Drug law causes drug crime.
It amazes me that we tolerate drug law given the lessons of prohibition.
By outlawing drugs we've created a criminal enterprise the likes of which the world had never seen.
This is all old hat, the debate is well established and the figures are there for anyone who knows how to use google. For me people fall into three categories with regard to drug law. Those who are ignorant, those who profit from the drug trade in some way (DEA or dealer), and those who are for across the board legalization.
This post is about how the future will look with regard to drugs.
Desktop manufacturing is going to change the world. And one of the first things people are going to do with the ability to craft items from the molecule up is create their own drugs.
Enforcement will be impossible and the drug trade will vanish. This will have two seriously positive side effects.
1. Drug law, and the related expense of enforcement will go with it, from the culture of drug testing, to the absurdly over crowded prisons.
In the face of a truly impossible job, the government in its infinite pragmatism will pretend social progression. As I said the data to do this today is already available, so it will be worlds easier in the future.
2. The Criminal empire funded and created by the drug trade will wither and die along with all the related violence and heart break.
Where's the profit in growing cultivating, refining shipping and manufacturing heroin when the future equivalent of a toaster oven can churn it out for 1$ a pound?
And don't try to tell me they'll sell the machines, because the machine will make the machines. You'll have as much luck reglauting them as you do MP3s.
We already have rapid prototyping devices (the grandfather of True DM) that can replication up to 50% of its own components.
Drug use will become a health care issue, and a pretty unimportant one at that. future historians will look back and realize a huge part of drug use was the anti establishment culture, just like in the 60s. Once drug law vanishes, once the government makes it clear it no longer cares, drug use even in the presence of perfect availability will drop off, for the very same reasons many people don't smoke or drink despite availability.
Anti drug posters and after school specials and the like cause drug use in an adversarial and smart ass teen crowd. D.A.R.E. To make weed cooler than it is.
Stick it to the man, smoke a joint, right? What happens when the man doesn't care.
People are not stupid they are just easily mislead. the simple fact is drugs are primitive. They are a chemical reflection of our ignorance. They are a neurological sledge hammer. Once drug use becomes fully a health care problem drug use will drop off to nothing. the only thing that will remain is functional addicts and drug hobbyists. The cannabis cup crowd and the people around you that are on drugs that you can't even detect.
Mark my words, drug law's days are numbered.
Very soon, despite The Company's aspiration for total control, we will enter an era of unprecedented personal freedom and wealth as the need for centralization drops away.
Robots and DM, will redefine what it means to be wealthy since the service and consumer economies will vanish.
"The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The New World: Sexuality
This is my general view of how I see the future sexually.
I envision a world where sexual expression is a human right. As a result sexual diversity would reign supreme and musicians would stop being pg-13 strippers.
I envision a world where if a woman wants to trade money for sex, she'll not be jailed or stigmatized. As a result advertising would have to use something other than sex to sell products.
I envision a world where sex bots radically reduce or eliminate everything from rape and pedophilia, to abortion and STDs.
I envision a world where gender becomes a spectrum rather than a binary, and a simple gene therapy treatment allows you to safely nearly costlessly slide to any point on said spectrum.
I envision a world without the pressing and primitive need to own your own human under the guise of "relationship."
I envision a world where you think about the next 1000 years with your mates.
I envision a world where every child is born in love and received with enthusiasm.
Do you like these things? If so you need to do the following.
Eliminate compulsory monogamy.
Eliminate sexual censorship.
Speak out on unrealistic gender based demands.
Understand that masculism is as (in)valid as feminism.
Break the word love into a thousands more specific and accurate terms, demystify it.
And most importantly annihilate any association love has with money, duty, or guilt.
For too long love has been the cattle prod, and black jack The Company uses to control us.
Love is the greatest inborn human gift reality has seen fit to give us. Using the shadow of it to sell product, force patriotism, and/or propagate religion, is a crime against humanity in every sense of the phrase.
Re-posted on okcupid.
I envision a world where sexual expression is a human right. As a result sexual diversity would reign supreme and musicians would stop being pg-13 strippers.
I envision a world where if a woman wants to trade money for sex, she'll not be jailed or stigmatized. As a result advertising would have to use something other than sex to sell products.
I envision a world where sex bots radically reduce or eliminate everything from rape and pedophilia, to abortion and STDs.
I envision a world where gender becomes a spectrum rather than a binary, and a simple gene therapy treatment allows you to safely nearly costlessly slide to any point on said spectrum.
I envision a world without the pressing and primitive need to own your own human under the guise of "relationship."
I envision a world where you think about the next 1000 years with your mates.
I envision a world where every child is born in love and received with enthusiasm.
Do you like these things? If so you need to do the following.
Eliminate compulsory monogamy.
Eliminate sexual censorship.
Speak out on unrealistic gender based demands.
Understand that masculism is as (in)valid as feminism.
Break the word love into a thousands more specific and accurate terms, demystify it.
And most importantly annihilate any association love has with money, duty, or guilt.
For too long love has been the cattle prod, and black jack The Company uses to control us.
Love is the greatest inborn human gift reality has seen fit to give us. Using the shadow of it to sell product, force patriotism, and/or propagate religion, is a crime against humanity in every sense of the phrase.
Re-posted on okcupid.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Company Girl: Volume I
I find myself using this term a lot so I'm going to make a post that defines it.
Quite simply a company girl is anyone who chooses to profit from the same system of exploitation and deception The Company uses.
Company people are like the trustees of the prison we live in and are in fact much worse than the guards, because they aid in the exploitation of others out of fear or greed without any real understanding or concern.
The difference between a Company person and an actual agent of the company is that the company person has no idea what’s actually going on, most likely as a result of willful ignorance.
The Company Girl will rattle off about the evils of advertising but yet still do her best to come across as sexually attractive as per the company definition because it simply makes life easier for her.
Company people are the types so eloquently expressed by the Oingo Boingo lyric. “Sipping down his gin and tonics, while preaching about the evils of narcotics, and the evils of sex, and the wages of sin while he mentally fondles his next of kin…”
The bottom line is this. If you don’t feel like an outsider, you’re probably a hypocrite. It’s hard distancing yourself from the company. If you’re having an easy time of it you’re probably being co-opted.
Quite simply a company girl is anyone who chooses to profit from the same system of exploitation and deception The Company uses.
Company people are like the trustees of the prison we live in and are in fact much worse than the guards, because they aid in the exploitation of others out of fear or greed without any real understanding or concern.
The difference between a Company person and an actual agent of the company is that the company person has no idea what’s actually going on, most likely as a result of willful ignorance.
The Company Girl will rattle off about the evils of advertising but yet still do her best to come across as sexually attractive as per the company definition because it simply makes life easier for her.
Company people are the types so eloquently expressed by the Oingo Boingo lyric. “Sipping down his gin and tonics, while preaching about the evils of narcotics, and the evils of sex, and the wages of sin while he mentally fondles his next of kin…”
The bottom line is this. If you don’t feel like an outsider, you’re probably a hypocrite. It’s hard distancing yourself from the company. If you’re having an easy time of it you’re probably being co-opted.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Company Policy: Monogamy Volume I
It has been suggested by way of a question that my view of The Company's monogamy marriage and breeding program is a form of social control where by you enter a exclusive relationship ultimately for the purposes of drone production.
Yes, that is a big part of it, but there is a great deal more. Simply producing children if they grow up independent thinkers is actually dangerous for the system, so there must be more stipulations. While a larger population may be easier to control (interesting fact, that). Any population of free thinking capable humans within this larger population presents an escalating systemic threat, should they become aware of each other and begin to act in concert.
Read Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, for more about these concepts. Or for more topical data look into “domestic terrorism” in relation to tax and property activists.
It has been suggested that simply not being married and failing to have children is a reasonable attack on the system.
However, that only applies from the perspective of a drone family. If you are freethinking enough to attack the system logistically and demographically without the use of violence, then you should probably be breeding with all possible speed with as many people as you can, since odds are you'll drag up the average IQ a smidgen.
It has been suggested that being in a long term child free, marriage free, long term relationship is against the “Company Policy.” However any monogamous relationship is perfectly in line with the Company's wishes. You further objectify women by owning one or allowing yourself to be owned like a child or pet, you increase the value of sex by increasing the scarcity of it, and everything else you take off the social market, Which ironically is not a good thing for you because The Company becomes your pimp by dictating the rules under which you select a mate via advertising and economic pressure.
This alone is worth a book of material. I'd be happy to answer any specific objections anyone has to this claim.
"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." - Alexander Hamilton
It has also been suggested that celibacy is a valid option and against Company Policy. And while I agree with personal sexual freedom very strongly, choice is not without consequence. Being a celibate woman of moderate attractiveness is actually more beneficial to the company then being with one man. Because since you're “single” and women are sold socially as capricious, the men around you will disregard your vow and work all the harder to earn your approval. Many women do this intentionally to manipulate the men around them, as advocate so eloquently in “The Satanic Witch.” And since the company profits from this far more then you ever could, well, the conclusion becomes obvious.
Perhaps that's why we have so many lonely attractive compassionate young women out there scared to death to play the dating game or swearing “off men” for all time.
I urge them to simply get what they need as they need it with honesty and compassion and ignore the rules, most especially rules associated with entrenched gender roles echoed by media of any type. The words slut and whore should have no meaning beyond a positive one. And quit starving yourselves, you're hot enough and if you showed the same self discipline in intellectual endeavors your gender would run the world in a matter of generations.
It has been suggested that prostitution or serial monogamy is a valid response, but both are socially and in most cases legally sanctioned. Criminals constitute a non-group for purposes of social evolution except its the most primitive short term economically driven situations. Unjust laws may for a time cause social revolutionaries and civil rights activists to be criminals technically but the majority of lasting systemic social change comes from the actions of law abiding citizens. The founding fathers for example were the richest and most respected men in the English colonies at the time of the declaration of independence. Washington himself was the single richest man in the colonies. They were not the grass roots squashed by the people for the people types most people assume them to have been.
For more on this I strongly suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
Prostitution is no more a way around this system (unless totally unrestricted) than rape is. Rape also deprives the company of its pay directly but in fact helps the company by further forcing women to be fearful and latch onto a big strong man for protection, when she's bloody well capable of protecting herself and has been since the development of the stone ax, and further providing government with reason for totalitarianism. “For our own good.”
It has been suggested that casual sex is a valid response. And while I agree that casual and professional sex needs to be socially available on the same level as a cheeseburger, that alone will solve nothing. What is needed it group empathy and group sympathy. Monogamy divides us up into neat little slave producing easily controlled ignorant consumer cells with no communicative ability beyond taking orders and spouting television references and producing more slaves.
I welcome any responses to any of the above.
Yes, that is a big part of it, but there is a great deal more. Simply producing children if they grow up independent thinkers is actually dangerous for the system, so there must be more stipulations. While a larger population may be easier to control (interesting fact, that). Any population of free thinking capable humans within this larger population presents an escalating systemic threat, should they become aware of each other and begin to act in concert.
Read Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, for more about these concepts. Or for more topical data look into “domestic terrorism” in relation to tax and property activists.
It has been suggested that simply not being married and failing to have children is a reasonable attack on the system.
However, that only applies from the perspective of a drone family. If you are freethinking enough to attack the system logistically and demographically without the use of violence, then you should probably be breeding with all possible speed with as many people as you can, since odds are you'll drag up the average IQ a smidgen.
It has been suggested that being in a long term child free, marriage free, long term relationship is against the “Company Policy.” However any monogamous relationship is perfectly in line with the Company's wishes. You further objectify women by owning one or allowing yourself to be owned like a child or pet, you increase the value of sex by increasing the scarcity of it, and everything else you take off the social market, Which ironically is not a good thing for you because The Company becomes your pimp by dictating the rules under which you select a mate via advertising and economic pressure.
This alone is worth a book of material. I'd be happy to answer any specific objections anyone has to this claim.
"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." - Alexander Hamilton
It has also been suggested that celibacy is a valid option and against Company Policy. And while I agree with personal sexual freedom very strongly, choice is not without consequence. Being a celibate woman of moderate attractiveness is actually more beneficial to the company then being with one man. Because since you're “single” and women are sold socially as capricious, the men around you will disregard your vow and work all the harder to earn your approval. Many women do this intentionally to manipulate the men around them, as advocate so eloquently in “The Satanic Witch.” And since the company profits from this far more then you ever could, well, the conclusion becomes obvious.
Perhaps that's why we have so many lonely attractive compassionate young women out there scared to death to play the dating game or swearing “off men” for all time.
I urge them to simply get what they need as they need it with honesty and compassion and ignore the rules, most especially rules associated with entrenched gender roles echoed by media of any type. The words slut and whore should have no meaning beyond a positive one. And quit starving yourselves, you're hot enough and if you showed the same self discipline in intellectual endeavors your gender would run the world in a matter of generations.
It has been suggested that prostitution or serial monogamy is a valid response, but both are socially and in most cases legally sanctioned. Criminals constitute a non-group for purposes of social evolution except its the most primitive short term economically driven situations. Unjust laws may for a time cause social revolutionaries and civil rights activists to be criminals technically but the majority of lasting systemic social change comes from the actions of law abiding citizens. The founding fathers for example were the richest and most respected men in the English colonies at the time of the declaration of independence. Washington himself was the single richest man in the colonies. They were not the grass roots squashed by the people for the people types most people assume them to have been.
For more on this I strongly suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
Prostitution is no more a way around this system (unless totally unrestricted) than rape is. Rape also deprives the company of its pay directly but in fact helps the company by further forcing women to be fearful and latch onto a big strong man for protection, when she's bloody well capable of protecting herself and has been since the development of the stone ax, and further providing government with reason for totalitarianism. “For our own good.”
It has been suggested that casual sex is a valid response. And while I agree that casual and professional sex needs to be socially available on the same level as a cheeseburger, that alone will solve nothing. What is needed it group empathy and group sympathy. Monogamy divides us up into neat little slave producing easily controlled ignorant consumer cells with no communicative ability beyond taking orders and spouting television references and producing more slaves.
I welcome any responses to any of the above.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Art
1. What is art?
Art is a word for fashionable and practically useless self expression. If the result of skill and application of creative effort results in something useful they call it by another name primarily.
2. Do you consider yourself an artist of a sort?
No.
3. What is an "artist"?
A person who engages in artful activity regularly and identifies this activity with their concept of self.
4. Does art serve a purpose, or is it just a useful means of escapism?
Escapism. If art is meant to educate its stops being art and becomes commentary or the like.
5. Has art become just a new, inventive form of product placement due to rampant capitalism?
No, artists have always been hungry for sponsorship due to its inherent uselessness. All capitalism has done is allow artists to get sponsored their whole life for a single work. For example, mickey mouse. Intellectual property law has destroyed innovation, one can blame art for that, if one were so inclined.
6. Can things like advertisements or commercials, et al, be considered "artistic"?
No, graphic design is not an art, it is a marketable skill.
7. What do you make of Banksy?
A human lucky enough to have the technical skill needed to drag his mental images out of his head and put them into the world.
8. What do you make of graffiti art?
No different then other art forms.
8.1 Is it improving our banal living conditions, and thus enhancing our lives, or taking away from the "inherent beauty of cities"?
Neither.
9. The Supreme Court defines pornography as a form of media: "(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
That aside, can art be pornographic, and vice versa?
No, art is useless, pornography serves to motive slaves to breed and work. Carrot on a stick. Thats why paying someone to blow you is illegal but paying someone to blow you and then selling the video is not.
10. Given the way the record industry has worked with pop culture in the last decade, can pop music be considered art? Should we continue to call some musicians "artists"?
Music is a mathematical skill, a language. It is no more art then Japanese What is said may sometimes be art, depending on its uselessness and expressiveness
11. Are tribute bands actually a form of art?
See above.
12. Were Dada and surrealism good for the artistic community as a whole?
Unqualified to answer.
13. Who do you consider to be the most under-appreciated artist of the last century?
All artists are under appreciated, only artists who are also salesmen or have sponsors are appreciated. That being said philosophers are even more under appreciated.
14. Is Chuck Palahniuk an artist or a cultural critic?
Philosopher Chuck has a clear very of the world, and is expressing an opinion about its nature.
15. Is Agitprop a form of art?
Unqualified to answer.
16. Can one lead an "artistic life", or is that simply a pipe-dream many aspire to have without considering the implications?
Sure, so long as one finds a sponsor I consider an artistic life an unethical indulgence. There is much work to be done. Too many people hurting for anyone to live like a fop.
17. What do you consider to be the most underrated form of art in today's culture?
See above. Art is useless and subjective by definition, my personal favorite is the dark comic, but thats a blending of ink and philosophy.
18. The scientist seeks "truth" through presumably unbiased observations in the real world, while the philosopher seeks truth through his/her understanding of the mechanics of both the world around him/her and his/her own mind. Does the artist seek a "truth" or has s/he dispensed with the notion of Truth altogether?
An artist is not interested in truth by definition An artist who is interested in truth becomes a philosopher with an artistic hobby or vice versa depending on respective degree.
19. Artistically, have we evolved as a culture, or devolved?
Waxes and wanes. We are on a down turn thats to intellectual property law and sexual saturation coupled with only harmful means of sexual satisfaction. The day the first sex bot walks to the store to get a gallon of milk for its owner and no one notices its a robot, will mark the beginning of the rebound.
20. Is art "fallen from grace" or in the process of seeking its own liberation?
Technology will save us from ourselves, because people like me will see to it with our very lives if needed.
Nice work Klassy.
Incidentally the replies are art. No one cares for care itself.
Art is a word for fashionable and practically useless self expression. If the result of skill and application of creative effort results in something useful they call it by another name primarily.
2. Do you consider yourself an artist of a sort?
No.
3. What is an "artist"?
A person who engages in artful activity regularly and identifies this activity with their concept of self.
4. Does art serve a purpose, or is it just a useful means of escapism?
Escapism. If art is meant to educate its stops being art and becomes commentary or the like.
5. Has art become just a new, inventive form of product placement due to rampant capitalism?
No, artists have always been hungry for sponsorship due to its inherent uselessness. All capitalism has done is allow artists to get sponsored their whole life for a single work. For example, mickey mouse. Intellectual property law has destroyed innovation, one can blame art for that, if one were so inclined.
6. Can things like advertisements or commercials, et al, be considered "artistic"?
No, graphic design is not an art, it is a marketable skill.
7. What do you make of Banksy?
A human lucky enough to have the technical skill needed to drag his mental images out of his head and put them into the world.
8. What do you make of graffiti art?
No different then other art forms.
8.1 Is it improving our banal living conditions, and thus enhancing our lives, or taking away from the "inherent beauty of cities"?
Neither.
9. The Supreme Court defines pornography as a form of media: "(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
That aside, can art be pornographic, and vice versa?
No, art is useless, pornography serves to motive slaves to breed and work. Carrot on a stick. Thats why paying someone to blow you is illegal but paying someone to blow you and then selling the video is not.
10. Given the way the record industry has worked with pop culture in the last decade, can pop music be considered art? Should we continue to call some musicians "artists"?
Music is a mathematical skill, a language. It is no more art then Japanese What is said may sometimes be art, depending on its uselessness and expressiveness
11. Are tribute bands actually a form of art?
See above.
12. Were Dada and surrealism good for the artistic community as a whole?
Unqualified to answer.
13. Who do you consider to be the most under-appreciated artist of the last century?
All artists are under appreciated, only artists who are also salesmen or have sponsors are appreciated. That being said philosophers are even more under appreciated.
14. Is Chuck Palahniuk an artist or a cultural critic?
Philosopher Chuck has a clear very of the world, and is expressing an opinion about its nature.
15. Is Agitprop a form of art?
Unqualified to answer.
16. Can one lead an "artistic life", or is that simply a pipe-dream many aspire to have without considering the implications?
Sure, so long as one finds a sponsor I consider an artistic life an unethical indulgence. There is much work to be done. Too many people hurting for anyone to live like a fop.
17. What do you consider to be the most underrated form of art in today's culture?
See above. Art is useless and subjective by definition, my personal favorite is the dark comic, but thats a blending of ink and philosophy.
18. The scientist seeks "truth" through presumably unbiased observations in the real world, while the philosopher seeks truth through his/her understanding of the mechanics of both the world around him/her and his/her own mind. Does the artist seek a "truth" or has s/he dispensed with the notion of Truth altogether?
An artist is not interested in truth by definition An artist who is interested in truth becomes a philosopher with an artistic hobby or vice versa depending on respective degree.
19. Artistically, have we evolved as a culture, or devolved?
Waxes and wanes. We are on a down turn thats to intellectual property law and sexual saturation coupled with only harmful means of sexual satisfaction. The day the first sex bot walks to the store to get a gallon of milk for its owner and no one notices its a robot, will mark the beginning of the rebound.
20. Is art "fallen from grace" or in the process of seeking its own liberation?
Technology will save us from ourselves, because people like me will see to it with our very lives if needed.
Nice work Klassy.
Incidentally the replies are art. No one cares for care itself.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)