Better than no plan

MONDAY, 16 JANUARY 2023

If a sensation of happiness is not a regular experience in your daily existence, or if a net positive consciousness is not something that characterises your life, some people might come to the conclusion that their daily existence is not worth the effort and the occasional hardship.

If your daily existence is not worth the effort and the occasional hardship, some people would argue that you might as well end your own life. Unless – your life-ending act will do too much harm to people you care about. In such a case, you simply must make the effort to survive and endure the occasional hardship.

If you are religious, you may have other reasons to continue with your life – even if you don’t think it’s worth it. You may believe that it is not your right to end your own life, or that the god you believe in has a plan for your life. That you simply must endure the hardship and the effort until the plan is revealed, or until the time comes for you to do what you were put on earth to do, so to speak.

Sounds bleak (especially for a first piece of text of the year), but this was also the idea behind a piece from a number of years ago: Life is sometimes hard and difficult. Experiencing happiness sometimes balances the hardships and struggles of daily existence. It’s also easy enough to end your own life. If, however, you don’t want to cause more hardship and misery for your loved ones, do what you can to make your life worthwhile. In this way, you may also facilitate your loved ones’ (and even strangers’) efforts to make their lives worthwhile, so that they don’t end their lives making your life more miserable.

In other words: I make myself happy so that my life is worth living, and in doing so I help you to be happy so that your life is also worth living.

Doesn’t always work, but it’s better than going through life with no plan at all.

______________________

Saturday 31 December 2022

I decided to break my own tradition this year and not write a year-end piece.

Normally I feel the need to spell out that the year that’ll be over in a few hours has been good.

I also feel it necessary to say for the record (seeing that this is what this corner of the global information network is: a record of my existence) that I hope the next year will also be good.

Because I have not, as far as I can remember, publicly complained about anything this year, I cannot claim at this late hour that the year has not been good.

And because I’m optimistic by nature, I also find it unnecessary to make it clear for the record that I’m optimistic about next year.

So, because I can’t include these usual statements in my end-of-year piece, about what else can I type words to publish minutes later for people in Argentina and Siberia and Alaska and Durbanville to read?

Nothing.

So, stay positive. Even if it doesn’t always make sense. (Unless, of course, someone wants to kidnap you. In that case, you have to expect the worst and fight like your life depends on it.)

______________________

Two thoughts on China and Taiwan

TUESDAY, 27 DECEMBER 2022

I hope Taiwan can continue to be peaceful, prosperous, and democratic. I also hope that China can continue to be peaceful and prosperous, if not democratic.

I believe Taiwan should be officially recognised for what it has been for over seven decades: an independent country. Nevertheless, China has claims to Taiwan that must be addressed. It is my belief that this is an issue that should be worked out between Taiwan and China. The United States had a legitimate claim to a seat at the China-Taiwan table in 1945, and perhaps for some time thereafter, but that time has passed.

The independence of Taiwan or reunification with China is something that should be worked out between these two countries without interference from anyone else.

THURSDAY, 29 DECEMBER 2022

I don’t think China will attack Taiwan within the next few years – provided the international situation remains more or less as it is now.

Three reasons: 1) A Chinese invasion is the situation that the American Deep State and arms manufacturers desire the most. It would serve the American government’s geopolitical goals and ensure billions of dollars profit for the weapons manufacturers. The Russian military operation in Ukraine also served the American Deep State’s goals, yet Russia went ahead. Why wouldn’t China do the same? One reason is because Taiwan has not been bombarding ethnic Chinese people close to the Chinese Mainland but within the borders of Taiwan and destroying their homes. And at least for now, NATO is not building bases in Taiwan and is not training Taiwanese forces for a conflict with China [by December 2023 one can’t be so sure about the factual accuracy of this statement]. 2) A Chinese invasion would lead to serious disruptions for the Chinese economy and civil society. 3) A military invasion is not China’s only option for gaining control over Taiwan. Encirclement, blockades, and economic sanctions could possibly put enough pressure on the Taiwanese government to at least consider Chinese terms for negotiation.

______________________

Everyone can do better

MONDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2022

Everyone has the ability to earn at least one million US dollars per year in ethical and legal ways. This is even more true if you live in a developed, industrialised country and have at least a high school diploma.

If you’re not making at least one million dollars a year ethically and legally, you’re not working hard or smart enough.

Of course, everyone has excuses, but the fact of the matter is, for every excuse you make, someone can stand up from the crowd and say that they were in a similar situation as you – or even worse, with fewer resources at their disposal – and they were able to achieve that type of income. (And, by the way, this wasn’t by winning the lottery either; we’re talking regular annual income.)

If, like most people, you don’t earn at least one million US dollars a year, you have no legs to stand on to criticise someone else who doesn’t either. Just because you make double, or triple, or ten times more money than your neighbour, or your brother, or your cousin, doesn’t mean you have license to criticise them for their failure to make more money. You yourself, after all, fail every year in earning the income that you are capable of!

______________________

Where I find myself on the map of ideas

FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2022

[Result of my investigation: I associate strongly with aspects of Libertarianism, Conservatism, and Liberalism. Further investigation makes it clear that I am a political centrist, and can comfortably describe myself as a supporter of positive nihilism. In terms of religious beliefs, I have known for years that I can most accurately describe myself as ignostic.]

* * *

With the obsession particularly in the West with identity and labels, and groups and ideological tribes, I thought it would be a useful exercise to look at a map of ideas and plant my flag somewhere to say: “This is where I find myself.”

I’ll start with politics. A bit of research confirmed that I am not loyal to any ideology or political tribe. My values do correspond more to principles typical of certain ideologies, if one considers that political philosophies are generally broad, and that there is much debate about what Conservative or Liberal is, or what Left or Right means by the third decade of the twenty-first century.

I am Conservative in the sense that I believe in the value of traditional social institutions such as family, marriage, and educational institutions that teach young people how to think. I am also Conservative because I believe in minimal government intervention in the economy, and because I believe in personal responsibility, and free market capitalism. I am opposed to rapid change in society – revolutions in France in the eighteenth century, revolutions in Russia in the twentieth century, and other examples of rapid change make it clear that reform is likely to lead to less destruction of life and property. Furthermore, I believe in the right of every country to defend itself against hostile action from another state, but I am opposed to war far from your own borders in order to carry out some policy devised behind closed doors. Patriotism and religion also both play an important role in the creation of a stable society, as long as it is perfectly acceptable if you are not patriotic or religious.

Because I believe that personal freedom and equality before the Law are important goals of society, because I believe that the government should play a role in protecting these values, and even in promoting the general welfare of the citizens of a state, I can also be considered a supporter of Liberalism – to an extent.

However, because I go beyond traditional Liberalism and believe that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as it does not harm anyone else, and because I believe that governments should be kept on a short leash when it comes to intervening in the economy and in personal behaviour, I can also be seen as a Libertarian – or a supporter of certain principles of Libertarianism. (Incidentally, Classical Liberalism is seen as the ancestor of modern-day Libertarianism.)

I can also confirm that I am not a Socialist, because I do not believe that means of production such as factories and land should be jointly owned and controlled by the community. I also do not support the creation of a planned economy, whereby the government manages the distribution of resources and services. As I have already mentioned, I also do not believe, like Socialists do, that the government should play a strong role in meeting the needs of the citizens of the state.

As I understand it, I also cannot identify myself with the Social Democrats, although the idea of a welfare state where the government provides for the basic needs of its citizens, such as health care, education, and social security, sounds pleasant enough. Problem is, can you as an individual really be free if you depend on the state for your basic care? How easy is it for the state to withhold certain services and resources because you protest too much about some government policy, or express too much criticism about some government official? How much room is provided for individual freedom and personal responsibility? Honest question. Another thing, as much as I want to claim maximum individual freedom for myself, I must acknowledge that not everyone is equally competent to look after their own welfare.

In terms of political systems, the ideal is a liberal democracy, where the government is elected in regular, free, and fair elections, and where basic rights and freedoms are guaranteed.

Speaking of rights and freedoms: You’d easily think that any decent person would be an advocate of human rights, but there is a difference between positive and negative rights. Negative rights prohibit other people or the government from taking specific actions against the holder of rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and property, and the prohibition of slavery and torture. These rights are called “negative” because they require other people or the state to refrain from doing certain things rather than taking certain actions. Positive rights, on the other hand, provide the holder of rights with a claim against another person or the state for goods, services, or specific treatment. It requires other people or the state to take active steps to provide certain things – therefore they are called “positive” rights. These rights include the right to education, health care, and a reasonable wage for work.

What types of rights do I support? I always thought it sounded noble and generous that everyone has a right to a proper education, health care, and other good things. The question is, how much will it cost to enforce all these positive rights, and who pays for them? Who is appointed to positions of influence over other people and who is placed in control of enormous amounts of money to fulfil these ideals?

A discussion of the management of society would not be complete without a cursory glance at Anarchism. Especially in the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, anarchists campaigned for the abolition of government and the creation of a society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. Anarchists believe that government and other forms of authority are unnecessary and oppressive, and that individuals and communities should be free to make their own decisions and organise themselves without interference. The idea has always appealed to me, but I believe it could only work if society consisted of millions of small communities – with probably nothing more than a few hundred members, and no central or national government. This means the world as we know it today with nations and national histories and symbols will be a thing of the past. Can it work if we start from scratch – if a comet hits the Earth again and the survivors crawl out of their hiding places after a few weeks to rebuild a society from the ground up? Possibly then.

More workable is the idea of political centrism – an ideology whose adherents believe that the best approach to solving social and economic issues is to find a balance between left and right. Political centrists generally support a moderate, pragmatic approach to governance, with a focus on finding common ground and compromises to achieve the best possible result. A balanced approach to the economy is often advocated, with a mix of government regulation and free market principles. Supporters of political centrism typically believe in individual liberty, the protection of human rights, and the rule of law.

In terms of philosophy of life, or understanding of, and outlook on, life, I associate myself quite comfortably with positive nihilism.

Positive nihilism recognises the inherent meaninglessness of life, but instead of falling into despair or finding solace in this state of affairs, positive nihilists seek to create their own meaning and value in life. Positive nihilism is said to involve the rejection of traditional sources of meaning and value, such as established religion and societal norms, and is often associated with a focus on personal freedom and autonomy, as well as a rejection of dogmatic beliefs. The bottom line – for me: Life may be inherently meaningless, but that’s no excuse to waste your time on Earth and create no value in your own life and the lives of other people.

If you ask about religion and faith, my position is between that of the theist – who argues that God exists, and the atheist – who argues that God does not exist. Ignosticism is described as a philosophical position which holds that the concept of “God” is so ill-defined and vague that it is impossible to say whether God exists or not, and that rational inquiry or debate is therefore not possible. As such, ignostics do not take a stand on the existence or non-existence of God. Ignosticism is often seen as a form of agnosticism, as both philosophies reject the possibility of knowing whether God exists or not. The difference is that agnostics believe that the existence of God is unknowable, while ignostics, as mentioned, argue that the concept of “God” itself is too vague and poorly defined to take the question further.

Another issue that has heated up to a feverish temperature in the last decade or so is that of transgenderism, and specifically the question of how to define “man” and “woman”. In this regard, I believe the following:

1. There are two sexes, male and female. Primary differences include chromosomes and reproductive cells – female bodies have the ability to produce large gametes (egg cells), and male bodies have the ability to produce small gametes (sperm cells).

2. Gender is not blindly assigned to babies after birth but observed in the genitals.

3. No child or adult is born in the wrong body – a “mistake”, so many people believe, that must then be “corrected” with puberty blockers, hormone treatment and operations.

4. In free, liberal democracies, the expression of personality is not limited to gender stereotypes. Frequently cited examples include that girls may prefer short hair and climb trees without identifying as boys, and boys may like playing with dolls without identifying as girls. Grown women can fix motorcycles and pump their muscles, and men can wear make-up and speak in a high voice, without the man or the woman having to identify as the other sex.

Finally, in terms of origin of the universe and life on Earth my mind is open to three possibilities:

First possibility: Giant explosion billions of years ago that eventually led to the formation of planets and stars, and the development of life on at least our planet, but probably on other planets as well.

Second possibility: As in the first possibility, but beings from outer space at one point visited Earth and shared some of their technological know-how with Earthlings.

Third possibility: The reality we perceive with our senses is a computer simulation created by a highly developed society or beings that exist outside the simulation.

As a non-scientist, I’d have to say that the first possibility is more likely to be correct, but who knows?

This then, in sufficient detail but still broadly outlined, is where I currently find myself on the wide landscape of beliefs and political affiliations.

______________________