Privately Public

In the non-digital world, the public context is fairly solidly defined, so allows for societal rules that defy the unilateral purpose of being driven by insatiable corporate growth.

In the digital universe, however, there is currently no mainstream public context.

Activities that are commonly associated with the mainstream public area — including the ever-critical public discourse — are purely privatized. Free speech in that private context has been rejected, in favor of an unavoidably biased, elitist narrative that is euphemized as healthy discussion.

One thing that government typically fails to achieve is efficiency in speed, which forms a seriously powerful friction against the continuously pressing thrust of technological advancement. Laws (i.e. governmental leverage) take a long time, in terms of formation and application, for prime example. We cannot expect our government to properly build the digital public area, especially when they too-often struggle to build even reasonably navigable websites.

During the relatively innocent beginnings of the internet (when it was still the Internet with initial capitalization), the mindset was powerfully clear.

A service would come online for the common good (likely built by students within higher education), and sometimes that service would grow in popularity. The sensible fear was that popular services would be ruined by corporatism, but there was a solid plan to counteract that disaster.

If a private business exploits that service popularity against the common good, then someone else would come along to build a better version of that service without that abuse, and everyone would sensibly migrate to that new service.

I am seeing signs of that competition within areas of decentralization (e.g. Mastodon, and so on), but the kind of massive migration that happened from MySpace to Facebook many moons ago has failed to materialize these days due to many factors defying brevity here.

Corporations succeeded to conquer the mainstream online space, and they are leveraging it to further their economic barbarism (continuously absorbing financial leverage away from the majority of people, while those people are terribly distracted by politicized culture wars).

The ‘rule the world’ mentality basically drives society, instead of humanity sensibly putting health properly in the driver’s seat.

At least within the United States here, the economy does not serve the health of the people. We the people disastrously are popularly expected to sacrifice our health for the sake of the economy (and the people who have flagrantly rigged it for themselves). That has a global effect, at least due to the dollar being the global reserve currency.

Monopolies (duopolies, and any other competition restrictions) are the enemies firmly against harmless free market forces that lead to an organically healthy economy, but competition restrictions are easy to establish.

Simply register a patent to prevent anyone else from competing within that economic arena.

Or simply lobby (i.e. bribe) the government to leverage law to prevent competition.

Or simply insist that the government take over a particular service (e.g. healthcare), so only a limited set of businesses can participate within that system (favoritism).

Or simply leverage the power of popular social media platforms (inclusively with government support) to demonize sensible opponents.

Critically note the role of government within each of those paths. Governments (demonstrably globally now throughout history) predominantly serve to entrench and sustain power for the people who have it.

Serving (or oppressing) the people — always at the expense of the people (e.g. via hard-earned taxpayer money) — merely serves that oligarchical power. The more power that the government has, the less individual power remains for the people, and it is terribly difficult to remedy any resulting abuse.

If small businesses cannot properly compete against abusive large ones, then society heinously suffers, because the result is a massively unjust barrier between the oligarchs and everyone else (an oligarchical fortress).

In the United States here, that is the currently rough circumstance that is crushing too many people, especially the poor within both rural and urban areas. We the people understand that the whole system is hideously rigged (and has been for decades), and we are trying to responsibly leverage democracy to remedy that abuse.

The rigging methodology is simple. If you have a lot of money, then it is easy to make more of it. If you do not have a lot of money, then it is hard to make more of it. Having a lot of money is leverage to control society, and rarely does anyone brutalized by financial hardship rise above to join the financially wealthy.

But a healthy democracy requires the availability of the healthy choice for the people. Instead, we have the ‘absolutely unacceptable corporatist’ candidate versus a different style of ‘absolutely unacceptable corporatist’ candidate. “Long live the oligarchy!” is what we inevitably vote for; be it slightly more politically styled as left or right.

Our founding revolutionaries understood that individual responsibility (the key to optimized individual health) is the proper societal press, instead of yet another coercive collectivism driven inevitably by selfishly arrogant and ignorant elitism “to protect the children” (i.e. power addiction disguised as leadership).

The revolutionary American style of liberty — a self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. harmless liberty) — while still imperfect (especially within the area of persecuting exceptions), led to a nation that has far superseded any other in terms of immigration desirability, at least due to the promise of individual liberty to harmlessly shape your own life obviously having enormous appeal to the likely tortured human mind (tortured likely by some form of coercive collectivism).

Based upon our written national foundation, they were righteously primarily trying to oppose the abuse of law (such abuse being a key tool towards wielding power addiction against society), so they chose to limit government power in favor of empowering the people.

Sadly, they (like everyone else) failed to end the power addiction at the root of all humanly generated problems, so the power addicts for over two centuries of our national existence (via a kind of war of attrition) simply convinced the people to cheaply surrender that brutally hard-earned power in order to “protect the children”. Sacrifice power for safety, even despite the obviously nasty oligarchical credibility issues that challenge the nature of that safety, as clearly demonstrated these days.

Any granting of power to the elites to end the burden of individual responsibility is foolishly popularly embraced, especially when the argument to relinquish that power is leveraged via tried and true marketing psychology (trustworthy smile, nice suit, right word choice, fearmongering, and so on).

When a society plagued by power addicts disguised as leaders results in horrendous societal problems, the solution is typically along the lines of implementing a war on drugs, war on guns, war on prostitution, and so on — which is equal to saying more power to the power addicts, more power to the power addicts, more power to the power addicts, and so on.

Responsible individualism (i.e. organic collectivism — so not “selfishism”) is genuine progressivism and liberalism (as opposed to the stale empowering of elitists to “regulate” us all), as well as libertarianism, and even American conservatism; as opposed to the ugly pre-American conservatism that still presses mercilessly to infringe upon our fundamental rights via power addiction, too often in the name of religious dominance.

We must do better for the genuine sake of our children and the rest of posterity, and I will do my best to address these issues further, whenever I am righteously able.

There is no sensible reason to believe that a greedy (i.e. power addicted) person is a healthy person.

The ultimate conclusion is the masses need to finally understand the problem of power addiction (a mental illness), and then sensibly apply a solution to end it — replace mass anger with mass pity towards the greedy to end their power fix, like taking alcohol away from alcoholics in the name of a proper intervention.

That sensible, rather easy, and peaceful approach replaces further enabling power addiction.

Expressing anger towards power addicts cannot end power addiction. Anger is an extension of frustration, which comes from helplessness, so anger enables their power fix.

The globally sustained pity movement against power addiction also replaces merely changing the form of power addiction via yet another violent revolution; horribly mass brutality bringing a new group of power addicts to defeat the revolutionary purpose, as demonstrated after literally all violent revolutions.

Moreover, we need to end the false belief in the possibility of getting away with abusive behavior in general.

To end (or at least minimize) abusive behavior, we need to understand, apply, and share the Rule of Reality… “The path to power is the path to powerlessness in a balanced reality.”

That Rule is not philosophy, nor religion. It is a hardcore scientific truism that inevitably forces humanity to fundamentally redefine power in a way that renders abusive behavior as pitifully stupid — i.e. it naturally encourages us to do our best against our negative side, because we understand that we cannot get away with abuse.

Without going into depth here (noting I supply plenty of yearly posts via this journal that provide it), the Rule of Reality is only made up of two parts; balance is inherent within stability (demonstrably true), and reality’s stability is permanently supreme (reality is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, according to a law of physics). Reality as the totality of existence is supreme alpha (top dog, and so on), and reality’s version of might makes right is the Rule of Reality, which is a verbalization of reality’s flawless stability.

In other words, reality itself is a purely natural and incorruptible totalitarian governance that is paying literally perfect attention to who you are and whatever you are doing (including right now), as you obviously are a part of reality.

The fundamental human mistake, one that spans our species’ existence, is the belief that dominance (benefit, advantage, and so on) can ultimately be free, because humanity foolishly believes that reality is irrelevant in terms of power (even though reality is demonstrably pure power as whatever happens).

That mistake comes from the limits of human perception. If someone beats someone else up, but there is no immediate counter beating, then the assumption is permanent victory.

But as we now understand that reality is pure energy (that beating is an energy pressure), we now understand that inevitably a counter beating must exist within reality, even if we cannot readily perceive it.

Correct just that one fundamental human error, and humanity is healthily fundamentally redefined to genuinely protect the children and the rest of posterity to the fullest possible extent.

When power is understood by humanity to never possibly be free, then the desire for more power is tempered due to the inevitable (hardcore scientifically ensured) cost in the form of equal powerlessness, so forces society to explore the wise (including respectably minimal) expenditure of power. That frees up ample resources to ensure that everyone at least has the survival basics, which removes an enormous amount of unhealthy stress (the kind that fuels ample criminality).

If you hate greed, then you love the Rule of Reality.

Everyone but the greedy hates greed, so the Rule of Reality has the potential to be seriously globally popular.

By ending power addiction, we can then healthily naturally improve our private and public lives, while all brutal people (including smart psychopaths) understand that brutality upon others is irrefutably brutality upon themselves.

Of course, the more successful this sensible line of reasoning becomes, the more it will be censored in the name of “healthy discussion” in order “to protect the children”.