At Length

When I was in law school, I was taught to keep my answers brief and concise. When I did just that, I was told that my answers were too short and that I needed to "emphasize" more.

Story of my life: I'm told to do this and then do that. But I digress.

This wasn't new to me. As far back as high school, I was taught that sometimes you had to pad things out when writing an essay. It had nothing to do with the content of the material itself but with its appearance. You could give the most well reasoned and brilliant answer to a question as you possibly could but if it only filled half the page, it wasn't considered convincing. It had to look right. People feel mistrust and even anxiety when things seem too short or too lacking. Hence, there was always a need to add superfluous details and redundant statements. There was always this need to show that you were making the effort.

Effort and Money's Worth

A doctor once told me something interesting which I think is related. He said to me that sometimes, he gets patients who believe they have the worst illnesses imaginable but in reality have only minor ones that could be easily remedied. Hypochondriacs, they're called. He told me that even if the patient's illness would go away on its own or if simple changes in behavior would be sufficient treatment, he would always prescribe some harmless painkiller or vitamin so that the patient would get peace of mind and feel satisfied that they got their money's worth. It was a win for the patient and a win for big pharma. Everybody's happy.

I think back to my friend's anecdote when trying to explain people's aversion to short essays and laconic answers. Perhaps this aversion is because people feel they aren't getting their "money's worth". Money isn't necessarily involved, of course, but it's more of a feeling that the other isn't meeting you halfway or making an earnest effort to do the job asked of him. Now there's the rub. If the problem is one of appearance (the answer looks too short) , then what exactly is it that people want to see? 

People want things to be "worth it" and it is most unfortunate that the worth of a thing is equated with the effort that was made to produce it. Therefore, a five page essay is better and worth more than a two page essay. Worse still, effort itself is understood in terms of raw manpower or man-hours spent to produce it. A momentary stroke of genius is incomparable to marathon mediocrity. The teacher/boss wants to see you hunched over your desk and sweating. That's when he knows you're really working and earning the money's worth.  

Did your asshole classmate write five paragraphs? Well your dumb ass better write ten.

Awful Examples

When you think about it, this attitude is everywhere. There are many very weak criminal cases filed in court. Whether it's from a lack of evidence or a procedural flub, it's clear that these cases would never lead to a conviction and are a waste of time. These are cases where you wonder why the prosecutor even bothers at all. Yet they do.

I asked a friend of mine who's familiar with the prosecutorial service and the answer was depressing. There is this concept called "prosecutorial discretion". What it is is that prosecutors have to power to decide whether they should prosecute a crime based on their assessment on the likelihood of a conviction. In sane countries, prosecutors don't bother filing cases unless they're sure that their chance of securing a conviction is high. In the Philippines, prosecutors, I'm told, are loathe to exercise this discretion. They would rather file a bum case than do nothing since doing nothing means they're not doing their jobs. If the list of cases filed is too short, there's a need to pad it out to show they're making an effort.

The government wants its money's worth.

To the prosecutors, filing these cases is no skin off their nose. It's the courts that have to deal with the cases anyway  It's more important to be seen doing your job and making the effort. Did you know that whenever there's an automobile accident that results in a death, it's government policy to file a case against the other driver immediately regardless of the circumstances? The police also immediately detain the other driver too. It's important that the government is seen to be doing its job, that it's making an effort, and that you, dear citizens, are getting your tax money's worth.

Speaking of police, there have been instances where they just arrest people for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This was a thing during Duterte's drug war where they would do "one time big time" operations and do mass arrests. If you happened to be near a drug den during their operation, they might just haul you in. 

I've always suspected that the police have a quota of arrests they have to make. It's a stupid thought but terrifyingly plausible. Who's to say how many crimes happen a month such that there would be a quota for arrests to make? Well, if the police aren't out there arresting people, they aren't doing their jobs, right? If the list of arrests is short, then they must be getting lazy. We need to pad out that list, no? Lengthen it a little to show you made the effort. 

The government wants its money's worth. 

The Mistake

I think where it all goes wrong is when we equate volume with substance. But in this modern, digitized, algorithm-based hellscape, nothing is real unless we have a number to measure it with. Hence, the obsession with word counts, actions taken, cases filed, arrests made, and other metrics. It's about the view counts, the likes, the dislikes, the comments, retweets, shares, etc. How will we know if there was an effort? How will we know if anything means anything unless there's a number that says it does?

Write more words. Make more content. It's not worth it if it isn't long enough. YouTube won't let you do mid-video advertisements if your video isn't at least eight minutes long. You need to make the effort. They need to get their money's worth.

So we have all this disdain and suspicion over things that don't seem big enough. Is it any wonder that AI came to be the next big thing in our time? What is AI nowadays but a means to pad things out with oppressive walls of garbled text and ugly uncanny images? 

Finally, there is meaning to our lives. After all, there's so much shit around us. We've padded things enough. We have our money's worth. 

The Empty

Another way of looking at it.

There's this superstition in some parts of the Philippines that empty rooms in one's house will come to be inhabited by something. It will be "natao-an". An entity will make its home in uninhabited rooms. It is the way of nature to make use of space for nature abhors a vacuum. 

It is my belief that people, Filipinos perhaps especially, have a fear of emptiness in both the physical and metaphysical sense. Most can't stand to be alone. Many can't stand the silence. That's why there's so much noise. So many words. So much effort. The vibrancy and commotion of life is a comfort. Life must be filled in every sense of the word. Anything to banish the void.

The more content the better.

Two men approached a philosopher and asked him, "Sir, what is the meaning of life?" The philosopher gave a simple reply, no more than a few words. One man frowned and asked, "That's all?" The other smiled and said, "That's all."

I think this is long enough.

City Mouse Country Mouse

During Holy Week, many people take the opportunity to return to their families in the provinces on the long weekend. It gets really nice and quiet in the city as a result.

When trying to come up with something to write, I made the terrible mistake of browsing Facebook for ideas. There was a minor fuss about some Facebook posts by city slickers sarcastically quipping about how the "main characters" have all gone home to the provinces. Honestly, I didn't and still don't know what this meant exactly. I could only guess that people in the city don't like people from the province? If that's the case, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Sometimes I think that most of my negative opinions and beliefs about the Filipino character come from the fact that I live in a city. To live in the city is to be surrounded by strangers. That's when you really learn what "low-trust society" means. You can't trust anyone around here. But could things be different in some stereotypical "barrio" in the hills where everyone knows everyone? 

I can't help but notice this tendency, which I am also guilty of, to inflate the goings on in the city with the general condition of the rest of the province. It's even worse for a metropolis like Manila where happenings there are taken as the concern of the whole country. 

I can think of two reasons why cities are prioritized by the government and by the media. The first reason is that democracy is essentially a numbers game. Naturally, the place with more people gets more attention. The issues of the city seem more important since the voice of the people is just louder. 

The second reason is that cities are more developed in terms of infrastructure. It's easier for the government and mass media to operate in a place with transportation and communication networks. The provinces and far-flung places meanwhile, are notoriously neglected. Are they neglected because they are undeveloped or undeveloped because they are neglected? Regardless, the government can easily operate in the city and since politicians don't like to work too hard, they concentrate their efforts here. This also relates neatly to the first reason, that is, that there's more voters in the city.

Is the enmity between city folk and provincial folk real? I think it exists to some degree - the term "imperial Manila" didn't arise from nowhere. It's not as serious as outright hatred, though. It's more about the fact that you need to go to the city to avail of services or to find a high paying job. In my opinion, city folk have no right to complain about provincial folk coming in to inconvenience them with their presence. I'm willing to bet money that, if given the choice, people would rather not go to some hellhole like Manila to process their papers or whatever if the same could be done in their hometown. It's just another consequence of poor development and government neglect. The people have no choice. 

The "city versus province" paradigm is just another fact of life. 

Dare To Be Different

One thing I'll never understand about Americans is their obsession over the issue of race. Of course, I have my own opinions but I'm just curious as to why the Americans cannot seem to get over it or look past it.

Granted, racism still exists. But people being racist is one thing, racism as a national institution is quite another. As far as I can tell, institutionalized racism against classes of people is nonexistent. Yet, when it comes to American civil society, it seems to be a cycle of never ending outrage. I'm sure you already heard about that NBA team owner because of course you have.

I'm no American. I don't even live there and all this is coming from the stuff I read which is secondhand so take my words with a grain of salt... or disregard them entirely; that's fine too.

Ever heard of the Social Identity theory? It's a theory suggesting that people identify themselves according to the groups they belong to. A Japanese person identifies himself as Japanese because he's from Japan. Simple, yeah? But Japan is a very homogeneous country. What about countries that are diverse?

Indeed, countries with mixed ethnic groups tend to have a lot of problems. In the Philippines, Muslim separatist groups fight because they do not identify themselves as "Filipinos" as strongly as they do the "Bangsamoro" idea or identity. It's often divisions on cultural, religios and racial lines. The theory of the "American Melting Pot" is that people of different races, creeds or backgrounds can come together and make America great. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts as it were. The American experiment is intriguing. Can common ideals unite everyone or will American society continue to experience friction until it breaks down? Again, grain of salt. I don't know everything but its fun to watch.

I have my own theory; America has finally morphed into a big reality show.

New Year Resolution

I made a list of New Year resolutions; one of which was to go to bed earlier. The trouble is, I slept at around 1:30 AM this morning, January 01.

Does this mean that I broke that resolution instantly when the new year began since I was not asleep when the clock struck 12? But isn't it also correct to argue that since the proper bedtime would have been on December 31, thus falling on the last year, I could not have broken the resolution since the new year had not begun and the said resolution had not yet begun to take effect and become binding?

However, the point of the resolution is to avoid sleep deprivation and to be well-rested. Since obviously, I am not well rested right now, can it be said that I had failed and broken the resolution? Perhaps it is not wise to assume intent and it would be prudent to stick to the proposed action of "sleeping early". If that is the case, then my state of sleep deprivation would be irrelevant and the resolution is still ongoing.

What is early? The standards of "early" have changed drastically in modern times. Is the common bedtime of children even applicable to adults like me? Of course not. Isn't it also true that different people have different work schedules and sleep in odd hours during the day instead of night? It is clear that the standard of "early" differs from person to person. Therefore, "early" is unique to the person and should be assessed on a case to case basis.

In my case, I usually sleep in between the hours of 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM. "Early" in this case would have to be at least two hours earlier; 9:00 PM to 11:00 PM would suffice.

But as previously stated, I slept at 1:30 AM this morning. That's way earlier than 9:00 PM! Wow, in that case, I'm doing pretty good.

I'm tired.

City Games: Simulators vs. Builders

Now that the year is almost over, can we all just agree that SimCity (2013) was the worst video game of 2013? What garbage that was. Aside from the "always online" requirement, the bugs and the flawed mechanics, what bugged me the most was that it was the latest official entry into a much beloved franchise. It's a disgrace.

Do Not Buy This Game

The SimCity games are some of my favorites. For a time, it was the only game of its kind; a game that let the player build and run his own virtual city. It was also unique in that it was an educational tool as well and achieved popularity without being a violent game. Other games would have you build small towns and villages in ancient Rome or what have you but no other game came close to the greatness of SimCity and its later versions; SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, Simcity 4 and SimCity 4: Rush Hour.

I'm just a little nostalgic. The last SimCity game I played was SimCity 4: Rush Hour. Ever since then, no other game comes close to it. I tried other city simulators like City Life 2008 or Cities XL but it doesn't quite feel the same.

What I realized was that the other simulators could not capture the same magic because they were not simulators so to speak. Rather, they were city builders not simulators. There's a difference that needs elaboration.

A simulator to me, is one that imitates an actual real life city. The player is free to build the city of his dreams but the player must work within the limitations imposed by the simulator. These limitations are the same as or come close to being the same as the limitations a real city would face. Granted, SimCity had a lot of unrealistic parts like buildings being built instantly but for the most part, it runs in a realistic manner. Simulators are complex with different layers and interconnecting systems that provide constant challenges to the player.

A builder on the other hand is straightforward. The player builds the city of his dreams directly. There may be limitations imposed on the player but these limitations are either based on the games own internal mechanics and not based on the limitations of real life cities or are simple and don't have any connection with other mechanics. 

But enough pretentious babble. Let me give you an example.

In SimCity 4, I want to build a city. Any fool can create a basic city but I want a city with some "personality". What I want is my own little suburbia; a bedroom community filled with middle class citizens with their pretty townhouses and freshly-mowed lawns. However, there are challenges. By default, the game produces low income citizens with their trailer parks and ugly pink flamingo  lawn ornaments. To get middle class citizens, I need to attract blue collar industries and a bit of commercial office space too. But in order to get those, I need educated citizens and a stable water supply. Building a water pump is simple enough but to get educated citizens, I need to build a grade school, wait a few years for it to take effect, then build a high school and so on.

An Example Made by Some Other Hardcore Fan

Aside from the goal of building the saccharine, all-white American suburb of my dreams, there's the ever-present problem of electricity, garbage disposal and traffic. There's also the matter or healthcare facilities, police stations and fire departments. Recreational facilities are also important to make the city more attractive to the target class. All of these are demanded by the middle class and are therefore a requirement.. All of these cost money upfront and then must be funded regularly. You must tax the people but if you raise taxes too much, demand for housing will plummet as fewer people will be keen to move into a city with high tax rates. Oh, and they also cannot stand pollution so you need to build the factories far away, perhaps in another city and then THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.

See the limitations one must work with? Notice that the limitations more or less, reflect problems real cities face and also reflect principles of urban planning like the proper placement of industries and traffic networks. You can build what you want sure, and the peaceful suburb of Bonnie Dell is achievable but the steps you need to take require a lot of planning and micromanagement.

Now then, it pains me to do this but to give you an example of a city "builder", let's use the game, SimCity Societies. I did not include SimCity Societies in the main list of SimCity games for a reason. It is the black sheep of the SimCity family. It was a terrible disappointment. Woe to the man who mentions this game in a SimCity forum.

Anyway, In SimCity Societies, I want to build a farming town. Oh no, problem since the game already provides "farming town" buildings for me to simply drop and place. Same thing with suburbia. There are "suburb" type buildings I can simply drop and place right away. There are prepackaged themes like "industrial", "spooky(?)" and even "authoritarian". It goes without saying but this isn't how real cities operate. No mayor tells his underlings to "give it a Halloween theme" then roll with it.

Drag and Drop Suburbs

There are limitations in Societies but nowhere near as complex as the ones in SimCity 4. You just place a house building then a job building and watch as it produces a set amount of money without consideration of income class. Costs are also set and you can't micromanage funding and service range as much as you could in 4. Traffic is easy to manage. Electricity is easy to manage. It's just too simple.

You know what? I don't think badly of Societies. Both simulators and builders have the same core goal which is to let the player CREATE the city of his dreams but both differ on the "hows". Societies should have just dropped the SimCity from its title. It doesn't simulate anything. It doesn't imitate how a city is run from a real life standpoint. It's just a toy really and I guess the reason why it just didn't click was because it was too easy and didn't offer the "simulation" aspect that longtime fans enjoyed.

It depends on the kind of player you are. If you just want to create the perfect city right away then a builder would suit you. However, if you're the type of player that wants a simulation of running a city and then working with that to create the perfect city, you should give the old SimCity games a try. SimCity 4: Rush Hour is pretty awesome though other SimCity diehards may swear on 2000 as the best. 

All of them are great anyway (except Societies and SimCity 2013).

Time Crisis

The clock on my phone is set precisely in sync to Philippine Standard Time. Everything is as it should be.

One thing I don't understand is why people set their clocks in advance. What difference does it make? The reasoning is that it helps them be earlier by making it seem like the time is later than it is, thus, they compensate. But what's the point since you KNOW it's advanced and even on a subconscious level you probably include the advance time in your calculations.

"Hey, we better hurry up! It's almost six o'clock."

"Don't worry, that clock is advanced by ten minutes."

See?

Pride

Manny Pacquaio, which henceforth shall be referred to as Pacman, is a world famous boxer. In fact, he could arguably be the best pound-for-pound boxer alive today. Also, he happens to be Filipino.

The reason I'm writing about him is because he has a hyped match coming up against some poor fellow named Mosley. As usual, Pacman's fans are getting all excited and I get all irritated. It's not so much that they like him, go ahead and cheer your idol people, but what annoys me is all this Pinoy pride they suddenly feel. "Pacman is the best boxer in the world so I'm proud of my country." Go ahead and look at any YouTube video of Pacman and the comments are just full of these specific strains of stupidity.

What does the Pacman have to do with being proud of the Philippines? I don't think that we should be proud that our country is so poor, Pacman had to resort to getting punched and punching strangers for a living. We are a Christian country, right? Should we even be applauding boxing, a sport that's all about rocking another man's brain until he passes out for the mere amusement of spectators? Hmm, if I were a devout Christian, that seems...immoral don't you think? And we're all about morality with the RH bill controversy and all, right? But I digress.

Anyway, Pacman is a successful guy, that much is true. He's won championships, he's wealthy, he sings (badly), acts in (terrible) movies and is even a member of Congress. The question is, did he succeed because of his country or in spite of it? Well, there is no answer. One could argue that we should be proud of the Pacman's individual accomplishments instead and praise him for his willpower, courage and determination. Or we could spout gibberish like "Pinoy pride" and attribute his success to being Filipino because the Philippines sucks so much, it toughened him up to deal with all sorts of bullshit like getting punched in the face. You decide.

Also, I hate that Charice singer very much.

The End Of The World

I don't know why I play World of Warcraft anymore.

Everyone else is gone and the guild seems dead. Anyway, I still have a few days left in my account so I've been running the new dungeons and crap Blizzard has served to its slaves, I mean, loyal customers.

The deal is that the Troll race wants to unite and reclaim their ancestral lands and become a super empire like they were in the old days of Azeroth. Of course, you must stop them because this is a role playing game and you have no choice in the matter. Hahaha. Just kidding?

Honestly I felt like the bad guy in the story.

Since the guild is empty in the morning when my Internet is most reliable, I have to use the Dungeon Finder, a neat little feature Blizzard added that groups you with four random players with varying degrees of intelligence, consciousness and sanity but almost always lacking basic courtesy, and sends all five of you off to a dungeon where you'll all hopefully, somehow survive against all odds. Think of it like a scientist tossing five mutated and drugged hamsters into a cage to see how they'd interact only to throw a cobra inside and see if one of them can distract it by getting killed while the others bite it in the ass.

So I'm whisked away into Blizzards shiny new dungeons to fight monsters to earn shinier stuff. Actually "new" may be the wrong word since the "new" dungeons are rehashes of two older dungeons but eh... ah, screw it. They could have used the word "remastered" or "remade" at least, like how Hollywood does with old classic films. Those always turn out swell, huh?

So there I was with four other exceptional individuals in a "remastered" dungeon where nobody knew what each boss did, where to go or how right was different from left. I'm a tank by the way. To those uninitiated in dungeon crawling, a tank's job is to draw the enemy's attention away from toilet paper armored wizards. I soak damage efficiently while the other players go about their business. I'm a tampon basically. I got a healer with the stupid pvp gear, the silent guy who you hope to God can at least understand English, Sir Derpsalot from the server of Hurpaderp and Mr.Epicgears who's does damage like throwing marshmallows at an elephant. Stay with me folks, this is gonna be ranty. I ain't even going to post pictures or a video.

When I tank for strangers, I expect the worst. I expect the scrappers to attack the wrong target. I expect the healer to disconnect at any moment. I expect a crisis to occur at any second. My fingers ready to press the "Oh, Shit!" buttons at a moments notice. This is the only way to play if you spend majority of your time in dungeons with inmates from an asylum but I like tanking. I like tanking in the same way people enjoy being whipped and cutting themselves to feel alive. I consider myself a good tank. It's not arrogance, its just that the standard is set really low, you know? It's really not saying much looking at the people who think, just by equipping a shield, immediately think they know what they're doing and boss me around. I play as a scrapper too by the way, just to see how the other tanks do their jobs and pick up some tricks. I learn nothing.

OK so we're on this boss right? This boss has two bullshit, haxx abilities; he summons a fucking bird that fucking kidnaps someone and summons a lightning storm. Its pretty simple to deal with. The bird must die as fast as possible and we should all stand in the "eye" of the electrical storm to avoid damage. Sounds easy? Well here's how it went; The bird swoops down and kidnaps Mr.Epicgears and nobody notices since the boss isn't dying any slower anyway. I tell Sir Derpsalot to shoot the bird. I'd do it myself if I was the one holding the goddamn crossbow. Sir Derpsalot pulls through and rescues a frazzled Mr.Epicgears who promptly continues being useless. The silent guy was busy doing...something. The healer was just standing there healing which is too bad since the electrical storm cooked him to a crispy golden brown. He should have moved. I mean, there's a lot of movement in pvp why can't he do the same here? Even Derpsalot stood in the eye but it might have been purely by accident. With the healer dead and the boss not even halfway done, I guess there was nothing to do but wait for the inevitable. Our sad tale ends when Derpsalot was kidnapped by an eagle and Epicgears, the man he had rescued before, coldheartedly denied him the same favor. I died, Epicgears died, Silent Bob tried to heroically retreat but died and the eagle ate Derpsalot's liver. The end.

Haha, no, it's not the end. We resurrected and restarted the encounter like the good little tools we were and tried again. We eventually killed the boss but there were like five more to go. I wish I could share more of my tales but I kind of spaced out. I had entered the zone. It's the zone where every part of your brain shuts down except the ones that are needed to breath and play WoW. I don't know how, but we did it, we finished the dungeon. Its all a blur to me. I can't remember how we did it but I'm sure there was a lot of crying involved. All I know is that somehow, against all odds, we succeeded. We celebrated our glorious victory with rounds of "ty for gruop" and "gj" and then argued bitterly about dividing the loot and that's when Silent Bob started fucking talking. Somewhere in a dark, underground laboratory, a Blizzard developer was staring at a monitor, watching us, his subjects, triumph in his virtual skinner box as he began pleasuring himself...

Enough tales. The new dungeons are pretty alright. The boss mechanics are actually challenging and require people to use more of their brain. If you were fans of the old versions of the dungeons then I guess an additional boss mechanic won't mean much. What other shit did they do? Oh yeah.

To encourage people to tank with the mentally challenged, Blizzard is offering special goody bags for us. See, there's always a shortage of tanks in the meat grinder, I mean, dungeon finder. To remedy this, they're offering special goodies if we que up when there's a tank shortage which is always. Simple time, its a BRIBE. Same goes for healers. If there's a healer shortage, they get the bags. If there's a shortage of damage dealers blizzard will give them the bag and a complimentary flying pig mount because that ain't gonna happen.

What else? New quests? Lol sure. Oh yeah, there's some kind of new system to earn currency. Whatever. I hate math. Google it if it interests you. That's about it then.

Somebody shoot me.

Bribery 101

I just had a thought. College is supposed to prepare us for the professional world right? Wouldn't it make sense for them to also teach the basics of bribery and corrupt practices. Given the way things are done in this country, being taught these essential skills for functioning as a proper member of society is a no-brainer.

Classes would be interesting. Instead of being told not to cheat, we are taught the best techniques in evading capture. Then again, I guess it would be difficult to pass since another studet could outbribe the teacher or hire someone to fling dirt and ruin your reputation.

Unless the teacher is a relative.

Something Political

Ever since the Cold War, the world is often seen through the eyes of either Communism or Capitalism. Even today there's still a lot of discussion about the flaws of one and the brilliance of the other. I thought I would write about my thoughts on the matter since, upon review of my previous posts, I haven't written anything even semi-serious for a while. If you're not into this I suggest the reader go search for my review of Speed Grapher.

There is Capitalism and there is Socialism. I don't say Communism outright but we'll get to that. I'll try to keep it simple because this shit gets old real fast. Capitalism is characterized mainly by two things: private property and the free market. In a Capitalist system, people have the right to own property, even the means of production, and produce goods and services for profit in a free market. Depending on the government, state intervention in the free market is minimal, adopting a laissez-faire policy and stepping in to enforce fairness among competitors and prevent monopolies. The market is driven by supply and demand.

Socialism, you could say, is the "opposite" of Capitalism but that's not entirely accurate. Socialism is characterized by collective ownership and allocation of resources. That does not mean to say nobody owns anything, its just that the means of production belongs to the government and resources are distributed based on merit or contribution. Socialism, as an economic theory, should not be confused with Communism, Marxism or Maoism or what have you. Socialism is a feature of the latter theories. One can be a Socialist and not be a Marxist. It is possible, in fact, for a country to be Democratic and be Socialist. Socialism just means that the state owns. How that state is run exactly is another story.

I prefer Capitalism to be honest. There are several reasons why I choose so and many of them take into consideration the experience of being raised in the Philippines and observing and studying the culture. But as my favorite teacher in Political Science taught me, to better understand a political philosophy, even that of your own, it is important to first discuss human nature. so I have to write about that first.

I believe men are essentially equal and have innate rights. Man has a right to to be free and to live as he pleases. However, the problem is obvious. If man has a right live as he pleases then what is there to stop him from causing harm to another? That is where government comes in. People establish government as a means to settle disputes between one another to the effect that all men live within their rights and not trample on the rights of another. John Locke basically.

But what of property? Let's say, a man plants a mango tree and through his care and effort it grows big and bears a fruit. Is it his mango tree? Of course it is. His labour produced his property. I believe that property is a natural right. Does another man then, have the right to come in and take a mango? The thought is offensive. To put it differently, if a man builds his house by the river, can anyone just go inside?

The role of government is to regulate property to the end that there is no conflict between individuals and everyone's rights are protected. Government should not be the one to determine who will own what and how much for the simple reason that man is the master and not the slave of the state. The right to freedom and property are innate. Some may believe otherwise but this is my own. What I'm basically saying is that man owning property and producing what he wants to produce is his natural right as a free person and that the state exists to protect him and his property from others.

What about goods and services? The rule is that if there's a demand, somebody is bound to cater to it. The man who owns the many mango trees can hire people to help him harvest it but he has to give payment in exchange. Physical labor too has a value and payment for services is a way to approximate how mach that labor is worth. If a man agrees to help harvest the mangoes in exchange for five sacks to himself cannot blame another who agrees to do so for only three. Naturally, the cost of the service would shrink to the lowest one is willing to do it for against the overall desirability and ease of doing the service itself. If they can go no lower than a price of two sacks because one sack wouldn't be worth the effort, then that's how much the help to harvest the mangoes cost. The value of a thing is determined by how much one is willing to buy it or sell it for.

If my explanations seem simplistic then that's because life doesn't need to be complicated.

So why don't I agree with Communism? It's not that I hate it. Theoretically, people could decide by themselves, to ditch Capitalism and agree to form a Socialist government. There's nothing wrong with that actually. Human beings are intelligent and if they desire Socialism then who's to stop them? The problem that I have is that in my opinion, it won't work and is dangerous.

While many view the world in terms of Capitalism versus Socialism or worse, Capitalism versus Communism, I view it as man versus X. What is X? X is the force which seeks to dominate man. At first X was nature; beasts and the wilds. Man, of course, banded with others for protection but where societies rose, so did conflict between man and man. Thus, man formed a government and granted it power to settle disputes and rule over them to protect them from each other. But when you grant something power, its kind of a big deal. As societies grew so did the government and its power until you had the kings, the tyrants, the dictators and the fascists. The deal now is man versus the state.

Keep this statement in mind, "Nothing is perfect."

Living here in the Philippines, a government that's quite western as far as Asia is concerned, taught me many things. It taught me never to trust government. The importance of understanding our relationship with government has never been so dire. Ultimately, its not about Communism, as many leftists and rallyists would say, but about our inefficient government plagued with corruption and incompetence. Assuming you have a Socialist state of mind and are living in a country like the Philippines, ask yourself this; "Am I willing to give the Philippine government control of my property?" That's what Socialism would mean. That's what Communism, Marxism, Maoism, Rocky Road and all flavors of Socialism would ultimately boil down to. I, for one, don't want the government to decide who owns what, how much one gets or whatever. That's too much power. In a country where political connections can get you places even farther than your actual ability, it would be beyond ironic to see such government distribute goods based on how much it thinks you deserve. You think our patronage plagued system would even know what merit is in the first place?

Which is why I am pro Capitalist. If we are a truly Democratic Republic that respects our right to life and freedom then it should also include property. Our system of Capitalism is a bulwark to massive government abuse. Even now, the system of Capitalism is under assault in this country. You have crony Capitalism, the unholy marriage between bureaucrat and businessman, colluding together to violate fair competition. You have the bureaucracy in general which seems to hate success and taxes it accordingly. You have a weak justice system undermining property rights and slowing everybody down. Since when did squatters have rights to enforce against legal land owners? Then you have senators who, when they're not busy "solving problems" by inflating the government with new offices and dividing provinces to make even more positions, are funding "projects" to their favorite underlings and making the Filipino pay it with his earnings, his labor!

Whenever there is poverty, it is usually blamed on corporate fat cats and Capitalism. Well, that's partially true given the cronyism but know this; the government DOES NOT produce the wealth of this country and DOES NOT have the right to "distribute" a wealth it DOES NOT own. It is the small businesses, the traders, the workers and etc. Through their labor, wealth is produced and they did it all by themselves. Nobody ever told some guy to build a chain of successful malls or a chain of fast food places. No bureaucrat demanded that there should be Internet and cell phone service providers. Its when people are left alone to live their lives and make names for themselves, free from the intrusion of people who don't know what they're doing, that there's progress.

In summation, I believe a Capitalist system, with its freedom, competition and innovation, is more conducive to economic progress than Socialism, which although pretty on paper, tends to give too much power to government.

OK, quota filled.

Ramblings 1

To put it simply, its complicated. Say for example, you're President of some third world country and you decide to buy yourself a Porsche. Is it tasteless? Maybe. Is it wrong? Of course not. Nothing pisses me more than young people being interviewed by "speak your mind" programs telling me how buying a Porsche is wrong. In a poor country, it would be better to give to charity. Fuck you. You know, what a man does with his own money is nobody's business. Too many people running around telling everyone how they should live and spend their money. I've had enough of that shit.

I don't drink beer. It's not that I'm religious, its just that I can't stand that bitter crap. What else? What else? What else? Law School is a bitch. Maybe I should drink but not beer damn it. Rum? I like rum cake so... Maybe when my friends have a drinking session, I'll just bring a slab of rum cake. I probably won't share it.

Criminal Law is boring and difficult. My mind is ready to pop like a can of Pringles. I love Pringles. Mesquite barbecue was the best thing EVER. Now, Pringles is all healthy with berry flavors or seaweed flavors etc. Stupid. Now Pringles is telling me to eat healthier. Shut up and give me sour cream and onion. Nobody eats potato chips flavored blueberry Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ...catholicism...Hellsing! Shit, I love that anime. I wonder if a new OVA is out. It's always funny how Catholicism is portrayed in anime. To the Japs, Catholicism is exotic and sexy or something. However, when they start using the imagery and doctrines it gets a little jarring especially since I studied catholic doctrine and actually see how their ruining everything and getting it wrong. I hear Japan is a nation of perverts but that's not fair. Anyway, it is my firm belief that after seeing the demographic trends in Japan, the country will be run by robots in 2080. You read it here first.

What of my country? I expect collapse to occur in 2067 but maybe Jesus will come back. We're too religious for our own good. We believe too much in symbols of purity and justice. We trust people we think are pure at heart like a priest or some Aquino. Everything wrong in the country is also attributed to evil symbols like Arroyo or some kind of abstract like "corruption". We love to canonize and to demonize. We love to build up as much as we love to tear down. We love to create symbols to exalt and to blame. We create a world of angels and demons. It's a fantasy world. We heap our failings on our scapegoats and in our arrogance and disbelief of the greatness of the Filipino people, we ignore the best of us and their accomplishments. Only when we believe in ourselves, accept both the bad and the good, cast away false idols and stop fearing imaginary beasts can we move forward.

I wonder what's for dinner.

Sleep For The Weak

There are times when I don't get enough sleep or I force myself up too early. What I notice is that a lack of sleep gives me a cold. It's a hundred percent certain. Lack of sleep = cold. Well, everybody's health is unique and I guess lack of sleep weakens my immune system or some shit like that. I wonder how it is for others. I'm sure people have noticed peculiar things with their bodies when they lack sleep.

Why am I typing this so late? I should get some sleep,