The value of private enterprise and private property

It isn't too surprising that those that have been left behind in society, or are lacking in opportunity, and correspondingly are without with what they consider to be their fair share of material goods, that many of these people have a propensity to desire a more socialistic or communistic society.  It is their belief, that when all that is material is owned by nobody, and instead is shared alike, according to each person's needs, that thereby some sort of material utopia occurs.  Of course, there is the belief behind having a socialistic or communistic society, and then there is the material aspects of how it would actually come about; in which, because in the present day, in most nations, a significant portion of property is privately owned as well as there also being a significant amount of business being transacted between private parties, all of this private engagement would have to be eliminated or truncated, which could only be accomplished through the use of force to thereby take from those that have, and to thereby give to those that have not.  Further to the point, that force would in the scheme of things have to be directed and implemented by some powerful entity or institution, of which, the most likely entity would be a military organization with the armament might to compel those lacking in such armaments or necessary organization to withstand such, to comply with their demands.

So then, assuming that the socialistic or communistic overthrow of a particular nation that had private property as well as private enterprise was accomplished, that power would now be solely vested in the hands of that entity with the guns, and thereby that government would be in forceful control of all that transpired within its borders.  So too, it would be that government that would control the means of production, the houses so built, the jobs so provided, and obligations of the people so demanded, of which, the people themselves would have no say so, but would be compelled to obey the dictates of that governmental state, or pay the price for being disloyal.  This would surely mean that because the government would without the existence of private enterprise, be the sole employer that the people would not be able to choose their pathway of employment, but would be instructed as to where they fit in.  Additionally, without private property, all those that were not in good conformance to that government would have no viable sanctuary to turn to.  Further to the point, since it would be that government that controlled who got the best benefits and who did not, the people would have a strong tendency to be corrupt in all aspects, as well as to spy on their fellow citizens on behalf of the state, in order to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

On the other hand, a nation which values private property and private enterprise sees itself as a government that has a purpose to protect and to defend property and enterprise for the wholesale benefit of the people.  The principle of that government would be to see that all people have a fair chance at the opportunity to be something of merit, and thereby would provide those citizens with the necessary base of safe neighborhoods, good healthcare, good schooling, fairness, enfranchisement, justice, equality, meritocracy, and the appropriate taxation to provide the necessary funding for that government; of which that government of, by, and for the people would faithfully utilize its legitimacy and influence to secure the blessings of liberty for all.

Cleverness and exploitation is the capitalistic way

America is a capitalistic society, of which, most Americans are proud to be a part of it, believing that such is the best way for economic prosperity.  To a certain degree, this must be true, because America has the biggest economy in the world, and is in aggregate, also the richest nation in the world.  However, the unfortunate part of this capitalistic picture is that those that are its biggest beneficiaries are the extraordinarily rich few, who often are also quite powerful; of which, the downside of the structure of capitalism in its application as practiced in America, has left an incredibly high amount of people in this a nation of massive wealth, absolutely impoverished, without hope, and destitute.

Those that are the truest believers in capitalism, make it their point to sell their belief to the public that the failure of all those that are lacking in good education, good healthcare, safe neighborhoods, and opportunity, has little or nothing to do with capitalism, but instead has a lot more to do with governmental malfunctions along with governmental misallocations, as well as a corresponding lack of effort and pluck by those that have little or nothing.  In other words, what poor Americans lack, is good character; of which, if these unfortunate people would only just embrace the great opportunity and freedom that American enterprise offers to everyone, than they too, would be members in good standing, of material success.

What capitalism biggest fans don't bother to say or to admit to -- is that in so many business enterprises that capitalism is a part of, that the secret of their success, has a lot more to do with the successful exploitation of their customer base, accomplished by their general cleverness in carrying this task out, as compared to offering a fair product or service at a fair price.  In other words, America seems to accept the premise that products and services should be sold within the context of what the market will bear, and need not thereby overly concern itself with what the costs are internally to a given company, be they large or be they small.  In a truly competitive environment, that might well seem acceptable, since companies with high gross margins, would sooner or later thereby be susceptible to competitors undercutting them on price or through other relevant factors;  however, what has occurred in American free enterprise instead, is that as industries have become more and more consolidated,  that this corresponding lack of competition, has left the way open for those few winners of such, to subsequently exploit that advantage to their material benefit, and to therefore extract more in money and profit from the general public.

In point of fact, capitalism as practiced at the highest levels is often very much about companies doing everything in their power to skew laws, taxes, rules and regulations to favor them and to subsequently damage or to close thereby the door on all other potential rivals; thereby providing these companies with the ready ability to sell their products at a higher price point, and to reap the windfall profits thereof.  The results of this practice of capitalism can be readily seen in the wealth gap that is so great, that as Bernie Sanders stated, "The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country."  That in a nutshell is proof positive that capitalism as implemented in the United States is fundamentally flawed and thereby seriously in need of being corrected or amended.

Since corporations are considered to be people then….

For whatever reason or reasons, the Supreme Court in recent years, has decided to treat corporations in more and more situations as if they have the same Constitutional rights as human persons.  Whether this is good law or not, is very debatable; but what isn't debatable is that it is implicit that those that have rights, also correspondingly have obligations and duties to those rights, for the benefit of those rights so being granted.  This thus signifies that corporations when being treated as people should not be given a free ride and in particular, should definitely be held accountable for actions that would normally be seen as criminal for people.

That is to say, corporations have been subject to all sorts of penalties for bad actions, in which in most every case of significance, nobody within that corporation is ever criminally held responsible; even when the actions so taken would definitely be criminal if one person or a group of people were to do the very same thing.  In other words, when a person or a group of people deliberately or through their purposeful negligence pollute the water or air in a manner in which residents in the surrounding community thereby suffer ill health effects, including even death, then in the normal scheme of things, that person or group of people would be held criminally liable for their actions.  Yet, corporations are nothing more than a collective group of people, of which, that group of people, thereby known as a corporation, when they poison the environment in a manner in which residents suffer harm, should because of their personhood, be held criminally accountable for that crime.  So too, this would also hold for cases such as fraud, food and drug debasement, bribery and corruption, as well as worker deaths from unsafe working conditions, and so on and so forth.

Basically, when people or institutions are harmed, and thereby criminal laws have been violated, of which that violation is done by a corporate entity, then that corporate entity, as a legal personhood, should be held criminally responsible for those crimes, and hence should suffer the same fate that a person or group of people would so suffer.  Further to the point, those bad actors of those corporations that should then be held liable for those criminal actions, would be all those that are the activators or instigators of those bad actions, enablers of such, and aiders and abettors to such. 

If this thus became the law of the land, corporate crime, would for a certainty plummet, because when corporations can no longer buy their way out of trouble, but have instead actual human persons, serving time for their criminal wrongs, then they will surely make it a point to clean their acts up, thoroughly.  After all, the only possible conceivable way to keep corporations in line, in consideration that they currently exist in perpetuity, and therefore are not subject to a finite amount of time of existence, is to see that they are at a minimum subject to having to abide by the law of the land, including relevant criminal codes as specifically applied to persons of interest within those corporations; and those corporations that are not good citizens, should be subsequently liquidated or nationalized, with the perpetrators of those crimes, doing time.

Respect for life, or the lack thereof

Far too much of American television, consists of endless fights and killings of one person or group of persons vis-à-vis another.  Whether or not, anything of this excessive violence and lack of respect for life, is absorbed into the persona of Americans is debatable; but what cannot be denied, is that America is a supremely violent country, especially in comparison to other western nations.  The fact of the matter is, the less respect that a given person has to another, the more prone people are to see violence as a legitimate option in dealing with people that they disagree with, or are in their way, or that they don't like.

Basically, the more that any fellow human, is dehumanized, and thereby considered to be something less than fully human; such as an animal, or an object, or someone considered to be a devalued member of society for whatever reason, spurious or not; the easier it is to deal with that individual in a manner in which that person is not respected as a person, and thereby more readily considered to be no longer worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and subsequently is seen as someone that deserves no respect and has no right therefore to successfully secure any of those unalienable rights, that we so claim for ourselves.

When we will not take the time to walk in another person's shoes, or take the time to actually have a civil conversation with another person, so as to get to know one another, and to thereby find some common ground, then society as a whole suffers for this, for that society has devolved into an us v. them sort of mentality.  Anytime that we believe that the best appropriate response to an intractable problem is some degree of violence, then clearly we are not able to see the humanity and worth of another human being, and have denigrated them, as being something less than we are, and hence expendable, to our own selfish desires.

The violence that we see in America, is primarily a reflection of an inability to see other people as having intrinsic worth that supersedes our own anger and frustration; as well as frequently being a reflection that we don't respect our own lives, as being something of real worth, and because we do not value life, theirs or our own, we deal with it in a manner that is often destructive, by striking out against others, or at the mirror of our own self. 

Those things and attributes that we respect most are the very same things and attributes that we honor most; and when we cannot see or believe that every human life has value and is deserving of that honor, then we are less human, ourselves.  Remember well, that we learn by the exemplar set by our family members, respected elders, and the values as displayed by our governmental representatives.  What they do and what we subsequently become, are a fair reflection of the lessons so given.  All those that take the time to reflect on not only who and what they currently are, but further ponder upon what they desire to be, must recognize sooner or later, that all that has been created equally, is equally deserving of our respect, which allows us then to better successfully connect to each other, in conscious recognition that we are truly brothers and sisters, to one another.

Spend, spend, spend

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, consumer spending was 59.5 percent of the economy in 1969 as compared to 68.1 percent of GDP in the third quarter of 2019.  Further to the point, the savings rate in the decades of 1960s through the 1980s was on average, 11.87 percent; whereas in the decade beginning in 2010, it was on average just 7.78 percent, representing a precipitous decline of nearly 35 percent to those previous decades.  This would indicate that Americans are spending their income and/or their savings at a much higher rate on consumer goods than they historically have done, while also saving less and less of their money in aggregate. So that, it can be said that Americans are certainly putting off tomorrow for today, for they rather are trying to maximize what they can consume today, and apparently are not worrying about what tomorrow will bring.

Americans live in a culture in which its commercial advertising does an outstanding job of convincing many of those Americans, of their immediate need to purchase all sorts of consumer goods, and Americans, more often than not, are only too willing to fulfill that need, to a tee. The main problem with the fact that so many Americans give in to that immediate gratification, is that they so often end up spending money, that they haven't even earned yet, on items that they believe that they have a need of; but, in which, in all probability, their need is not nearly as urgent as imagined, and further, seldom have these items been properly vetted.

The days of Benjamin Franklin's aphorisms, such as "a penny saved is a penny earned," being considered something to live by seems to have passed a great deal of Americans by, as something that belongs solely to some sort of bygone era, and hence has little or no relevancy to today.  That is a true shame, because many of those people that fail to save an appropriate percentage of what they have earned, today, are forsaking tomorrow, for today; and will subsequently not have the monetary assets to live a life of good retirement, let alone having anything of material worth really associated with their name.

The fact of the matter is that spending and saving are constantly at a tug of war with one another, and as long as there is tension between those two sides, that probably is good; but when one side, clearly is the victor, the balance that most people need in their lives is thereupon lost.  Those that make the mistake of unwittingly giving in to the siren song of seemingly spending everything that they earn, are allowing that endless lure of material things to enrapture them; and are subsequently left with an empty pocketbook, so that they thereby have nothing of substance to fall back on, when such is needed.

Sure, being frugal and prudent, seems pretty boring; but a mature person, correctly weighs decisions in their mind, before they execute their decisions, because they recognize that the life we build is based upon the decisions so made, and those that are too quick to spend their money before they have really thought upon the why of that spending, ultimately aren't going to find themselves in a good place.

Dependence and freedom

Regrettably, slavery was once legal within the United States.  Additionally, to this point, those that were in bondage to others, were somehow seldom able to utilize their own wherewithal, desire, and strength to successfully overcome those that enslaved them, primarily because those that have critical knowledge as well as weapons, even when few in number, are always in the catbird seat in controlling those that are ignorant, because knowledge is a very potent power.  This is also the salient reason why slave owners made sure to pass legislation making it illegal to teach their slaves reading and writing, because slave owners recognized that those that were illiterate were always going to be easier to control than those that were literate; because independent thinking, and the ability to gather and to implement knowledge is dangerous to those that desire to remain dominant and in command, for it is far easier to control the narrative when there is only that one voice, thereby leaving those that are enslaved, enthralled to those that have enslaved them.

In order to have and to maintain control over other people, slaves or not, this is always more readily accomplished, when there are only just a few that are masters of the necessary powers, knowledge, and influential positions, needed to mold the population to their desires.  After all, those that do not have the ready ability to properly discern what they see and what is occurring and further are not able to correctly process such, are at a massive disadvantage, which thereby leaves them quite susceptible to manipulation.  This signifies that those that are most aware, are also the ones that are most awake; whereas those are least aware, are those that are the least informed. 

Any country that claims it is governed of, for, and by the people, must as a prerequisite to such, make sure that all of the people are fundamentally gifted with the necessary tools for this to be true; of which therefore literacy as well as the ability to actually think for one's self, are critical components to anybody truly desiring to have an independent mind.   All those that are not independent in their thinking, for whatever reasons, are thereby dependent upon others to do their thinking for them, of which, most governments, corporations, and powerful people, want that to be the case, because this thus allows them to not only maintain their power over those people, but makes those people, dependent upon them for their daily sustenance; of which, those that are dependent upon some other entity, such as a country or corporation to provide them with their daily bread, are the very same people, that have traded their freedom, wittingly or not, for that security.

So then, it must be said, those that are independent are typically those that have diligently applied themselves to their tasks, and have garnered knowledge and thereby utilized such to better their own situation as well as to keep abreast of all that is happening around and to them, good or bad.  On the other hand, those that are dependent, typically have forsaken knowledge for whatever handouts that they can readily get, leaving themselves vulnerable to those that often see them as a resource to be exploited for their exploiter's continual benefit, leaving them thereby bereft of all of that which really matters, and definitely without many good options, let alone their freedom.

The upside down criminal justice system

America has a massive amount of its citizens that on any given day are incarcerated, jailed, arrested, jailed without the means to make bail, on probation, on parole, under house arrest, or serving some sort of time through other means, such as community service.  This would presuppose that America has a massive crime problem, and further to the point, based on the fact that in recent times, the amount of those that are being processed through the criminal justice system has increased substantially from all other previous eras, would indicate that the problem is both intractable and systemic.

Then again, in life, people and institutions find what they want to find, depending upon how things are structured, handled, and dealt with.  So that, when victimless crimes, such as illicit drug usage,  vagrancy, prostitution, drunkenness, gambling and the like are treated as an opportunity for the policing arm of the state to go into communities that are impoverished so as to thereby harass and arrest those that are denizens of those communities, that to a large extent are suffering from being impoverished, unemployed, ill educated, and devoid of opportunity as well as lacking in good, wholesome alternatives; it is not then too surprising to find that community members have gravitated to activities that the justice codes have deliberately criminalized, in which, subsequently they are going to suffer a lot more arrests within their community, mainly because the law is structured to specifically address their activities as being criminal.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of crime, or what should be classified as crime, committed at the highest level of governments as well as corporations, which is often treated in a wholly different way, in which, seldom are individuals held accountable and thereby incarcerated, and seldom are those corporations who commit these crimes, held to anything much more than being fined some sort of monetary amount.  For instance, many in America, decry the illicit drug usage that is seen on the streets of America, of which the sellers of these illicit drugs, are subject to onerous incarceration sentences, upon conviction; whereas those pharmaceutical companies, that manufacture legal opiate drugs, seem not to care who and how people are prescribed these opiates, as long as their prescription sales and profits go up; so that they functionally turn a blind eye to those medical facilities and doctors that are essentially prescribing highly addictive opiates, willy-nilly, primarily so as to make good money from other people's legalized addiction.

Then, there are, for instance,  certain petrochemical companies, that manufacture products that are legally sold throughout the land, but in the process of manufacturing those products, they pollute the surrounding land, air, and waters to such an extent that those that live in close proximity to those facilities, are harmed and thereby suffer toxic aftereffects that are detrimental to their good health; of which, because these companies are so large and so powerful, they delay and obfuscate justice to such a large extent, as well as through the usage of the revolving door of those that regulate them, that those that have been harmed, often have no real recourse, to be made whole, even if they could be.

In fact, psychologytoday.com, states, "According to the FBI, the annual cost of street crime is $15 billion compared to nearly $1 trillion for white-collar crime."  Yet, the faces of those that are incarcerated are clearly those that are poor, ill educated, from dysfunctional families, and typically without hope or good opportunity.  In truth, those that are the real criminals are the ones that cheat the system and the people on a massive scale, yet, they are seldom incarcerated because this country insists upon locking up primarily those that are defenseless and without the resources to fight the system, because it wants to misdirect the American people to believe that they should fear the poor and disenfranchised, whereas they really should fear those that are well above the law.

The Founding Fathers well understood the need of an inheritance tax

Imagine that a country was first created in suspended animation, in which each of the inhabitants from their initial inception, had exactly the same material wealth in the form of the same type of house, the same amount of land, and the same amount of goods within those homes.  In other words, all those people were exactly equal in what they own, of which, no one person had more, and no one person had less.  Thereupon, the suspended animation ended, and time began, of which over a period of seasons it was noticed that some of those inhabitants desired to do little or nothing of labor, while some preferred to spend their time with drink or other vices, then there were others that applied themselves to educating and advancing their mind, as well as there being those that were especially generous and caring of their fellow mankind, and finally there were the clever sort, the sort that knew how to bargain or trade or deal in a manner, that wholly favored them, and never the other.  The upshot of all this activity or lack thereof, was that over a period of time, material possessions of the people were no longer equal, of which some were basically destitute, some had about what they started with, while others had progressed a fair amount, and then there were a very, very few that had grown their assets, hundredfold or even more.

In regards to the civil government of that country, those that had gained the most in material assets, were able to inexorably over a period of time, to assert their authority by the power of that wealth and by their astuteness, to thereby not only buy influence but to also subsequently create dissent and division within the community, thereby increasing their influence all the more.  Further, as time went on and the present generation was replaced by the next generation and then the next, those that had great material wealth, were able to successfully pass their wealth on to their progeny, so that, these progeny need not expend any labor whatsoever to live their lives of ease and luxury, but only had to impress the power of what they had, so as to maintain their station in life, for perpetuity; and so that country that had started with equality for all, became instead a country in which, in substance and in so many ways, the many served the few.

While America has never been in practice a land of material equality for all, it so does recognize that each of its denizens is equally created and thereby equally entitled to opportunity, and further that the law as applied in order to be just, must be fair and equally applied to all those that are its citizens. Further to the point, George Washington recognized that in order for this country to strengthen itself, it needed to provide fair access for each of its people to be land owners along with each of its people having a fair means to good subsistence to such, in recognition that America"… will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property.”  So too, Thomas Jefferson, recognized that the continual inheritance of property from one generation to the next, was fundamentally unfair to those living in the present generation, for "The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity."

In summary, those that have vast material assets in the present, are able to use such for their purposes in the here and now; but at a minimum, upon their departure from this world, their great estate must be heavily taxed by the government on behalf of the people, to preclude those that would inherit vast amounts of material assets, from being, essentially, the unelected shadow government of this country, that would thereby supersede without a democratic vote, this country of, by, and for the people.

Destruction and criticism

In any endeavor, it is always rather easy, especially for the person that is doing the observing but isn't directly or even indirectly involved in the actions, to criticize others in regards to their output, their being, as well their foresight.  No doubt, there are plenty of people, that need some form of constructive criticism, at least on occasion; and no doubt, there are institutions, even ones of long standing, that have served their dutiful purpose and thereby need to be placed into the dustbin of history.  But, it should also be recognized that to destroy anything of positive value without a plan to replace such with something of equal or improved value is almost always a mistake; and to criticize someone, even justly, without having "skin in the game" to see that such criticism has a positive purpose behind it, so that the one doing the criticizing has also a commensurate plan that will through such criticism help to initiate something of merit, serves no real good purpose.

In today's world with all of its myriad powerful tools and technology, to tear down and destroy a particular edifice that has been in existence, perhaps for eons, is typically something that can be readily done, which should send a very important signal to all the people or institutions contemplating such, as to whether or not, it must be done; for if there is no good overriding purpose behind such, it is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.  So too, there are within governments, institutions that have been of long standing, of which such institutions are typically well deserving of criticisms and other valid complaints, but to dissolve such without having taken into consideration the need for a replacement that is clearly superior to that which is the current governing instrument, is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.  Additionally, all human beings are fallible, of which, therefore to find fault in another, even someone of high esteem, is not especially difficult, as most words and actions, when given enough room, time, and nefarious intent are fairly easy to pick apart, should one be inclined to do so, but if such criticism serves no good purpose or is of no good benefit to the parties so involved, then this is probably a mistake, and perhaps a grave one.

To build anything of merit, be a building, an institution, or the character of a given person, takes not only effort and desire, but also aforethought, consistency, determination, consultation, teamwork, drive, and invariably even with good aid and timely help will still have to address hurdles and unexpected happenings that will thereby need to be overcome to achieve success.  Those that contribute positively to such are invariably not those that are destructive and critical in their nature, but rather are those that are materially positive contributors, as well as all those active aiders and abettors to the cause, for good progress is only made by those that do the building and not by those that do or contribute nothing, or even worse, are destructive and unnecessarily critical in their form.

Resolving conflicts in a mature manner and the contradiction of this government

We are taught in schools to "Pledge our Allegiance" to these United States, of which, the thought behind such a pledge is that these United States and what this country stands for, is something worth pledging our lives and our honor to.  This would presuppose that America, in its institutions and in its governance, does the very things that it is supposed to do for a country that within its founding documents and amendments to such, tells us that it is a nation of equal rights for everyone, and with liberty and justice for all.

So then, it would certainly seem reasonable that when it comes to conflicts that each of us, must at least on occasion, attend to; that a fair and discerning person would look to emulate its own government in the resolution of those conflicts, knowing that by doing so, that they have picked a good and valued mentor to so emulate.  Of course, as in life, there are words, and then there are actions that may or may not be in accordance with those words; signifying that in recognition that many a person doesn't even know the words to the highest law of their land, that is, its Constitution, that an alternative way to be consistent to the country of their residence, is to be in harmony with those governmental actions so taken and in evidence to our own eyes.

For example, one might look at how America resolves its disputes with a foreign land that is sovereign in its own domain, but does not kowtow to America demands.  We find that rather than using an international tribunal to adjudge such, or a non-partial third party to resolve such, that the President of the United States, as in the case with Iraq, demanded that the President of Iraq, along with his sons, vacate their own country within 48 hours or else they would suffer a military attack upon their land.  This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the most might and power, should simply demand that the other party, leave town within 48 hours or suffer thereby a physical attack. 

So too, America has signed many a treaty with many a nation, of which, some of those treaties have been signed with indigenous American Indian tribes, of which a significant amount of those treaties were thereby broken by the United States, in order to fulfill its "Manifest Destiny", or because there were mineral rights that needed to be exploited, or railroads that needed to be built, and so on.  This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in America that the party with the superior might or greed, can unilaterally break their commitment or promise to the other party, without having to pay any compensation or penalty for having done so.

Additionally, upon the election of Abraham Lincoln, in which Lincoln was duly elected by the people as the new President of the United States, those of the south that lost that election, decided that they had the right to secede from the union, with the belief that those that lose at the ballot box have the right to overturn a legitimate democratic result by revolt.   This would seem to indicate, that in a conflict between two parties in which one party loses the vote of the people, that the loser of such, can simply invalidate that vote by opting out of an inviolable contract, because they are not happy with the result.

Unfortunately, though we are told to resolve our conflicts in a mature way, our own government, demonstrates more often than not, that it isn't mature in its own vision and its own implementation of justice, of which a fairer look at America would indicate that it fundamentally believes that might makes right; which thereby effectively supersedes the very words of its own Constitution.  Yet, somehow this country thereby has the nerve to wonder why there is so much conflict and confusion within its own borders. 

Cluster munitions are a crime against humanity

Mankind is extremely good at a lot of things, of which one of those things, quite regrettably, is the design of armaments that are quite effective in the indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which, the usage of cluster munitions, is one of those weapons of war, that has no legitimate part of nation-state actions against any other nation-state or enemy, real or imagined.  Cluster munitions are bombs that are meant to open up mid-air to subsequently violently release a multitude of sub-munitions, thereby disbursing such sub-munitions so as to saturate a very large target area with a whole lot of damaging and very destructive bombing.  Additionally, as in any munition, so created, not all of the sub-munitions are going to actually explode upon impact upon the ground or up in the air, thereby leaving a multitude of these unexploded munitions, embedded in the ground, of which such can subsequently explode, even years afterward, and thereby hurt or kill unaware civilians and children.

Fundamentally, the issue with cluster munitions is that they are specifically designed not to be smart and precise targeting weapons, but rather they are designed to deliberately do physical damage and kill human beings specifically over a vast area so as to wreak bloody havoc and create mayhem. To a very large extent, countries such as Russia, Israel, and the United States, who are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (a treaty that bans the use of cluster munitions), are basically showing their contempt for the value and dignity of human life.  Further to the point, the very countries that one would think that would be the most inclined to desire to use a weapon that is so gross in its targeting and that by design, will cover a lot of killing ground, indiscriminately, while also being quite cost effective, would be those nation-states that are both short on budget as well as being short on personnel to effect military operations, and thereby would see cluster munitions as a desirable weapon to utilize so as to do a lot of damage to perceived enemies, especially when that nation-state does not readily discriminate or overly concern themselves between those that are enemy soldiers and those that are civilians who are known to be in that target area.

The reason that countries such as Russia, Israel, and the United States, do not desire to give up their cluster munitions is that these countries prefer the flexibility of bombing other nation-states into sheer oblivion, and clearly don’t really care about how many civilians are killed, injured, or harmed in the doing of exactly that very thing, because those particular countries, believe strongly that their fellow countrymen are much more concerned about their own country's casualties, as compared to the nation-states that are being bombed by those cluster munitions.  In other words, for example, the bombing of nation-states by the United States via the usage of their cluster munitions, risks a very minute percentage of American soldiers lives, while also being quite effective in the killing and harming of people within the targeted area, regardless of whether or not it strategically accomplishes its given purpose or not.

The bottom line, is that cluster munitions are a crime against humanity, because the design of these weapons are indiscriminate in their nature, and thereby should be seen as nothing more than brute force, that is purposely meant to unnecessarily make people that are simply inhabitants of specific nation-states, unduly suffer.

Sales tax for high-end collectibles such as art and cars

Each year, there are vintage automobiles that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; so too, there are art pieces that sell in the millions of dollars in which though there are seller as well as even buyer fees involved in these transactions, in regards to the payment of a percentage of the sales price to the institution conducting and hosting the selling of these products; it is somewhat surprising, though, that the vast amount of these sales conducted in the United States, do not have an associated sales tax attached to these sales.

When it comes to the rich and powerful, they are well gifted at their avoidance at paying their fair share of taxes, mainly because they make sure to see that appropriate legislation is passed for them thereby giving these select elite people, tax set asides, as well as tax preferences; which in the scheme of things does not really make much good sense, since the very people that can most readily pay their fair share of taxes are those people that have the most money. 

Unfairly, the very rich are treated differently from ordinary people, of which, they prove such to everyone else by their wealth of special privileges, available just for them, each and every day.  Consider that when the common man, purchases a piece of art, or an automobile, they are subject to the sales tax of the locality of where they purchase that item from, or occasionally in lieu of that, their own locality. On the other hand, when the price of a given automobile is incredibly high, or when a given piece of artwork is at some astronomical level, the purchaser of these items, when such is conducted through some sort of well respected high-end auction house, the collection of a sales tax in the locality of that sale, almost never happens, and if such sales tax is scheduled to be collected, there are workarounds such as the usage of a Freeport, which as the name implies, means that as long as the item does  not supposedly leave that Freeport, it is not subject to a sales tax.

The bottom line, is that the tax code has all sorts of exceptions and exemptions, of which, it isn't fair that an item such as a car or a painting, is subject to a sales tax for everyone, with the exception of when these are super-expensive items set at an auction, which means that they become in effect, exempt from such.  It would be far better for all those collecting, dealing, and involved in the buying and selling of high-end cars and art, that the appropriate sales tax of that locality be applied to such sales, so that these superrich and privileged people would do their part to pay their fair share to the budget of their counties, cities, and States, as is required for everyone else by tax law.

Ultimately, a sales tax as currently implemented is a regressive form of taxation, since it applies to everyone at the exact same rate, irrespective of income and wealth of that person. So then, the fact that the superrich are able to escape paying sales tax for specific expensive items implicitly signifies that they believe that the common man should duly subsidize them.

Return on Net Assets (RONA)

Businesses are evaluated through a lot of different methodologies, of which, those that are the executives of those businesses, as well as the stockholders and analysts of such, are forever looking at the efficiency, profit, and growth of a given company.  The simplest definition of RONA is the amount of profit that a given company generates in its fiscal year, divided by the fixed assets plus net working capital of that company, to thereby come up with the RONA ratio for that company.  The higher that ratio is, and the better that ratio is in comparison to like companies, the more efficient it is believed that subject company is in using its capital and assets to generate profits. On the surface, RONA seems like a good and fair test, of exactly what it is meant to represent, which is how much profit management can generate from the given capital and fixed assets that they so utilize.  However, in an era in which a significant amount of executive officers, are so often dependent upon the underlying stock performance of the company that they are a part of, to thereby earn lucrative bonuses, and/or to reap the benefits of their vested stock options, there is always going to be a strong tendency for a meaningful percentage of those executives to want to "game" the system, so as to benefit primarily themselves, at the expense of the long term interests of the company, or for society, at large.

That is to say, one way to increase a company's RONA is quite obviously, to generate more sales from the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, of which, by those additional sales, typically, the overall profit amount of that company will increase.  Not too surprisingly, to achieve the increase of sales along with the increase of corresponding profit is something that necessitates real effort, planning, and throughput, and may well require some time to successfully achieve.  On the other hand, since RONA represents a ratio of profit, divided by the fixed assets and net working capital of that company, the other straightforward way to increase a given company's RONA is, for example, to reduce the amount of fixed assets that a company is the owner of, by the selling of such, and subsequently the replacement of those fixed assets with the successful outsourcing of what those assets use to perform --thereby still capturing those profits through that successful outsourcing.  Not only does outsourcing reduce the fix assets of a company, it typically also reduces the amount of those so directly employed by that company; yet, via that successful outsourcing the profit of the company is not only maintained, but the RONA ratio subsequently rises, proving that the management of the company is astute because of its improved efficiency in the utilization of its company's assets and capital.

So then, in the hunt for efficiencies in which executives are judged on their competency by formulas such as RONA and the profit ratio so produced, management in recent years has outsourced more and more domestic jobs, and purchased directly for their company less capital equipment than they would normally have a need for, by virtue of that outsourcing; so that, while corresponding profits and ratios look quite good for those companies, the reverberations of this outcome is part and parcel of why the once vibrant middle class of America continues to get hollowed out.

Murder and suicide have commonality in their disrespect

As reported by worldhealthexpectancy.com, in 2017, there were 19,510 homicides in the United States; yet, incredibly that was far exceeded by the amount of suicides which was 47,173.  So then, whether murder is committed by an outside agent, or is turn inward as in self-murder, the bottom line is that a discouraging amount of Americans die via murder, or self-murder each year.  Why so many people are murdered or commit suicide each year, undoubtedly has a lot of underlying causes, of which certainly one of the them is that those countries that are prone to violence as witnessed by their governmental actions, are going to be countries in which, unsurprisingly, that violence is invariably also turned outward as well as inward against fellow denizens.  Further to the point, those countries that believe that an appropriate way to resolve conflict and disappointment, is to utilize violence, more often than not, are also going be those countries in which those people that are extremely angry at themselves or others will more readily look to commit violent acts against their own person or another person.

The bottom line is that no matter how it is committed, murder and suicide are violent acts, of which, because the United States is such a strong believer that its citizens have the right to arm themselves with weapons that are both effective and lethal in what they are designed to be, that some of those people are obviously going to desire to use such specifically for that purpose. In addition, the fact that no other country prescribes more pharmaceutical substances than the United States contributes to all sorts of tragic decisions; especially, because these drugs are prone to both being abused as well as being over utilized, thereby leading to a strong tendency from that abuse or over usage to unnecessarily addle a given person's brain, so that these vulnerable people are thereby less capable of making rational decisions, because their sensibility and their reading of situations is both off and distorted.

There is something sad in the noting, that far too many people devalue their own life, as well as others, and from that devaluation, it thereupon makes it easier for them to make decisions that result in the taking of another person's life or their own.  After all, that which you value highly, will be accorded the respect due to that valuation; whereas that which is considered to be something that is lightly valued, or devalued from what it once was, or even worse, reclassified in a manner in which that which is human and thereby the inviolable holder of unalienable rights, has been erroneously replaced with a redefinition that somehow supplants that real person to now being perceived as just an object, or perhaps as an animal of no real worth, thereby leads to a very real human tragedy.

While there are lot of ways to deal with the current rather sad state of affairs in regards to murder and suicide, such as more stringent gun control laws, and far more effective drug prescription overview and enforcement rules; these reforms in and of themselves are not nearly enough to stem the tide.  Rather, what is needed is the conscious recognition that all of human life has unalienable rights, and that it is our highest duty to see that these rights are first and foremost, respected and upheld by all, so that each human life is rightly valued for the priceless worth that makes the liberty of life worth living.

Safety and the fear of losing

In this life, there are those seemingly few that are willing to dare greatly and take upon themselves real risks with real consequences, pro or con; and then there rests the majority of us, that either carefully weigh their risk -to-reward ratio before acting, or if especially conservative or especially risk averse, concern themselves mainly about what they might well lose, if they risk even just a little bit.  For all those people that are especially risk averse, they don't seem to apparently recognize that in avoiding risks at all costs, this thereby often compromises them in their good ability to subsequently achieve something of real merit, personally or on a professional level, just so they can remain safe.  In other words, for them, it's never about winning, but rather it is a lot more about not losing what they already have, so that, for better or worse, for them, they settle with what they have.

Of course, not everything that we have a fear about is a reasonable fear to begin with; so that, for instance, those that won't step into the ocean, for fear that some creature might hurt them or that they could drown are in most instances, being far more dramatic than an honest appraisal of the situation so warrants.  So too, those that consistently see the bogeyman time and time again, in which a reasonable person does not, are going to live lives in which they are not going to achieve what they could possibly achieve because of those unreasonable fears.  Further to the point, those that are too risk adverse, while living in a country that prides itself on being egalitarian, fair, and civil, are thereby placing more weight upon the shoulders of all those other people that will have to step up in their absence to test the system to see whether, in actuality, that construct is true; and thereby it is those other people that take those risks, which are the ones that help to make or maintain progress, for all.

While it is true that nobody wants to be a loser, and that few people wish to lose anything of value; the fact of the matter is that in order to get ahead in life, people typically have to risk something of themselves in order to get something of value, in return; and perhaps just as important, it should be recognized that typically risks must also be taken just to hold on to what we already have.  In other words, life is not static, so that, each day we are either progressing or we are regressing in what we have, so that those that are intent that they will not ever lose something of value, are in actuality going to have to be proactive in order to hold on to even just that.

All of this basically means that for all those that have a great fear of losing something of real value, that they should probably not follow the strategy of trying to build some unbreakable fortress and thereby actually expect that such will never be breached.  Rather, they should concentrate more upon the knowledge that there is strength in numbers, so that the more people that are joined together, believing in the same values and the same ideas that they hold dear and do not desire to relinquish, often leads to the discovery that by being more proactive in defending as well as propagating that which they as a group value so highly, that they will not lose such.

The superrich don't work harder

Life is really, really good for the superrich.  For instance, as reported by cnbc.com, "Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO’s have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings."  Whether a superrich person is a CEO, or the inheritor of boatloads of money, or an entrepreneur, or whatever it may be, the superrich have seen their income and wealth swell immensely in recent decades, in which during that same time period, the common man has unfortunately been left further and further behind.

When we look at how much the superrich have in comparison to those of the middle class, as well as those that are impoverished, no rational person can reasonably state that the superrich work 50 times harder, or as much as 200 times harder than the common man; and no rational personal can reasonably state that the superrich are 50 times more educated, or as much as 200 times more educated than the impoverished man; yet, the amount of wealth that the superrich control in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society, seems to indicate that the superrich are apparently super people, of uncommon brilliance and envious connections, that ostensibly are almost like gods upon this earth.

The true bottom line is that the superrich are not more talented than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have talent; nor are they smarter or better than everyone else, though, undoubtedly they do have their smarts; but rather primarily the greatest skill set of the superrich is how clever that they are in gaming and mastering the system, in a manner that super-favors them at the expense of virtually everyone else.   That is to say, the superrich never play fair, of which their real talent lies in exploiting others and exploiting the system in a manner in which they and those that they need to implement such stratagems, are the masters at richly getting what they so desire.

Those that are executives of publically owned companies, are clearly grossly overcompensated, of which, there should be meaningful legislation passed that addresses the obscene amount of money earned by many of these executives in comparison to the median compensation paid to the balance of their employees, of which that legislation would thereby reduce such supersized compensation of those executives to no more than a fairer ratio, perhaps of 20-to-1 of what the median non-executive  worker earns in their employment.  For those, that believe that this would be meddling in the private affairs and decisions of a public company, recognize that such public companies are subject to the regulation of governmental authorities for the privilege of being able to secure massive capital funding from private investors.  Further to the point, companies that are able to consistently earn money with very high gross margins, should be investigated thoroughly as to whether or not they have monopoly or duopoly positions in the products and services that they are selling, of which, those companies that are found to be in such a position, need to be dissolved or divided so as to create true competing companies.   After all, companies that consistently have high gross margins in a capitalistic society, at a minimum implies, and in all probability signifies, that the business enterprise that they are part of, has no effective competition, or involves collusion.

The superrich have a lion's grip of the wealth in this nation, of which, by virtue of that wealth, they have immense power that is far in excess of the minute amount of people that are actually superrich.  That power, should not rightly be in the hands of the superrich, for they are certainly not gods, and whether they are extraordinarily smart, or work extraordinarily hard, too much concentrated wealth in too few hands, eviscerates democracies, and serves no good purpose for the people and never will.

Did I do enough?

Each one of us should want to thoroughly examine our own lives, especially in regard to our purposes, our goals, our achievements, and the foundation that we are building upon in order to successfully get to where we desire to be.  Further to the point, none of us is an island, for we are not meant to be alone; but rather mankind is of necessity, a social creature, thereby created to socialize, to interact, and to be of service to others.  So too, in recognition that on any given day, there are plenty of decisions to make, as well as there being plenty of things which are thought to be necessary to do or to attend to, each one of us needs to reflect upon whether or not on that day, or series of days, they have or have not done enough of what they really ought to do.

The question "Did I do enough?"  is not only not an easy question to fairly answer, but it could also be seen as a question that cannot be readily answered by the person thinking that thought; but yet that question should be answered by each one of us or at least pondered upon, for a lot of what we would consider to be satisfying in this world, is going to ultimately come down to whether or not we believe that we have done enough. After all, the desire for a good family, good friends, and a good society that we wish to be a part of, necessitates us doing our part to make that come to fruition; for free rides are only really free to the extent that someone else carries that load on behalf of us, which typically should really be ours to fairly bear our share, and perhaps indeed a bit more.

We should be cognizant that nearly every day we are going to come across situations in which we can play a positive part to do something of substance for someone other than our self -- for there are always an abundance of people that are hurting, or suffering, or are in some difficulty, in which we can have a contributing role to play, if we choose to be that helping hand for someone else.  That someone else does not need to be a stranger, for friends, family, and community members are all part of the greater whole, that we should typically wish to contribute to; yet, there is something of real value for all those that do good deeds for others, in which there is no reciprocation asked, nor is any expected, for that thereby represents the epitome of someone who is a true doer.

None of us wants to come to that place, where we second guess ourselves in regards to what we could have done, should have done, or might have done, for it would seem that all those that are really doing their part to make their communities a better place are positive contributors, who intuitively recognize that the change that we want to see in this world, always begins with our selves doing what we can to actuate this. 

It is well to remember that there are going to be those certain questions in life that will haunt us for we will feel our own disappointment and guilt; so too, there are going to be those questions that we will face that we will feel good about and subsequently are quite comfortable in so answering. And then there will be that question, perhaps haunting, perhaps not, of which it will be asked, did you do enough? 

Stealing from the future to prosper in the present

The given intent for any individual, company, or government, when they borrow money in the present, is through their future earnings to pay that borrowed money back.  While there are myriad reasons why any entity borrows money, the most proximate cause is that they believe that the importance of getting the money now and thereby having the ability to use such in a way that makes sense to them, is going to exceed the pain, if any, of paying it back with appropriate interest and/or penalties when due.  So, in short, those that borrow money are leveraging their future for the present, because if they are unable to pay back those funds so borrowed, they will individually suffer for that, or as in the case of present day governments, there is a very good chance it will be those of a future generation that will be stuck with the paying of the bill.

In other words, while it can be said that individuals that borrow money and fail to timely pay such back will have to individually deal with the consequences of this, the nuances of what happens to a particular company or government is typically different when they so default on their debts.  For instance, many a publically owned company has borrowed boatloads of money, only to become at some point, insolvent; in which the upshot of this is that the assets of that company do not match up with the debts so produced, signifying that the money so borrowed has already been spent or utilized, and thereby cannot be successfully recovered except at a discounted rate to the debt so created.  This can mean that certain company individuals, in particular, senior executives, may easily have been the beneficiaries of very lucrative compensation packages, and will not have to pay a dime of it back to those creditors, making those that are creditors to that corporation, and the investors of that debt, the biggest losers.  So too, governments can borrow billions upon billions of dollars, and do such for an exceedingly long time, as long as those that are issuing the credit, believe that government is ultimately good for paying back that debt; but thereupon there comes a time, when those issuing such credit, either lose their faith in such or demand more stringent terms for the risk involved, in which, if that government, subsequently fails to uphold their part of the bargain, the edifice collapses, hurting most everyone of that nation, and in particular, hurting those that are just commencing their lives and livelihood, for they are the ones that will suffer most dearly from the reparations and credit restrictions for the failure of their government to be solvent as well as to be prudent.

Those that do the borrowing are in effect, taking or utilizing what they have not fairly earned, yet; as if they have already earned it, though they have not, but instead have merely made a promise or a commitment to make good on such.  In life, not every good intention comes to fruition, and for a certainty, those with a devious intention often fare far worse; but good or bad, there always is an eventual reckoning, and for those governments that have been fiscally irresponsible, as well as those representatives of the people that have been using their power to buy prosperity for the present generation, by charging that bill to the future generation, leaves those of that future generation stuck with that bill, and thereby being unfairly burdened with a debt that they did not so create.

Processed food and chemicals

We live in a time in which food is not only inexpensive to purchase but also readily available, which in consideration that each of our bodies needs food and water to sustain itself as well as to maintain good health, having the ready availability of food at our beck and call is incredibly important and of immense value.  Further to the point, there use to be a time in which the majority of a given community's exertions was spent in either the harvesting of or of the hunting of food; whereas nowadays, the vast majority of Americans, simply go to their local grocery store to get whatever food that they have need of, or to any of the vast variety of restaurants thereby serving food.  Of course, different families have different budgets for food which is often dependent upon their income and wealth, of which, those that are on reduced budgets are subject to reduced choices; in which, they are far more frequently, going to have to avail themselves in the selection of some percentage of processed foods to eat, which typically means foods that have been changed, combined, or "enhanced" via chemical processes that thereby transforms that food into something different or new.

While there are all sorts of combinations of substances that can thereby add to the shelf life of food, without substantially changing the foundation of that food, such as in salt or brine; in modern times, the food industry has recognized the value brought to them via chemical engineering and thereby have deliberately made chemical add-ons to foods in order to better control the process of the creation of that food item, such as in common food items as in cereals, chips, and cookies.  Not too surprisingly, since packaging makes up a significant expense of processed products so being sold, those selling such products, are always going to be interested in those chemical compositions that will allow their products to have a greater shelf life of which ii is mainly through those chemicals that thereby keeps processed foods, stable for longer periods of time, while still maintaining their look and taste.  Additionally, the food business, is most definitely a competitive business, so that those that are the manufacturers and developers of processed food are always looking at ways to save money, via such things as a longer shelf life, or via cheaper product constitutions in which products thereby have both chemicals and minerals added or subtracted, depending upon numerous factors, or the substitution of one food item with another food item or a chemical composition that serves the same sort of purpose, as well as through the adulteration, deliberate or not, or through the dilution of a food in order to lower the unit cost of such, and so on and so forth.

So then, the upshot of the substitution of food items, or chemical additions made to processed foods, is that typically a lot of this is done for the salient reason of reducing the costs of providing that product to the consumer, so as to remain competitive, or simply to make more profit, typically at some expense to the safety, quality, and healthiness of the product.   That is to say, the processed food business is often really about trying to maximize profit, in a way in which such is done so that product through its chemical processing will still look good, and will still taste good, but because of those added chemicals and often the lesser food items added to that processed food, is probably not good for the overall health of the consumer.

Correcting the Constitution

The founding document of this great nation is its Declaration of Independence, of which the signers of that Declaration, representing each of the thirteen colonies, through the testimony of those signatures, formerly recognized that all men are created equal, and further held that we all have unalienable rights.  It was this Declaration, that dissolve the bands formerly held with Great Britain and was the rallying point for that successful revolution.  Upon the success of that seminal fight, and in recognition that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate in order to sustain a new nation, another convention was called, in which a Constitution was thereby created and subsequently ratified by each of the thirteen States.  As in most things, of which various people with various agendas get together, there were compromises made in order to form that union of those States.  One of those compromises had to do with the continuing enslavement of those other persons, left to the domain of each individual State, of which those other persons, though considered by that Declaration to be created equally and to have unalienable rights, were wrongly denied those very attributes by that Constitution.  However, there was a belief that in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of that Constitution that the banning of the importation of slaves in the year 1808 and thereafter, would thereby by its passage, slowly eradicate slavery as an institution. History, tells us, that this slow eradication did not subsequently occur.  

So then, this country continued to be a republic of both free people as well as enslaved people, in which, in absence of a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning slavery throughout this land, the decision as to whether or not to permit slavery within a given State, was left to each individual State to decide, and the federal government thereby had no Constitutional power to interfere in such.  In addition, in consideration that it was the Constitution that was the highest law of the land, this, in effect, made the Declaration of Independence, a Declaration, that was merely historical and therefore of no import to legislative, judicial, and executive decisions so made by those representatives.

Many a revolution has had the noblest goals for their constituents, only to find themselves after successfully overcoming their adversary, betraying those very same noble goals for their constituents, by their ignoring or vacating of such; for power, for greed, for control, and so on.  The United States, in its construction of that Constitution, is no different; for in reality, those owning slaves, and signing that Declaration of Independence, most definitely had their time and place to defend that despicable institution and therefore to amend that Declaration to conform to their belief that those so enslaved, were really the property of those slave owners, and thereby not people.  Instead, that Constitution, so created after that Declaration of Independence, never directly addresses slavery, though it also never concedes that other persons are property; yet, somehow finds a way to discount other persons to be three-fifths of a regular person, and with no rights that a white man was bound to respect.

It would take a great civil war and then the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments, for this country to recognize in its Constitution, what it had already recognized in its Declaration of Independence, that each of us is created equally, and equally of unalienable rights.  So now, we do find that the highest law of this land is in conformance with its Declaration of Independence; yet, still the abolition of slavery does not mean the same thing as equality under the law or of opportunity, for even a cursory look around the institutions and the justice so rendered in the present day United States indicates that this is still not so.