The Super-Rich Are More Rich than They Need to Be

Society is degenerating, partly because people who could be accumulating wealth if given the opportunity do not have the opportunity. This is because money is being syphoned to the super-rich, instead of growing among the poor and middle-class. The very wealthy accumulate wealth without regard for the greater good of the economy, which is becoming more and more suitable for small businesspeople.

However, part of the problem is the attitude of the poor and middle-class. Throughout my life, I've observed the attitude of others with regards to changing the world. With rare exception, everyone I've come across simply has no wish to change the world. I don't know if this is because public school beats it out of them, or if it is because of a hereditary attitude that has been promulgating itself since the time when people would be hanged, crucified, or burned for trying to change the world, or perhaps if it is just a personal lack of conviction in their own ideas. Whatever it is, I think it is a problem. Part of the reason the rich can get away with accumulating wealth that should've been ours is because 99% of people are at a loss for what to do with extra wealth when they get it. Maybe a new home theater system. A Winnebago. A trip to the Bahamas. Start a business? Make a film? No, no. That is for people who want to change the world.

The super-rich are going to become more meaningless over time, because our cultural consciousness and economy are becoming decentralized, making centralized wealth less important. But what will replace our major corporations if nobody wants to change the world? They will be replaced with a bunch of mindless sheep begging to be invaded by people with the chutzpah to actually do things. I hear complaints about how Americans aren't accumulating wealth like they used to. I complain about that, because I tend to get stuck in the economic doldrums spending all the money I get on rent and utilities. But I complain about it because I actually have ambitions to change the world, which cannot be realized without extra wealth. Unfortunately, I'm a minority. Most people could care less about accumulating extra wealth, because they are more concerned with living comfortably and quietly smothering themselves with their own down pillows.

I don't care if you want to be a follower rather than a leader. We need followers just as much as we need leaders. All I ask is that if you are going to be a follower, at least try to follow people who are changing the world, rather than just paying a salary. Follow people who challenge you. Follow people who reward enterprise and good decisions. Follow people with a conscience, and with vision. To survive, society needs to constantly change. And it won't change unless we change it. People who refuse to change the world, even if they're not natural leaders, aren't doing anyone any favors.

Obtaining a Point of Concentration in Difficult Times

In general, there are two kinds of good in this world. There is all-around general good, which I would call "the good of the light," then there is a point of concentration surrounded by darkness or pain or harm or even evil, which I would call "the good of the dark." There are a few things to keep in mind about the latter kind of good.

For one, it's perhaps difficult to imagine, but this kind of good is not a simple inversion of the good of the light. You cannot simply become one with the darkness, declare that evil is necessary, surrender yourself, and call it good. On the contrary, it is in these occasions where a strong sense of your self and your morality is the most important. Notions of surrender work best in situations of peace. In difficult times, we need fortitude.

The will plays a role in these situations. But the technique of wrangling the will involves a loose grip. The will is like a horse; it can't be forced into submission, it has to be coaxed into submission. Will is an important tool, which needs to be kept in submission to the whispers of the soul and to faith in the greater good. In the case of difficult times, it is an alchemical combination of will and faith that is used to obtain the point of concentration in the midst of darkness, which in turn transforms ordinary negativity or hardship into the good of the dark.

Ordinary darkness is darkness combined with ignorance. It is like a suffocating dark cloud of smoke. The good of the dark is like a clear dark sky littered with stars, or like the city glimmering at night with the light of streetlights. The trick to transforming the one into the other is to find the point of concentration in the midst of darkness.

We should break down this notion of a point of concentration. It has two components: faith and will. Faith is an all-around general sense that positivity exists, and because of its mere existence, positivity pervades all things. Faith is the universal act of uncovering which reveals good, just as a cloud dissipates to reveal stars above or city lights below, or just as the earth is removed to reveal precious gems. This potential for uncovering is a timeless presence, unconditioned by comings and goings.

Will involves two things. It involves a personal self which has the ability to actualize things, and it involves something to be actualized. The personal self and its tools for transformation are fairly well understood. The thing to be actualized, in this case, is something nice and of comfort. Its nature is fairly simple: some form of light, a "good of the light," which does not attempt to transform good into bad.

The world today is a rather dark world. It's full of diseases, conflicts, immorality, income inequalities, and so forth, which make the place very dark. There is a positive side to darkness, though. Only darkness has the ability to generate new, good things, when there is suitable focus. The Qur'an speaks of two kinds of trials: trial by pleasure, and trial by pain. Both ordinary pleasure and ordinary pain are forms of suffering, pain in particular. The reason ordinary pleasure is a form of suffering is because ordinary pleasure revels in the good of the light, but is unclear about the nature of the good of the dark. And, due to the changing nature of things, light will become dark, and then ordinary pleasure becomes a mere pastime. The reason pain is suffering is obvious; we experience it, but don't want to. And therein lies the key.

I recently have been battling with hatred of psychiatry. It's a recurring theme in my life, due to the trauma and post traumatic stress disorder caused by the psychiatric experience. But in this dark world, trauma comes from all directions. It is said that in the future, there will be so much trauma that the lifespan of humans will only be ten years. A lot of people also face trauma caused by the prison experience. Mental wards lead to hatred of psychiatrists, prison seems to lead to hatred of the cops. The difference is that prison punishes you for having hurt someone, while psychiatry punishes you for having been hurt. (Psychiatry, therefore, is worse than prison.) The challenge in situations of extreme darkness like these is to find a generous and wholesome point of concentration.

For me, I found that finding this point of concentration tends to be a complex path beginning with the statement, "I do not want this to happen to me." Thankfully, due to our general and intrinsic goodness, when we're in a state of extreme pain, what we'll tend to focus on is the "want" part. You clearly don't want to be in pain. Well then, what exactly do you want? What makes the situation so unbearable? Then the conversation then moves to, "If this situation were just a little bit more such-and-such I would be okay." The trick is to rest and observe. Try not to fight too much. Inevitably, after wishing for a little bit more such-and-such, you'll run into the brick wall of "Well, that's not what's going to happen." Then you'll begin naturally to narrow down what you want. You'll come up with a statement, "Even if it were just a little tiny bit more so-and-so I would at least be satisfied." If you observe, what you'll notice is happening is that a pulsating cloud of darkness is slowly gaining heat and concentration, just as in the birth of a star, and inevitably you'll reach a point where you begin to shed light.

When you shed light, you'll notice what you're doing is taking ownership of your negativities, and your painful experience, and formulating a positive identity and lifepath. Understanding the process from ordinary pain to positive lifepath is essential to surviving negative places, such as Planet Earth and America.

We should return to the Buddha's prophecy about the lifespan of humans. People are eventually going to be so beset by negativities that they will live to be only ten, and humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth. This is a prophesy of the Buddha; it is the infallible word of the Buddha and incapable of error. But we still have a choice, as in ages past. We have a choice to follow our stupid whims and fancy and hurt and exploit people for perverse reasons, or we could be good-of-the-dark people. Rome had a choice in the past. Among other choices, they had the choice between continuing the sundry Pagan assumptions which ignorantly pretended darkness was light, but they chose honest, dark forgiveness in Christ and his purification of crucifixion. That was one choice. Today, we have similar choices. The cumulative effect of these choices is the positive ground for human enjoyment and development which will be in place when humans begin to increase their lives again from age ten back to age 80,000.

When I first heard that humans will be so rare that when they meet they will kiss each other on the mouth, I envisioned lone wanderers in a bleak, post-apocalyptic landscape, beset by hunger and loneliness, wishing in vain for signs of human life. What the Buddha did not mention was Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, and Internet dating. The Buddha said that humankind will face an apocalyptic fall after a seven-days war. The Buddha did not mention whether or not Google Glass, bioelectronic implants, etc. would survive the fall. I propose that if the technology survives, even if the Buddha's word is fulfilled, it's possible that in the interrim between these rare, mouth-kissing meetings, these technologies, or perhaps something functionally similar, will make life at least bearable. We needn't be reduced to lone wanderers as in the image above, but rather we could continue to enjoy the fruits of previous civilization and continue to develop humanity positively.

What this all suggests is that if we focus our darkness, whenever our pain and trauma arises, we are contributing to a positive world in unique ways which only good-of-the-dark situations of dark, Christlike regenerative forgiveness can produce. Our age is the age of our animal natures. We have the choice of being dirty, stray dogs who get put down or starve, or animist deities such as Singhamukha who are wholesome and happy (though wrathful) shamanistic healers. The trick to this choice and this transformation is, I think, finding that point or those points of concentration which illuminate our dark lives.

a remix and / or edit of the words of "The Goddess"

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 0x0002 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly ten feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

I'm going to have another shouting session. I'll try real hard not to piss anybody off this time. So you'd better f-ing listen.

HEY. Last night, I was asking Mother Earth Herself to reach up with water, dirt, wind, fire, microbes, dioxyribonucleic acid, weird quantum shit, and so forth, and start yanking around who is hurting Her the WORST—setting up these fucking impossible rules and laws exactly 10^2 feet high with only twenty minutes to read, IF you are lucky enough to KNOW about it... and it LOOKS LIKE the doors are open for business, BUT, guess you need a secret handshake for that. Anyway, I think it'd be funny when SHE starts reaching up and yanking those who have thought "G, let's put a pipeline over a natural well of water to pump oil across the exact fucking place where most of the foods are grown."

Since WHEN is that EVER a good idea? >__<

<end of line>

The Era of Great Pain

It is possible that we are entering an era of great pain. This is an era where:

• Every concert is a "recreational activity."
• Every day of work is a "job."
• Every formal learning experience is an "education."
• Every animal is a "pet."
• Every blog post is "self-expression."
• Every tennis match is a "hobby."
• Every computer is a "computer."
• Every piece of food is "food."

Every hallelujah is cold and broken. Every experience is psychological. Every activity is a behavior. And every dissenter is "mentally ill."

Look. Concerts are NOT "recreational activities." They are LIFE. In short, everything is pain. And "living in the moment" has lost all meaning apart from forgetting everything, as though the phrase holds little more promise than recreational drug use.

Work is not a "job." It is LIFE.

Learning experiences are not "education." They are LIFE.

Animals are not "pets." They are LIFE.

Blog posts are not "self-expression." They are LIFE.

Tennis matches are not "hobbies." They are LIFE.

Computers are not "computers." They are LIFE.

Food is not "food." It is LIFE.

We cannot go on as though everything is meaningless. We simply can't continue as a species if everything is trivial and forgettable. NO. Every experience should be profound and meaningful. We MUST take every form of being, doing, experience, and so forth AS SERIOUSLY AS THOUGH OUR LIVES AND THE ETERNAL SALVATION OF OUR SOULS DEPENDED ON IT. When we feel upset, or when we need a little pick-me-up, we cannot simply say, "Recreational activities help pick me up. I should choose a recreational activity that will pick me up. I think I'll go to a concert."

I can't think of any more meaningless thing we could possibly ever think. It is absolutely cynical and wrong. We should NEVER think like that. We should go to a concert because it will ROCK OUR WORLD, or we shouldn't go at all. We should get a job because it will FUNDAMENTALLY IMPACT EVERYTHING, or we shouldn't get a job at all. We should eat food because it will ALLOW US TO COMPLETELY REJUVENATE THE WORLD, or we should eat red-hot balls of iron. There is no excuse. Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, you're part of the Great Pain. You'll do nothing but cause everyone around you great pain. If you can't enjoy life, GTFO.

The evil of the machine thrives on insecurity. We feel we have to be "hip enough to be square." But there is NOTHING that makes life more beautiful than insecurity. And if we can't recognize that, then we should demolish all the Universities. We should set fire to all the schools and libraries. We should forbid all scientific and academic inquiry. Because all it will do is make the human race more cynical, more painful, and more evil.

Science is for risk-takers. Knowledge is for risk-takers. Comfort is for risk-takers. Otherwise it is the purest form of curse. And I believe our society is currently cursing itself. I wish EVERYONE would take a moment to LIVE IN THE MOMENT—which, properly understood, means NOT forgetting everything, but THROWING AWAY scientific knowledge, security, money, food, computers, "recreational activities," "jobs," "education," as UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, and living completely in the state where it is possible that the world will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've trained for will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've worked for and earned will DISAPPEAR. And you should live the rest of your life that way.

Ironically, if you don't do that, it would be better if it DID disappear, because all it will cause is Great Pain.

Absolute Eclectic Morality

The last post I made was written in a state of blissful psychosis. And yes, I do mean, literally, psychosis. If you didn't already know, I am an expert in that subject, for reasons which may well be biological.

And in that post I said some things which definitely rung of psychosis, like, essentially, the basis of all morality as being open to the idea of everyone killing everyone. Nevertheless, while the post may have been—quite enjoyably—formed in psychosis (the previous one to that having been formed in a state of depression), the ideas expressed were actually formed, and even named, earlier.

The concept I was expressing I have named "absolute eclectic morality." And the principle behind it is that the basis of morality is not dogma, not intuition, not biology, and not any conceptual framework, but in openness to frightening and painful things. But while some of these earlier posts may well serve as a great introduction, I have yet to explain, to my satisfaction anyway, the way in which an anarchic state of "absolute eclectic morality" culminates in a more orderly state of conventional morality.

Consider this analogy. A man has a positive goal. He wants to make a change in the world. He wants to start a political party. He may think, "What exactly should I do, in society, to put forth my political views?" In his natural thought process, the thought may occur that he should kill a bunch of people whom he disagrees with. Obviously, this is the most expedient way to form a political party. But will it really fulfill the intended goal? If you live in a society where such behavior is acceptable, the goal may well never be achieved, or even formed. How can we achieve anything with the constant threat of death biting at our heels? So this thought is discarded.

We can stop right there, because clearly, in a similar manner, any behavior which is immoral will eventually be discarded. But was the man an immoral man for such a monstrous thought to occur to him? Absolutely not. It was perfectly natural. The process of fulfilling a goal begins first with a state of formation. Okay, I have a goal, now how do I fulfill it? The word "how" here is loaded with possibilities, and in this initial stage, each possibility is an acceptable one. This initial state is what I call absolute eclectic morality, because morality here means that all possibilities are open, eclectically, and will only be adopted or discarded based on their relative merit. The process which follows, of course, weeds out the immoral acts, due to their low relative merit.

So far I've proceeded in a very Confucian way. I've analyzed morality in terms of a "goal variable" if you will. It's entirely external, because the internal state of accepting the goal as valid and moral is taken as a given. But obviously the morality of a goal cannot be taken as a given. There are some goals which are, in fact, immoral. We can't just assume a moral goal.

But while eclectic morality may seem external, it rather seeps inward with the following concept: eclectic morality in no way means that all actions are justified. It merely acknowledges an infinite array of justifiable actions which encompasses all finite ideas. It acknowledges the fact that, in an infinitesimally subtilely distinct set of two situations, not weeping when a person coughs may be unjustified, while slaughtering that person with a knife is completely justified. Even if the two actions are separated by a mere moment, or the smallest of details. Of course the converse is true too; slaughtering the person may be unjustified, while weeping at his coughing may not be. (And obviously this is more often the case.)

But what allows for the sacred distinction between good and evil? It is, in fact, a state of absolute eclectic morality. The morality of an act depends on the entire context of the act. And "entire context" here is implied in the term "eclectic." The formation of goals must therefore also be taken into account. When one internally forms a goal, the context of the goal-formation must be taken into account in an eclectic way. And when that goal is externalized, all the various external methods for achieving that goal must similarly be taken into account.

From either perspective, internal or external, it will function the same way. If you produce a goal, and you're not sure if it is the correct one, absolute eclecticism will demand that you consider the possibility that the goal itself needs to be altered. Not as a return to the original goal, but as a clarification of the greater goal of what it means to be human. And likewise, if your intentions are good, absolute eclecticism will demand that the execution also be good. This is the way my moral understanding functions. And I believe it functions in all situations, internal, external, or otherwise.

Everyone in Power is an Anarchist

By definition.

If you're in power, that means you answer to no one in the context of that power. And therefore, in that context, you are by definition an anarchist.

Let us be clear here: anarchy doesn't mean chaos, violence, satanism, or anything of the like. It is a very simple concept: an- (lack of) archy (authority). In a state of anarchy, there is no authority to answer to but yourself and God.

Everybody wants to be an anarchist. They may not say it, or even believe it. But it's true. No one wants someone working over them jostling them around. Which brings me to the next point: The secret to happiness in life.

Sir Ken Robinson, an education reformist, believes the secret to happiness in life is finding the place where what you do well meets what you want to do. There's a trendy little concept called "The Secret" making rounds which suggests that the secret to happiness in life is having positive affirmations. You get what you put out for.

But I would humbly like to suggest, that from my own experience, the secret to happiness in life is secretly implied in both of these concepts. Note that they both involve the idea of wishing or wanting. However, one must adequately define the state of actually getting what you want, which is often skirted around.

When you get what you want, it is a more complex notion then just getting a birthday present that you asked for. It's a state of mind. The state of mind is free from obstructions, because you have what you want. There is no more searching. You're just living in the moment, present with whatever you want. And one can easily say that if you "answer" to someone, you're by definition giving them the ability to obstruct what you want.

The secret to happiness in life, therefore, is to find a state of anarchy. An open system. And it needn't be a lonely one. There is such a thing as a truncated pyramid—where there is room enough at the top for more than one person. Co-equal anarchy is the best way to live, do work, or do whatever you want.

And here's the beautiful part—we all want the same thing. So when you're in a state of anarchy, with other human beings, there is no need to worry about stepping on each other's toes, because you know you all are on the same team. This sense of honesty is how human institutions function.

If you're in a system that is not open, and people do step on each others' toes, I've found that one's actions do bear fruit, in some way, even if faint. I act as if the entire world is required to be ethical, and work toward that end. So far, it has not borne bad fruit. And in fact, it's borne some pretty amazingly good fruit. And there are many moments when I truly feel I'm no longer under someone else's thumb as a result.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Hacking vs. Lying

In my opinion, this is the most interesting of the series because it involves a brief philosophical treatment of a very new concept. I am going to use the "programmer subculture" definition of "hacker," which is someone who manipulates computers in ways they weren't meant to be. I will distinguish this from "cracking," which is simply unlawful access to a computer.

Hacking is not cracking. Nevertheless, I feel there must be a little leeway given against the law in use of the term. If you do something online that's only a minor transgression of the law, but nevertheless have ethically praiseworthy or at least neutral motives, then I believe you are still "hacking."

How does this relate to lying? Well, it raises certain ethical issues. Hacking is essentially "gaming the system." It is a blatant misrepresentation of your motives. And we needn't be talking about computers here. We can talk about things like political maneuvering done in congress, or journalist misrepresentation in search of a story. The fact of the matter is, however, that it usually involves computers. And this is what makes hacking ethically neutral, as opposed to lying, misrepresentation, or "gaming the system" per se, which are all unethical.

So what's the difference? Hacking is done openly. Example: you're calling a company with an automated menu on the phone. You know you will have to misrepresent yourself in order to talk to a human. You're not cracking, because your motives are ethically sound—maybe you want to know the washing instructions for your kid's new sweater. If you were straight up misrepresenting and not hacking, you wouldn't ever want to tell anyone what you did. But that's not the case. You were hacking, because if someone asks what you did, you can tell them; it's not a big deal. If there are restrictions to who gets to know what you did and why, it's only because those people are the people you're hacking. It's not because you need to keep a secret from the general public.

Hacking is a product of the Age of Aquarius. It is an "open" act in my use of the term. (See my Principles of Openness for an explanation of my use of the term.) And furthermore, I believe that my outline of the notion of hacking is sufficiently concrete to be protected speech under the Constitution of the United States, as it should be.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 3: Compassion

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Compassion

Due to the fact of the two previous points, particularly the first, it is necessary to insist on higher standards for compassion. Yes, that means compassion for murderers, rapists, adulterers, kidnappers, drug dealers, and so on and so forth. We all like to villainize people for certain things. But the fact of the matter is, you never know anymore whether the information is accurate, or whether the act was more pitiable than hateful. At the very least, I tend to think we should be even more careful not to judge. Cyberbullying is a terrible risk with the Internet.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 1: Ignorance

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Ignorance

The Internet has to do with completely open information. There is no unopen information on the Internet, because even if you hide things, by virtue of being "on the Internet," it can be found. Unfortunately, this has it's problems.

For one thing, there are certain pieces of information which aren't true. I ran into this problem on Facebook just recently when my friend Gideon caught me in an untruth. I had shared a picture of an indigenous South American who was crying, purportedly because the Brazilian government refused to listen to him, and moved forward with a plan which would destroy his homeland. Actually, he was crying because it was his cultural practice to cry when visited by distant relatives. I had shared the picture assuming everything said about it was true, when in fact, it was not. Which brings me to a point about the age of Aquarius: information is everywhere, but it isn't vetted by any authority. Therefore, it unfortunately may be false. Thus there still needs to be some respect for the authority of facts, or information will become meaningless. This is ignorance of individual things.

There is another kind of ignorance at play on the Internet. Because you have access to ubiquitous information, you may be lulled into a kind of false sense of security and believe you know all the truth when you in fact are ignorant. This is a general kind of ignorance. This happened to me too.

Back when Fukushima melted down, I found a website with very studied and learned people who came to the conclusion that Fukushima was essentially a media lie. Meaning, Fukushima posed no danger to the public, while a corrupt Western media continued to repeat maliciously that it did. They went to great lengths to secure their own trusted media outlets, and stream several of them simultaneously, watching and taking notes. They also studied the blueprints of the Fukushima reactor in depth, and proved why a core meltdown would be completely impotent in terms of human danger. Needless to say, this was all wrongheaded. The facts came to light, and, of course, Fukushima is now known as one of the more serious nuclear accidents in history. The people, including myself, who participated in this orgy of fact finding were not wearing the condoms of skepticism.

Both these kinds of ignorance result directly from the democratic nature of ubiquitous information. One should be careful about aquarian information, and make sure it is in fact correct.

Tanha and Economics

"Tanha" is a Buddhist term, meaning "thirst" — thirst for existence and becoming, or thirst for self-annihilation. The Buddha said that "nirvana," or the ultimate end of all suffering, is reached essentially when one fully discards this thirst. However, this does not mean that Buddhas cannot reincarnate, or that the thirst has been completely destroyed for all time, never to arise again. Countless living beings have experienced this tanha since the enlightenment of the Buddha, so it is not the case that the Buddha completely destroyed tanha. Nor is it the case that tanha is ultimately bad, or that it cannot be an element of enlightenment.

I believe that tanha should be discarded by everyone. Selfish hoarding of material things is not conducive to happiness in the slightest. However, once one has discarded this tanha, given it up, renounced it, one can then develop a thirst which is very similar — the thirst to help all sentient beings. One can develop a thirst for generating new dharma (enlightened teachings) and a thirst to cultivate the requirements for a free life, which is a prerequisite to putting dharma into practice.

Thus I believe that this thirst, when properly harnessed, expresses itself as democratic economic growth. People who have generated an altruistic wish to help society, a type of thirst, naturally examine people and their needs, then bring into being a commodity or service to fulfill these needs. This is capital gain. Then, through a process of implicit or explicit (in America, implicit) bargaining, these people acquire the means to secure the continuing production of the commodity or service while bringing the commodity or service to the public. This is how it works in a good, capitalist society.

In a communist society, the idea is that people work only for the good of others. Any capital gain is shared among everyone, and only for the purpose of living a utilitarian life devoid of things that do not provide utilitarian value. I believe staunchly individualist capitalists have two things to learn from communism: the altruistic desire to help one's comrades, and the renunciation of luxury. (Indeed, the Buddha gave a moral imperative for employers to share "unusual delicacies" with their employees. Thus Buddhism admonishes employers to renounce their luxuries, if not entirely, at least to the point of being willing to share them with the public. Note: Buddha lived in a capitalist society.) But in a very important sense, communism and democratic capitalism are the same: they both produce commodities and services for the good of all.

In any society, in order to be of any substantial benefit to anyone, one must have two things: material welfare, and an altruistic wish to benefit others. The latter, although ultimately the responsibility of the individual, can be cultured by social interactions — by good people creating a good society which adequately ensures peoples' welfare. The former must be created socially. Material welfare consists of seven things: a) food and water, b) shelter, c) sanitation, d) healthcare, e) inspiration to work for others' welfare, f) capital or means to work for others' welfare, and f) leisure time. (I believe in the Buddhist canon there are many different breakdowns for what beings need to be of benefit to others, mostly including things such as food and water, and not inspiration or dharma — dharma or inspiration is usually something people participate in after their material requirements have been met. The reason why I include these as material requirements is because in America, music, films, books, etc. all can provide inspiration, but are considered a "commodity" or material thing, not something one actively participates in per se. Also, they usually cost money. It is because of this materialist approach that I include these things as material "requirements" for a good life.)

Now I believe the details of the institutions which provide these seven things are unimportant. Thus, communist state institutions, private institutions, charity institutions, church institutions, democratic state institutions, or any other kind of institution can adequately provide these seven things. In America, it is understood that private social clubs and churches and various networks of friends, or private companies (eg. "the media") or nonprofit organizations, are to provide inspiration to work for others' benefit — sometimes for a price, sometimes for free. (Here, again, I'm referring to material goods, like books, or internet access, which provide inspiration to help others, in addition to exhortations from friends or one's pastor etc.) Water and sanitation are provided by publicly funded and state regulated private or public companies. (Water can also arise as a product of the environment in which private citizens live, such as a well or spring.) Leisure time is provided by the employer. The employer usually provides the means for acquiring shelter, food, healthcare, and capital or means for everything else (including capital or means to work for others' welfare) and private companies provide the actual food, shelter, and healthcare for a price, with the understanding that most people have the means to fulfill this price.

Can these things be provided more efficiently through other institutions? It's hard to say. I believe a very strong case, based on empirical evidence, can be made that democratic state institutions are better at providing healthcare for more people than private companies. However it really doesn't matter, because the following principle operates in every society (but especially in a democracy or communist society): everybody is responsible for everybody's material welfare. This means (now pay attention WalMart!) that if you are an employer in America, YOU are responsible to make sure the money you provide employees is enough to secure food, shelter, and health care.

It is my opinion that to adequately work for other people's welfare, one must work AT MOST 2050-2070 hours a year, and make AT LEAST enough to pay for auto insurance, housing (even if it is just a manufactured or trailer home), food, health care, plus something like 10-25% more. It is my opinion that the upward trend in the federal minimum wage is not enough to counteract inflation, and in some large cities, you simply cannot make it work. For example, I've seen evidence that the cost of living in New York City is about $50,000-70,000/year, and New York State minimum wage at 2070 hours/year gives you less than $15,000/year, before taxes! Of course, in New York City, even unskilled labor will pay more than minimum wage, perhaps more than twice as much. But $30,000/year in NYC still doesn't cut it. At least, this amount doesn't meet my requirements.

Thus those who wish to live in the city and are unskilled and have not completed college need to realize that they simply cannot make it work. I feel deeply sorry for those born in New York who's parents can't afford to send them to college — they have no recourse at all, whether or not they possess natural talents or inclinations towards greatness. In theory, welfare should provide for them. But in 1993, as Theresa Funiciello reports in her book Tyrrany of Kindness, the average welfare grant for a three-person family was about $441/month. Again, this simply cannot cut it. The only hope for the inner city poor and uneducated to become upwardly mobile is if the government raises the dollar amount of welfare checks, or if some program were created to at the very least move these people to less expensive areas to live. I think it would be good for everybody if these people were given the option of upward mobility, or at least some sort of fulfillment. Of course, this is a very complicated issue with no easy answers. One thing I would suggest is for dharma people to participate in the marketplace as employers, and give dharma to their employees. In that way, the poor can work full time and still at least have spiritual fulfillment.

In any case, America is a land full of tanha, with an economy that the word "thriving" seems to fall short of describing. Everyone seems so ambitious — everyone works quite hard. I believe that each individual's tanha, once discarded, purified, then harnessed, can manifest itself as democratic economic and spiritual growth for the good of everyone.