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As same as Jeremy Bentham, I claim that "tradition" should always be ready to be repealed as soon as it starts displeasing us rather than pleasing us!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!