250th Anniversary of the publication of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith!

Congratulations! Because of Adam Smith, I started knowing Scotland and got interested in economics as well as the modern philosophy including the enlightenment philosophy of his senior fellow David Hume!

Adam Smith is my hero who has attracted me to Scotland...! Since I read his Wealth of Nations, I have become so passionate about Scotland that I decided to study in Scotland! The individual property right is a fundamental of the economic liberalism! The big government undermining the general will of individuals eventually diverts our economy from the natural economic equilibrium which is the most feasible condition, and then misguides to the state of economic disturbance...! I really praise Adam Smith's theory which always points out what is right for economy when our economic freedom and general will are invaded by any sort of oppressors at any time period of our history...! 

* Images from Adam Smith Institute: https://www.adamsmith.org/books/preview-adam-smiths-the-wealth-of-nations-a-graphic-novel 

 

 

Manifesto Fictosexualism!

 

I would like to declare for the manifesto insisting on the rise and the full right of Fictosexualism! 

This is one of the glorious cause of supporting Progressive Libertarianism /  Classical Liberalism!

I follow the ethics of my admirable philosopher Jeremy Bentham saying "The greatest sum of pleasures with the lowest sum of pains is the principle of moral and legislation." Nobody harms and an individual gains the happiness from being fictosexual!

I sincerely despise the staunch Christians, feminists, and the staunch structuralists, persecuting my personality trait!

Megumu Iizunamaru (Utilitarian) VS Byakuren Hijiri (Deontologist): 東方利維坦~Leviathan~

 

Why I have decided to write it and illustrated this image of these characters from Touhou Project

There was an opinion poll to decide which character could be our ideal chief / manager / commander in Touhou Project. I personally thought Megumu Iizunamaru, the chief of the Tengu clan, would be the best in the poll. However, she did not take the first place in this particular opinion poll. At the same time, the result was still agreeable because Byakuren Hijiri, the chief of Myourenji temple, took the first place. 

Both Iizunamaru and Hijiri have an ideal quality as a leader of an organisation. It should not be the case that either one surpasses the other for their leadership quality. It is not the issue of the quality; It is the issue of their characteristics to distinguish their suitability of being an ideal leader of one organisation! 

Their characteristics of business management and political philosophy can be clearly explained by means of the two major philosophical theories of ethics and social justice: Utilitarianism, invented by Jeremy Bentham, and Deontology, mostly notably the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. 

The former values the actions bringing the greatest happiness/welfare/profit in consequence. The latter values the action depending on the moral evaluation of the nature of the actions regardless of the consequence. Amazingly, it is quite obvious to be able to explain that Iizunamaru follows Utilitarian whereas Hijiri follows Deontology according to their scripts in both the original Touhou project (*1) series and various fan-arts of them. 

This dichotomous comparison of these two ethical principles is discussed in various realms in the world. Justice with Michael Sandel lecturing about social justice and its ethical principle in the University of Harvard can be the most remarkable stage of this discussion. Yuval Noah Harari, having published "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" has predicted this topic will be an essential matter for setting the thought processes of the artificial intelligence (AI). It is hotly discussed in not only politics and sociology but also management and our daily-life ethics. 

This is a really wonderful coincidence that the action principle of Iizunamaru and Hijiri follows either of the ethical principles. It enables to introduce these social justice theories with the examples with these images of Touhou project with fun. I have also enjoyed illustrating these images of Megumu Iizunamaru and Byakuren Hijiri for this article (*2).

*1 Touhou project series produced by ZUN and Shanghai Alice Fantasy Band 

*2 These illustrations are posted in my Pixiv page so please visit https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/32334195! 

What is "東方利維坦~Leviathan~"

This blog title is also my own Fanzine title based on this battle of these excellent chiefs I am thinking of to publish if realisable. Leviathan is the tittle of the book published by Thomas Hobbes, the British philosopher in the 17th century. It introduces the historical evolution and the philosophical principle of law and order. Leviathan is originally a humongous mythological monster, and this book refers to this monster as a metaphor of organising a civic nation and the other massive organisations. It also explains about the necessary existence of one sovereign with rational authority sustaining the organisational structure as well as the entire social order. 

Iizunamaru belongs to the largest organisation in Gensokyou (the Touhou world) and takes part of a major role for leading her Crow Tengu clan. Youkai mountain is composed of various Youkai clans functioning to sustain their civic social order and technological progress as tough it were one major corporation oligarchy. She works on behalf of the interest of this humongous organisation equivalent to Leviathan state. 

Hijiri, the chief nun magician of Myourenji temple, manages a relatively smaller group than Iizunamaru whilst she aspires for establishing one immense civic social order uniting human and Youkai (*3). This is a deviant ideal which the majority of Touhou characters of both attributions. At the same time, she has a plan and the talent of establishing such a state with a size of Leviathan although her ideal is different from Hobbesian autocratic sovereign state. 

In this Fanzine, if realised, I would like to write a story of Iizunamaru and Hijiri. Iizunamaru and Youkai mountain representing the status-quo of the current Leviathan state. Hijiri and her fellows rebel against it with their ideal holding out for alternative organisational structure. This article introduces the background of this anticipated plan hoping to make it able to understand this major topic in philosophy, politics, sociology, and then the AI development.

 *3 Youkai generally a Japanese mystical creature whereas Touhou project uses this term as non-human attribute. 

 

Byakuren Hijiri & Immanuel Kant: Deontologist

Kantian philosophy claims for a fundamental criterion like mathematical axiom enabling logics of ethics to objectively self-evaluates its validity itself.  This criterion justifies the nature of actions and thought-processes rather than their consequence. They are categorically verified if they follow this criterion. Otherwise, they are classified as hypothetical. These actions are motivated by the ethical duty determining absoluteness of right and wrong so that this is why it is called Deontology.

Kant was also remarkable for initiating the idea of establishing the united nation under a principle of human-right.  In order to seek the happiness of all, the world has to be united under this principle eventually. Even though the separation and the conflicts among nations and tribes have been inevitable, all the people are ought to maintain their ethical universal principle to converge to such a state. 

Hijiri's philosophy is identical to Kantian. She treats both human and Youkai equally and keep aspiring to establish a unification of tribes of both human and all attributes of Youkai in Gensokyou. Nevertheless, her ideal is indeed deviant in the world of Gensokyou where the segregation among a human commune and the tribes of Youkai is considered as inevitably necessary. Reimu Hakurei, the protagonist of Touhou project series who is in charge of moderating the entire law and order of Gensokyou, even support the segregation policy between human and Youkai.  

The ethics of both Kant and Hijiri has a critical drawback which is the lack of tolerance. In terms of Gensokyou history, Hijiri has revealed her intolerance towards the protagonist. Hijiri started assaulting them because they insist on defeating Youkai in their duty to solve the incidence caused by Youkai at the first encounter. Furthermore, Hijiri imposes strict precepts on not only herself but also all her fellows in Myourenji temple in their daily life. Therefore, their degree of freedom in their actions and thoughts are morally restrained.  

Megumu Iizunamaru & Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarian

Benthamite philosophy claims for the greatest sum of pleasures and the lowest sum of pains as the principle of moral and legislation. This concept is the cost and benefit analysis for the ethical justification. Bentham attempted to quantify the outcomes brought by legal settings and individuals' actions to make their costs and benefits mathematically measurable. Therefore, he aspired to establish an fundamental axiom for justifying law and ethics for mathematical estimation of equitable judgement and future outcomes. 

Bentham was sceptical about the customary law relying on the past examples and tradition plus the unquantifiable emotions and morality.  Benthamite ethics tolerates various customs and actions as long as they bring a greatest pleasure and profit with the lowest possible cost and pain while not unnecessarily harming the others. Together with its focus on the future outcome rather than the past tradition, this ethics encouraging innovations of adopting new ideas and technologies as well as a high degree of freedom of actions and thoughts. 

Iizunamaru's philosophy is identical to Benthamite. She is eager to adopt new ideas and technologies encouraging the development and the welfare of her clan and the entire Youkai mountain.  Her role covers not only managing her own Tengu clan members but also collaborating with the subsidiary inside Youkai mountain such as Kappa and their factory. She has also initiated a new product distribution in a market of the spell card by taking a high risk. Despite her very high demand for various tasks, she treats her subordinates and stakeholders well enough to gain a high charisma of being loved and trusted by them.

The problem of their philosophy is the negligence of something unquantifiable and the risk of unpredicted costs incurred upon their action. Iizunamaru has plotted the market manipulation by distributing the extra spell cards by colluding with Chimata Tenkyu. The spell card rule is something sacred which should not be easily manipulated in Gensokyou. This is why it was cracked down by Reimu of Hakurei shrine. For the sake of maximising profit for herself as well as her fellows, she sometimes commit dirty or risky business which tend to be criticised by the traditional moral sense. This is the typical drawback of Utilitarianism regarding highly of the end justifying the mean in general. 

 

Brief Conclusion

This analogy of ethics in social justice with Touhou characters may help more people to understand in an explicit way. This topic is widely discussed in various fields in academia and our daily life. Also, studying about this subject may make people enjoy the entertainment of Touhou project. The next challenge will transform this topic to more entertaining media such as comic or video.  I personally have to investigate how to do so and make my own effort to realise it somehow.

Libertarian Remilia (Touhou Project)

Libertarian Remilia Scarlet (Touhou project (Touhou 東方 project )), Cause against Determinism! Freedom of will shall prevail!!

Remilia's say to Keine "You cannot change destiny while merely observing history." I recognise Sister Remilia retains the great philosophy of Metaphysical Libertarianism

 

Tool used: Clip Studio Paint Pro

 

These illustrations are posted in my Pixiv page so please visit https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/32334195!  

Libertarian: The Most Radical Progressive!

 

Libertarian is often seen as either an ally with conservatives (natural law) or a revolutionary like Marxism. However, Libertarian is close to neither of them especially by means of its metaphysical perspective. Let’s evaluate Libertarian and its contrasts.

Libertarian is a fundamentally metaphysical radical located at the edge of the metaphysical spectrum asserting the complete opposition from the Determinist counterpart. Conservatives usually regard of the unchangeable nature of humans and their world unlike Libertarian believing in the ultimate power of individuals free will transforming the world. Therefore, conservatives tend to lean relatively more towards Determinism than Libertarian radically being sceptical about Determinist metaphysics.

Both Marxist materialism and Libertarian are indeed progressives against conservatives. On the other hand, Libertarian instead insists on much more radical progressivism than Marxism notably by means of the metaphysics. Libertarians do not take account of Marxian materialist perspective because the will of individuals is free from the material constraints while their will is more influential over the world shape than the materialist assumption.

Marxism and the other types of materialism assume that material conditions and physical surrounding environment of individuals influence both the fate of human-individuals as well as their will. Therefore, it describes that it is the historical inevitability to provoke a revolutionary movement when a large majority group of individuals is marginalised from the world structure to expect the change. Marxism focuses on the group of individuals sharing the same materialist interest rather than each individual’s own unique imagination with their free will. Thus, Marxist materialism is still relatively more towards Determinism with its emphasis on the fate for individuals awaiting the collectively organised reformation/revolution.

Libertarian does not count on a possibility of the world transformation as the fated historical inevitability like Marxism. It assumes that individuals are always free to change themselves and the world whenever they want. Marxism and the other materialists underestimate the power of each individual for its possibility to transform the world alone. By contrast, Libertarian expects each individual alone has her/his own invincible power of transforming the world.

Libertarian is the resemblance to spiritualism rather than materialism despite its intense secular characteristic defying superstition and moral cohesion. It can be called secular-spiritualism regarding highly of individuality of each unique individual. It is identical to Epicurean of the ancient Greek philosophy stating the world reality is the mirror reflecting individuals’ mindset. It is also close to Buddhism stating various unique universes exist per the number of individuals existing in this world.

There is no such a thing as the determined world because there is an unlimited number of the parallel worlds existing as the interactions of both material beings and the invincible free will of each autonomous individual prevails to exist! The reason why many individuals still feel like being prisoned in the limitation of this terrestrial world is that they are still bound to the authoritarian indoctrination by the ruling class oppressors.

The imagination power of majority individuals is still not strong enough to drastically transform their world environment and their life. Nevertheless, this imagination power strength can be trained to gradually grow enough to be close to the saints having existed in the world spiritual history. Do not surrender to the inevitability mythology indoctrinated by conservatives! Do not underestimate each autonomous individual which is way stronger than the cohesive union of individuals merely stimulated by the material conditions and motivated by the collective political agitation of Marxism!

Daoism well explains how the world is turning up to be. In particular, from now on, the material prosperity represented as 陽 (Yang, the light element) is decaying as the reaction towards its intensity up to recently. Then, 陰 (Ying, the shadow element) representing spirituality and humbleness is being intensified in the entire world from now on.

The influence of Marxism with the heavy emphasis on the perfectionist goodness of the materialistic transformation is characterised by the Yang (Light) element. Instead, the humble attitude based on the tolerance towards material stagnation such as encouraging the humble living condition under the natural harmony, characterised by the Ying element, will be recommended as the virtuous wisdom to live off.

Under such a world with the stronger Ying elemental characteristic and quality, Libertarian spiritualism will help individuals to live off. Both Daoism and Libertarian regard highly of the natural harmony under the free flow of things and lives with their voluntary will not constraint by any hypocritical indoctrination. Instead of the perfectionist intervention like Marxism, they assert reinforcing the power of each autonomous individual’s will and imagination to naturally adopt themselves to the given living environment to thrive there.

At the same time, the ruling class oppressors of the status-quo having exploited the rest will eventually face the punishment by means of the flow of this world transformation. Its Ying characteristic punishes those who cannot neither accept nor be satisfied with the humble lifestyle. The voluntary community cooperation of individuals will be emphasised in the near future so that those who cannot comply with its spontaneous rule will be expelled away. Libertarians can be compatible with this communitarian sense even with its intense individualism: Its communitarian solidarity is based on individuals’ voluntary will instead of Marxian style cohesive enforcement agitating with the hypothetical perfectionism.

In conclusion, Libertarian can be the most sanely deviant political philosophy having existed in history. It can be adaptable to the new age spiritualism defining the world composed of the unlimited parallel worlds with which are popular especially in the internet activities nowadays.

Book Recommendation: Natural Law Liberalism

 First of all, before introducing the book, it is important to know the brief introduction of the disputed types of Liberalism. The brief birth story of Liberalism in the modern era is needed. The two mainstreams of Liberalism are roughly explained as follows.

Liberalism is a political philosophy claiming for liberty of autonomous individuals emancipated from authoritarian oppression with their naturally endowed right and equality of obtaining it. It distinguishes liberty from a simple freedom as it claims for some degree of restriction on one’s freedom of doing whatever s/he wants on a temporary basis. It insists providing individuals with a broader meaning of freedom in a permanent basis as well as the social public environment and its minimum required rule securing all the individuals to accomplish it.

Although it is often believed that Liberalism emerged in the early modern age, the base concept was already emphasised by Aristotle (The ancient Greek) and Thomas Aquinas (The medieval European) at the pre-modern time period. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expressed humans as autonomous individuals who should be free to act and think with their own freewill. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke claimed for Liberty as the universal naturally endowed to complete the overall picture of the characteristics of Liberalism in the beginning of the modernity

The first mainstream of Liberalism in the modern world politics formed its characteristic identity by adopting the utilitarianism asserting to maximise the sum of pleasures while minimising the sum of pains by letting individuals to act freely with their constitutional right under the mutual social agreement. This is also related to economic freedom encouraging the market competition guaranteeing the equality of opportunity for individuals to join to be rewarded by means of their contribution merit. This is the Liberalism encouraging the overall liberty in a comprehensive meaning so that it is introduced as Comprehensive Liberalism.

On the other hand, there is the second mainstream of Liberalism challenging the aforementioned Liberalism where liberty is limited to the constitutional and metaphysical level. This new branch of Liberalism attempt to modify the older version of Liberalism to the newer alternative more applicable to the political intention of accomplishing the liberalist ideal ethics.

This second mainstream of Liberalism insisting on providing individuals with their right of the comprehensive freedom but also an impartial spectator intervening resource distribution, social justice mediation, and rehabilitating the handicapped minorities. The most notable figure is John Rawls having introduced the political theory called Political Liberalism claiming for more proactive interventions rather than the conventional laissez-faire (little or no intervention policy).

The provision of liberty requires the daily political level intervention to individuals more than guaranteeing their right under the constitution or the customary agreement. There is the veil of ignorance penalising some individuals lacking the necessary information before acting freely. In order to accomplish the equality of opportunity under a fair competition, it requires a certain degree of the redistribution of resources to enable all the individuals to become competent and able. The minority individuals are often marginalised under the laissez-faire majority rules so that it requires the culturally and religiously intermediate pluralist intervention into it. It thus requires the proactive intervention by this impartial spectator is thus necessary to mitigate these obstacles causing unfairness.

Nevertheless, there is a counterargument being sceptical about these modern types of Liberalism whose political methods are controversial enough to judge whether or not they can encourage individuals’ liberty. The book introduced here indicates one of the counterarguments. 

This book “Natural Law Liberalism” is highly recommended to read to understand the characteristics and their transformation of various derivations of Liberalism in the modern world. The author of this book manifestos his own version of Liberalism challenging against the two mainstream versions of the modern Liberalism.

His own manifesting political philosophy is explained in the last one third of this book whilst the first two thirds of this book is about introducing what versions of Liberalism exist. It mostly covers the historical evolution of Liberalism having produced various derivations from the pre-modern periods including the ancient Greece and the medieval Europe to the modern time period. Therefore, this book is actually useful as a textbook of understanding the evolution of Liberalism.

This book puts strong emphasis on the sceptic perspective on the modern types of Liberalism by criticising them with reference to his manifesting alternative. However, even though its main intention is criticising it, it well-summarises the characteristics of both Utilitarian Comprehensive Liberalism and Rawlsian Political Liberalism while explaining how either of them has become popular in the political arena nowadays. Thus, this book is recommended to study it at a fast pace because of its objectively well-summarised description.

The counterargument against Rawlsian Political Liberalism is based on the scepticism about the impartial spectator as a mediator of social justice and also about its moral neutrality. This public institute as an impartial spectator promoting the pluralism of cultural, ethnic, and moral diversity is still prone to the bias manipulated by the powerful influential cohort of this political arena. The objectivity and plurality can therefore also be under the threat of political lobbying.

This book highlights the criticism on both Comprehensive Liberalism neglecting to install the core moral principle and Rawlsian Political Liberalism overestimating the neutrality of the secular (believed to be morally neutral) interventionist social reform. Instead, it suggests Liberalism to focus on the inevitable influence by the majority mainstream and the longevitive tradition to policy making and societal environments. For example, the history of religious influence over social norms and values is significantly longer than the history of the modern secular politics.

The author of this book is a stronger supporter of the metaphysical and ethical philosophy of Natural Law most notably defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expected for human individuals as naturally social so that their spontaneously formed social order is sufficient enough to encourage both stability and fairness.

The Natural Law theory by Aristotle and Aquinas describes the error correction mechanism called an unmovable mover which indicates the unchangeable virtue even in necessary multiple drastic social transformations. All in all, while individuals and their society may constantly change to adapt individuals and their society to each new environment with new challenges within the minimum necessary restriction imposed by the unchangeable virtuous guideline.

The seemingly most essential point of this book is underlining the importance of a strong sense of morality of all the individuals and their community functionally cohabiting together in a society. An authoritarian state does not require a strong morality of its individual citizens under a cohesive stability. By contrast, a state with less or no authoritarianism requires individuals being moral enough to enable them to voluntarily comply with the spontaneous order stabilising their state.

Overall, regardless of political opinions and perspectives, this book is highly recommendable to understand characteristics and challenges of the various versions of Liberalism in history. Also, it explains that Natural Law, the metaphysical and ethical philosophy, is compatible with Liberalism in practice for the current daily politics. This attempts to explain that Aristotle and Aquinas are ones of the remarkable Liberalist political thinkers. Even though it is not agreeable, it is thought provoking enough to get interested in Liberalism and its historical footprints.

Social Democracy is not exactly equal to Socialism

 

The terminologies of political ideologies are really complex to explain as well as indeed maniac for most people unless they are keen to study political science. In particular, when it comes to define Socialism, the definition varies across interpreters. Moreover, Social Democracy does not exactly imply Socialism whereas Democratic Socialism implies Socialism for certain.

 

The definition of Socialism involves a wide range of policy-implementations in terms of both economic and social scales. Generally, Socialism means to proactively take the external influences of policies on society (taking an account of the group of individuals, their interactions, and the external environment where they cohabit together in) into consideration. The fundamental problem of Socialism is the subjective interpretation of what are good for society so that its interpretation often depends on each interpreter implementing Socialist policies.

 

Focusing on the economic policies, Socialism is often used as the synonym of the collective/command economy based on the cohesive planning ahead as opposed to the market economy based on the laissez-faire planning. The market economy allows each individual economic agent to decide while trading their goods and services where it relies on the spontaneously driven distribution order. By contrast, Socialists insist on planning of, or intervention to at least, economy to induce their desired outcome. There tends to be a paternalistic institute, which can be either government or commune, instructing each individual and their firms with reference to their Socialist planning.

 

The types of Socialism are unique from each other depending on the instrument of implementing their policies interpret as producing good outcomes for society. Their uniqueness is more obvious in the social-policy scale than the economic-policy scale of political science. The orthodox Marxism in particular puts emphasis on the revolutionary government by the proletariat autocracy commanded by the chosen elites selected from the proletariat citizens who are supposed to be excel at knowing what are the best for their society are. Anarch-Syndicalism relies on the community of individuals who are voluntarily gathered into it from any social background to negotiate and decide their policies to implement. Democratic Socialism stands between these two policies as it allows the open political decision-making processes while it weighs on the responsibility of the chosen represents by non-random selection.

 

The confusion is that Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are not technically equal to each other. Democratic Socialism prioritises the paternalistic planning/intervention into individuals' life and their living environment (i.e. society) while encouraging the minimum required open decision-making processes. Social Democracy still takes policy-impacts on society into consideration to the certain extend. However, it defies the paternalistic collective order and responsibility imposed by Socialism restricting each individual's freedom of choice and voluntary will.

 

In terms of the social-policy scale, the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy is slight because both support the open decision-making process conducted by the representatives elected by the citizens as well as the certain degree of political freedom for individuals unless threatening the system stability. On the other hand, in terms of the economic-policy scale, their difference is obvious. Social Democracy embraces the market economy with the optimum level of the intervention required for solving their social issues of concern whereas it avoids being the perfectionist paternalism suppressing both economic efficiency and individuals' own freedom of choice.

 

Social Democracy is actually the derivation of Liberalism encouraging each individual's own voluntary actions and free will instead of collectively intervening into them. Social Democracy is relatively more friendly to Socialism than the other types of Liberalism. It trusts in the invisible hand spontaneously adjusting the socioeconomic environment by letting individuals and their interactions be free. This is the critically unique point distinguishing it from Democratic Socialism supporting much stronger interventions into individuals and their interactions for their perfectionist objective.

 

Sum up, the word order makes a distinctive contrast between those two policies: Socialism and Social Democracy. They are neither exactly different nor same. It may be insignificant in our daily life and journalism meanwhile its difference is significant in political science. Hence, it is important to take enough attention to quote this kind of terminologies.

 

Cloud Revolution !

When I started knowing the existence of the public cloud services such as Amazon Web Service (AWS), Microsoft Azure (MS Azure), and Google Cloud Platform (GCP), I realised that it would be a remarkable innovation enough to be called revolution. Revolution alters the socioeconomic structure even including the infrastructural fundament and the ethical code. As same as the political revolution, the introduction of the public cloud is the business revolution!

First of all, the biggest impact is that there is no computer room containing servers, database (DB), and their network side a company office by using the public cloud service. These physical devices are located in the remote centre owned by the public cloud vendor so that they are simply outsourced.

This is advantageous for the accounting administration because it can avoid the capital expenditure and tax levied on it. In addition, its charge is based on pay-as-you-go so there is little need for preparing for the estimated volume usage. There is neither dead-weight loss of not using the computer enough or lacking the computer capacity due to the sudden heavy traffic while running a business.

The initial investment for the capital expenditure often challenges new entrepreneurs establishing their new firm. This factor used to discourage newly entering entrepreneurs from starting their own business. However, the public cloud has eased starting an entrepreneur to flexibly open their new business since its emergence. It is almost like a miracle enabling an individual to directly connect to the already configured server network without building her/himself!

In the past, starting a new business alone used to be considered as reckless. It used to require a reasonable size of the company office and more than one staff to operate a new business in order to maximise the full potential of the capital initially invested such as an office and devices. By contrast, the public cloud allows to start a business without any preparation for both devices and their space. Therefore, this is indeed a liberation for a lone entrepreneur from the territorial pressure and the labourers’ riot!

Another advantage for this entrepreneur is that s/he can flexibly travel around the world as long as it is connected to the public cloud service. No office at a fixed place is required to sit in! This entrepreneur can travel freely and budget her/his budget more flexibly without being bound to looking after a physical property. It emancipates an individual from the landlord’s rent seeking oppression!

In conclusion, the public cloud usage is indeed a revolution replacing the already obsolete norms and values in the entrepreneurship! Because big companies employing individuals are no longer able/willing to employee them to look after, it may be more important for them to start their own business instead of expecting these companies to hire them.

 

The Good Communism: Anarch-Syndicalism

The word Communism tends to be often prejudicially quoted as a synonym of authoritarianism/totalitarianism based on a nation state government administration. The authoritarian characteristics of the orthodox Marxian doctrine often represents the socialism aspiring to evolve to communism eventually. Then, the word communism is often seen as the enemy of Liberalism promoting individuals' liberty and autonomic right. However, there is another form of communism defying the existence of one single state authority commanding economy, the means of resource distribution, and society (the interaction of individual citizens), which is compatible with Liberalism. 

 

The United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was the former suzerain nation of the socialist nations following the orthodox Marxist doctrine advocating for the socioeconomic evolution towards communism. The USSR no longer exists while there are still remaining remnants of the nations which still retain the Soviet style socialism. These remnants are controversial because many of them seem to have abandoned their original political principle. Furthermore, the main point of this essay is to affirm that the orthodox Marxism is not only the political philosophy supporting communism.

Some Asian socialist states ruled by a Communist/Marxian-socialist party seem to have diverted from the direction of their original communist ideal. They have actually adopted the intense capitalist practices while they self-proclaim to maintain their Marxist principle as their excuse to prop up their one-party dictatorship. Therefore, their characteristics are actually opposing to the communist ideal aspiring for the egalitarian socioeconomic state.

Cuba might be only one socialist nation maintaining the orthodox Marxian style communism in a legitimate way. It still keeps the state ownership based economy as well as the diverse distribution of resources securing their reasonable standard of living. At the same time, Cuban government implements the Soviet style autocratic paternalism to cohesively unify her individual citizens under the oppressive one-party authoritarianism suppressing individual liberty. This is the factor that the orthodox Marxism is not compatible with Liberalism.

By contrast, there is another form of communism called Anarch-Syndicalism  which aspires to establish the egalitarian socio-economy without an autocratic paternalism such as the orthodox Marxian proletariat dictatorship. Its economy and political administration are run by cooperative unions of individuals which are spontaneously formed by individuals' voluntary cooperation without a cohesive force of any authoritarian organisation. Therefore, it relies on each autonomic individual citizen to manage their own political administration with their free will free from authoritarian oppressions. 

This is a anarchist political philosophy defying the existence of nation state government, the cohesive institutionalised authoritarian organisation. This is a radical socialist political philosophy defying not only the oligarchy by the capitalist class elites manipulating socio-economy but also the monetary market economy demanding an intense conformity for all individual citizens as the means of production. This is a libertarian political philosophy promoting equal treatments to all individuals regardless of their gender, ethnic, and physical characteristic origins inside this mutualist community avoiding any stratified institutional administration. 

Anarch-Syndicalism is perhaps only one anarchism having been practised in real through the history. The Second Spanish Republic centred in Catalonia in the early 20th century was the innovative state adopting the Anarch-Syndicalist system for economy as well as political administration. Even though it lost the Spanish civil war then, it can be said to be reasonably successful enough to maintain the state under such an administration sufficient enough to continue fighting back. 

Their participatory economy, where various business decision-making processes of one firm are democratically managed by its trade union members, was successful enough to maintain the productivity required to fight against their opposing force. Because their profit was returned to each individual worker participating their production, the motivation of their daily business activities as well as their contribution to the entire commune was high enough to fight back against their opposing force. This can be compared to the direct democratic state of the ancient Athens where individual citizens were so proud of themselves as its non-expendable core-members of their state that they had such a strong voluntary spirit to keep fighting in a war.

In Japan, there were some politicians who were advocated to Anarch-Syndicalism before the World War 2 (WW2). Even though this policy was not put into practice in real, this political movement was influential to the various contemporary rebellious political factions against the contemporary Western capitalist imperialism. This influence is non-negligible for explaining the spiritualism of the contemporary status quo Touseiha administration during the WW2 despite their different political characteristics.

A former Japanese government bureaucrat Kunio Yanagida was inspired by an anarchist communist philosopher Kropotkin whereas he was a strong Japanese nationalist at the same time. Mr. Yanagida had a unique attitude towards the issue of the Japanese monarchy Tenno system. He attempted to restore the pre-modern traditional Tenno system linked to the original Shinto shamanism while criticising the current modern monarchism strongly tied up with the modern nation state and its modern state capitalism. His own plan was to establish an Anarch-Syndicalist state of Japan based on the decentralised pastoralist environment where all the autonomous individual habitants mutually cohabit together with their own free will.

The idea of Communism should not be monopolised by the orthodox Marxists; There is a variety of Communism which actually challenges against the orthodox Marxian style and is compatible with Liberalism. There have been various new political philosophical movements of challenging the combination of capitalism and modern nation state government. Michel Foucault was a remarkable philosopher accusing the oppressive characteristics of the entire modernity. 

Foucault's philosophy is often criticised as an anachronistic because he seemed to romanticise the pre-modern feudalist society to a certain extend. Yet, his theory clarifies how the emerging modernity with its nation state and capitalism has deteriorated individuality of autonomous individuals by forcing the conformity to the ruling class interests and the entire monstrous mechanism of the modern nation state. His idea was to respect each unique characteristic of individuals not undermined by an institutionalised socioeconomic structure, and his policy is often introduced as the postmodern Anarch-Syndicalism. 

In conclusion, Communism itself is not a bad idea as long as its form is compatible with Liberalism such as Anarch-Syndicalism. For the time being, capitalism with its monetary based market economy prevails as a popular socio-economy. Nevertheless, it is always worth off to brainstorm to evaluate any other future socio-economic alternative. Hence, Anarch-Syndicalism as a good form of Communism can be a good candidate.

Democracy of the modern world under challenge

 "Liberal Democracy V.S. Authoritarian" is a hotly debated topic especially while China and Russia involving their peer alliance non-democratic nations intensively interfere in various foreign affairs nowadays. In the meantime, both the words "Democracy" and "Liberal" are frankly quoted as the counterpart nations of these authoritarian nations ruled by an iron fist of one party or any other autocratic figure. Therefore, it is suspicious to define whether or not these so-called Liberal Democratic nations are truly liberal as well as democratic as what these original words' definition implies.

The point to be critically evaluated here is that almost all those nations are administrated under indirect democracy which selects the limited number of representatives controlling over the political affairs. Perhaps, Switzerland might be only the democratic nation involving the majority citizens actively participating in their political affairs nowadays. Politics of the other "democratic" nations is handled by the chosen elites called politicians self-proclaiming to represent the majority citizens. However, it is often questionable to define as truly representing the majority individual citizens. 

Technically, these citizens are entitled to cast their vote to select these politicians as their representatives. Nevertheless, in reality, indirect democracy hardly represents the majority citizens. In particular, those with the constituency based electoral system seldom represents their majority citizens proportional to their population. Even by adopting the proportional representation to their electoral system, it is still difficult to satisfy elected politicians proportionally representing the citizens. Politicians may manipulate their fellow citizens for their own favour rather than what these citizens really need and want. Politicians often form their factional group which selects opinions matching with this group interest while excluding each individual's own will. 

At the same time, it is also critical to evaluate that democracy does not always imply fulfilling individual liberty. There is a risk that some institutionalised citizens from their own peer group to marginalise the other individual citizens for their favour propped up by their peer pressure as same as the aforementioned politicians. In order to secure liberty for each autonomous individual's sovereign, it may require an invincible ethical principle promoting their decision-making process as a guideline while enabling politics to represent their opinion. This sounds like a religion, but this should be the morally neutral principle not favouring any particular religious organisation. 

The modern complex institutional structure demands the centralised bureaucracy requiring the elites highly trained with a complex skill as well as the friendly connection and apprenticeship with the elders of this established structure to administrate the entire politics. Therefore, this inevitably needs to select those specialising in political organisational skills and connections with their factional peer groups whereas the rest majority are often ostracised from these influential peer groups. The true nature of the modern indirect democracy is much closer to that aristocracy or oligarchy rather than what democracy really means. All in all, the modern indirect democracy tends to be diverting from what both democracy and liberalism attempt to accomplish.

Nowadays, instead of relying on the centralised political organisation such as nation state government, it will be more efficient to adopt a decentralised administration system propped up with the spontaneous interferences among individuals as as the peer-to-peer (P2P) system. Due to the current remarkable information technological (IT) development, it is more possible to organise the decision-making process at each non-scheduled scattered time period than the past relying on the congregations of representatives gathered at a scheduled time. It is really questionable to insist on the need of replying on the representation by politicians and bureaucrats nowadays. 

Both (the modern indirect) democracy and authoritarian can be obsolete already. Each individual will be able to directly reflect their opinion over the networks of where they want to reflect it upon The furthermore developed IT will help sorting out individuals' opinions and efficiently optimising resource-distribution plans. It will even no longer require a political congregation of direct democracy seen in the ancient Athens because each political decision-making is processed at each spontaneous time, place, and occasion by means of its need and want. This new ideal is a combination of anarchism by individuals and technocracy by the IT resources. 

The new alternative to religion will emerge to fulfil the ideal of liberalising each individual in the world. As all the individuals are connected to each other across the borders more than ever, their spontaneous interactions will bring up the shared objectives and guidelines not bound to their distinctive traditional religious, ethical, and social norms and values. As Aristotle said, human being are naturally social, the naturally derived spontaneous interactions of human individuals will induce them to voluntarily create their own minimum required guidelines and rules necessary to prevent them from unnecessary conflicts and miscommunications. Then, even without a paternalistic intervention, they will find their own optimum method of forming consensus through their own try and error. 

Sum up, describing the modern indirect democratic nations as "Liberal Democratic" is questionable. These indirect democratic nations are not quite identical to the true characteristic of what the word "Liberal Democracy" should be derived from. The border splitting individuals out itself is already an obsolete element disrupting the true liberal democracy spontaneously formed among individuals. Hence, the dispute over "Liberal Democracy" and authoritarian is not essential to consider accomplishing the true ideal of liberal democracy in general.

Let's be sceptical about Corporate Capitalism!

 

The current world socio-economic situation can be expressed by the quote of Friedrich Nietzsche "God is dead." as the invisible hand of God explained by Adam Smith no longer corrects the distribution flow of labour and capital in the spontaneous order of the laissez-faire market. The gravestone of its death is created out of the current gigantic economies of scale for the majority of existing industries. Moreover, the courage of individual economic agents is undermined in front of the staunch fortress fortified with allows and spikes of high skill-set requirements and the massive wall of the barriers to the market entrant imposed by bureaucracy and regulations protecting the corporate tycoons dominating their strong hold. 

The current form of the market economy is oligopolistic where a few numbers of elite oligarchies secure their dominance. This is because that they can take an advantage of their huge economies of scale basing their factors of production which enables them to drastically expand their quantity and brand name of their products superior to those smaller rivals. Although their offering goods and services with their high quality and fast speed are beneficial for the majority individuals to enjoy, the market entry for any new entrant to compete with these already established corporations has become significantly more discouraged than the past. In another word, the world socio-economy basing these individuals' life is then more dependent on these corporate oligarchies staying in the market for a long term. 

The social mobility of individuals nowadays is more discouraged than a few decades ago because there is a huge gap between those who are fortunate enough to obtain the skill-sets required by the market and the others not fortunate enough. Each individual's own competence, effort, and motivation are no longer enough to outperform in the current market competition because it requires the significantly higher financial and time costs to secure their competitive advantage than the past. It is not only the matter of material well-beings but also the accessible information available in their living community determine their fortune of acquiring their initiative. Therefore, it requires the public management to offer a certain degree of the equality in outcome to accomplish the equality in opportunity. 

The good old days of the laissez-faire free market capitalism are gone. Instead, the more static socioeconomic political form of the corporate capitalism has come. Rather than the free-minded courageous individual economic agents, the already established aristocrats called corporate shareholders and government bureaucrats secure their dominance. Majority individuals now belong to one big institute of either corporation or government. Even small/medium sized business owners are working under the subcontract with either a bigger corporation or government. The profit share of these corporations is heavily distributed to major shareholders and corporate executives instead of rewarding majority individual workforce members propping up the daily business activities. Therefore, the priority on rewording the merit of individual workforces tends to be undermined under the current socio-economic structure.

It sounds like being a big government advocate by claiming for more positive public interventions. However, its attempt is to avoid the excess centralisation of the capital flows monopolised by corporatist oligarchies and the unfair heavy regulations imposed by government bureaucrats protecting their interest. Without this intervention, the government will become even bigger under the influence of these corporate oligarchies as their political influence is overwhelming the others with relatively less advantages. This should be the intervention to decentralise the whole socio-economic structure to encourage more healthy and fair competitions which the laissez-faire capitalism of the good old days used to promote. 

What the big government advocates such as the orthodox Marxists should be criticised is their excess centralisation of the means of production. Even though they have an originally good will of deserving the majority, it often fails to deserve the majority because this centralised political system put higher priority on deserving those elite bureaucrats at first. This failure of the centralised means of production takes place under the current corporatist capitalism due to its excessively centralised flow of the capital. 

As John Maynard Keynes affirmed, the reform of optimising the balance of private and public sector with the positive intervention to the market with a right harmony is the key to enable the free as well as the fair market economy to survive. Yet, the Keynesian policy also contains the risk of failing into the paternalism by the central government conducting the intervention. Then, it will be necessary to spread the policy decision makings out to much smaller scale such as local authorities and cooperatives. 

The power weight of the public corporations over the private corporation is way more excess than the past. The dominance of the investors/shareholders of these public corporations induces the asymmetric distribution of their profit share which undermines the contribution by the majority individual workforces. The initiative attracting these investors is necessary whilst the distribution weight of the profit share provision is overweighted onto them nowadays. In order to appreciate the contribution by these majority individuals providing the actual workforces, their reward should be derived from not only the labour costs but also some pies from the profit share.

It should also take reviving small and medium sized enterprises into consideration. The oligopoly of the major private banks perpetuates the public corporations' dominance over the private corporations of small and medium sized businesses. This is another reason to shift the economic and political power to the local authority and cooperative which are able to monitor the business performance of their local enterprises as they are located close to each other. Instead of merely relying on the major private banks, rending and legal support from the local authority and cooperative should be more available. The initiative of expanding the decentralised public sector is to encourage more private businesses of not only the big public corporations but also the multiple numbers of the private corporations. 

All in all, it is the time to be sceptical about the big government of the market monopoly! Majority individuals need to capture the power by empowering the decentralised public managements to counter the centralised public body by the puppet government of these corporatist aristocrats. The grass-root political lobbying must take place to capture the socio-economic freedom of majority individuals!!

Manifesto Spiritual Libertarian - the Libertarian for the coming age of Ying 陰

 

The previously posted article describes how Libertarianism regards highly of the free will of individuals without being restrained by the pre-determined fate and sounds very spiritualist despite its emphasis on the strong secular moral and social policies. By combining with the astrological analysis and the Taoist teaching of 陰陽 (Ying & Yang), Libertarianism especially by means of its spiritualist element seems to provide human individuals with the antidote agains the declining materialist prosperity represented as the Yang element in the coming age of Ying. 

A retrospective astrological analysis in this blog forecasts that, when Pluto starts crossing the ascendant of Aquarius, the age of revolution as well as stagnation will come. As the world economic activities will be more decentralised than the current globalist order, the macroeconomic business cycle will be more stagnant meanwhile the further technological advancement encouraging the microeconomic development will be expected. This means that the world socio-economy will induce individuals to be more individualistic to look after themselves while providing the intellectually enlightened individuals with some significant advantage over the others. 

The theory of Gaia, which is well-known among spiritualists, also inters that the world elements are shifting toward relatively more Ying (the shadow), implying spirituality and feminity, as the reaction against the world whose Yang (the light) elements, implying materialistic and masculinity, have been too intense. The number of wars and excess industrial activities polluting environments may decline while the social atmosphere will turn to be more anomic and melancholic. Then, the world is shifting from expansionist to isolationist (inner focusing) so that human individuals' life purpose will be hardly instructed externally so that they will need to think of their own life plans themselves more than ever. 

As the external surroundings of individuals will no longer enable them to materially expand their living standard as much as it used to, it is the time for them to expand their inner spiritual universe backed up by increasing their intellectual potential. The technological advancement offers more opportunities for individuals to access the abundant knowledge. However, this opportunity can only be maximised by those who are spiritually enlightened enough to be interested in growing their intellect by proactively accessing the knowledge base. 

The Libertarian metaphysical perspective may provide individuals with some useful hints to survive and thrive in the coming age of Ying. Each unique universe exists per each autonomous individual so that the number of the existing parallel worlds is unlimited. As autonomous free independent individual can challenge against the fate to change their destiny and influence the world structure with the power of their own mind with their free will. This metaphysical thought enables them to realise they are endowed with the power of their own free will which is strong enough to design their own universe. Thus, it must encourage individuals to be enlightened to be intellectually and spiritually proactive to survive and thrive in the coming age of Ying.

Libertarian, the metaphysical radical

 

Libertarianism is well known political philosophy promoting the high degree of freedom in both the economic scale and the social scale of the Political Compass. In another word, Libertarian is known to be the economic right wing and the social left wing. While Libertarian reveals a remarkably unique characteristic in terms of politics, it also takes a notable position in terms of the philosophical spectrum. Libertarian perspective of the subject of philosophy called metaphysics is in an extreme side of its spectrum.

Metaphysics focuses on how and why the world is constructed and structured as well as how human individuals' actions and minds take place, are influenced by, and affect the others and the world. The spectrum of the metaphysical perspectives is spread between the determinism and its opposition. 

The extreme side of the determinism regards that individuals' mind and their action derived from it are purely dependent on the outside influences. Therefore, there is only one world so that there is no such a thing as a parallel world while the fate determines how the world and individuals living there. In such a view, the free will of individuals is irrelevant to exist because their mind and actions derived from it are simply determined by means of the complex flow of the world and its fate. 

Most of the philosophical perspectives accept there is some degree of freedom from the determined factors, which allows to change the predetermined outcomes to a certain extend within restriction imposed by fates and inevitability. Despite many inevitable factors determining their minds and actions limiting individuals' free will over their life and surrounding environment, there are still non-determined factors available to change with their will. 

Even politically radical theories stand on somewhere between these two sides of the metaphysical perspective. The notable materialist political philosophy Marxism describes that individuals' minds and actions are predetermined by means of the historical inevitability even though it highlights the emerging will of the proletariat class individuals. Owing to this theory, individuals' minds and actions are not quite derived from individuals' free will. These individuals will of changing their living condition is derived from their material needs and wants, which have been suppressed through the history, rather than the proactive free will. 

On the other hand, Libertarianism defies this materialist view because it regards highly of the free will of autonomous individuals which stimulates individuals' minds and actions instead of their frustrated material needs and wants.  It also explains that their free will is detached from the influence of either their material conditions or the externally derived factors. By means of its theory (regardless of its feasibility in real), the will of all individuals is free and independent from their material as well as externally influences. Therefore, each individual has her/his own influencing power over their life, their surrounding environment, and their destiny.

Libertarians also challenges another materialist theory called Capitalism although they are often categorised into the identical political spectrum. The material Capitalism affirms that their self-proclaimed objective factors such as the market force derive individuals even though they are politically free. Under Capitalist philosophy, individuals are stimulated by the material profitability in the market force. 

By contrast, Libertarian claims for a freedom from such a materialist motive even if it may incur the loss for gaining something more than their instant materialist gain which they pursue for their own unique purpose. Libertarians cling to a freedom to live independently from not only the political cohesion but also from the market force if it does not deserve their will. 

Moreover, Libertarianism is radically spiritualistic despite its strong social and moral political principle. What Libertarians call the free will is nothing more than a spirit, the non-physical element forming individuals' characteristics, not highly dependent on their physical conditions or any outside materialistic influences. In an individual's mind is completely independent from the materialistic influence, there must be some non-physical element driving this individual. This is often called spirit in general.

As similar to religious/spiritual thinkers, Libertarians believe in and count on the power of  spirit which they call the free will, which may eventually enable them to alter the shape of their personal traits as well as their world environment.  However, there is a notable difference between Libertarianism and the majority religion/spiritualism. Libertarianism avoids agitating the mass individuals with a superstitious belief because it leaves a room for each individual to think of their own belief within their own mind. Furthermore, the distinctive spiritual thought of Libertarianism is that each individual spirit lives in each detached own spiritual universe so that it is totally different from a conformist type of spiritualism which many religions are based on. 

Libertarian word view describes that each parallel world universe exists per each autonomous individual's will so that the infinite number of the parallel worlds as the products of these free wills thus exists. Libertarian perspective insists on the extreme side opposed to the determinism. It explains that the world is the product of the complex interactions of actions and minds derived from the free wills of individuals.  In another word, the unlimited number of the parallel world exist due to the  complex entanglements of the multiple interactions of the free wills. 

All in all, considering the Libertarian perspective, Libertarian distinctively rejects any theory describing individuals will is reactive to the deterministic forces. In reality, majority of Libertarians tend to compromisingly admit that there are still various obstacles preventing individuals' will from fully controlling themselves and their surroundings such as their naturally limited capability and compatibility as well as unpredictable spontaneously occurring events. 

Nevertheless, they still keep the radical metaphysical view, fundamentally regarding highly of the power of each individual free will, as their fundamental principle of their philosophical thought.   Their fundamentalist perspective is radically opposed to the metaphysically determinism so that Libertarianism certainly stands on the edge of the metaphysical perspective spectrum. 

Hence, Libertarians are perhaps the most metaphysically radical thinkers among all the philosophers when it comes to metaphysics.

 

Tolerating Uselessness

The article entitled "Useless" was posted last time. Its attempt was to prove the uselessness should not treated as a sin and it can actually be a virtue with reference to Taoist teaching. This is an emerging crisis labelling individuals to ostracise them with the useless label, which Prof. Yuval Harari has warned of in his book "21 lessons for the 21st century". Taoism is indeed innovative enough to appreciate the uselessness and the lack of the conformity required for industrial socioeconomic structures. This project is designed to be a salvation for individuals labelled as useless as well as non-conforming. 

The current socioeconomic structure has become more capital intensive than the past. Employees and clients tend to require individuals to be equipped with multiple high skill-sets demanding money and time as well as their talents including efforts, innate abilities, and fortune to be in a right environment to achieve it. It has become materially more convenient with remarkably rapid technological innovations deriving the microeconomic advantages for firms and fortunate talented individuals. By contrast, the rest majority individuals are less likely to enjoy their microeconomic advantages while losing the equality of the opportunity to increase their income, seek better employment, and drastically improve their lifestyle.

The emerging crisis of labelling individuals as useless does not only take place in Capitalism but also in Socialism which regards highly of bearing social responsibility for all individuals. As a matter of fact, Socialism insists on participating in increasing the productivity and individuals' conformity to achieve it more than Capitalism because its productivity is demanded for deserving the whole society. Therefore, the problem of the social exclusion can be intensive in Socialism where none can be free to isolate themselves from conforming to their society. 

Almost all the political and moral philosophies having existed in the world regard of uselessness as the negative characteristic of individuals. They also insist that individuals should bear their responsibility for being non-conformists themselves without seeking supports from other individuals and society. These philosophies affirm there is a socioeconomic model with its standard which individuals are ought to comply with to achieve what they regard highly of. 

By contrast, Taoism is extremely unique as a political and moral philosophy adapting a tolerant perspective in its political and moral philosophy. The element of these academic subjects is intensively the Yang 陽 (light) kind claming for consistency, good-will, order, and perfection. When individuals and their society too much cling to accomplishing what these academic subjects insist on, it disturbs the balanced harmony of the natural world because the Yang 陽 element becomes excess. In order to maintain the balance, it requires to accept the Ying 陰 (shadow) element representing ambiguity, necessary-evil, passiveness, and, most importantly, tolerance. 

Perhaps, the socioeconomics had better focus more than usefulness for achieving their material prosperity and the philosophical and moral perfection. It had better re-evaluating the importance of slowing down the unbalanced growth among individuals and their living environments as well as tolerating the imperfection of how individuals and their society shape themselves. Instead of expecting all individuals to comply with their standard, the socioeconomic should rather take account of the factor that there are individuals unable to either be useful for the society standard or conforming to the social structure. 

All individuals are endowed with something necessary to be born in this terrestrial world by birth although nobody can be sure what it really is. It is extremely arrogant to judge an individual as no worth to live in the world as though someone were pretending to be the creator often called God pleaching. Uselessness in the terrestrial world has the use which is unable to be known by means of the mainstream terrestrial human standard. There are still several matters in this terrestrial world nature which human individuals do not yet know. 

On the other hand, there is an advantage for individuals to be useless. It means that they are less likely to be exploited than those who are treated as useful. Taoism refers to a tree with a distorted shape having survived without being chipped off as a resource. The existence of a tree is already helping to supply oxygen by its photosynthesis and taking a part of the dynamic natural environment. Furthermore, as explained in Taoism, this distorted shape can be comfortable to lean onto to be relaxed with. Judging from this story, an individual labelled as useless and/or non-conforming should be proud of her/himself instead of feeling miserable or giving up her/his life.

Having considered these matters, the tolerance seems to be the key to accept individuals labelled as useless. Instead of either abandoning them being excluded from the society mainstream or forcing them to conform to the socioeconomic standard, it might be feasible not to artificially fix the problem so promptly. As Taoism teaches, individuals had better lean how to be passive to the freely flowing spontaneous natural flow of how their surrounding environment changes. Moreover, everyone should be proud of themselves without being either arrogant or miserable. All in all, useless is just one shape existing in the natural world so that it has its own freedom to exist.