Howard Roark - The Fountainhead

Here we have one of the most inspirational speeches ever made in favour of the individual, from the second most famous book of Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead", this speech is a wonderful encapsulation of the values of the individual. 

"Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light, but he left them a gift they had not conceived of, and he lifted darkness off the earth. Through out the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads, armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors, stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed. Every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered, and they paid - but they won.

No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work was his only goal. His work, not those who used it, his creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things, and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not. With his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing, and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.


Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual, there is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot not be subordinated to the needs, opinions, or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.


The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks, the parasite copies. The creator produces, the parasite loots. The creator's concern is the conquest of nature - the parasite's concern is the conquest of men. The creator requires independence, he neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice. The parasite seeks power, he wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others. That he must think as they think, act as they act, and live is selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own. Look at history. Everything thing we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots. Without personal rights, without personal ambition, without will, hope, or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name: the individual against the collective.


Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism. The principle of man's inalienable rights. It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce. To prosper, not to starve. To achieve, not to plunder. To hold as his highest possession a sense of his personal value. And as his highest virtue, his self respect. Look at the results. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy, as much of the earth has been destroyed.


I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me. It was believed that my work belonged to others, to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent. That is was my duty to serve them without choice or reward. Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. I designed Cortlandt, I made it possible, I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of seeing it built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return. I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim. It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard. In the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others. My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake."

Who is running your mind?

This is for the practical men. The ones who reject theory, the ones who deny thought. Those who claim to live and think only by their experience and feel of reality. They dismiss logics and reason for some intuitive derivation, it's right because they feel it. These are the men that say to be immune to intellectual influence. It's a fatal conceit, the absolute lack of method and the presumptuous attitude towards knowledge make them a potential deadly threat to others.

"Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it." 

- George Santayana

Like with history, those who ignore philosophy are doomed to have their minds enslaved. How so? I'll let the words of Ayn Rand expand this claim: 

“As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation - or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.”

- Ayn Rand

Indeed, we live in a world that breathes ideology. There are ideas everywhere, we cannot avoid them. We think and we act, so it is implied that we must have a methodology to execute these operations (even the case of the methodology of no methodology). These ways to think and act are a product of Philosophy, they have been created, debated and documented over the centuries; just because one doesn't know what's his, it doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

There's some sort of a red pill question I'm going to present to you: "Who is running your mind?" - If you operate by ideas, and these ideas were most likely created by famous thinkers, some or a long time ago, do you know who they are? Do you know their work? Are you aware of the implications of such ideas to yourself and to ones around you?

There are serious risks in following intuitively what we hear here and there. Philosophy matters, it provides several tools to dissect ideas and concepts. It is one self's responsibility to decide the complete ownership of its own mind. To conclude, there is a quote by a famous economist that would be very suited for this occasion:

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

- J. M. Keynes

Were you Progressive today?

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 

― Isaac Asimov

No, you have the right to have an informed opinion.

As this simple yet enlightening quote eloquently puts it, western modern day "DeMockcracy" is on the front line to exalt their citizens to express their freedom of speech, as long as they do not utilize their freedom of thought, of course.

The thought that a human being has some sort sort of intrinsic value just because he walks on two legs bewilders me. This inane idea that states that "There is good in all of Us" (you've heard it, confess), has no factual ground whatsoever, it becomes "offensive" to say the obvious. That there are people that are a failed  project of a living being, whose minds are infertile like the simplest amoeba.

Gentlemen, this is not being "mean", or "unpleasant" or whatever society tries to ram into your head with a pneumatic hammer. This is being a realist to the core and having an OBJECTIVE view of the world as it is.

Of course, the people that will be on the first line to condone these theories  are the so called "progressive", which is quite ironic since the progressive movement brings no progress at all. There if a difference between liberal and progressive, the idea of Progressive has the sense of change that can light up with hope the layman.

What progressive really means is that we will walk, progressively, of course, into a world with ever present regulations , who will in turn do their utmost  to assure that group mentality trumps the individual. And then we'll have a tidal wave of equality and fairness, and when we have had enough of all the equality and all of the fairness, we will have  more of it whether we like it or not. Why? It is progressive.

Right and wrong do not come into it. Progressives always know better than everyone else. It is a gift they have. The arbiters of what people are allowed to do and say, which is, of course anything progressive that does not have the slightest of critical spirit, that is not progressive, that is "offensive". 

If you are not progressive, you must surely be far right and chase down immigrants with torches and white hoods, see? Racist and xenophobic, therefore non progressive. Of course, the quintessential word regarding the progressive movement is multiculturalism.

European multiculturalism, of course, consists in throwing certain groups of immigrants into state  paid, ghetto like neighbourhoods, this rainbow made of confetti is the banner of progressive white knights of truth that are always there beside us in search for the truth, if it is progressive, of course.

If the truth is not progressive, it is incorrect. 

Ultimately, the progressive movement is applied exactly like Marxist revolutions, gradually, progressively.

Like a disease.

Valete Fratres

On Consciousness and Militancy

There are 4 possible states for a population, in general, to have towards itself. Individuals regard themselves and those around them by different methods, ending up with some ideology that binds it all in some perspective. However, this will not be about the philosophical methods of analyzing and perceiving the world around you, but more about the consequences of whatever method it is used.

Note: the following consequences are not specific or exclusive to any ideology(ies), though there are certain schools of thought in which most members fit in a certain category.

Beforehand, I would like to introduce this 2 concepts that define a state of mind of an individual or of a group of them.

Consciousness: the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you. (in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)

Militancy: the quality of having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something. (in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)

In other words, consciousness is your awareness about the world around you and militancy the degree of compromise (even through coercion) that you are ready to apply for a specific end.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOW CONSCIOUSNESS / HIGH MILITANCY

In this first situation, which can be regarded as the worst combination, an individual has a very insufficient knowledge about philosophy, politics and economics (in general), but an extraordinarily high willingness to incur in action against any goal. People with this set in mind, are easily controllable and can be used as terrible weapons. It is an active aggressive stance that will lead to a very likely social disaster.

LOW CONSCIOUSNESS / LOW MILITANCY

The second best or worst to have, since the absence of an increased militancy doesn't provide the weaponization of the affected individuals. These are in fact, what is commonly described as "sheeple", the best approximation to human livestock. They don't know, and promptly deny any form of action. This category is for the very true conformists, a passive aggressive stance, that allows ramping tyranny or collectivist rule. However, it must be said, that people with LC/LM are not to be expected to take by force so eagerly.

HIGH CONSCIOUSNESS / HIGH MILITANCY

Again, the second best or worst scenario to have in a group of people. It is the combined effects of consciousness and militancy that'll give those in this class the true perks of an activist. People with HC/HM will gladly learn new things and just afterwards shout them out loud to other people, even driving them into action. Their militancy may seem to be neutralized by the level of consciousness, however their action is very likely one step ahead of their mind. Moreover, they reveal a somewhat solid knowledge in intellectual subjects which allow them to reason more than those who lack these competences. Finally they may be very useful or dangerous, with no certainty, however they are indeed not passive at all.

HIGH CONSCIOUSNESS / LOW MILITANCY

Finally, the image of the wise man in the armchair, the person that has a very satisfactory range of studies but that thinks more than acts. Every decision is very well balanced and thought, with a frequent use of debate as a method for self-improvement. Only acts with a very high degree of confidence on the idea, almost never rushing into a fight without an incredibly good reason. It may be regarded as the best type, since it preferably takes everything into consideration and avoids going berserk for some irrational motive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, which one are you? Share your thoughts in the comment section below if you feel like it.

Let us slain the Leviathan that enslaves us and get back the freedom that was stolen from us at birth, but lets not rush into action without thinking. Good ideas definitely don't require force and the last century was a big and sad example, reason must come first in order to prevent disasters.

Feminism killed the Nice Guy - Part I

After a long absence we are back to business, today I shall unravel the second part of the saga: "Feminism killed the Nice guy". As a recap, the first part was focused on John Stuart Mill's work "The Subjugation of Women", and the teachings of the first Women's Rights activist as I liked to call her, Mary Wollstonecraft, generally these two contributions were in my view extremely important, the leap of thought required was relatively visionary at the time and it could still be useful and practical today in countries where women are enslaved and have a lesser status than that which of men. This second part will focus on the French existentialist philosopher, whose influence in feminist theory and feminist philosophy was undoubtedly great, I am of course referring to Simone de Beauvoir.

The work to be analysed is obviously "The Second Sex" by Simone de Beauvoir, as an existentialist, her central premise was that existence precedes essence, hence, a person is not born a woman, but rather, becomes one. This can become accepted by observing the emergence of transsexuals as human beings that were ultimately born in the wrong sex, and seek to alter it by means of aesthetic medicine. 

The central core of her analysis is related to the Hegelian concept of "the Other", a key concept in continental philosophy, it opposes the "Same". In Simone's view of a male dominated culture, women are seen as the "Other", the "Other" is essentially a "minority", but a minority in the ideological sense and not the sheer numerical sense. In social sciences, the concept of "Other" has been applied to understand the processes by which society and groups exclude the "Others" in order to subordinate or ostracise them from society. 

This dissociative behaviour is linked to the artificial construction of roles in order to fit in with the machinery of society without being labelled as an "other", due to the fear of stigmatization or condemning. The use of otherness is strictly linked with nationality and patriotism, in order to mould a certain type of national identity, this can entail the active segregation of groups labelled as "others", and in extreme cases, genocide. 

In the field of gender studies, the "Other" applied by Simone, is, as I previously stated, her  belief of women as being objects of a socially constructed ideology in male dominated society, arguing that in the same way these social edifices can be constructed, they can also be changed with the course of the time and the progress/change/creation of new ideas and social paradigms.

By following Derridean deconstruction we are able to deconstruct the word woman in order to remove the need of rationally male society, in short, this deconstruction denies the existence of an intrinsic meaning and therefore impossible to achieve metaphysics of presence, a small definition of this concept is that:

"The deconstructive interpretation holds that the entire history of Western philosophy and its language and traditions has emphasized the desire for immediate access to meaning, and thus built a metaphysics or ontotheology around the privileging of presence over absence."

This prompts us back to Simone and the "Second Sex".  Part One is called "Destiny" , which has three chapters, "Biological Data", "The Psychoanalytical Point of View" and lastly, "The Point of View of Historical Materialism". 

The first chapter is related to physiology and the differences between the bodies of males and females, putting in evidence the greater muscular strength, less blood cells and lesser respiratory capacity. In the second chapter, Simone exposes the theories of Freud and Adler, and dismisses them afterwards, arguing that there is no empirical basis for a study on eroticism to be explored in the domain of psychoanalysis. The third chapter is centred on  "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Friedrich Engels, with no surprise she ended up dismissing yet another theory of a certain "historical defeat of women". Interesting that an ideology that supposedly defends equality between the sexes has reached a certain height of claims that were never put to evidence by any proponent of capitalism, Simone easily dismissed Engels' work due to lack of basis and reason regarding these claims, I shall induce that she utilized the same method of deconstruction applied to the other, with metaphysical presence being the core point, relativizing the "defeat of women", even though she acknowledges and propagates the idea of women as an "Other" in a society that is male-oriented.

“Two separate beings, in different circumstances, face to face in freedom and seeking justification of their existence through one another, will always live an adventure full of risk and promise." (p. 248)” 

- Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex"

This concludes yet another part of the analysis.

Valete fratres.

Feminism killed the Nice Guy - Prologue

The Western world is full of half truths and half lies, but the most exaggerated claims of all is the new wave of feminism that started in the 90's and has propagated into today, and is generally accepted as some sort of indisputable truth. Let us now dissect the history of feminism, honestly I prefer to call the first waves as women's rights activists, because they were fair and totally legitimate in the search for gender equality, not the feminazi radical beliefs we have today in the West.

There are three waves, the first started in the XIX century and ended around half the XX century, however, the first precursor of the Women's Rights movement was Mary Wollstonecraft.

In her most known work "A Vindication of Rights for Women" she argues that women are in no way inferior to men, but appear to be so because they lack education. She envisions a social order founded in reason, in which men and women have essentially the same rights. As equals.

Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously writes: "Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things; I have already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard? I must therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they have the same simple direction, as that there is a God."

We can, in all certainty, give validity to Wollstonecraft's assertions, she does not state than man and women are "equal" in the literal sense, but that they are rational human beings and should both be treated as such, in accordance to dignity and even common sense. She can be considered the "mother" of Women's rights in general.

Secondly, we have  John Stuart Mill and his work "The Subjection of Women" , he states his argument of equality between the sexes. At the time it was published in 1869, it was a declared affront to the European conventions for the status between men and women. Mill attempts to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality.

"Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile - a traditional prejudice. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men. And there would be benefits for society at large - it would double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great effect on human development.

If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests and abilities.

Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also. The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. Mill felt that men and women married to follow customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women, Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands, thereby improving relationships.

Mill attacks marriage laws, which he likens to the slavery of women, "there remain no legal slaves, save the mistress of every house." He alludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery did before it. He also argues for the need for reforms of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business agreement, placing no restrictions on either party. Among these proposals are the changing of inheritance laws to allow women to keep their own property, and allowing women to work outside the home, gaining independent financial stability.

Again the issue of women's suffrage is raised. Women make up half of the population, thus they also have a right to a vote since political policies affect women too. He theorizes that most men will vote for the MPs which will subordinate women, therefore women must be allowed to vote to protect their own interests."

"Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."

He defends three fundamental principles regarding society as a whole:

1. Personal Liberty As long as we do not harm others, we should be able to express our own natures, and experiment with our lives
2. Liberty to Govern our own Affairs Civilized people are increasingly able to make their own decisions, and protect their own rights. Representative government is also a useful way of getting us to think about the common good.
3. Liberty for women as well as men All of Mill's arguments apply to both men and women. Previous ideas about the different natures of men and women have never been properly tested. Women can participate in determining their own affairs too.

As we can easily understand, there are no false dogmas or exaggerated claims in Mill's assertions, we can describe his philosophy regarding women's rights in the following sentence:

"I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely."

This concludes the prologue.

The Faith of the Faithless

"Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one." 
— Marcus Aurelius (Meditations)

Life, ephemeral as it is, can be a gift or a curse. There is no good or evil sense in life, there is only good and evil in our actions. Many of us do not understand how fleeting it can be. Humans inflict pain for the sheer pleasure of doing it, that, along with our double edged sword, rationality, is what distinguishes us from animals. 

Animals are perfectly inserted in nature and their place in the planet is clear and unquestionable. We, humans, have the conceit of considering there is a  higher purpose that justifies our existence. This is arrogance.

If this assumption was true, one would expect our existence to be an harmonious one, between ourselves and between the planet. 

Nothing further from the truth.

Life encompasses good and evil, the good and evil of our actions and our beliefs. Our humanity is not given, it is acquired. Even in the age of technology our minds have shrunk, our behaviours mimic beasts time and time again, progress is an oasis in the age of nothingness. 

Idolized ignorance and praise in dehumanization, the years go forward but life goes backwards. Past atrocities haunt collective memories, terror, sheer terror of the past. Shallowness is associated with existence.

The days of cowardice and fear are not over, the very same cowardice that fuels inner angst of infertile, innocuous and inhospitable minds, cruelty in it's truest form runs their pitiful existences, delayed corpses that breed. 

A Man that murders an animal can murder an entire species, the poverty of spirit necessary to commit such acts are a rejection of life itself as a gift, do your best to avoid cursing the lives of others.

"People speak sometimes about the "bestial" cruelty of man, but that is terribly unjust and offensive to beasts, no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel." 
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Garden of Epicurus

"Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. 

Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.” —Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

At the centre of the Epicureanist philosophy we have atomistic combined by physics with rational hedonistic ethics that emphasizes moderation of desires and cultivation of friendships. The Epicurean world view is optimistic, claiming that philosophy can free us from death and the supernatural, while teaching us to find happiness in almost all situations. Epicureanism holds great significance in the development of Western intellectual thought and philosophy, its contemporary value is unquestionable. 

However, in an era devoid of ideology, timeless sayings have the tendency of losing their own intrinsic value, or worse, being embedded in the diluted pseudo knowledge that emerges with the age of post modernism. The very same thoughts that marked several ages of philosophic discovery and thought provoking reasoning, are now being used by your neighbour next door to fill the void brought by the lack of a clear ideology. The hedonistic mantra of the 21st Century, "be yourself", and all the zen qualities that feed the self worshipping of the modern day Peter Pans and Cinderellas, how quaint.

“The wealth required by nature is limited and is easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity.” 

-Epicurus

Vanity indeed, is the driving force of the general stream of unoriginal thoughts by so called individuals that form the vast herds of sheeple that grace this beautiful Earth. 

It is of the utmost irony that the general flock feels original by imitating others. One would wonder if we have had scarcity of philsophers and thinkers, that, in a general way, and with their own differences, have always exalted the timeless, yet rare exercise of THINKING. 

“I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.”
― Epicurus

Instead, we are bestowed with the pressing need of yet another post modern egotrip, "popularity", ah sweet, sweet nectar that fills our otherwise mundane and boorish lives of ceaseless repetition of thoughtless routine, how hard it is to escape from such chimera, to slay such Leviathan. Freedom of conscience and thought, so highly relished in this world, yet so rarely used. With all the cries for liberty in this world, the ultimate goal is, ironically, to submit to the will of the many, whether it is the State, peer pressure, social pressure, or the amalgam of our own insecurities.

“I was not, I was, I am not, I care not. (Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo)”
― Epicurus

"Happiness", of course, do we know what we really desire? Is happiness a conformist category? The "pursuit of happiness", do we really want to get what we want? When we hold something, or even someone, as an object of desire, the amount of pleasure we get from it decreases as soon as we get what we want, new objectives and new desires appear before us, in truth, we do not really want what we think we want.

“Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”
― Epicurus

The Night Watch - a thought experiment on unemployment

It is claimed, by many intelectual traditions that specific intervention will lead to a better economy and therefore more prosperity. One of those schools of thought claims that sometimes we need to destroy resources in order to create wealth or to avoid economic and financial collapses, e.g. wars, stimuli, bail outs, government programs, the list goes on and on... 

F. Bastiat once wrote about the Broken Window Falacy, wanting to disprove these kinds of policies, many decades before they were made so popular. In this post, I would like to introduce a similar version of the Broken Window falacy regarding a Night Watch at his workplace, with the aim of criticizing some economic and political schools of thought.

-------------------------------------------------

It is said that Mr. Keys is a very good night-watchman, working at Building A for over 4 years without a single criminal incident during that time. He's still fairly young, a nice and honest guy, with great reputation in safety matters and a comfortable wage. Lately, however, Mr. Keys is feeling specially worried with the consequences of his success. He thinks to himself: "If no thief has ever tried to break in this place, what keeps my boss from firing me, since I've never had to pull my gun to protect building A?". Having thought about this for a couple of days, he came to the conclusion that either he would do a false flag on building A, in order to increase the demand for his labor, or he would rather keep doing what he does best, hoping he'll not be fired.

Some may think it is worth the risk to create a false flag, because in that line of thought, he would be able to earn a higher wage and definitely not get unemployed. Suposing he were to be successful at his scam, would now the boss have an increased demand for security?

The answer to this question is a clear no. If he pulled it through, his boss would be worst off since a significant part of his property was damaged and/or stolen. Mr. Keys could be immediately fired since there was not enough money to pay him any longer. Suposing that this is still not the case, the boss would have to cut his wage or even hire a new night watch, since Mr. Keys made him poorer by not doing his job.

--------------------------------------------------

It may seem pretty trivial to most of the readers the lessons within this story. But for some bureaucrats, economists, thinkers and rulers it's clearly not the case. By some sort of dark magic they can pull a false flag and still have "you" begging for more control from their part. This story, with its variables, factors and principles is only applicable and valid in a free and voluntary society; where you see Mr. Keys using the "divide and conquer" methodology and having a better wage and greater power are the places where you can infer there's a supreme entity called the State and its jackals that are just watchmen that rule over the ones who pay their wages (i.e. consumers or individuals).

Best wishes,

Tiago

The Coffee Vending Machine - a love story on democracy and hot drinks

There was a time, long ago, where countries were ruled by a person, a family or simply an elite. Then, extreme militancy made the democratic reforms pass, in the name of a better society, by having a larger number of its members participating in the the public debate. With the following story, I'm aiming a critique to the ones who believe voting (by universal suffrage, or by any other) is the best way to solve social/economic problems in a free society.

--

Imagine a multi-button coffee vending machine with the following drinks: (A)Black Coffee, (B)Decaf, (C)Hot Chocolate, (D)Cappuccino, (E)Tea and (F)Milk. Now, usually you go to the machine, put the money in, very likely you get the satisfaction you paid for. However, this will be a different case:

Imagine there's only one coffee vending machine in your country (could be in your state/province or even in your town). Now someone suggests and "everybody" agrees that, to be fair, we should vote on the drink we enjoy the most in order to elect the country's official drink. 

Imagine an "election" was held, and the results were presented to the public:

(A)Black Coffee       52%

(B)Decaf                  19%

(C)Hot Chocolate       7%

(D)Cappuccino         11%

(E)Tea                         6%

(F)Milk                        5%

Now, it is clear that (A)Black Coffee won this election by having over 50% of the votes. From now on, there will be only one available drink in the coffee machine for the next (lets say) 4 years, when another election will be held.

Where the problems start:

A citizen who just happens to like hot chocolate (exclusively), now will have to drink black coffee if he wants to have a hot drink at all. This may also happen to the Decaf lover or the Cappuccino girl, or lets say someone has an health issue with having coffee, now his/her economic and social freedoms have been severely limited.

But isn't democracy imperfect but the best we have today? - Well, if the machine were to be operated solely by market forces and individual free will, i.e. not being controlled by a third party (be it a king, dictator or majority rule), wouldn't it be much fairer and efficient?  

You say that this machine is a bad metaphor when compared with our society? Do you claim that society is much more complex and there are variables that can't be represented in this particular example? - Sorry, but if there are too many variables that you can't fully understand them, then why should you be in favor of creating an authority (that physically does not exist, but intervenes) which claims it can solve social and economic problems by being coercive and fail consecutively in solving those same problems? Besides, the drink that gets elected will never fully represent your true taste (unless it's your own drink) and you'll end up spending your life trying to persuade (eventually coercing) people that like tea to drink a latte and to love it even more.