The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie

It has become my new year eve tradition to watch this fabulous Russian traditional movie since my friend from Russian speaking country introduced it to me!
It's definitely worth off for everyone to watch it because it certainly makes us happier whenever we watch this movie on the new year eve day every year!

I introduced the original "The Irony of Fate" last year. This year, I also would like to show there is "The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie"

This movie was created after the USSR collapsed and the new Russian federal republic was established. Even though the time has passed, and Russia has been transformed, this movie succeeded in taking over the great quality from the original one. is also a wonderful movie which not only entertains us but also philosophically enlighten us with the unique Russian humour and wisdom as same as the original. It's also nice to see the reunion of Zhenya and Nadia when they became elderly. Their heart is still burning young!

Nonetheless, although the second series is very good, it is never able to beat the first series! The first series is so legend that we tend to doubt about whether such a legendary entertainment can be ever created again nowadays or a future....
I would love all people to watch the first series of The Irony of Fate: Russian New Year Tradition Movie and then also love to watch The Irony of Fate 2: A Sequel of the famous Russian New Year Tradition Movie. I am not sure if we have got enough time to finish watching both of them because we have already not got much time to catch up welcoming this coming new year...! Hurry up to watch these smashing nice movies!!!


*The following article is that I wrote last year:



This is the movie strongly recommended by my female friend from a Russian speaking country.

According to her, almost all Russian speaking people watch this movie in the night between the new year eve and the new year day. The reason why this movie is popular is that watching this movie before the new year comes makes people really happy, content, pleased, and entertained, and happily welcome the new year.

This movie is a love romance movie which contains Russian humours. Russian humours are quite unique. We see the humours from experiencing a little bit of pains in a funny incidence. Russian people seem to know how to laugh at unexpected incidences with some pains. We can see a strong pleasing humour from their natural ability to overcome any unexpected incidence and always expect a better outcome afterward by making fun of it instead of remaining the pain hurting them.

This also involves a secret rhetoric to criticise the extravagant USSR administration by using an example of their housing development plan. The great ability of Russian film makers is that they produced a love romance movie which does not look like harshly criticing the USSR administration. They simply made a fun of the negative influence of the administration in the Russian humours! The USSR government official would have never felt being criticised at all, and they would have simply enjoyed seeing the funny humour and unique charming personalities of the characters in this story!

This love romance is so diffrent from cheesy movies which always show provocative sex scenes in order to attract mobs to watch. This Russian movie is a traditional love romance which shows having experiencing dilemas and struggles to acquire a loving relationship with each other. Unlike the films shown nowadays, this Russian movie expresses the complicated feelings these young adults face, and how this complication developed their romantic mood. The story in this movie takes place in the contemporary time when majority of young adults still had a naive attitude toward loving relationship. This story may make young adults, and even teenagers, nowadays think these young adults in this story are too naive and jevenile. Nowadays, the romance these characters in this story experience seems to no longer exist so that some young generations may find difficult or even impossible to understand the meaning of the love of these characters in this story. However, I am happy to introduce these young generations to watch this movie as well.

This is educational to learn that openness of sexual relationship and having a big love romance are different from each other. At the contemporary period, people might not have been to flexible to express their emortion to each other unlike nowadays. These contemporary people have struggles in expressing their emortions and then suffer from dilema and regrets more than those nowadays. I do not mean the feeling and attitude toward love nowadays is faded. In fact, I embrace the flexibility and openness of expressing love, by means of physically and mentally, nowadays, and detest the reluctancy on expressing love in the old days. Nevertheless, the feeling of romance becomes bigger when the obstacle of expressing and/or obtaining love becomes bigger. Therefore, in this movie, we can discover the love romance which grows in the sorrow, the struggle, and the achievement after overcoming the reluctancy and the obstacle in the old day men&women relationship!!


Well, I hope everyone enjoys watching this video. This is a really good asset of people having lived in the communist Russia period! Click the following link to go to the website to watch "The Irony of Fate"!!

* Russian New Year Tradition Movie:
- The Irony Of Fate
http://video.kylekeeton.com/2008/12/russian-video-new-year-tradition-movie.html





* The image of this picture is from http://darim.info/59870-ironiya-sudby-ili-s-legkim-parom-saundtreki.html.

Environmentalism is based on Marxism which is the new Communism!

First of all, the environmental cost can be accountable without the tax system and the government censorship. As long as citizens have a voice to reflect their opinion, they are able to claim for the compensation when their living environment is threatened to be polluted. Therefore, the cost of capitalists is too high to build these highly pollutant electric plants. The problem of pollution by these electric power plants often occurs in non-capitalist countries such as immature LDCs and state socialist countries where free trade is discouraged. We must remember that, in many countries which follow capitalism, there are many citizens protesting against the renewable power plants because they are pollutant. They do not protest because of their short term profit; they protest for their living environment. Capitalism regards highly of not only about the interests of capitalists but also the citizens' liberty and right such as property right, freedom of choice, and free trade. When you recommend introducing more renewable power plants under the name of environmental protection, this certainly kills the great admirable characteristics and quality of capitalism!

---

We must be warned of the fact that Environmentalism is based on Marxism, and therefore Environmentalism is the new form of Communism. The remarkable characteristics is that Environmentalism applies the Surplus-Value theory to environment instead of proletariat. Both environmentalism and communism regard that the engine of capitalism is exploiting the high supply of these exploitable substances. However, these ideologies based on Marxism involves a critical misunderstanding of market mechanism (Capitalism).

Capitalism (that is what they call as the antithesis of their own theory) regards highly of "Property Right" based on the "Equity". When proletariat are exploited enough, their purchasing power goes down, and then the entire market stagnate so that bourgeoisie make a loss as well. Furthermore, proletariat also reject working under an exploiting wage (Decline in the supply, the real wage goes up).

When environments are exploited enough, it eventually causes either the extinction of them (Decline in the supply, the real cost goes up) or protests from the property owners as long as they are capitalist minded. Capitalism actually improved both commoners' freedom of choice and the environmental protection under the property right and the equity law.

Pre-capitalist world was much more exploiting environments because they could forcibly extract the natural resource without any equitable contract. When we learn history, we know that the amount of forests disappeared was really big in Feudalism which cannot compared with capitalism.

In addition, the irony of socialist states (What communists achieved to establish (Communist states have never accomplished yet and will never)) is that, even though they promised to protect proletariat's living standard under the collective planning, they exploited these proletariat more than capitalism does.

I predict that, because Environmentalism is plotting to install the collective economy to control usage of environment, abolition of individual freedom choice and property right under the equity will definitely cause the unintentional environmental destruction like those seen in the former ex-Communists' socialist states.

The political actions based on any hypocritical motivation controlling economy is dangerous. The best way to protect the environment is to let individual property owners (All of us are entitled to have a property any way under Classical-Liberalsm=Capitalism) have a freedom of choice and property rights, and trade each other under the agreeable and equitable value. The free market mechanism based on the law of gravity naturally adjust the distribution and the resource reserve to the optimum level.


-----
* Note about Renewable energy power plants:

The renewables are not only cost inefficient but also very pollutant. The process to build both wind firm and solar panel excretes a very high pollutant. The worst energy source is the window firm. The silent noise wave from it reaches very far away to cause the mental disease of people living within its noise pollution radius. Solar panel requires very high maintenance cost to keep the panel not damaged. Both of these renewables cannot supply the electric supply at a stable pace. Both Wind Firm and Solar Panel also exploit huge land mass, and destroy not only the scenery but also plants and animal living there. As a total, in terms of both the pollution and the efficient and stable electric supply, thermal electric power plants are still rather relatively environmentally friendly.

* Solar Power:
The problem of solar power is that it dramatically goes down when it passes through the atmospheric layer surrounding the earth. So, when it reaches to the earth the power concentration is very low and never enough to improve the efficiency of absorbing the electric power. Therefore, the huge land mass is still required so that the maintenance cost per mirror and the inspection cost per hour are always very expensive. Also, due to this fact, solar power assisted vehicles will not be evolved more than a small scale usage. If we really want to use the solar power as an alternative electric power supplier, we should consider inventing the microwave power plant, which directly transfer the solar power electricity received by the solar panels launched into the orbit from the outer space to inside the atmosphere. This technology is still not yet put into practice, but taken into the consideration. This method at least does not waste the precious resources, land mass, and maintenance cost and time as much as the solar panels on the ground in the atmosphere. Although receiving from the outer space to transfer to the ground as the microwave still involves a risk of missing the target which the microwave reaches at, its efficiency of supply electric power is tremendously higher than receiving the solar power in inside the atmosphere.

* Wind farm:
The noise I mentioned was not the hear-able noise: I mentioned about the silent/ignored noise pollution. You know that the noise has vibration? This silent vibration causes the health disfunction such as mental disease. Speaking of the pollution produced for their construction, well they might be able to minimise the pollutant materials used for building these wind farms, but we never know how many R&D is required for how long. While they are tackling with minimising all these external costs and keep replacing the already tested models with the newest models, a ton of resources, the replacement costs, and the time consumed on the project can be wasted. Before inventing the newest semi-perfect environmentally friendly wind farms, they may run out all the natural resources, causes so many times of replacements and new constructions which create the air and land pollution, and increase the victim of the silent/ignored noise pollution. The wind firm is the least efficient way of electric supply. Just building 1 square kilometre thermal power plant in a remote area is far more efficient and environmentally friendly than building several square kilometres of a bunch of eyesore wind farms.

All in all, at least, I am against the renewable as the "primary" electric supplier. Well, I don't mind as the auxiliary.

Critique of Rawlsian (Kantian) Rational Secularism

The problem of Rawlsian rational secularism is that it has been existing only for a few centuries meanwhile the other big religions I mentioned have been existing for millenniums. So, even though Rawls puts emphasis on the neutrality and the rational logic of his rational secularism, it cannot defeat the wisdom and the emotional and spiritual inspiration of these big traditional religions. Furthermore, his neutrality is questionable because how can we determine what is neutral? Then, we can see that Rawls has failed into the trap of the moral universalists' hypocrisy. Even though Rawls promotes the pluralism, his pluralism only exists under the dominance of his rational secularism, the Godless monotheism. I would rather support his disagreeing Modus-Vivendi state where none determines which religion (including the modern secularism) is the mainstream.

Unlike Rawls, I support the state of Modus Vivendi in which various believes are still confronting each other but having stopped fighting together. In Modus-Vivendi, there are two or a few more big religions are competing each other for the religious dominance. This method creates an oligopoly of religious believes rather than the monopoly by one. Thus, these groups eventually improve their belief system in order to attract more followers to join. This Modus-Vivendi situation also prevents cults which are the small religious groups. As the competition among big religious groups is already intense enough to prevent the new entrant of these cults into the market of religion, then cults will be eventually expelled out.

British Industrialisation and the development of the rest of Europe were successful due to this Modus-Vivendi state which Rawls criticised. The competition among various few big religious groups encouraged the intellectual, mental, and spiritual growth in these areas in Europe from 16th century to 19th century. I highly condemn the rise in the intense modern Western secularism in 20th century which monopolised the belief system in our world. The modern secularism should prevail if it is demanded, but it should not monopolise individuals' belief.

I believe the moral is relative across different time. place, and occasion. So, if the culture code of a civilisation requires secularism to be a secularism, then the public sphere shall be secular. The separation of Church and state is not mandate: this is the choice for a particular civilisation. So, some civilisations at a certain time period adapt (Roman or Anglo) Catholicism, Orthodox, Judaism, or Calvin or Luther Protestant as a mainstream public belief. These religions provide individual citizens with a moderate and civil religious codes.

My admiring Max Stirner, the father of individual anarchism, highly criticised (Modern Western) Secularism as a form of Monotheism. So, he warned on the danger of the modern secularism dictating individuals' belief.



Emancipation from the veil of ignorance is impossible because we human-beings are constantly suffering from ignorance. In addition, we have never known what is an ultimate right choice in our life. So then, the freedom of choice prevails. Freedom of choice gives us the chance to try finding the right way of life depending on the situation given in different time, place, and occasion. Rawlsian way of life is too restrictive to trust individuals' decision.

Rawls also ignores how individuals are motivated to live. We do not live to pursue the ultimate universal truth; We live for our reason to become happy. Regardless of the expected outcomes, we live with our own reason. Rawls is sceptical about reasons because reasons can be biased by our own subjective prejudice. But, we do neither have enough time to research about the ultimate truth nor want anyone to teach what is the absolute necessity we should pursue in our life. The world is constantly changing so that the effort of our ability is too slow to catch up with chasing the absolute truth. Hence, the ignorance always constantly haunting us.

"The owner and management" and "the workers (Human-Capital)" create wealth within a firm: Government is irrelevant!

"The owner and management" + "The workers" + "The exogenous factors" create wealth within a firm.

--

The exogenous factors can be divided into the two categories, the demand effects and the supply effects.

The demand side: The business cycle (Recovery/Boom & Recession/Depression), the fashion, and the geographic advantage of trade.

The supply side: The weather, the efficiency of supply chains, and discovery of the resource.

--

The owner and management is reliable on the final decision making, human resource, the responsibility, and the value of the share (It is determined by not only the company's performance but also the personality of the leaders in it)

The Workers are considered not only as the labour force but also as the human capital. The human capital development is an important factor of production severely affecting the firm's performance. It is not only for the supply side but also the demand side (Consumers' and investors preference due to the quality of the workers' personality, commitment, and good contingency effects to their community) and Thus, the investment to the workers is highly required to increase the revenue.

--

On the other hand, the government action and regulation do not have a big effect on the productivity and the value of the firms' wealth. Taxes can repress the consumers' and producers' activity whereas subsidies can aid their activity. But, these actions hardly divert the trend or the supply line.

Tax: Someone will find a substitute if the demand is elastic to the price change, or still keep consuming if the demand is inelastic to the price change. In a healthy capitalist economy, the suppliers will eventually find out the way to reduce the cost to compensate for the tax imposed as their extra cost on their production.

Subsidy: This does not take an account of the long term sustainability. It may give a temporary rise in both the consumer surplus and the supply efficiency. The supply side become excessively dependent on the public supports (Even the PFI is criticised as the cause of the huge damage on the public finance). The demand side will face the inflation which consequently increase their real cost of their goods&services!

In addition, subsidising to one specific good/service will depreciate the demand of the substitutes, and then depreciate the competition as well.

The inflation occurs because the supply efficiency (E.g. Supply-chain management, Resource management, and the technological improvement) itself is not improved. If the demand is continuously growing, the cost before subsidised will be going up rapidly so that the cost for this subsidies (I.e. taxing from others and/or the debts) incurred will increase exponentially. Furthermore, it causes the excess of usage of goods&services, which induces the inflation. If there is a frustrated demand, then the lack of supply is usually caused by the lack of competition of the suppliers in the market. Until either the supply efficiency or goods&services is improved or another competitor comes into the market to increase the supply, the price should not artificially controlled. Otherwise, the unnatural market condition results in the imbalance of the demand and the supply, which is the cause of the inflation.

Regulation: Unless a business is harmful to one individual and/or a group of individuals and/or something becomes excess, regulation hardly affect either demand or supply of businesses. Of course, regulation is important to enable individuals to gain the knowledge about the potential risk incurred on a particular good/service. Therefore, regulations have a significant effect on their decision making process. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to control the quantity of goods&services demanded and supplied as long as these consumers are willing to purchase and the producers are willing to produce. They always tend to try to find the substitutes and/or find another way to produce and consume which these regulations do not regulate. Financial market is the most intensively regulated one among all the market existing. However, its activities have never stopped expanding further even to cause the excess and the macroeconmic instabilities. All in all, regulations are needed in order to enable individuals to be aware of the potentially involved risk in the businesses, but it hardly stops individuals involving into these businesses as long as they are still willing to participate even after being aware of.

The EU, Still Far-away from the peace

I agree that the ideal of the European Union (EU) fits in with what the Nobel Peace Prize regards highly of. But, unless the EU unifies their fiscal policy by relinquishing the national governmental authorities among these EU countries, it is still too early to give the EU the Nobel Peace Prize.


The aftermath of WW1 caused European citizens to think of the European unification. The alliance countries force all the Central-Power countries to take their immense responsibility their ability cannot afford to bear the responsibility at the end of WW1. This resulted in the rise of ultra-nationalism in the former Central-Power countries in order to forcibly default their immense national debts. Even though some might argue that the main cause of the European integration was the loss of all empires, this fiscal havoc as an aftermath of WW1 was an extremely significant cause of the motivation in the European integration.

Polish still detest their past of being occupied by both Germany and Russia. But, because Germany is neither imperialistic nor oppressive nowadays, Polish started to think they are more co-habitable due to the successful political integration.

Nonetheless, I am still worried about the fiscal fragment and the nationalistic rigid labour market of these EU countries. Unless they start tacking with establishing the collective responsibility among these EU countries, the similar fiscal havoc at the end of WW1 might take place soon... Furthermore, the EU really needs to stimulate deregulation of their national labour market. The labour market has to be flexible as much as at the level of the USA and Asia in order to harmonise their business cycles together.

1+1=1, 1+1=3, and 1+1=2

This problem has been discussed by various ethical philosophers in the Western world from the ancient period to the nowadays. Hobbes explained that the world of words is operated by the totally different function from the world of mathematics and the world of natural science.

In order to make a consistent order, Hobbes claimed, in Leviathan, that we need the legitimate law and order authorised by a legitimate political structure.

Kant said it is our transcendental duty to follow the ethical axiom, as same as following the mathematical axiom, as much as possible (These two groups have to keep repenting themselves).

Aristotle and Ayn Rand were against these two points. The "reality" already explicitly shows 1+1=2, and these two groups in this pic are simply deluded by their unreal illusion. Then, Aristotle and Ayn Rand defied both any autocratic command unlike Hobbes and any abstract principle we cannot see unlike Kant, and so they supported "Laissez-faire (Let us do)", and the right one (The closest to the reality) wins in the nature of reality.

Comparison between English Feudalism and French Feudalism

When I started learning the medieval Western history, I was really surprised that French nobles were disloyal to their king unlike English nobles. English feudalism kept the loyalty of nobles to their monarchy, except the four times (John the land loser (Caused Magna-Carta to be established, and it has become the taboo to name John for English monarchy since his reign), Henry IV (Caused Wars of the Roses), Charles I (Caused the Cromwell revolution) and James II (VII of Scotland, Caused the Glorious Revolution)). By contrast, French monarchy always faced riots, betrayal, and assassination attempts in French feudalism. This characteristics caused Lois XIV to declare his absolute monarchism which extremely centralised French feudalism all the sudden.

The lack of French nobles' loyalty to their monarchy was due to the difference in the feudal property right of their land and the strong explicitly contract between nobles and king by law. In England, all nobles and their lands were entitled to be their king's subjects even though these nobles had a sovereign right to utilise their land and their commoners inhabiting there. This contract agreement has been strictly enforced by the law, which is the basis of British Common Law, since Henry II. Therefore, both the land and the commoners were governed by the dual ownership by both the King and the feudal lords. By contrast, French feudal lords had an ultimate feudal property right which the King was difficult to intervene into. Perhaps, it was because France is a continental country sharing a border with various countries unlike England and the rest of Britain. So, there were various nobles from too many different backgrounds to unify into one.

French claimed that English provoked the 100 years war by English interest. But when we consider the two aspect, it gives us an enough room to argue that English monarchy was hijacked by a French noble faction.

1) The contemporary English monarchy had a strong connection with French nobles (Since Plantagenet dynasty (Henry II, the first Plantagenet obtained Normandy and Anjou by getting married with Eleanor))

2) French monarchy was not strong enough to bind all nobles to obey their monarchy so that the regional conflict between the pro-monarchy side and the anti-monarchy side noble factions frequently took place then.

So, there must be a plot by the Anjou families and their fellow faction member nobles to attempt to conquer the opponents' land inside France by using their relative English monarchy and its factions.

P.S. By the way, I was really annoyed by how Brave Heart (Both the movie and the novel) depicted Philip IV、the French monarchy in Capet dynasty, as a good guy. I really hate Philip IV because he not only forcibly relinquished the Orders of Temple but also liquidated and tortured the Templar members even though the Templar did a tremendously big favour for French monarchy's fiscal administration! Even though he was a good king for majority French because he was strong enough to convince majority of French nobles to loyal to him.

Business and Ethics in 5 Different Cultures

In Business Administration lesson, when we tackle with the cost and benefit analysis (CBA), we tend to assume that all economic agents in this world use the same formula of the CBA to make their business plan. So, we tend to ignore that not all economic agents share the same rationale of their business planning. This CBA formula is based on the utilitarian philosophy which regards highly of maximising the utility which is the total benefits minus the total costs. It takes account of all the costs and benefits accumulated from the time of this business establishment to the present time period (or possibly to the expected ending period).

Nonetheless, when we take a look of our real world, we eventually realise that many economic agents do not exactly follow this business model. Some of them incur the costs more than this CBA suggests. Some of them only focus on minimising the cost rather than maximusing the benefit minus the cost. Some of them even behaves extremely irrational owing to perspective of this CBA rationale.

The ethics basing this CBA introduced in Business Administration is the ethics of Anglo-Saxon and Jewish entrepreneurs. Anglo-Saxon and Jewish ethics has become the dominant mainstream in this world especially in various private economic activities since British Empire started dominating the world economy. The USA took over the world economic domination from Britain. So, Anglo-Saxon culture has been extremely influential. Furthermore, Jewish have been taking a huge part of the world economic activities. So, Jewish philosophy also participated in forming the mainstream ethics of the world economy. All in all, the mainstream world business ethics is based on both Anglo-Saxon and Jewish philosophical characteristics.



When we observe those who behave differently from what the mainstream business ethics suggests, the CBA analysis may eventually regards these economic agents are highly irrational. By contrast, we should realise that their business planning is based on their own different rationale of business ethics. In particular, since Germany became industrially strong, and the USA became highly influenced by her Germanic origins, German business ethics has been a very remarkable characteristics in the world economy. Even though it has not been the top mainstream, it formed one of the unique characteristics in the Western business models. Nowadays, on the top of Germanic influence, Nordic (Scandinavian) nations recently started having a strong influence over the world because of increase in the number of Nordic multinational corporations. We also cannot ignore Romanic culture (Latins and France) because it was dominant before British empire took over the dominance from it. Orthodox culture (Russia, many Eastern European countries, and Greece) is also unavoidable. In addition, some of the non-Western cultures have a strong impact on the world business ethics. Thus, regardless of right and wrong, we must analyse the various CBA analyses offered by the different business ethical models. This essay introduces 5 different influential models.

Moral is relative in Legal Judgement

The "moral" is a big variable affecting the legal justification. But, the moral is highly "relative" in both ethics and legality.

In countries which adapt Civil Law e.g. Continental Europe, Scotland, and almost all non British common wealth countries, the moral influence depends on how the written positive criminal code is interpreted by the professionals.

In the other parts of Britain, Contin
ental Europe, and almost all British Common-Wealth nations, the moral intervention depends on the past case scenario, the ability of lowyers to emphasise, and the current moral trend which juries believe in.

Some customary law, adapted in the United Nation and Paris, France, depends on its "customary moral principle".

The moral also can be really relative across time, place, and occasion. Both legal and moral issues are treated differently in Scotland, the other parts of Britain, Paris, and the other parts of France....

9.11 Condolence

To those who lost their
irreplaceable ones on
11th of September 2001,

I am sending my
enormous condolence....

......Amen!

Game Theory: Your enemy won't allow you to be a friend of his/her enemy

There is a famous proverb, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend". But, it is questionable to regard that all individuals unconditionally behave by means of what this proverb suggests. In order to lead you to this situation, you and the enemy of your enemy has to trust each other very deeply (E.g. You guys are related, already known to each other, and/or guaranteed to gain the mutual benefit and interest together already).

Let's imagine that there are three individuals with the same power and no emotional attachment on the others (All of them are completely anonymous to each other). These individuals are homogeneous in terms of their characteristics. These three individuals are named, A, B, and C accordingly.

When A is in a conflict with both B and C (I.e. B is the enemy of C's enemy A, and also C is the enemy of B's enemy A), A loses in this situation if A accepts this situation and does nothing. Because A has to fight with both B and C at the same time, and B's and C's characteristics is identical to A's, A has a big disadvantage to be alive unless there is an exogenous advantage like a geographic advantage.

The philosophy of "The enemy of your enemy is your friend" looks also irrelevant to B and C to defeat A. Even though B and C do not make an alliance (Becoming a friend of each other), A's loss is inevitable under this situation.

Therefore, A will have to intervene into the relationship between B and C in order to survive in this situation. Then, what Friedrich Nietzsche sounds more striking as being most likely. He said "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy".

Under the situation that both B and C do not cooperate together, A will advice either B or C, or both, to antagonise the other. When B and C are already cooperating together to plot to defeat A, then A will attempt to break up the coalition of B and C until either B or C betrays the other.

So, let's take a look of this following graph:

First of all, it is the least likely option for A not to intervene into B and C because it is a suicidal choice for A as explained previously. Then, B and C suffer from a dilemma to choose whether they corporate together to defeat A or not.

Secondly, B and C can cooperate together, and so reject A's attempt of dissolving their alliance. However, when B or C takes an offer from A and betray his/her ally, this betrayer can not only survive in this battle but also gain A's reward for the betrayal. Then, there is always a suspicion that B or C will be convinced to A's attempt. If B and C are stranger for each other, then B and C are always possible to betray the other. Therefore, B is suspicious about C, and C is suspicious about C.

If B trusts C, and C betrays B, then C gains A's reward, and B is defeated. If C trusts B, and B betrays C, then B gains A's reward, and C is defeated. If both B and C trust each other, and ensure both of them do reject A's offer, they corporate. Nonetheless, if both B and C are anonymous (Neither related to each other nor sharing the mutual benefit and interest guaranteed), trusting their partner involves a high risk of being defeated. Then, both of them eventually accept A's offer plotting them to antagonise each other. This choice is cruel but the safest option for B and C to survive.

All in all, the most likely outcome in this game is that all A, B, and C are fighting altogether. B will betray C, and C will betray C in order to secure their "safest" option to survive. But, it does not mean that both B and C will be friendly with A. Both B and C will eventually realise that the cost of accepting A's reward for betraying their former ally is high. So, they start hating A for making them antagonising each other. Furthermore, B and C do not remain enough power to defeat both A, their old enemy, and their new enemy, their former ally because all of them have to fight with two enemies. Unless there is a shock to provide any of them with an exogenously gained advantage, all of these three individuals keep fighting together until all these three of them cease away by exhaustion.


Hence, "The enemy of your enemy is your friend" is wrong because your enemy won't allow you to be an enemy of his/her enemy, and so "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy" (Friedrich Nietzsche) tends to be correct (realistic?!).

Spain should abolish Bull-Fighting, the unproductive uncivil animal cruelty!!

----------------------- Copied ---------------------------
"This incredible photo marks the end of Matador Torero Alvaro Munera’s career. He collapsed in remorse mid-fight when he realized he was having to prompt this otherwise gentle beast to fight. He went on to become an avid opponent of bullfights. Even grievously wounded by picadors, he did not attack this man.
----------------------- Copied ---------------------------


I almost had a tear running on my face when I watched it. I am sympathetic to this man stopped killing this innocent bull. Spain should end this bad tradition...!

As same as Jeremy Bentham, I claim that "tradition" should always be ready to be repealed as soon as it starts displeasing us rather than pleasing us! Also, as same as Jeremy Bentham was strongly against killing dogs by letting dogs fight ag
ainst each other , I also think that we should not kill animals for entertainment! This kinda bad tradition creates an enormous antipathy, and induces the bad consequence leading people to being uncivilly cruel!

Leviathan, the invisible creature no one can control

In Japan, there is a professor in Economics (and probably Political Philosophy as well), known to be a self-proclaimed Neoliberalist or Libertarian, who said there is not such an individual called corporation. According to his argument, taxing on a corporation only means taxing a group of individuals. Therefore, the weight of the tax called corporation tax is eventually levied on not only the executive members and the managers (Authority/Meritocrats) but also the labourers (Commoners).

I agree with him by means of the fact that the corporation tax cost both Authority/Meritocrats but also Commoners/Labourers. Nonetheless, I disagree with him on contradicting the existence of something called corporation. This Japanese professor must not be familiar with sociology and ethics (political philosophy). When we study sociology and ethics, we eventually know that there is something which exists like an invisible creature. This invisible creature is controlled by neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Commoners/Labourers. It is also neither created nor regulated by Law&Legislation. Nobody can create nor control over this invisible creature, and this invisible creature certainly influences us.

An entrepreneur establishes his/her business, and then employs majority citizens (Commoners) as the labour force. Then, there is the Law&Legislation imposed by the third party such as government, court, and any public institute. When these three factors, "Authority/Meritocrats", "Commoners/Labourers", and "Law&Legislation" interact each other, there are not only those which any of these three can decide and control but also those which nobody can either decide or control. When they form an organisation, an uncontrollable invisible factor is born and starts controlling not only the member of this organisation but also the outsiders.

Let's take a look of this graph:

There are three spheres of "Cannot (Decide not Control)": "Authority/Meritocrats cannot", "Commoners/Labourers cannot", and "Law&Legislation cannot".

The top blue sphere is the area that "Commoners/Labourers cannot" so that both Authority/Meritocrats and Law&Legislation can. This is the area both "Authority/Meritocrats and Law&Legislation influence simultaneously. This area represents the power Law&Legislature gives to Authority/Meritocrats such as economic and status privilege, the right to make a final decision, and how to measure the merit of individuals (Meritocracy).

The bottom left red sphere is the area that "Authority/Meritocrats cannot" so that Commoners/Labourers and Law&Legislation can. This is the area both Commoners/Labourers and Law&Legislation influence simultaneously. This area represents the power Law&Legislature gives to Commoners/Labourers such as Welfare, Labour Regulation, Employment Contract, and Collective Bargaining. This area is very developed in the Western civilisation, and all the modernised/Westernised nations.

The bottom right red sphere is the area that "Law&Legislation cannot" so that Authority/Meritocrats and Commoners/Labourers can. This is the area both Authority/Meritocrats and Commoners/Labourers influence simultaneously. This area represents a set of the unwritten rules. Illegal acts against Law&Legislation states is one of them. It also includes a communal rule which individuals implicitly accepted to exist without making any explicitly written or clarified contract. This area is still influential in the non-Western nation and any isolated communitarian civilisation.


Then, there are three areas where two "Cannot" spheres interact: Neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Commoners/Labourers can i.e. "Law&Legislation can", Neither Commoners/Labourers nor Law&Legislation can can i.e. "Authority/Meritocrats can", and Neither Authority/Meritocrats nor Law&Legislation can i.e. "Commoners/Labourers can". These three "Can" spheres represent the area which at least one of Authority/Meritocrats, Commoners/Labourers, or lawyers/legislators can decide and control.



The middle sphere where these three "Cannot" spheres interact. This sphere represents the area which none of Authority/Meritocrats, Commoners/Labourers, or lawyers/legislators can decide or control. Let's call this area "Point X".

Thomas Hobbes described Point X takes appears when people create their nation. Nation is composed of authorities, a sovereign and aristocracies, commoners, and civil law. Then, when these three components are combined together to form a nation, none becomes totally sovereign enough to be completely free to control not only the others but also themselves. When these three components interact each other, there is an invisible power controlled by nobody. Then, these three have to work for not only their own or the others' interest but also the interest of a whole nation which is called "National Interest". Also, this invisible power influence and form the characteristics of these three components. A nation with this invisible power is called "Leviathan", the mystic enormous monster, in Hobbes' book. Nowadays, Hobbes' Leviathan is also referred to not only nation but also corporation. His theory explains how human-made structure works.

Jean Jack Rousseau also mentioned the "Equity Law" which can be explained as Point X. He described that individuals make their social contract between them when they have to agree or disagree on their exchange in trade and following custom in their culture. He explained that the current environmental circumstances (E.g. Ethnological characteristics, climate, geographic location, time period, available technology, and fashion) highly influence over the Equity Law. Meanwhile, Hobbes explained how human-made structure works, Rousseau described how humans have to take exogenously from their given environment they are currently living in. His Equity Law theory lately interpreted by Adam Smith, the father of economics, to the "Market Mechanism".


Max Weber warned that the bureaucracy holds this invisible force. Someone has said that bureaucracy is only the universal characteristics of all nations, corporations, and any institutes composed of humans.

Bureaucracy is certainly a human-made structure guided by Law&Legislation. But, when bureaucracy is formed, there is also a certain geometry of power which Law&Legislation cannot have influence over. In particular in the Eastern civilisation, the unwritten rule which people implicitly agree or disagree regardless of what their Law&Legislature regulates. Even in the Western nations, Weber claimed that there is a contingent effect of bureaucracy which is not guided by the Law&Legislation. As the structure of bureaucracy is composed of human-beings, there is always some space that humans' emotion can intervene into bureaucracy's decision making process. The human-error also occurs inside this bureaucratic procedure. This is the characteristics whihc Law&Legislation cannot have a full influence over bureaucracy.

Status of individuals is also important to keep the bureaucracy. The characteristics of bureaucracy changes depending on how the human-beings composing it regard and admire the status. Certain individuals can be admired because they are educated or elderly enough to appoint them to be in charge of the bureaucratic system (I.e. Becoming the authority/meritocrats). When majority of individuals (Commoners/Labourers) change their mind to respect the different characteristics to admire (E.g. They no longer admire being educated or elderly, and they start admiring being rich and handsome instead), the structure of bureaucracy drastically changes (Even revolts itself). This is the example that both Authority/Meritocrats (with their merit and status) and Commoners/Labourers (with the power of their number) have some significant influence over bureaucracy though they are also under the influence of the others to be controlled.



All in all, there "is" such an existence called corporation as an invisible institution. Corporation is "Leviathan" of this modern day, and thrives in the market mechanism, the Equity Law. Of course, corporation is invisible, and the tax on corporation is consequently paid by some individuals. Nonetheless, there is a meaning to focus on the "action" of a corporation, the invisible force. Then, taxing on the act of this invisible force can mean something more than taxing directly on individuals' income and expenditure. Hence, the corporation tax implies taxing on the invisible but significantly influencing our living environment; and what the Japanese professor in economic says is contradicted.

Corruption, Contract, Capitalism, and Socialism

One of Capitalism's characteristics I really admire is that Capitalism regards highly of the "contract" based on an objective and visible value such as monetary exchange, physical reward&punishment, and giving a certain status. So, in capitalist system, corruption is not taken for granted to be tolerated without any negative sanction. At least, these corrupted individuals know handling corruption is risky, costly, and evil even though it is necessary for them.

By contrast, under socialism, the means of contracts can be easily biased. Socialism always regards highly of "Society" and "Public interest" which we cannot see or touch. Also it is difficult to clearly define what is society and who are public. So, whenever socialists make a contract, they always mention "For society" and "For public interest" as though all what they do are good for the others i.e. They insist on altruism. Although socialists claim their insisting abstract norms such as society and public interest are the objective value. But, the definition of these abstract norms are highly "subjective" because it is not something visibly existing or affecting us. Therefore, under Socialism, there is a danger that people do not realise the corruption is a corruption. Those who take the action (E.g. Corruption) argue that their certain action (E.g. Corruption) is put into practice for society and based on the public interest.

Liberty is not equal to Freedom

Britain invented the Equity Law, the Bill of Right, and the strong property right legislation, and the U.S.A. created the Constitution. These events occurred to preserve Liberty from the excess freedom.

The fundamental principle must be "Liberty " not " freedom. Allowing freedom of individuals is an unconditional democracy which leads to Communism. The original Communism is a dictatorship by mobs.



Unlike the concept of Liberty, the concept of Freedom allows or attempts to enable individuals to do whatever they wish to do. I introduce you a really interesting site:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
This site article explains that all political ideologies support "freedom" for those who support these ideologies. For example, Communism=Socialism=Marxism aspires to enable proletariat to acquire their freedom by sacrificing the freedom of their enemy classes. Another example is that Nazis' plan was to provide strong Germans with freedom with the expense of weak Germans and non-Alien races.


The primitive U.S.A. temporarily suffered from the quasi Communism. French revolution caused such a bloodshed by freeing mobs all the sudden. Japan has been, and still is, in the tyranny by mobs. In a way. I am really sceptical (almost against) offering personal freedom for all. Thus, Liberty requires a certain level of restriction on freedom.



The concept of Liberty is mainly divided into the two categories in the current political philosophical world; "Comprehensive Liberalism" which I support, and "Political Liberalism" which I am highly sceptical about.

Comprehensive Liberalism regards that Personal Liberty is derived from maximising sum of degree of freedom for all individuals i.e. maximising the aggregate level of Liberty. It puts emphasis on the "inevitable" restriction on personal freedom, and the degree of the restriction varies across different individuals owing to their merit, responsibility, and mentality. It is against irrational oppression (E.g. Religious fundamentalism, Racism, and decision derived from superstition) whereas it supports rational oppression (E.g. Financial, Physical, and Social penalties). Thus, it supports repressing freedom for certain individuals in order to guarantee their personal liberty.

By contrast, Political Liberalism supports the view to see providing all individuals with the highest possible freedom for all. It also claims that Personal Liberty is derived from the "equally distributed" high degree of personal freedom. It claims that there is no such an inevitable barrier to provide the full freedom for all. Unlike the former one, it is against any kind of oppression or penalty whatever the reason is. This one regards Personal Freedom is guaranteeing both aggregate and personal freedom.



I support the former one due to the resource availability and I cannot be optimistic about human nature too much like what the latter theory insists. Let's focus on from the point of an individual personal perspective (Inward to outward) rather than a big picture perspective:

Firstly, our primary priority is "self-survival". Family and significant
others are the secondary importance. As same as Mrs. Thatcher said "There are only individuals and their family", we should think the directly related individuals are the almost parts of our body. The family and significant others are only those who can unconditionally trade with us.

Secondly, eventually, "the others" are not much the priority compared to these previous ones. But, we also want them to care for us if it is possible. Then, we need to "trade" with them to buy our right. The cost varies across time, place, and occasion. We can "share" some right=freedom if we share the "common interest". We must find out all those are either friends/allies or enemies. Zero or lower cost if they are friends/allies to trade. Higher or infinite cost if they are enemies to trade.

Thirdly, we had better become a citizen of a "strong civilisation" because this is a community where individuals with the same interests gathers. This is why Roman-Empire and the global capitalism are highly admirable. The superior civilisation provides us with the shared common interests and safety from the enemy invasion, and replace the inefficient traditional superstitious ones which bind us to a serfdom or a weak (unstable) civilisation...



I accept that the very basic right has to be a public good (I.e. Natural Right), but I am against guaranteeing the maximum right for all individuals (I.e. Human Right) because of its cost. The right for individuals should not be given unconditionally like what Political Liberalism suggests. Right and Freedom shall be given "conditionally" depending on the natural environment, each individual's merit (Sum of Pleasure minus Sum of Pain = Sum of Utility), and how powerful the civilisation these individuals belong to.

Furthermore, some individuals' freedom=right has to be restricted owing to their merit. The only condition to apply the restriction on freedom is whether or not its reason is rationally derived enough to think about preventing any displeasing consequence.



* This following article was added on 23rd of Aug. 2013

Capitalism is the terminology used as the antithesis of Socialism by Socialists. Market mechanism is same as the law of gravity so that it inevitably exists as the nature, not as an ideology.

There is no such a political ideology like Capitalism. What we follow is "Liberalism". Liberalism refers to the action Liberating whereas Socialism refers to the abstract norm which in fact does not exist, and will not exist, and is almost impossible to clearly define.

"(Nowadays, the word liberalism was hijacked for socialism or any form of oppressive collectivism." (Milton Friedman)

Nevertheless, as this word Capitalism has already become commonly used to call the political philosophy to refer to the Liberalism which we support, the following note mentions Capitalism as the Liberalism which we support:


I have a big faith in both Anti-socialism and Pro-Global-Capitalism. Laissez-faire Capitalism is like a big two side blade sword which swings both way, benefit and harm, owing to how to use it. Nowadays, many people blame laissez-faire capitalism due to the crisis. It is our biggest challenge to defend our global capitalism to convince people that it is not because of capitalism itself, it is just a matter of how to use it. Your logic sounds like denying the usage of fire because it is dangerous enough to burn us, and deny the huge benefit the usage of fire has brought us since its introduction.

Humans have no instinct

Some natural scientists claim that animals can learn to divert from their instinctive way of their life (This article described as a form of evolution) as long as they can
learn in the environment with plenty rich information sets available. I thought that these scientists' way of deduction was very suspicious, and then I became sceptical about what they analyse when I read the part "instincts (survival, killer, selfish, reproductive, numerous emotions, fears and disgusts etc)." It can be still controversial to define, and there are many not only natural scientists but also philosophers think of these actions as "instincts".

By contrast, I strongly disagree with it because human-beings are able to "control" these motives, and "choose" between different qualities even though these choices are sharing a common characteristics. E.g. Good food v.s. Bad food, Good Sex v.s. Bad Sex.

When chicks (Baby birds) are hatched from their egg, they instinctively follow whom they see at the first time just immediately after their hatch. By contrast, human-babies have got a lot of ways to express their emotion unlike animals and plants even the time immediately after they are born.

They mentioned that mammals are closer to human-beings. But, I still disagree with it. During sex, mammal animals just ejacuate as soon as they come as it is their instinct. By contrast, human-beings take ejacuation as a part of their motive based on their will. We try to control when we ejacuate to create a better orgasm as possible. Animals including mammals have orgasm passively, but human-beings "seek" orgasm by having sex.

I would say that all these actions and motivations these scientists mentioned in this article you introduced are "biological reaction for needs" rather than "instincts". As the dictionary defines, instinct is "**fixed**" pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli". So, as long as we can overcome, they should not be called instincts.


God endow all animals with special strength and instincts of using their strength. Birds are endowed with the ability to fly and nice looking feathers, and instinctively decide where to fly, not by their will. Lions and Tigers are endowed
with the enormous strength to hunt, but they do not have their own will to change their habit. By contrast, human-beings are endowed with nothing. Human-beings are such fragile, weak, and colourless. But, God endow human-beings with a special gift which is "will", and emancipated human-beings from the restriction of instincts! Amen...!

Neo-Marxism is a good diagnosis but a bad prescription

Meanwhile I still disagree with major parts of Neo-Marxism, I think highly of its huge improvement from the infant Marxism.

The advantage of Neo-Marxism is that it does not contradict the market mechanism to destroy capitalism: It focuses on reforming capitalism unlike the original Marxism and Marx-Leninism. Neo-Marxism detaches its theory from political construction and the mainstream socialism, and it is far more flexible than any old Marxism.

For example, Antonio Gramsci is the founder of the European Union ideal, and the EU still keeps the attitude to adapt it to the market mechanism (I.e. Remaining capitalism). Do you know that many libertarians adapted Neo-Marxist theory to criticise the state-capitalism monopolised by national government, bureaucracy, and a few number of humongous enterprises?



Nonetheless, I cannot be convinced by Neo-Marxism for many reasons.

In terms of socio-economics, it still sticks to the pure materialism to analyse both the market mechanism and sociological aspects. In addition, its economic theory is not yet updated from a very classical model i.e. It is a pure simple microeconomics without any advanced modern quantitative analyses.

In terms of ethics, the problem of all sorts of Marxism are based on Hegelian ethics and cosmology which regard that the moral code is universal, the future is always better and the past is always worse, the Western world is always advanced from the rest, and hugely ignores the significance of rational egoism driving the market mechanism. All kinds of Marxism are way too idealistic, hypocritic, ignoring the interests of the others as retarded savages, too optimistic about future and over-estimate human-beings, and eventually forcing altruism to individuals.

Furthermore, I am really sceptical about Neo-Marxist globalisation concept. There is a huge possibility that Neo-Marxist idea of federalising the entire would be bad as much as what the Communists attempted to do in during the Cold War if were to be established. Although I support Globalisation, I would like to avoid all idealistic moral-universalist continental European ethics. When we establish some global institute, it is safer to adapt more ethically flexible theories such as those of Hobbes (Useful to analyse political diplomatic geometry in the world), Rousseau (His cultural comparison theory is way far fairer than Hegel=Marx), and Keynes (The person who established the WB and the IMF!)



Any way, Neo-Marxism is a useful tool as a "Diagnosis" to diagnose how individuals and institutions (Never use such a word like "Society"!) are structured, but is a poor or even wrong tool as a "prescription" to cure/reform/operate=revolt the structure.

The Affirmative Action consequences in unfairness and retarding individuals

Well, though I claim all individuals are different and unique regardless of our group cohort such as social class, ethnicity, and gender, I strongly argue that, "in average", there is a significant difference in characteristics and qualities among different social class, ethnicity, and gender. Thus, ethnic and racial differences are inevitable, and we cannot equalise their characteristics while we attempt to keep their quality not going down. What socialists attempt is to equalise characteristics among all social class, gender, and ethnic groups even though it results in a sizable decline in their quality.

"The only fair is laissez-faire"!

All social classes, genders, and ethnic groups have their own unique personality, and this fact makes the world interesting, diverse, and exciting. They have their own advantage in a certain field so they should be specialised in it. What these socialists aspire to do is to penalise our endowed advantages to distribute an artificially created unfair advantages to the supporters of a socialist government! This socialist policy is to make everyone except for the party member equally poor!

Furthermore, many libertarian equal opportunity supporters criticised US Democrats' affirmative action. Its "consequence" is to "actually pernalise" those disadvantaged ethnic groups to discourage them becoming competent. This phenomenon is also seen in the treatment to Aboriginal people in Australia. Australian governments provide such a huge welfare to addict these Aboriginal people to reduce their competence.

Hence, by means of the real fairness, I am against these sorts of affirmative action!

I hate Olympics! ...for my cause of individualism though :)

My anti-Olympics opinion is based on individualism such as Ms. Ayn Rand insists on. She said "Thanks very much for this lovely party, but please do not do it again....... I hate parties...!" (Ref. Movie "The Passion of Ayn Rand")

I hate parties and festivals so that I hate Olympic! It is a form of Groupism where individuals fall into the false rejoice by being integrated into a falsely rejoicing group i.e. throwing individuality away to their day dreaming! Damn...!

I only like parties and festivals as long as they have a very special reason to celebrate such as the birthday party of an individual person and a cause such as liberty and civic republicanism. Individuals have to be royal to and devoted in the cause of these parties and festivals when they participate. Olympic?! Who hell really think of its cause?!! Even all athletes participating into it know it is just a circus!

The new MTG colour wheel: Yellow, Orange, Brown, Pink, Purple

The alternative Magic the Gathering (MTG) colour wheel seemingly invented by Wizard of the Coast. This looks like based on the modern world version unlike the traditional colour wheel based on the ancient-medieval fantasy world.

From this site:
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21536

Yellow: Efficiency - Weenies, burn, untap effects and temporary acceleration.
Purple: Manipulation - Tap effects, spell redirection, shifts of control, unblockability.
Orange: Natural forces - Equalisation, destruction, recursion, fights a war of attrition.
Brown: Machinery - Acceleration, fatties, tutoring, small components forming something much greater.
Pink: Being FABULOUS. Uh, I mean, Community - P/T boosts, card draw, protection and prevention.


From this site:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6787507

Purple(P)- Basic Land: Rift
Pink(K) - Basic Land: Cottage
Orange(O) - Basic Land: Dune
Brown(E) - Basic Land: Canyon
Yellow(L) - Basic Land: Stormcloud

* There are also several other sites which explains this "Magic-New-Extra":
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=326259&page=3
http://magicseteditor.sourceforge.net/node/5867
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15063051/



I also have once thought of making the alternative Magic The Gathering Set (MTGS) based on the version based on the real world in the modern time period, instead of the traditional versions of MTGS based on the ancient-medieval age and/or a fantasy world. However, the problem was that characteristics of creatures, artifacts, and spells of the real modern world would not match with the 5 colours shown in the MTGS colour wheel. So, eventually, we need to create an alternative MTGS 5 colour wheel matching with the characteristics of the modern world. When I was surfing the web, I found the new colour wheel which matches with the characteristics of the modern world. I am not sure if the MTGS cards have been already created by following this new colour wheel. So, the disruptions mentioned below are just my imagination if I would create the MTGS cards by following the new characteristics of these colours.


My own interpretation is as follows:

Yellow: Efficiency - Economics, Finance, Marketing,
Purple: Manipulation - Natural Science (Physics, Chemistory, Biology)
Orange: Natural forces - Theology, Patriotism, Royalty
Brown: Machinery - Engineering, Bureauctacy,
Pink: Being FABULOUS. Uh, I mean, Community - Paganism, Emotion


Also, the list of the political theories and theoriests compared to these 5 colours is as follows:

Yellow: Efficiency - Individualist, Rationalist, Classical Liberalist, Objectivist: Hobbes, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand

This one was easy to think which ideologies and theoriest to fit in with the colour characteristics. Yellow regards highly of indivdiualism, dynaminism, and rational egoism. So, Rationalism invented by Thomas Hobbes (Rational decision making and Moral Relativism), Classical Liberalism started from Great Britain in 18th century and Objectivism invented in 20th century are this category.


Purple: Manipulation - Idealist, Scientist: Spinoza, Da Vinch, Kant, Hegel, Einstein

This colour group supports a strong idealism (Nothing is impossible), unlimitted progress of technology, and optimism about further evolution of human-beings and their surrounding environment. It does not focus on the development artificially encouraged by a collective method: It devotes in the development encouraged knowledge of individuals and scientific discovery. Many "scientists" join Purple because they always seek the "unknown truth" and optimistic about technological advancement by humans' autonomous will. Spinoza's philosophy of believing in making a decision and moral judgement by logical deduction should be categolised into this group. Kant and Hegel challenged to seek an unknown ideal which has not been thought as possible in human minds and human community. So, both the philosophy of Kant and Hegel belongs to Purple.


Orange: Natural forces - Realist, Cultural-Conservativist, Nationalist, Religious Force: Aquinas, Burke, Islamic

Orange is pessimistic about secularism, the idea to rely on the completely autonomic will of human-beings, and development in general. This group put emphasis on need of God, tradition, and/or royalty to a sovereign. Also, this insists on balance and moderation in the reality.


Brown: Machinery - Collectivist, Mercantilist, Communist, Syndicalist: Walpole, Marx, Lenin, Mao-Zedong, Castro, Labour party

This group puts emphasis on "control", "command", and "collective method". Brown regards everything should work as though they are parts of a giantic machinary, and never regards people as individuals. Brown likes using advanged technologies but has a poor ability to inovate new technologies themselves. The group of Brown believe in the power of group and homogeneousity rather than individual, freedom, liberty, autonomy, and uniqueness. Brown also relies on a heavy bureaucratic structure. The quantity is power, so the bureaucracy which keeps the big quantity of people and machinaries working together.


Pink: Hippie, Utopianist, Romantist, Counter-culture, and many not politically involved ones: Paganist, Buddhist, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Hippies, and many ordinary girls and women

Well, those who belong to Pink are emotionalist rather than thinker. Majority of the Western philosophies do not fit in with what Pink regards highly of. Furthermore, it demonstrates a strong feminity (Different from Feminism) in its idea. Girls and women in all over the world may think as this group does.




Yellow is what I would like to be and my own political theory is closest to. Brown is my least favourable group, and completely opposing to my philosophy. But, I have sympathy to Pink, and I have been supported by those who would believe in Pink's characteristics. I like the balance which Orange insists on, and the community Orange forms might produce me a good security of life. Nonetheless, Purple's secularism attracts me more than Orange's conservativism. All in all, I would categorise myself to be "between Purple and Yellow" which is completely opposing to Brown, and different from but sympathetic to Pink and Orange.

Greek and Eurozone Fiscal Crisis compared to Water Plumbing and Supply

The Eurozone shares one big primary water pumping engine, and all member countries replaced their old primary water pump from their own well with the auxiliary pumping engine drugging the water from the ECM primary pumping engine. Therefore, they now share only one well of the water.

The Greek plumbing system used to rely on the big but old engine which drains a huge amount of the water from her well. But her pipe, connecting from the pumping engine to those who need the water, has got many geographic barriers (curves, hills, rivers, seas, bays, etc) to run the water faster and many water leakages as well. The Greek water supply system used to cover such a supply inefficiency by the power of her own pumping engine.

Nowadays, as pipes are connected to not only inside Greece but also the other Eurozone. So, the Eurozone nations decided to share one brand water pumping engine supplying the entire Eurozone nations. They only remained their auxiliary pumping engine (Fiscal policy) in their own countries. As Greece has taken her own primary pumping engine, and has to now rely on the water supply coming from the primary pumping engine, the volume of the water she is able to drug up to her people has been lowered since they change the entire water supply system. As the water comes from such a far away, the inefficient Greek pipe system with an old inefficient auxiliary pumping engine cannot make the water reach to the entire parts.

The current Greek problem is that her auxiliary engine is overheated due to the lack of the water reaching to Greece. In order to solve this problem, a well trained professional plumber from the ECB has to conduct to replace the water pipe connecting between the ECB and Greece, and the auxiliary engine has to be replaced rather than repaired. Furthermore, because all the Eurozone nations still use their old auxiliary pumping engine whose is not well compatible with the one new primary water pumping engine. Thus, all the old auxiliary pumping engines should be replaced with the new one compatible with the one shared primary pumping engine, and Greek plumbing has to be replaced with the modern ones (Not only the new tough pipes but also the straightened (digging the whole into hills and mountains and make them strong enough to stretch above and inside river, sea, and bay instead of making a lot of curves) the shape of them)!!

2+2=5

In the world of Mathe (Its a priori is "Axiom"), 2+2=5 is wrong.
In the world of nature (Its a priori is "Fact"), if we apply mathe to measure the fact, 2+2=5 is false so it requires a re-examination.

By contrast, in the world of words (Logic, Social Science, History, and Law), the story is different from these previously mentioned worlds.

When there are two individuals, A and B, A*B is considered as the public/community composed of the individualities, A and B. Thus, in the world of words, there is always an incidentally created component which cannot be explained by either Mathe rule or natural science.


In econometrics, when we run the regression analysis based on these symbolic logic algebra, the formula should be

Y = β_0 + β_1 * A +  β_2 * B + β_3 * (A*B)

Let's denote the dependent valuable "Y" is the sum of utility of A and B and the public/community A*B. 
β_0 is an intercept which can be explained as neither A nor B.
β_1 is a coefficient of the individual A,
β_2 is a coefficient of the individual B,
and then β_3 is a coefficient of the public/community A*B. 



A union of "A" and "B" produces "A", "B", and "A*B" (The intercept of A and B). When both "A" and "B" contain a quantity of 2 in itself, and "A*B" contains a quantity of 1, then (A=2)+(B=2)=A+B+A*B=2+2+1=5.

When "A∪B = "A+B-(A∩B)" is described as an arithmetric function "A+B+(A*B)", Let Y the answer for "A∪B" = "A+B-(A∩B)" = "A+B+(A*B)",
∀ Y ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 ),
∃ i ∈ (1,2,3), and ∀ X_i ∈ (0, 1),

∀ A ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 )
∀ B ∈ ( X_1, X_2, X_3 )

Then, A∈(0. 1) and also B∈(0, 1),

For example,
A_i ∈ ( 1, 1, 0 ) = 2
B_i ∈ ( 0, 1, 1) =2 ,
then
A*B ∈ ( 0, 1, 0 ) =1

When A=2, B=2,
Y = A + B = 2 + 2 = "A∪B = "A+B-(A∩B)" = "A+B+(A*B)"= 2 + 2 + 1 = 5 
∴ 2 + 2 = 5

D&D Alignment Chart: Economic Theorists

This is the D&D Alignment Chart which shows the philosophical position of historically famous economic theorists and how hedge fund operates. This alignment chart describes these economists' personality based on the D&D alignment chart characteristics: Lawful v.s. Chaotic on the X-axis and Good v.s. Evil on the Y-axis. The definition of these characteristics follows what "Wizards of the coast" defines.

The method of measuring the characteristics of these historically famous economists is based on the author's subjective assumption. For example, "Good" owing to what D&D alighment chart means serving others well. So, in this spectrum, the "Good" economist attempts to keep the utility of all individials living as high as possible. The "Evil" economist is conservative, stubborn, and/or spontaneous so that her/his economic theory takes selfishness and carelessness of economic agents for granted. The "Lawful" economist supports encouraging economic growth at a stable pase and uses the dynamic analysis. The "Chaotic" economist cares about the drastic reform rather than the stability and uses the "short-termist" analysis.

So, I will show how my spectrum labels these remarkable economists (I have chosen 8 famous economic theoriests who had influenced to introduce a new paradium in the study of economics):



John Maynard Keynes: Lawful Good (The Crusader)
Lord Keynes is the person who saved the life of the global capitalism and reformed it to be a more sustainable one. Therefore, he is worth to be seen as the crusader of economics. He supported remaining the market system itself, but he insisted that the agents have to change their attitude toward economy when both the scale (The quantitative aspect) and the characteristics (The qualitative aspect) of economic activities change in order to become able to adapt to the new environment and stablise it.

Keynes is the "Lawful" because his main aim is to stabilise the business cycle by the intervention policy. He claimed that both the highly volatile economy and the economy going either up/down at a very high pase harm individuals' life very seriously. He supported remaining the free market system (Socialists call it capitalism) itself. Nonetheless, he also claimed to establish some non-profit oriented institution which intervene into economy to change the stream of the market mechanism if necessary.

Keynes is the "Good" because he thought of the well-being of all individuals in all the social classes. He detested that the powerful minority individuals take advantage of the volatile economy, the recession/depression, and the economic bubble while the majority individuals seriously suffer from it. At the same time, he was against the proletariats' revolution which socialists craved for because he was concerned about a serious continous chaos caused by the regime dominated by uneducated and/or uncivilised working class mobs. He definitely supported the balance of social reforms on the top of economic reform.



Milton Friedman: Neutral Good
Prof. Friedman aspired to offer a freedom for many people and keep the economic system flexible. Some socialists claims Prof. Friendman is a conservativist, but he is not. He supported many changes and reforms if it is necessary to offer all people to obtain the freedom and fight against any totalitarian oppression!

Friedman is neither the "Lawful" nor the "Chaotic" because he cared too much of neither stablity nor a big commotion. Although he supported a certain degree of the intervention into the business cycle, his main objective was freedom of choice. Furthermore, he was afraid of that the responsibility of either government and the big world wide institutions becomes very high enough to restrict each individual's freedom.

Friedman is the "Good" because he attempted to offer the great sum of utility to all individuals living in this world by establishing the system offering the freedom at the highest possible level.



Karl Marx: Chaotic Good (The Rebel)
Marx, the revolutionary, is known as the most remarkable hero for socialists. He was highly sceptical about how people in the world took how the contemporary world economic system operateed for granted. He devoted to creating a new economic theory which completely contradicts the currently existing paradium.

Marx is the "Chaotic" because he encouraged provoking an unresting drastic revolution which would even cause a havoc. Unlike Keynes and Friendman who cared about all individuals from all classes, Marx was extremely in favour of his loving proletariats. Some intellectuals who are called Neo-Marxists are more rational than Marx himself enough to take care of all individuals. However, Marx himself was really close minded and enthusiastically insisted on the fundamental socio-economic transformation.

Marx is at least the "Good" because his fundamentalism took account of offering the majority's well-being. Although he categolised the minority bourgeoigie as an ultimate fatal enemies of the majority proletariat (Many current Marxists argue that the individiauls categolised into the middle class are nowadays "proletarised" more than they used to be), he wanted "everyone" to enjoy his dreaming new economic administration created by his brand new economic paradium.



Thomas Malthus: Lawful Neutral (The Judge)
Mr. Malthus is still respected by both many conservativists and many environmentalists. His concern on the possible extinction of natural resources and even an earth itself sympathised some cohort of individuals from both the Rightwing and the Leftwing.

Malthus is a typical representative of the "Lawful" economists due to the mathematical rigorousity seen in his economic theory. He was one of the firstest economists who applied "the law of conservation of mass" to economics. Everything has a limit on its quantity so that the natural resources such as foodstocks, which feed growing human population, is obvously not unlimitted. Therefore, it is never guaranteed that the rate of food productivity growth keeps the same pase as the rate of increase in the demand of foodstocks. Furthermore, even though the food productivity growth increases, it is highly possible to cause the exploitation of the narual resources existing our narual world. This has been diarectically proven by the las of conservation of mass.

Malsus is neither the "Good" nor the "Evil". He is not the "Good" because he had never supported any stimulus plan which would encourage the well-being of individuals. In a way, he and his theory were very stoic. He claimed that individuals have to be patient enough to cope with their tough life situation. Then, their patience would lead to the reasonably good life guaranteed stably in the long run. He demonstrated that the combination of the stably lowered population growth and encouraging the morally good life style increases the income per-head so that improves the living standard for everyone. Therefore, he is not the "Evil" either because he did not particularly take selfishness and carelessness of economic agents for granted. His aim was to establish the sustainable balance of reserving the sufficient natural resources and the humans' economic activity.




..... To be continued (I will update this post as soon as possible)

Adam Smith: True Neutral

David Recardo: Chaotic Neutral (The Free-Minded)

Friedrich August Hayek: Lawful Evil (The Dominator)

John Nash: Neutral Evil(The Backstabber)

Hedge Fund Managers: Chaotic Evil(The Destroyer)





Economic Political Compass/Spectrum

Rationality is motivated by either an irrational fundamental principle or an evil intricatism

If a person acts and thinks very rationally, the principle motivating them is very irrational. Rationality only applies to back up defending our own fundamental principle, and a fundamental principle existing in our mind is always irrational i.e. emotional, biological, intuitive, superstitious, inspired by experience and sensation, and the reason to obtain some objective value.

Even Mathematics is based on axiom which is totally detached from rationality.

Thus, there is nothing completely rational in this world, we must admit.

If a person is arguing very complicated and unrealistically rational without any irrationality, we must be warned to see this person as an intricatist. An intricatist is only interested in tricking the opponents to be confused, and does not have any spiritual means of living.




The fundamental principle can be the motivation by some objective value which is rationally deriven. But, irrational factors are inevitably involved in the calculus of rationality. So, there is also the case that "The fundamental principle / a priori is rationally deriven, but the methods applied to back up the fundamental principle / a priori can be very irrational". All in all, there is neither 100& irrational nor 100% rational.

My rational thought is also deriven from my rational biological function as well. I have also tried to rationally find the reason why I am existing as a biological-being. I found the rational reason which is because I was born as a member of human-being group which tries to thrive in this world. So, I need to survive and thrive as a human-being, and my biological functional code motivates me to do. This is a rational thought. However, I ended up with wondering why human-beings exist. I was really confused and could not rationally think anymore. T



The fundamental principle can be derived by any assumption based on rationality. I also mentioned the reason to gain the objective value as a fundamental principle. An existence of the objective values is a rational being. For example, the market mechanism and the needs for living are reasoned rationally. However, these factors can be also highly influenced by something not explained by ration.

Plato's ideal state derived from the perfect rationality failed to achieve because those who are in charge of establishing the ideal state and attempted to establish it were not perfectly rational.

Jaspers humiliated Spinoza's perfect rationality by assuming that "Spinoza must have had his own secret God inside his mind".

Science is also not perfectly rational at all. Science is known to be very subjective and intuitive than we tend to imagine. Actually, science was born by being influenced by Neo-Platonist philosophy because science is the philosophy to find "the truth" which is the idea of the reality. Even though the reason that science stands for is rational, the method science exploits is very irrational. Many people tend to believe that scientific analyses find and prove the result. But, the reality is that the already existing result makes the scientific analyses.



The rational process needs to be self-contradicted by a rational principle. Logics fail to be rational at this stage because logics do not have any rational principle which can rationally self-contradict. Therefore, the fundamental principle of logics is often an irrational one or a ration of intricatism. Mathematics is still rational at this stage. However, the tool of the rational fundamental principle which objectively assesses the rational mathematical process is an axiom which has neither a tool nor a principle to objectively and rationally assess and self-contradict. Mathematical axiom is defined by either the excuse to make the theoretical consistency or the measurement of physical outcomes in this real world. The former definition of mathematical axiom is defined by the subjective self-judgement of mathematical schools of thought. The latter definition of mathematical axiom is defined by an experience. An experience is biased because we always interpret what we have sensed into our own different ways.

If there is someone who can explain all the reasons of beings in this world perfectly rationally by rationally backing up these reasons with a rational principle accessed with a rational way of rational thoughts, this figure shall be no longer a human-being; this one shall be God! However, the question still remains to access God's rationality. Why have God created this world? This reason can be it was just an incidence. Why have God created this world? Kierkegaard said it is because God was bored. God, the perfect rational, can do something due to these irrational causes which can be called as chaos. Chaos occurs without a reason. So, we cannot explain what is chaos rationally. God may have rationally planned chaos to take place. So God could have caused the incidence and God's own boredom with his rational reasoning. But, how can we know God's true rational behind his rational action? We have never known because we have never been great as much as God to know all the God's sakes.