Scott Free Thinking

Many people are under the belief that the world needs to change. Everywhere you look you often see headlines in the news about those who need help and are crying out in the world. The amount of opposition that faces each and every person from within society is staggering, where difference is stifled. The amount of opposition the different countries often give to each other is just plain arrogant. But what would be some of the things that would need to happen in order for the world to begin to be a truly better place all around for everyone? Is it really possible to have world peace? Is one world government really that dangerous, and can it be done? In what way should we change our model of thinking?

Upon examining the world around me, I have come to recognize a number of different simple factors that are driving everything. If people could figure out how to run the world based on these concepts and use these as basic rules to check everything it is that they are doing, there would no longer be such a thing as group functioning purely off the basis of self interest or greed. There would be no war. Essentially, what I am talking about is something that to many might resemble utopia, but in truth, it would be no different than any other system, but with a lot less flaws. This is something that does require an ongoing perfection process, an ongoing change that will never end.

Everything and anything is completely connected. The world is unified, whether we say it is or not. This was of course the prime lesson that I learned from the time of my life that I write about in my book, The Island of Yellow. Everything that we do influences everything else around us. I often use this example: walk by someone on the street tomorrow and just say, “hi” to them. In a very tiny way, this affects their day, and in turn, affects the other people around them.

Every single one of us is plugged into some kind of social network, and those social networks are all connected to each other through a variety of environmental factors, mostly how the earth reacts to our actions. If the world together destroys the ozone layer and creates global warming, even those who have never known anything but their tiny little tribal village are going to experience the effects. Similarly, how many social groups in high school can you think of that didn’t let anyone in but the people they wanted, and eventually all dated each other? Maybe you were in one of those groups.

This very idea is the core concept that comes first and foremost for how the entire world operates. This is the basis for the Law of Attraction, or LoA. This is the basis for virtually all philosophies that people often adore. This is the basis for physics and most of science itself. At the tiniest level of cosmic organization, we are actually all the exact same thing. In this way too, we are all fundamentally connected. We are connected on a social level, on a physical level, on a scientific level, and through many of us, even at a microscopic level as we transmit tiny signals and other organisms between ourselves.

Under this idea, war is completely invalidated. To kill another human being is the same thing as killing yourself. And interestingly enough, it is believed that if you die, so does the existence of everyone else around you, because you are then unable to perceive their existence…because you’re dead! If you are not directly connected to someone and you do not know them personally, then you are indirectly connected to them because of how the social networks are all connected.

Education has to be placed at the top of the priority list, above everything else. If you have enough knowledge, you don’t need money. If you have enough knowledge, you don’t have problems. If you could somehow designate knowledge with a point scale system of some sort, then you would ultimately be very well off to pursue the act of increasing that amount at all times.

By learning how to carry out what it is we are trying to achieve, the achievement will come. If you understand the most advanced mechanics and the inner depths of science, you can forgo the requirement of thousands of labor workers in construction. If you can gain insight into yourself to a high enough degree, you will never commit suicide but will also not fear death. The examples to this are endless, and on a simplified level, it seems to make perfect sense.

Why then, are countries not pouring in a huge amount of money to their education programs in contrast to their defense budgets, especially countries like the United States? The answer is fear. Fear of change. Fear of growth. Fear of discomfort. Fear of vulnerability. These are things that all exist within education and outside the realm of world politics or world conflict.

On that note, education can be improved beyond the best state that you may have already found it anywhere in the world. It has already been proven that the United States educational system at the time of this writing wreaks with flaws, and so does any government sponsored educational system. Education is probably best left as an actual industry. If schools are competing with one another for which school’s graduates can produce the best work in their field, the result would be dramatically improved education. This bizarre logic of imposing a public education system purely for the sake of “raising the bar” is a false point - there is no such thing as raising the bar. There is no such thing as giving a ‘minimum level’ of education.

It has gotten to the point now where publicly funded school districts are trying to act as if they are a powerful institution for learning. My own school district that I had gone through, for instance, floods their website with propaganda for parents and students to encourage them to stay in the school, even when students’ own experience often says that the school is performing extremely poorly for them. Private schools are not going to fall into disarray or give mediocre lessons if public schools do not exist. At the same time, public schools should not be the norm, they should be the exception should they exist at all.

Families everywhere accept sending their children to publicly funded educational facilities on the basis that they did it themselves and that it is not costing them a dime except what they pay in taxes. If they pay for it already in taxes, then why not use it, right? Because in a system such as most places have, the voters will keep taxes to a minimum, and if the taxes are high, they’re not being spent properly on education.

Education could be an incredible energetic industry, where the focus is engaging the learner, producing outstanding results, and going beyond the repetitive dribble of black & white worksheets, tests, quizzes, and boring lectures are replaced with active media, accelerative learning techniques, and in depth problem solving activities that are fun, dynamic, and creative.

Political science and economics are in their infancy. Interestingly enough, I am not the only person in history who has thought so. It seems like the educated of the world seem to already know better ways of going about things than what we’re currently doing, and governments that existed over 500 years ago were hardly more advanced than we are today. More than once now I’ve been sitting in class listening to an instructor explain the different political systems and the problems with each one, oh and by the way: we’re still using one of these magnificently flawed systems today.

For instance, we are taught that John Locke was, in relation to much of North America, the guy who introduced this major idea of natural rights right around the time of the American war for independence. He wrote that essentially the role of government was nothing other than to protect equal rights. Leave the economy to manage itself, leave the people to do what they like so long as they are not violating natural rights. Actually, it’s a simple solution that actually becomes quite an ingenious system, if you can figure out a way to drive the mechanics behind it. If you leave the economy to itself and do not tax, how can the government have money to protect equal rights?

An evolved system of politics would revert back largely to this protection of natural rights. Natural rights, or civil rights, have never been given a very effective form of interpretation for the entire time they have ever existed in history under the eyes of the law. Even after the first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified, the bill of rights combined with the existence of slavery, even until the year of 1808, simply did not make sense. Today, the existence of things like the USA Patriot Act, which gives the government the right to, without a warrant or suspicion, listen in on telephone calls, read e-mails, and other privacy issues all in the name of national security. This act immediately violates the United States Constitution, but because the government and much of the public at large see it as a “temporary measure” it is not considered unconstitutional. I was not aware that the Constitution was allowed to be violated at all, even if it is just for a single second.

It is confusing to me why government documents seem to be the only thing that we continue to add to, continue to cherish, in this age of information & communication. When a current version of software is not working that well or could use improvement, we rewrite the code to allow the program to function as a whole. Should government not be the same way? Why are we allowing the Constitution to even continue to exist in its current state when it was created a couple hundred years ago by men who designed it under the economic conditions of the time in a room with no air conditioning in the middle of the summer heat, often times exhausted from working on the thing for weeks at a time? The whole thing should be revised to address things like a presidential cabinet, place more limitations on the executive branch, state that if you are a human being then you are entitled to rights, that you are created equal, not just if you are “man,” which could be ambiguous or could not be.

This whole system of “broad interpretations,” and selective interpretations that we have today seem to be going too far. But before I preach anymore about the problems with the current United States government, let me just say what I was originally getting to. An evolved system of government will, again, hold the primary purpose of protecting natural rights and allowing society to function freely under the those terms.

A truly evolved system of economics will allow a better distribution of wealth that is far more equalized. The only way that this can occur is through some form of population control. Am I suggesting it be done through violent means? Of course not, as this would violate natural rights. Should it be done through education? Perhaps, but what is the guarantee that everyone would reach a mutual consensus? How much would it take to deprogram the societal rule that exists where people somehow think that you have to have children to truly live a fulfilling life. Before you call me a communist in regards to population control and equalization of wealth, hear me out here.

Some of the specific changes and characteristics that would have to take place in order for a successful world government to work are:

• A much, much greater concern and effort toward global welfare.
• Within the government, separation of powers and checks and balances must continue to exist.
• The worldwide initiative of democratic characteristics and the actions of educated people must take a greater precedent - the electoral college and the entire system that surrounds it in aiding the creation of only two or three major political parties must be destroyed and diversity must be increased.
• Natural rights must be protected under some form of a people’s court, in which the government has no ability to interfere with. No part of natural rights can ever be repealed.
• For most of the money that would normally be spent on the research of weaponry and defense must be transferred to space exploration and energy technologies innovation. The single biggest focus must be self sufficiency for all of mankind and the unified goal of exploring new frontiers in space. This may sound like Star Trek or something similar, but just consider the reason of why millions of people probably loved that show: it was onto something in its philosophy and concept.
• Money and the system of money must take into consideration the old idea of mercantilism that says the power of any country is based on the amount of gold and silver within its borders. Money must be something almost completely non-duplicable and must not be controlled in its supply by a central world bank.

To some this is quite a radical mode of thought. Some will automatically reject it and toss these ideas away without a second thought. But for those who do I’d like to please ask you to reconsider. Humanity has the capability of realizing its greatness, and this has been demonstrated more than ever in the past few thousand years, and even more so within the past hundred years. As some would say, there has never been a more exciting time to be alive, and whatever you do: don’t be bored. It is true, though, that technology is showing what is possible over what we would refuse to even believe only decades ago.

The truth is, is that it really seems as though the only two elements that really need to be realized are the first two major points I mentioned. The first of which is that everything is connected. The second of which is that education has to be the first point of focus. If you continue to gain knowledge and discover new methods and possibilities while keeping the connectivity concept as the driving force behind it all then it seems almost impossible to fail short of someone coming along and stomping out the fire by brute force. If humanity was unified in their efforts, this would not have to happen.

The major problem with all of this is evolutionary history. If we are following human history by Darwin’s point of view, that essentially means that the reason we are here to day, and much of what involves all social interaction, is based purely on who can survive the best, who is the fittest. Those who were not willing to kill their own kind in the past were likely wiped out, completely obliterated off the face of the planet purely because they exemplified a higher moral reasoning or perhaps just a general higher intelligence. Most people reading this would probably agree that war is not a very intelligent course of action for any conflict or disagreement, the same way that we might agree when we’re children that fighting another child is the best action.

And then, some will disagree with this statement. More males than females, as fathers, will say to their son’s after their first fight at school, “I’m proud of you for standing up for yourself,” minus any sort of reprimand. Often times this mode of thought will stretch into their own lives. Stomp out the competition. Destroy the weak. Eliminate those who are in your way. Dominance. Control. Power. Few of these people probably realize what a ridiculously dangerous line of thought this is to have. And of course, to the rest of society it is contagious. Because whole communities surround themselves in this filth of negativity, the children will take those memes and pass them on.

Imagine if things were different, though. If the world were to start taking on an overall more optimistic point of view, a more philosophical approach to it all, perhaps there are some great things that could be achieved. If the entire planet were to somehow realize they are actually all one, all the same thing - what could that really bring about? But perhaps this may never happen for beer and football. Still, I think it is fair to say that we can hope.