Tuesday 26 March 2013

A critique to moderation

In the current days, we are bombarded with opinions coming from a vast ideological spectrum, some backed up by tradition, others by morality and even some from empirical or rational constructions. What to believe in? How should society be organized? - These are questions that have hunted our thought for millennia. How to answer them properly according to our zeitgeist? With moderation.

From the great professor that History is, we have learned in school that such "extremist" regimes like authoritarian communism and fascism (hardcore collectivist systems in general) lead to social distopias and torment our liberty. That said, and we rapidly form an antithesis from this reality in our minds, as a response to the pursuit of the best society possible, given the resources.

Curiously, (or not) 60 years into postmodernity, and all the western world is submerged in a form of softcore collectivism. The slight variations among western nations include democratic socialism or the more conservative christian democracy. You won't find a third one. Human rights (the ones declared by the UN at the beginning of postmodernity) are the imperative values of all western political, social and economic thought. Yet, the wide majority of people I come across, answer me to the political/social/economic ideological question with the lovely label of Moderation. But what is moderation?

Moderation may be formally defined as non-extremist or non-excessive action, being within reasonable limits... Yet I categorically disagree with this definition. Why? Because I advocate that even moderation is extremism in itself. I'm not looking forward to get an argument on semantics but rather on reason.

So, to begin the defence of my thesis, I start by questioning the inevitable: What is extremism? Here the definitions fall short, and are clearly redundant. To define extremism, you must define extremes, and to define extremes you must draw limits to the spectrum and obviously create a centered interval where moderation fits. But is our thought limited or infinite? Can we draw such lines? I think not. 

Everytime we look back in time and study history we only see the limits of our thought expanding in an objective perspective. So moderation must be what the democratic majority believes, like a statistical mean associated with an interval defined by a constant multiplying by the standard deviation. But what value does that constant hold? Ceasing the questioning for a bit, I want to claim it very clearly why moderation is also extremism. Because to believe or hold any ideological perspective is ultimately to embrace that methodology to a practical end. And who doesn't have an ideology? Even believing in nothing is an ideology in itself, even being subjectivist or an ethical utilitarian implies holding that view as an ideology.

To conclude, I deeply believe there is no such human being without ideology. Even if moderation may be considered the present status-quo, it is a clear falacy. It may serve as a convention, a starting point, but never as a logical argument to the ideological discussion. Those who label "extremists" as impractical, illogical and invalid for arguing are the utopian narrow-minded people they so bravely fight against - an enemy in themselves.

Best wishes,
Tiago Águia de Moura

Tuesday 19 March 2013

The Allegory of Ignorance

The Allegory of the Cave,  written by the founder of Western political thinking and one of the pillars of our very own civilization, hailing from the Isles of Greece, "where burning Saphos loved and sung, where grew the arts of war and peace, where Delos rose and Phoebus sprung! 
Eternal summer gilds them yet, but all except  their sun, is set." 
- Lord Byron


The parallels between the famed allegory presented in "The Republic" and the unfortunate cult of ignorance, a world in which your ignorance is as good and as valid as my wisdom, thoughts of impunity and even contempt  for knowledge have become another plague of the narrow minded sheeps longing for the all mighty, all knowing and all wise shepherd to guide them through the perils of life, a life in which they are but delayed corpses  with a breeding function, ah, a pitiful existence? Is it not? If only ignorance  was  only a bliss, it is also a bless.


In the allegory, Plato displays Socrates describing a group of people that have lived their entire lives chained to the wall of a cave, facing a blank wall. Shadows are seen projected on the walls as a result of things passing in front of a fire behind them, the people begin to ascribe forms  to the shadows, while Socrates in the allegory explains that the shadows are as close as the people will ever be, regarding reality and consciousness. He then proceeds to explain that the  philosopher is like a prisoner who has escaped  from the cave, and thus his understanding about the shadows evolves and understands that the shadows on the wall do not make up for reality in any sense, for the philosopher can understand the true form of reality, as   opposed to the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.


This very concept is as true today as it was in 380 BC, no amount of technological advance can overrule some of the most basic premises/conditions/limitations/commodity of human nature throughout the ages, Plato believed that the world needed to be apprehended intellectually, one might "cowardly" argument that not everyone has the "need" or the "capacity" for such feat, the subjectiveness of intellectuality is used as the clementia for the scarcity of our intellectual zeitgeist, fed by every imaginable form that diffuses ideology ,  from all the media, adding to that the entertainment industry of all kind and the  political system that rewards the "bless/bliss" of citizen apathy, we  are taught to execute and not to think, thinking has become  a very perilous,  and rare, phenomenon in this world, "ideas are more dangerous than guns", even a psychopath had the  lucidity to recognize such base truth.

The need of reason and philosophy to understand the world is, however, something that I personally reserve as a bene placito, the Inquisition has  long passed and inquisition of thought is not the aim  of  this humble, and rhetoric, is  to bring thought towards idle mind. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.

In conclusion, we need a new Renaissance, we need to develop taste towards knowledge and wisdom, these positive traits beget love, compassion, solidarity, and above all, individual  , free,  uncorrupted thought towards the improvement of oneself and the improvement  of all, following our own path alone  casting  away the peer pressure and social control of preying, jealous and insecure eyes, afraid of  difference, afraid of individuality and still cloaked in the very same shadows described by Plato, the  sun will dawn once again and a new era will arrive, whether it will be on this very same  aeon, or it  will remain the utopian dream of a new wave of the agitators of thought, it depends on you, yes, yourself, so put those thousands of atoms and stardust to work and think for yourself.

“War is peace. 
Freedom is slavery. 
Ignorance is strength.” 
- George Orwell, 1984


Thursday 7 March 2013

MONOPOLY - the XXI century update

Here we got MONOPOLY, one of the amazing games of our childhood. The board, the cash, the houses and hotels, the cards and those rainy Saturday evenings. It is an amazing game, lightly simulating the issues of property and "free market" until the day it all changed.

----

MONOPOLY, the board game, keeps being fabulous in uniting families and friends for 4 hour long games, yet the version of MONOPOLY applied to society has been a completely different one.
Now imagine, that you and 7 friends of yours gather around the table to play some MONOPOLY. However, now the game is different. Mr. Lovejoy gets to the table and he asks you if he can play. "No Lovejoy, the table is full." - to this he quickly answers - "Don't worry, I'm not here to play, I'm here to rule.". Everyone takes a laugh on him and Lovejoy calls a friend to the room. "So... this is my friend Marcus Brutus, he's here to kick your ass if you don't do what I say."

All the players were terrified by the 7 feet (2.1m) tall, incredibly muscled Marcus Brutus, and quickly agreed with his leadership. "Now lets play" - Lovejoy said - "I must warn you, my people, that I have some modifications to add to the original game:"

     "1: Every commercial transaction will be taxed 25%. So if you buy, sell, pay a rent, or trade some property, I shall have a quarter of that value."
     "2: Any time you pass in the starting square and get the money, I shall have 50% of that income, 80% if you are the richest player the poorest player will receive all the money collected."
    "3: The railroads and utilities like the electricity and the water, are hereby nationalized. If any of you gets in these squares, I will interpret that as a threat to the public good on trying to make a greedy profit out of such vital goods. You'll have to pay as a fine the full property price, and go to jail for 5 turns."
     "4: If you want to build on property you need to ask me for a permit and pay me an extra 10% commission of the value of the construction. In case the worst off player gets in your property he shall not pay a cent for the rent, neither you the owner shall receive anything, since you're helping the disadvantaged."
     "5: The chance and community chest cards will have 2 roles. If you have to pay something, you'll pay it to me. If you have money to receive, you'll get it from me but it will be taxed 25%, that will be given to the less wealthy of you in equal shares."
     "6: Finally, every hour of gameplay, you'll have to pay me 10% over all your property as a property tax (20% if you are the richest player and 0% if you are the poorest), you are not allowed to take longer than a minute after the hour to pay this amount."

"There we go, these are my laws that will work for the public interest, I provide you with security and a safety net, you pay a fair share in return... Now lets play. Oh, wait! If you disobey by any means to any of these commands, here Mr. Brutus will get you to the dentist and nationalize all your property. Good luck!"

----

So, I guess you should really try this with your friends and see the results...

Monday 4 March 2013

Ad Initio

One must introduce oneself, to the minimum, one must introduce the self that one wishes to show.
My associate and I have established different subjects to write about, while he will focus more on economic matters and the associated fallacies of society, I will do my best to dismantle the "beautiful lies" of our post modern conjuncture and the void it has attached to it, I also accept requests regarding subjects that grasp my interest, you are welcomed and encouraged to make suggestions by any means you deem fit,  you can also expect  political and philosophical reflections, often based in the work of many great minds from Ancient Greece to this day.

First impressions are one of the simplest forms of human unconscious arrogance, in truth, they are no  more than reflections of badly structured and inconsistent ideas that inhabit our mind. The absence of knowledge that pollutes our society has healing proprieties, we find comfort  in not knowing for it brings a curse larger than the bliss of ignorance.

It is this I intend to fight, but not alone, this small corner of the internet will serve as the receptacle for yet another string of thoughts. The very characteristics of this age fill the collective emptiness of a civilization, lost in the aeons of time filled with discovery and progress, swimming against the tide in the middle of a storm is an unholy and undeserved mission for even the most brilliant of characters, but audere est facere, to dare is to do.

The antithesis to our spiritual Zeitgeist has been spread in such a profuse way that unity is a  dim image of the past collective spirit of mankind, we are  left with shards of thoughts that have  diluted in the comfortable sphere of populism, the art of pleasing the masses has hardly changed since the days of Ancient Rome, bread and circus are, in the end, a sure-fire recipe to achieve the end game of another era of ratifying masses.

Technology, information, Internet, the most advanced science in this world, space expeditions, and yet nihil novi sub sole, we are perhaps at one of the most spiritually decadent times of  mankind, even more saddening is the fact that such idea is not accepted or even disputed, the worship of money has set its roots in society and its grip holds herculean strength, the pray holds  no resistance, a rodent caught by a mighty Anaconda, the only difference being the fact the rodent knows what its end will be.

Alea iacta est.

Sunday 3 March 2013

Player and Cheater - a love story in politics and society

I'm starting a new series of stories and tales on the nature of politics and in general, a comic review of the most widely spread social and economic falacies. Naturally, as my ideology sets so, I'm going to be satirizing from the radical liberal perspective. By any means, I do not intend to make a narrow-minded place for haters - disrespectful behaviour will not be allowed - you are all free and welcome to discuss with rationality and temperance. Thank you for kind attention, this is the first one:


Player and Cheater
 
Let us imagine, for some moments, that the real world we live in is now a game and we are players in it... That the Universe has pre programmed rules for the elements within it. Now lets imagine that we are playing that game as we would play any video game nowadays - we can interact with other players, pursue our own ideals and work to be successful and to thrive in this game.

-----------

One day, in a town's daily social life, one of the players was found dead - aparently he was stabbed. The big sharp knife was still in his abdomen and his clothes soaked in blood. Everyone in that town was petrified in shock. How could a human being hurt so badly another fellow man? - was the question that everyone kept asking. The population gathered at the central square of the town and addressed one of the most charismatic and successful players, Mr. Lovejoy - he was called - about the action to take after such dreadful event.
Mr. Lovejoy assured "his people" that everything would be fine as long as he could do something about it, and declared immediately a "War on Murder and All Evils". The next day, he announced to the town a set of measures to combat the new form of crime:

"Given the recent tragic events on our beloved town and to avoid future sequels, I strongly recommend that we should create a group of guards to patrol and protect our streets from wrongdoers." - The people, still in shock and fear, rapidly applauded Mr. Lovejoy's idea. So he kept going - "Moreover, we should create a record of all knifes and blades in our town to identify future criminals, and tightly regulate blacksmiths, so they don't produce counterfeit possible weapons". The applauses kept increasing in magnitude. How could nobody have thought of that before? Such good intentions and such a practical methodology - simply amazing. Everyone sacrificed a bit of their freedom and their money  to increase their security and to improve the common good. This process was repeated until the game got a titanic ammount of utilitarian rules and every new individual action could only be taken after being supervised and approved by a centralized entity.

-----------

This is precisely the dawn of the cheater. Just like some player would pop-up the game terminal and write the cheat code, in this case, he needs consent from the other players. First he conquers the masses by taking advantage of their high militancy on some issue, triggered by some cause. Then, he proposes action on restraining the problem by centralized regulation. Finally he declares and enforces as part of a social contract to accept these "social equalizers" that are imperative to the "common good".

What are the differences then? The player identifies the natural laws, adapts, and lives by them. The cheater is always finding ways to make laws and rules to solve every problem he faces. The player worries about his own choices and how he can make choices even better. The cheater worries about making his choices international. The player is independent. The cheater wants others to depend on him. The player's main purpose is to overcome the game. The cheater's main concern is to transform the game into his game. We all have the player and the cheater inside of our own mind, they may sometimes look alike, but the day to pick the one we will endorse will come.

This game is not so far from reality after all. In our country, region or even city we find the cheaters and the players of the XXI century, the looters and the creators. 
To wrap up I subscribe with the inevitable question: What cheaters do you identify in your society?

The End of the Beginning

The winds of a coming Spring greet once again the fields of Lusitania. Warm Apollo starts getting more and more generous in his daily gifts. Nature interprets these signs as change, each living organism adapts to the come of the new season, a time to thrive in prosperity. 
As March marches in, we get that smile that we know very well, due to the longer days and less absent Sun. But unemployment just got record high. But public debt to GDP is well over 100%. But inflation starts getting a bit of a problem to manage. But there are huge budget cuts to be made to the public sector. What about the poor? What about the children? What about the disadvantaged? What about me? What about everyone else? Where are we going?
Strangely, - or not - Spring hasn't noticed we are in crisis and decided to continue in the positive mood of giving Nature a boost. Why would Spring interrupt her natural cycle so she could be empathic about our zeitgeist?

I guess, she would never abandon her natural order of giving sequence to the seasons of the year, nor would the sun stop rising tomorrow because we are in a dark age of finance. Nature is the result of all the particles and forces in action, not ONE will, but the balanced sum of an almost infinite number of elements. In the same way, so should society be the interactions of all individuals, that rely on each other, rather than the view of unity. There is no collective as a unit, but only as a group. - it was this thought that made me start this blog, as we see often collectives regarded as being an individual. 
That said, and I would like to extend and declare this blog as a place for ideological thought expansion in the radical liberal schools, both philosophical and economic. This is the manifesto for this blog, primarily dedicated to the pursuers of liberty but open to the curious mind that would like to join the discussion.

I finish by returning to the title. "The End of the Beginning" - that in Sir Winston Churchill's rhetoric symbolized the turn in the war against the Axis - to me it means also to be the end of the beginning in this war against Leviathan. Today, Leviathan is slain!