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

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

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

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

Greek and Eurozone Fiscal Crisis compared to Water Plumbing and Supply

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

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

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

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

2+2=5

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

Then, A∈(0. 1) and also B∈(0, 1),

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

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

D&D Alignment Chart: Economic Theorists

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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




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

Adam Smith: True Neutral

David Recardo: Chaotic Neutral (The Free-Minded)

Friedrich August Hayek: Lawful Evil (The Dominator)

John Nash: Neutral Evil(The Backstabber)

Hedge Fund Managers: Chaotic Evil(The Destroyer)





Economic Political Compass/Spectrum

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

Euthanasia should be legalised under a strict condition

Euthanasia should be legalised. At least, euthanasia should be considered as the last resort for taking both physical and psychological pain. If a person is suffering from an fatal crucial pain, and wishes to prevent the pain by terminating his life, euthanasia should be considered as the best alternative option if there is "not" any way to cure this patient from the terminal illness.

Another reason to support euthanasia is to discourage some doctors and hospital managers gaining an excess financial revenue taken from the income of their patients and the patients' families and significant others. Some doctors and hospitals sometimes tend to take the advantage of their patients' hope of curing their massive pain. They tend to convince their patients as though it is possible to cure the pain even though it is impossible in order to encourage them to keep spending their medical expenses.

The worrying matter of legalising euthanasia is that doctors and hospital managers may take the advantage of the low cost (Financially and Time-wise) by giving euthanasia without a proper medical examination. Even though it is still possible to save the patients life without remaining a terminal pain, doctors and hospital managers may decide giving euthanasia rather than giving a further medical treatment. In addition, patients might not be able to obtain the proper information enough to know the possibility of surviving without taking euthanasia. In this situation, doctors have an advantage to bias the information for the patients.

In order to avoid this disadvantage for patients, the option for euthanasia should be regulated to not be a very easy option to be chosen. The third person has to be informed well with the process of all medical treatments taken and how both doctor and patient agree with each other. This third person will be a witness to prove that the legal and fair contract and decision are made between doctor and patient. The patients' right to survive within the possibility and obtain the proper sets of the information have to be given to them. The doctors also have to choose to give euthanasia as the last resort for their patients with a proof of the enough medical examination having taken previous to the euthanasia process. The third party has to be there to become an mediator with an objective view point going between them to make sure both parties agree or disagree by means of the proper contract and information provided.


In terms of the ethical view point, many of both utilitarians and deontologists tend to agree with conditionally legalising euthanasia under the fair regulation.

Utilitarians are afraid of the bad consequence by legalising euthanasia such as hospital managers giving euthanasia as a cheap option rather than as the last resort. But, Utilitarians generally agree with offering the higher utility from eliminating the terminal pain than keep suffering from it for the long time.

Deontologists generally disagree with "killing" lives by humans' hand because tolerating euthanasia, the behaviour of killing, makes human-beings take "killing/murder" for granted. However, Deontologists also agree to give "mercy" to individuals to help them to take their terminal pain off to save their spirit from their deadly painful life.

All in all, both Utilitarian and Deontologists agree with the "mercy killing" but disagree with "murder-like".


Judging from the point of view from Objectivists, who insist on egoism for self-survival, suiside is an ultimate vile, or the error caused by the lack of individuals' consciousness, which individuals must avoid. By contrast, Objectivists also support the freedom of choice. In this aspect, Objectivists disagree with the suiside caused by the desparation induced by an oppressive environment. But, they admit the suiside if there is no alternative option to divert from the terminal malcondition other than commiting suiside. Therefore, Objectivists support legalising euthanasia, the desired suiside, as the last alternative option of individuals' choice.


In conclusion, having taken legal, psychological, fiancial, managemental, and ethical factors based on the three major philosophical theories, although there are some controvertial problems, euthanasia should still be considered as one choice. It is important to safely legalise euthanasia for the cause of freedom of choice as long as it protects individuals' liberty and right. Hense, euthanasia should be legalised under the strict condition.