin tucker 10+
on the other hand, if the drugs were of higher quality than what could be made without government help, this could balance out the incentive.
i agree completely that different drugs should be considered seperately, but as a whole, all drugs should be considered. with enough education and resources to manage low/high/dangerous amounts of use. currently there are resources to manage addictions, but they are not nearly as resourceful as they need to be in order to curb dangerous usage.
there are many drug users who would not be willing to be registered from fear of being labelled, or perhaps other reasons, so, education that shows that any drug user can still make a contribution to society is crucial to help motivate people to become registered.
being observed may not be what some drug users want, but if they had the option to be observed on an occasional basis, and perhaps more often for when new users start, it would be more effective than it is today.
simply dealing drugs as a taxable income is not enough. if one were to choose a career of dealing drugs, one would also have the responsibility of making sure dangerous usage does not occur. if dangerous usage does occur, it would need to be reported, formally or informally.
the term 'corruption' that i used was in quotes, and it was my intention to infer officials in the sense of people who turn the blind eye by causes of fear or blackmail, illegal bribery, or for whatever reason, did not report activity. if it were regulated, i believe most, if not all of the reasons for turning the blind eye would be taken away.
transparancy is good, but only as a gradual process or else it could end up doing more harm than good.
Julie Ann 10+
griffin tucker 10+
being acceptable is relative.
right now, it is not acceptable, yet still goes on, so i suggest making it not necessarily acceptable, but legal in a sense that it is controlled in a way that causes much less damage to the fabric of society, until a time when future generations have managed to curb the epidemic in a way that truly is acceptable.
without doing something now, it will continue to happen for future generations to come, will it not?
Julie Ann 10+
griffin tucker 10+
under controlled conditions, new users would be able to seek help much more effectively and earlier if they experienced ill-affects, and would be able to return to contributing to society much sooner.
i believe the drug abuse rate would drop, and the employment rate would rise.
perhaps as in some parts of the world where small amounts of certain drugs are legal as Tim blackburn suggested, the employment rate is higher?
Tim blackburn 30+
griffin tucker 10+
drug use won't stop, so simply put, make it _completely_ legal, but under controlled conditions to help identify those who abuse _any_ drug, and therefore make it easier to help those who abuse a drug.
the only way this would work would be through controlling conditions for drug users. some can handle a lot, some can't handle much or any at all, and it is the latter that would be identified for help, and would then be able to contribute to society again once they have learnt to manage their use.
drug use is only an example though.
what about other widespread things that still happen every day that are considered crimes?
considering that we could be entering an age of truth, where just about everything will be known through technology eventually, i don't see any other way of dealing with such things.
Vivek Trivedi 10+
griffin tucker 10+
Simply put: The quote is about control through fear.
If I were to use another method of interpreting the quote - I could say that you could read right through it and realise that it's just a quote. I believe it implies fear, by means of convincing the reader/hearer to not realise they are under control by means of sudden shock, however small that shock may seem, and forgetting the fact that it's just a quote and only remembering the meaning.
I can use a similar analogy, by means of magic. Consider someone who comes from a small village of no technology and doesn't know how a computer works and has never seen one before, they would assume it is magic. They may even be taught how to use one and still believe it is simply magic nonetheless. If this very same person was taught how the mechanics works and perhaps basic physics, then they would then realise that it is not in fact magic that makes the computer work, but in fact a complex group of parts and electricity. No more magic.
Considering this person were to go back to his home village and show them the computer, his fellow villagers would instantly believe it is simply magic that makes the computer work, but the very same knowledge that the person who ventured out and got the computer could teach the rest of the villagers how it worked, and then, perhaps, some of the villagers would be in doubt of what magic really is, since there could be an explanation for anything that refers to magic.
The head villager's power would then be in jeapordy, but, still letting the head villager be leader would lead to less chaos.
Helen Hupe 30+
griffin tucker 10+
with a government that truthfully responds to the public's demands for justice, i believe a precedent can be set for simply being honest.
my example means that drug lords would still have their current conditions as they are, but they are simply converting to a multiple-faceted shift in how they work with the government.
transission to such a phase should be treated with ultimate care and planning on both sides with constructional debate. there are a lot of people involved on both sides.
i suggest the transission should occur in several phases, if either party is unsatisfied with the result of a phase, a reversion should take place to the previous phase, until all parties involved are satisfied with the modified next phase.
a slow transission, nonetheless, but a possible one in my belief.
Helen Hupe 30+
griffin tucker 10+
or, if you would prefer, feed the flame a different fuel so that it burns differently.
the idea is to not simply go straight after the major drug lords, but instead work with them in a way that they would appreciate - which of course money is a major factor. why? because i don't see major drug dealers giving up their lifestyles, in fact, more-so that i see them fighting to protect it.
my suggestion is to let them keep their lifestyles, but without major ramifications on the easily influenced. i am thinking now that a level of control would still be needed for truth dispersement, or, atleast, a way of teaching the truth that would not effect the masses too negatively by means of collaboration with 'corrupt' officials, 'innocent' officials, and organised crime leaders.
considering that such movements as wikileaks, the cybernetic industry, and hacking computers for information to be published won't stop, but instead be pushed further underground if not dealt with sooner, rather than later, chaos could ensue when un-controlled levels of information are made easily accessible.
if you can't stop a bomb from exploding, control the explosion.
Helen Hupe 30+
griffin tucker 10+
i do however, see a possibility of truth, where everything is known, but the world continues as norrmal as it is, but changes are made - albeit slowly, but surely.
basically it's re-focusing major drug dealers options to be more clear in terms of how their local area can be changed in a more positive light.
major drug dealers aren't dumb, or else they wouldn't have got to the position they are in without being caught. in fact, they continue to go on today dealing drugs without being caught.
money is in fact a major interest for drug dealers, but, if you were to seriously ask a major drug dealer what they were interested in changing in a positive light, as long as their current status wouldn't change, i think they would be interested in sharing their ideas.
Helen Hupe 30+
griffin tucker 10+
if you could take the viewpoint of someone who continues to use what is now called illegal drugs, and is happy to do so for the rest of their lives, then perhaps you would understand why illegal drugs continue to be sold.
i can use a similar example - caffeine. caffeine is in coffee, tea, chocolate, and many other foods and beverages. it is a drug, only it is legal. alcohol is another example.
some people choose not to drink alcohol at all, even fewer people choose not to have caffeine.
many, many drugs are widely available and legal. some people need them, some people want them, some people abuse them.
what i'm suggesting is that drug use becomes even more controlled, with freedom for anyone to take, and of course legal.
people who use too much of any drug would be more willing to seek help for controlling their drug usage because the threat of fear of being arrested or labelled as an outcast would be gone..more people would be unafraid to take up a drug, the outcome for the major drug dealers would be very much close to the same profit, because new drug takers would balance out the outcome of reducing drug abusers.
with more official education on the topic of any particular drug and it's affects, management of any drug could be controlled for day-to-day lifestyles of people still contributing to society, therefore, the unemployment rate would drop.
as long as there is enough truth and education about what the real affects are, without imposing fear through the law, i believe it could work more effectively than it does today.
i, for one, don't think i can manage to handle the affects of marijuana, but i think i can handle coffee, although it is still possible for anyone to abuse any drug.
if there were more awareness about how some people can handle different drugs, what is now illegal and what is legal, i believe the future for what is already going to be truth-filled, would change to be more positive.
Helen Hupe 30+