(Here is the list of all web pages from this
server, arranged by language (in 8 languages).
Choose the page that interests you by
dragging scroll bars, then click on this
page to run it:)
(The same list can be displayed from
"Menu 1" by clicking over there on
"Menu 2".)
Here is the list of all my web pages from all servers.
These are arranged primarily by language
(i.e. as web pages in Polish,
English, German,
French, Spanish,
Italian, Greek, and
Russian.) For each language web pages are
arranged by their subjects.
Choose the page that interests you by dragging scroll bars, then click on this
page to run it:
(The same list can be displayed from
"Menu 1" by clicking over there on
"Menu 4".)
Each time when I open a television set and see increasingly
doomed picture of the world which rolls down into the pit of
evil,
I dream of happy humanity and Earth. I dream that people
are able to live in mutual harmony and not murder mutually
each other under some immoral excuses. I also dream that
every inhabitant of Earth have guaranteed a job and decent
earning, so that he or she does not need to be afraid what is
going to happen tomorrow. I dream that people obtain opportunity
to live in peace amongst similar to themselves, without
someone emphasizing continuously their differences in
comparison to other people, nor without problems which
stem from these differences. I dream that everyone without
obstacles could state and implement moral ideas in which
he or she believes, while other people would NOT compete
in holding these ideas back when they are unable to prove
that these ideas are immoral. Analysing my dreams I realise,
that accomplishing all of them is not only realistic, but also very
simple. After all, we have in our disposal the enormously moral,
peaceful, constructive, and progressive philosophy called
totalizm.
In turn this philosophy indicates to us for a long time how
exactly all these goals could be accomplished. This web
page presents such totaliztic recipes indicating how our
social and political life could be
improved
in a simplest possible manner thus enabling
us to accomplish the goals described above.
Part A:
Introductory information of this web page:
#A1.
Path to perfection leads through peaceful improvement of what we already have, not through murderous revolutions, wars and changes of ideology:
History textbooks
are like curved mirrors. In many matters they teach us rather
the most immoral instead of the most moral manners of
implementing specific endeavours. For example, if we believe
in history textbooks, then the only manner for the improvement
of social system leads through a bloody revolution and through
the change of ideology which is practiced by a given society.
If these historic truths are related to our everyday life, they
would be like claims of a sport coach that in order to increase
our strength we need to remove our skin, or claims of a doctor
that in order to loose weight we need to undergo the operation
of change of sex. However, all of us know that every realistic
goal which we assume in our lives can be accomplished by
not large but persevering improvements of the model of our
behaviour which we practice currently - means practically
through the change of our philosophy. On the other hand,
all bloody revolutions and changes of systems, in the course
of time proved their inability to improve the situation of
mankind. After all, they replace only one team of parasitic
leaders, with a slightly different group of leaders which,
however, acts and oppresses their subjects in a very similar
manner. Therefore totalizm recommends that the improvement
of situation does NOT require the change of packing, while
the content is left unchanged, but the improvement of content
while the packing is left unchanged. After all, the content
can be improved by peaceful, victim free, gradual improvements.
In turn the change of content in fact improves the fate of people.
On the other hand, the change of ideological packing in which
this content exists, requires bloody revolutions or wars. In
addition, through the change of packing fate of people wrapped
into this packing usually does NOT improve at all.
On this
web page simple recipes are described, which according
to the philosophy of
totalizm
are able to improve the content of the world in which we
live. As everyone will notice from these descriptions, the
recipes do NOT recommend drastic changes, like
starting of a revolution or a change of ideology, but
recommend small although essential improvements.
So these recipes can be implemented practically in
every present society, and in every ideological system.
Because according to
totaliztic definitions these changes are highly moral,
their introduction into life is NOT going to have any
undesirable side effects, nor harms anyone. After
all, totaliztic definitions state that
moral are only actions which do NOT harm in
any way the people who are affected by these actions.
Thus practically if anything is moral in the light of
totalizm, then it is also good for all people that are
affected by it. So let us now review in the descriptions
which are to come, what all these totalizticaly moral
improvements of the world are about.
Presentations
from this web page are illustrated with numerous examples
taken from the real life. After all, without such real examples
subsequent items of this page would be too general and too
alienated from the real world. For these examples I used
actual events occurring in the public life of New Zealand,
means the public life of country in which I live presently
and which is equally close to my heart as the country in
which I was born. The reason for which I use examples
from this particular country, not from any other one, is
that I live in New Zealand and thus have the opportunity
to observe what happens in it everyday. But I am simultaneously
aware, that there is NO country in the world which would
be perfect. Furthermore, the human nature, the destructive
forces of evil, and the general situation on Earth, are almost
the same everywhere. Therefore practically in every country
on Earth happens approximately the same. Only that I do
not have an access to descriptions of real events from such
other countries, while for scientific accuracy I try to use only
true examples which really happened. But readers have the
access to descriptions of events which take place in their
own countries. Thus, although the course of specific events
in their own countries probably will be slightly different from
the described here course for New Zealand, still the general
trends and the philosophy behind these events will be the
same. Thus readers should be able to simply relate examples
indicated below to events that take place in their own countries.
In this way they will understand easier why the totaliztic
recipes described here should be implemented in life
as soon as possible in every country on Earth.
Part B:
What is not right in our social life, and how we could improve it:
oraz jak możnaby to zacząć usprawniać:
#B1.
What the general proinciple of improvements to social life should be:
Whatever we improve in our society, it
always should be agreeable with the general
principles of the philosophy of totalizm,
described on the web page about
totalizm.
#B2.
Personal responsibility for every action, and the secular knowledge about God - keys to the moral (harmless) behaviour of people:
In order to
reinforce the moral behaviour amongst people, it is
necessary to introduce such a legal-social climate,
in which for every human action will be personally
responsible an individual person, and in which all
people will be aware of consequences which for
all decisions and actions of people introduces the
sure existence of
God.
Explaining this in other words, in order all people
undertake exclusively "moral" actions, two conditions
must be met. The first of these conditions states that
every inhabitant of Earth must be aware, that the
sure existence of God can be, and already was,
formally proven by the scientific theory called the
"Concept of Dipolar Gravity" (described in item
#F1 below). This practically means, that
everything that any one of us does, God
observes silently, and then judges with the
iron consequence via the so-called
"moral laws"
which God established. So NO immoral action
of anyone goes ever unpunished. Only that
because punishments are later served to us
without any prior loud announcements, we
usually are unable to recall why we are getting
what we just experience. And God does
NOT know forgiveness - as for the political
reasons religions tell it to us. The second
condition of undertaking by people only
"moral" actions, is that an individual person
must be designated for every action, who
personally is responsible for all outcomes
of this action. According to totalizm, for the
outcomes of actions cannot be responsible
committees, boards, or teams. The human
nature is such, that only after investing responsibility
(and also honours, accomplishments, splendour, etc.)
in a single human, this human personally
makes sure that the action is moral and
that it does not harm anyone. The point is
that situations cannot be allowed in life, the
essence of which is expressed the most
directly by two Chinese proverbs, namely
stating that "if for a boat is responsible
several people, or a committee, then for
sure the boat is going to leak", and stating
that "if a horse belongs to several owners,
then for sure it is going die of hunger".
Furthermore, only in situations when for
every action is responsible an individual
person, who in case of immoral actions
can later be found and punished easily,
this person will be interested in making sure
that this action is moral, and thus that it does
not cause his punishment when the time comes
for judging or for returning it. So, summarising this
second totaliztic condition of spreading over
Earth exclusively moral actions, it recommends
making individual people responsible for
practically every action. Committees and
group decisions must be limited exclusively
to situations when the significance has the
group wisdom, means to e.g. democratic
elections of leaders and people who will
obtain responsibility, to working out the
general directions and strategies, to summarising
or judging outcomes, etc. But according
to totalizm, the real actions we must learn
to organise in exactly the same manner as
these are organised by armies or scouts.
Means, the actions as well as people who
implement them, must be controlled by
individual leaders who are going to take
the responsibility for outcomes of these
actions. (Also every success of these
actions will be the individual accomplishment
of these people.) In turn subsequent
components of these actions should
also be delegated to individual
secondary leaders, who again carry out
responsibility for their outcomes. Etc., etc.
The activities of majority of present societies
were by some
"evil force"
designed in such a cunning manner, that
in everything that we do, we intentionally
omit consequences of these two key factors,
namely the secular knowledge of the
operation of
God,
and our personal responsibility for everything
that we do. Thus, everything that presently
people do, is usually undertaken completely
without consideration of the fact, that this forgotten
God still silently observes exactly what is done,
and then all this He pedantically judges without
any mercy nor forgiveness. If there is someone
who considers God, then usually carries out all
actions for the exclusively political understanding
of God, which actually does not consider what
laws and principles describe the true operation
of this God, but only does make sure that people
implement political ambitions of a given religion.
(In turn these political ambitions of given
religions cause that religions invent their own laws
and requirements, which have nothing to do with
what God really established.) In a similar manner,
for every human action the personal responsibility
of individual people for outcomes of this action is
washed away presently. After all, the majority of
decisions is undertaken currently by committees
and gatherings, in which the responsibilities for
outcomes does not lie on anyone specific. In turn
the majority of action is implemented by teams and
institutions, in which the responsibility is also washed
away onto a whole array of people. In the result of
such situation, a large majority of decisions
and actions which are undertaken in present
times by people, are not striving to be "moral"
according to the philosophy of totalizm.
In turn the totaliztic definition of "immoral"
decisions and actions indicates, that every
such a decision or action which was not
adjusted purposely to be moral, must hurt
and harm some people. After all "immoral" in
totalizm is everything that is harmful to someone
because it deprives this someone his or her
moral energy. (This is why totalizm puts such
high emphases on teaching us methods with
the use of which every immoral action that
harm people can be easily transformed into
a corresponding moral action which does not
harm anyone.)
The above should be complemented with the
information, that
God
emerging from secular research of totalizm is
completely different superior being from the god
described by any religion. Therefore in fact
totalizm names God with the use of different
term, namely the "universal intellect (UI)".
Totaliztic God is not at all this nice and slightly
sclerotic oldie, who forgets or forgives human
sins, and who insists that people do not use
condoms nor vitro-fertilisation. Totaliztic God
does NOT practice forgiveness, nor ignores
accomplishments, although His punishments
and rewards are given with the time delay of several
years. But finally He gives to everyone exactly
what this person deserved, according to an old
proverb "God's mill grinds slow but sure
(i.e. in Polish: "Pan Bóg nierychliwy, ale sprawiedliwy").
He is similar to a computer controlled by love,
which for the good of these whom He cares for,
with the iron consequence He executes the
implementation of laws that He established
from everyone in the same way. Only that
the time and the manner of giving to everyone
a reward or punishment for which this person
deserved, He selects in such a way that this
guarantees the most beneficial possible
effect both on the receiving person and also
on all other people who will be aware of the
fate of this person. Totaliztic God does NOT
demand from us the devotion of our lives to
continuous kneeing, prayers, or to worshiping
Him only in specific places and manners. He
sends us to Earth to work and to perfect ourselves,
means to implement the mission for the carrying
out of which we were designated, and also to learn
on this occasion as much as we can.
The only thing that this God requires from
us in the truly non-negotiable manner, is
to pedantically obey in secular manner the
"moral laws"
which He established. Not only that this God
does not hold back the progress, but actually
He insists that we research His laws secularly
and scientifically, that we prove His existence,
and that we empirically check His intentions,
behaviours, and decisions. So He is not the
"jealous god", nor He surrounds Himself with
a secrecy - as this is done by gods of subsequent
religions. Simultaneously, everything that He
does, is done in a very discrete and ambiguous
manner, without an open reminding His presence
nor imposing His will onto people, thus giving
to all of us the chance of having our own views
and own the so-called "free will". More about
this universal intellect (UI) is described on the
web page
God,
and also in subsections I3 to I3.6 from volume 5 of monograph
[1/4].
#B3.
Elimination of secrets - the condition of squashing evil and crime:
One
cannot even imagine how much evil introduced
to our civilisation the implementation of the
"Privacy Information Act". After all, an old Polish
proverb for a long time warns us that "catches
are best in murky waters" (i.e. "łapać najłatwiej
właśnie w mętnej wodzie"). According to this
Act, every criminal, psychopath, rapist, drug
addict, spreader of deadly diseases, etc.,
is protected by the legal system and by
present human laws. Other straight, decent,
and law obeying citizens are deprived the
right for learning legally and officially about
past of these "black sheep" who endanger
them potentially. In this manner all laws
are in service of criminals, at the cost of
law obeying citizens and innocent future
victims of these criminals. Therefore, a
next recommendation of totalizm states
that the Privacy Information Act must
be either abolished completely, or so
reformed, that every citizen of our planet
has the right for learning, repeating, disseminating,
publishing, etc., every public information
which is true about every other citizen
of Earth. Only in that manner people
will be able to learn what kind of dangers
lurks at them from the side of other individuals
with whom they are forced to deal.
The main problem with the Privacy Information
Act to-date, is that the public information it
cunningly redefines into a private information.
In turn if we analyse the problem well, there
is a huge difference between a "private information"
and a "public information". After all, a public
information is all this, which concerns or affects
anyone else than a given person. Therefore,
all our personal data (name, date of birth,
details of our parents, appearance, fingerprints,
etc.), as well as marks that we receive in schools,
our earnings, properties that we own, or problems
with laws we had, etc., all these are public information
(not the private as the Act cunningly tries to
tell us). In turn "private information" is this which
concerns and affects only a given person. For
example, if we wash out teeth in the privacy
of our home, so that in no manner it affects
or concerns any other citizen of Earth, then
everything about this wash is our private
information. So we have a full right to never
reveal to strangers anything about it, unless
we ourselves decide otherwise. But if the same
teeth we wash in a public place, or if we tell about
something to other people, or we receive a mark
from our teacher, or we commit a crime, then the
entire knowledge about this becomes a public
information and everyone has the right to learn
it, repeat it, disseminate it, publish it, and do with
it whatever wishes. It is immoral to create laws which
redefine the public information into the private
information, and then forbid dissemination of it.
To what absurd such redefining of a public information
into a private information may lead, is described
already in the example from web page named
changelings.
Because the example indicated there in fact is
already a top of legal absurd, I will repeat here
the description of this case. On Tuesday, 13
September 2005, at 22:40, in news from channel
3 of television New Zealand, a New Zealand
citizen was reported, who because of the crossing
of his telephone line with some other line, accidentally
overheard that criminals planned the committing of a
serious crime. As a law obeying citizen, he reported
this overheard crime to police. So how he was
rewarded for this prevention of crime? Well, New
Zealand police charged him with the committing
a crime, because in a documented manner he
broke the "Privacy Information Act" due to
official repetition of private information which he
accidentally overheard. (I did not hear though,
that the police did anything to catch these criminals
and to charge them.) News item about the
course and outcome of the court process of
the same citizen, or someone with a very
similar accusation (John Creally), was also
broadcasted at 10:45 pm on Friday, 3 February
2006, in the night news from channel 1 television
New Zealand (in the result of this court, the
"guilty" of reporting the overheard conversation
of criminals was declared "innocent" by the
court). In order all this is even more absurd,
on Thursday, 24 November 2005, at 18:30,
in evening news from channel 1 of New
Zealand television, broadcasted was a triumphal
report of police about a fact, that due to a hidden
microphone placed in a prison cell, police
managed to record criminals talking to themselves
and admitting that they committed a crime. Then
police managed to cause the convicting of these
criminals on the basis of this recorded admitting.
On 16 December 2005, from 18:00 to 19:10 TV
returned to the matter of this secretive recording
by the police of the admiting of criminals, during
the evening news and the programme "Close Up"
which followed news on the channel 1 of TVNZ.
Fragments of recordings of the talks of these criminals
in police cell were then even played to TV viewers.
But the problem which emerges from this is what
then happened with this "Privacy Information
Act"? Is the overhearing private conversations via
telephone breaking this Privacy Act, while spying
on private conversations in prison cells is not
breaking it. Or perhaps for the Privacy Information
Act all people are equal - except for police which
is allowed to break it without any legal consequences?
My experience to-date in the moral matters indicates
to me, that if this type paradoxes and absurd are
growing around any law, then this is a sign that
the law "immorality tries to promote as legality".
This in turn means, that the law is contradictive
to "moral laws" and to the course of moral field -
means contradictive to the intention of God.
As such, the law should be invalidated immediately.
I must admit here, that sometimes reading
newspapers I am shocked by this huge
number of crimes, disasters, harm, cheating,
and breakings of someone's lives, which could
be avoided easily if people had the right to learn
the public truth about other people who surround
them. For example, a former rapist rapes somewhere
again girls in the school which employed him only
because no-one had the right to learn about his
deviated history. Or a paedophile hires a flat opposite
to a school in order to be able to choose more
easy future victims. Or someone falls a victim
of a criminal because official bodies make secrecy
from criminal history of a given offender - as
this is described in the article "Secrecy upsets
victim of abuse", which appeared in the New
Zealand newspaper
"The Dominion Post",
issue dated on Wednesday, December 28, 2005,
page A2. In what name people tolerate such
crazy law, which all privileges gives to
criminals, while no privileges reserves to decent
people nor to victims of these criminals.
The law to learn public truth is one of the most
fundamental human rights and we should not
tolerate situations when it is brutally taken away
from a whole crowd of decent people only to
please several criminals and deviants.
I personally guarantee here to everyone,
that if totalizm becomes one day a political
power preferred by the nation, then it will
NOT tolerate any secrets nor confidential
personal acts.
Under totalizm
everyone will be able to learn every PUBLIC
truth about every other co-citizen, or
about every institution, simply by
entering a web page with the governmental
records of this person or this institution.
If a give person (or institution) breaks the
law or will act immorally, and is persecuted
for this officially, this will be clearly stated
in this official records of government, so that
every other person (or institution) will be
able to read it and base his or her further
decisions on the full knowledge whom is
dealing with.
One of the problems of present situation on Earth
is, that in a similar manner as this Privacy Act,
presently an increasing number of other laws is
abused or deviated. A best example of these is
the copyright law. Initially the copyright
law was established exclusively in order to
protect financial interests of owners of given
intellectual products. But recently it ceased to
serve for this purpose. It becomes mainly a
tool for making secret, and for closing the
access, to the information which for someone
is inconvenient. So this law also requires
the totaliztic improvement. Therefore totalizm
recommends, that improved should be
also the copyright law, so that the power of it
is limited exclusively to situations when someone
draws profits from a given intellectual product.
But if someone uses a given product for any other
purpose than the generation of profit, means for
example to disclose someone's immoral activity,
for providing any evidence, for research, analyses,
education, promotion, spreading the knowledge
and awareness, etc., then this copyright law must
cease to stay in power and cease to bind in any
way people who use a given intellectual property
for a non-profitable purpose.
Another example when laws which impose secrecy
act decisively against interests of humanity, is
medicine. For example, in New Zealand
the law requires from doctors to keep for tens
of years records of every patient whom they have.
But simultaneously the same laws impose so many
impractical restrictions and conditions onto any
use of these records for purposes of research,
or for assessing, or for statistic purposes, that it
becomes physically impossible to use them in
any such manner. As the result, in New Zealand almost
no medical research on records of patients are
done, because no-one has enough energy and
resources to break through barriers of secrecy
which are imposed on these records. If anyone
decides to try such research, then usually because
of these secrecy reasons is forced to limit the
investigations to only a single hospital or to
a single clinic. And one could think, that in
life supposedly a principle should be used,
that the "good of all overweighs the good
of individuals". After all, the legal requirement
of making secrecy from medical records
against researchers, is a visible breaking
of this principle.
Present courts of justice also vigorously
use their powers to make secret all matters
which in their opinions the society should not
learn. For example, courts forbid to publish
names of accused increasingly frequent
- especially if these accused are famous
(although in the face of law supposedly
"all people are equal"). Courts disallow also
to let public know vital information about
crimes being committed. The majority
of courts disallow also journalists nor
photographers to the court rooms - this
is one of most effective manners of
maintaining secrecy and blocking the
dissemination of truth.
It is also worth to remind, that independently from
laws promoting secrecy, humanity from the
oldest times tolerates also various so-called
"secret societies". The best example of these
are masons. The main idea of these
societies has the same meaning as if it states
something along the lines: "Members of our
secret society are better from the rest of
humanity. Therefore the main focus,
support, and help, you must concentrate
on members of our secret society. Their
interests you must have mainly in
your mind." So it should not surprise anyone
that these secret societies are accused of
many ham and injustices committed on
our planet. After all, if one considers the
matter more thoroughly, the main idea of
these secret societies is very similar to the
ideology of racism. Racism displays prejudices
towards people of different races, while secret
societies have build in prejudices towards all
other people - except their own members.
In the opinion of totalizm there is no room
on Earth for such secret societies. A long
time ago they should already be declared to
be organisations that work against humanity
and should be eliminated. What I am most
surprised, and what sounds to me almost as
a sarcastic joke, is that practically the only politician
who fought effectively against these secret societies
was Hitler. The rest of politicians seem to ignore
this problem. Means that this rest silently approves
the existence of secret societies and approves
the spread of secrecy amongst people that is
enforced by these societies.
* * *
The matter of secrecy is clear and transparent
like the matter of morality. All these who
disseminate morality, good, truth, progress, etc.,
have nothing to hide. So not only that they
do not need secrets, but actually secrecy
is their enemy, and also the enemy of
good deeds that they spread. But all these
who act immoral, harm, lie, obstruct others,
etc., have a lot to hide from others. Thus
having secrets and keeping matters in
confidence is necessary for their dark
actions. Therefore all secrecy is an attribute
that identifies all evil, destructiveness, and
bad intentions. For this reason, e.g.
everything that UFOnauts do on Earth,
always have numerous secrets imposed
on it. Due to secrets, and due to laws and politicians
who promote secrecy, the world around us
begins to be increasingly more dark and
increasingly less moral. This in turn pleases
only various social scum, while harms
decent people. As we can see, the evil force
in the power of which the Earth remains,
uses this escalated secrecy to promote
immorality and lawlessness, while increasingly
it attacks morality, order, and justice.
#B4.
Everyone is born to equal rights, but not everyone deserves with his or her life to die with equal rights:
The legal system on Earth to-date is so strangely
invented, that every person all times enjoys the
"human rights". Means, this system works
according to the rule, that "fair means
everyone exactly the same". As the result, e.g.
a murderer, a criminal, or a rapist, has all the
same rights and privileges, as a decent citizen,
although with his or her actions does not deserve these
rights and privileges. In New Zealand in years
2004 and 2005 newspapers described various
cases relatively frequent, when criminals in
prisons received huge compensations from
the government, because someone make a
mistake in something, or look at them in a
wrong manner. Simultaneously, victims of
these criminals were deprived not only any
compensation, but even a help in calming
their nerves and mourning. (This means
that in practice the law gave more privileges
to criminals than to decent people.) An example
of just such a situation, when a murderer and
criminals received exactly the same privileges
as decent people, are described in the following
two articles from New Zealand newspapers,
namely the article "Killer wins more compo -
millions could be paid to inmates after court
ruling", which appeared in the newspaper
"The Dominion Post",
issue dated on Friday, December 9, 2005, page A1, and
the article "Inmates in line for millions after
Appeal Court decision", which appeared
in the newspaper
"The New Zealand Herald",
issue dated on Friday, December 9, 2005, page A3.
In these articles a situation is described,
when a murderer, after being shifted to a
solitary confinement cell, sued the prison for
breaking his human rights, while the New
Zealand appeal court ordered the amount of 65000
dollars to be paid him in the compensation.
Immediately afterwards a queue of around
200 further prisoners placed similar demands
for compensations (newspapers estimated,
that compensations for all of them would
cost the New Zealand taxpayers around 4.5
million dollars). Therefore totalizm recommends
that rights of criminals cannot be the same
as rights of decent people, while no rights
of criminals in practice may overweight rights
of victims of their crimes. I.e. totalizm
recommends accepting the moral rule, that
"fair means to everyone according to his
or her previous conduct."
So
how totalizm proposes to implement this principle
that "for everyone according to what deserved
with previous conduct" in everyday life. Well,
according to totalizm "human rights" should be
treated not as a single entity, but as a series of
componential rights. Examples of such componential
laws could be: (1) the right to freely move around
at every time of day and night; (2) the right to
live in every place someone wishes and which
is able to afford; (3) the right to be treated with
dignity and respect (i.e. that a bearer of such a
right would not be exposed to any verbal offence
without the offender being punished); (4) the right
to physical protection (i.e. that the bearer of
this right could not be physically beaten without
the beater being punished); (5) the right to drive
vehicles on public roads after reaching appropriate
age, e.g. 18 years; etc., etc. If a given person breaks
or abuse any out of these componential rights, then this
particular (broken) right would be taken away from
him or her either for a specific period of time, or for the
rest of his/her natural life. For example, if a burglar
would be caught on breaking at night to homes of other
people, then he or she would loose, amongst others,
the right (1) for free moving around at every time of
day and night. So at night he would be required to
sit at home, while if caught outside of his or her home,
would be immediately punished without any additional
courts. In turn the rapist who would rape any school
child, would loose, amongst others, the right (2) for
living or being present in the vicinity of schools. If
he would be caught near a school, then he would
be immediately punished appropriately without any
further courts. In turn someone who would abuse
verbally someone other in public, would loose, amongst
others the right (3) to be treated with dignity and respect.
Etc., etc. In this way, in spite that we are all born equal
and obtain at birth all possible rights, not all of us would
die equal and enjoy the same rights as at birth.
What rights would someone be eligible at specific
period of his or her life, this would depend on how
morally and correctly this someone leads his or her life.
What
is even more interesting, such a system of componential
rights eliminates the need for multiplying countless
institutions which keep eye on subsequent laws, which
train, demand, impose, and in all possible manners
make our lives increasingly difficult, not mentioning
that they consume our taxes. After all, instead of
building up and maintaining these unnecessary
institutions, our taxes could be designated on something
more moral. For example, instead of the duty to
undergo a training and to pass exams for "driving
licences", every would automatically have the right
to drive a vehicle after reaching appropriate age,
just from this system of "human rights". This right
he or she would enjoy until the end of life, means
it would NOT be automatically taken away after
someone reaches e.g. 65 years, or forgets to pay
appropriate subscriptions. The only reason to take
away this right for driving from someone would be
if due to his or her lack of caution or incompetence,
this someone would cause an accident during
driving a vehicle. Only then this right would be
taken away for the length of time depending on
the weight of this accident being caused. If then
such someone would be caught on driving a
vehicle after this right was taken temporary away
from him or her, then this right he or her would
loose for the rest of life, Etc., etc.
#B5.
Let us change bans into the personal responsibility for outcomes of our activities - means we should NOT punish all for irresponsibility of a few:
Our
civilisation is full of bans. For example, we are
banned to drive a motor vehicle without previous
fastening safety belts. On an open road we are
disallowed to exceed the speed of 100 km/h.
We are not allowed to burn fires wherever we
wish. We cannot shoot fireworks when we celebrate
something. The possession (and use) of a large
number of substances is banned. We are not
allowed to buy a whole range of medicines without
presenting a prescription from a doctor. A sale
of alcohol after 11 pm, and also in Sundays and
public holidays is banned. Shops are not allowed
to be opened in days which suit owners of these
shops, but must be opened in days and times
defined by the government. If we do not have a
special licence, we are not allowed to repair any
electrical appliance that belongs to us - no matter
how well educated we are. Etc., etc.
The outcome of this ever increasing
number of bans is such, that our lives become
increasingly more difficult. However, in spite of
this continuous introduction of more and more
bans, human lives at present are not better nor
safer, than were e.g. 50 years ago when people
did not have even a fraction of present bans.
So in reality we live in an increasingly tight prison.
In practice the present system is such, that all
citizens are punished by actions and irresponsibility
of a few "black sheep". After all, if any member
of the public does something wrong, immediately
the entire society is punished with yet another ban
imposed by authorities and governments on all
people. For example, if one citizen is caught on
producing a specific drug from a commonly
available medicine, immediately this medicine
is either completely withdrawn from the sale, or
it can be purchased only with huge problems
when someone visits a doctor, pays a lot for
this visit, and then receives a prescription for
this medicine. In this way, for the criminal activities
of just a few rotten individuals, who abused the
situation and produced drugs from this medicine,
practically punished are all citizens of a given
country, or even the whole our planet. Or if
someone irresponsible so shoots a firework,
that it burns someone's home, immediately
the entire society is banned from having and
shooting fireworks. Etc., etc.
A best example taken from the real life, when
for the irresponsibility of a few punished are all,
is the hysteria which in New Zealand is raging
around the contacts between males and children
whom these males do not know. In New Zealand -
similarly as probably also in every other country
of our immoral world, lives presently a number
of sexually perverted males, who pray sexually
on children (i.e. so-called "paedophiles").
Unfortunately, the rigid obedience of the "Privacy
Act" described in item #B3 above, does not allow
inform the society whom exactly males are these.
So in almost all life situations it is assumed that
every male is a pervert. Therefore in New Zealand
one can get into serious problems if e.g. on
a street one opens mouth to an unknown child.
In turn a public touching of a child to which one is
not a father, as it was innocently a normal practice
only around 50 years ago, almost cannot be
comprehended now. On 29 November 2005,
in all New Zealand television news discussed
was vividly ("pro" and "contra") a case of
"Qantas" airline passenger, who was forced
to swap a sit with a female passenger, only
because by an accident his sit was next to a
sit of a boy who travelled without parents.
The male passenger felt ashamed, because
he suspected that all other passengers of the
plane thought that he was shifted because he
was accused of sexual perversion. As it later
turned out, both major airlines which operate
in New Zealand, namely "Qantas", and "Air
New Zealand", have internal rules, that a male
cannot sit next to a child which travels without
parents. A next day almost all New Zealand
newspapers discussed the "pro" and "contra"
of this rule (to not sit males next to children
whom these males do not know). For example,
only in the newspaper
"The New Zealand Herald",
issue dated on Wednesday, 30 November 2005,
two articles on this subject appeared, namely
"Airlines demonise male passengers" from page
A8, and "Airline seating policy may breach
Human Rights Act" from page A3. In turn the
newspaper
"The Dominion Post",
issue dated on Wednesday, 30 November 2005,
on page A4 published an article "No men near kids
policy criticised". Further articles on the same topic
were published continually every day at least until
around 7 December 2005 - i.e. when I stopped
reading them and looking for them. Interesting,
however, that NONE of these articles, nor none
voices in the discussion, not even suggested,
that the entire this problem would solve a
simple cancellation of the unfortunate "Privacy
Act", which initiated this problem in the first place.
After all, it is this Act that criminals and perverts
it lifts to the treatment like decent people, while
decent people it pushes down to the level
of criminals and perverts. For example,
by allowing the society to learn, whom
exactly males are in fact these perverts who
pray on children of other parents, there would
be no need to suspect of perversion all males.
Independently what will be the outcome of this
discussion, the hysteria which prevails in New
Zealand about strange males even opening
mouth to children, will not cease without the
prior cancellation of this destructive law about
the Privacy of Information. After all, without
the removal of this act, people only try to heal
symptoms, not the cause. For me this case
is a classic example when the existing human
laws force the situation that all males are being
punished for misbehaviour of a few males.
According to totalizm,
such punishing all for misbehaviour of just a few,
is NOT fair nor moral. It is unthinkable how all
could be punished for crimes or irresponsibility
of a few. Therefore,
totalizm states, that instead of common bans
imposed at all people, used should be personal
responsibility for outcomes of actions of individuals.
This practically means, that according to totalizm
everything that presently is forbidden then people
could do. Only that the doers would take personal
responsibility for ALL outcomes, including into this
the lost of a next component from their set of
human rights. So people would NOT be treated
as immature children, whom are disallowed to
do anything in case they spoil something, but
as mature citizens who have their own rights to
judge the situation and decide what in a given
situation is the most appropriate. For example,
if someone does not wish to fasten the safety
belts in a car, totalizm states that this is OK.
One should NOT be punished for this - after
all everyone supposedly is innocent until proven
guilty. So should be allowed to drive without
safety belts. But if such someone causes an
accident, and someone dies or becomes a
disable just because that belts were not fastened,
then the driver, or the person who assumed the
responsibility for the drive, is to take the full
responsibility for all consequences. Or when
someone needs a medicine, he or she should
be allowed to purchase it. After all, he or she
may have no money to pay a visit to doctor,
or knows that this visit is unnecessary because
this particular medicine already helped him
or her on previous such occasion. But if
someone abuses this freedom and with the
use of this medicine e.g. murders someone else
or produces a narcotic, then he himself should
be punished, not the entire society. Similarly
with fires. If someone wishes to burn them -
he or she should not be punished for the sole
fact of burning them. Unless this is some special
restricted area, free from fires, e.g. a petrol station,
an ammunition factory, or a forest. But if a given
fire transforms into a disaster, then independently
where it was lighted, the person responsible for
it should be charged with the full responsibility
for all consequences of it.
Part C:
What is not right in our political life, and how we can improve it:
#C1.
Let us close access of immoral people to power - means
why the democracy and political life on Earth do not seem to be perfect:
At the beginning, democracies are controlled
by the moods of societies, not by e.g.
morality or moral laws. In turn immoral
societies are going to have immoral moods.
Furthermore, politicians have almost
writen into their duties the habbit to lie,
to chit, to not keep promises, etc. As
such, politicians are NOT moral. In
turn not being moral are not the most
suitable people to rule the country.
#C2.
Let us disallow politicians to grab power without receiving personal and sure mandate from the nation:
If
we carefully look at the world around us, then
we notice, that a significant proportion of evil
which surrounds us takes the origin from
politicians. Especially destructive influence
on the life of people have these politicians
who grabbed the power without being elected
by the own nation, and who like "rape the nation
with their rules against the will of this nation".
Therefore totalizm proposes a drastic decrease
of a number of politicians who rule a given
country to only eight (i.e. to one president
plus seven ministers), and recommends
to improve the access of this 8-members
government to the power over people, so that
the power never gets to hands of people who
were not personally elected by the nation whom
they rule, and also that this power could not be
kept if the majority of the nation does not want
given politicians. Simultaneously, all functions
of ruling the country, totalizm proposes to shift from
present governmental institutions, to future businesses
(producers) owned by the government and described
already in the previous item of this web page.
Such governmental businesses would operate
exactly the same as all other businesses which
produce services for the society, and also they
would be regulated by exactly the same laws
and regulations as all other businesses of a given
country. This in turn would free the country
from bureaucrats, and would place the responsibility
for functioning these governmental service businesses
in hands of their directors (these directors would be
responsible directly before the president or before the
appropriate ministers, who would legally own given
businesses). In these simple manners the totalizm
would carry out a drastic improvement of our
public life. This in turn would increase the quality
of service to all citizens, would locate precisely the
responsibility for given services to citizens, and
due to this would also increase happiness,
satisfaction, self-fulfilment, etc., of all of us.
If
one analyses the manner of grabbing the power
by these politicians who caused the most evil to
humanity, then it turns out that they were NOT elected
at all by the governed subjects, but they grabbed
the power in some other manner. This is because
in democratic elections where there is a large
number of people taking part, dominates the
so-called common wisdom of the nation.
This wisdom is like an common intuition, ESP,
or a common vision, which always errorless
indicates to the nation which leaders are going
to do good, while which ones are going to spread
evil (i.e. which, according to criteria of totalizm
are going to act "morally", while which ones are
going to act "immorally"). Therefore it is vital
that societies believe in this common wisdom
of the nation and allow only these politicians to
become leaders, who were personally elected
by the governed nation. But in order this wisdom
begins to work, firstly we need to reform the present
electoral system and the present principle of ruling,
to create conditions in which this common wisdom
could work for the benefit of people.
As
it turns out, cunning politicians invented hundreds
of various "tricks", to cheat this "common wisdom
of the nation" and to grab the access to power in
spite that the nation does not want them. A similar
number of tricks they invented also to hold to the
power in spite that the majority of voters do not
want them anymore. The best examples of such
tricks include: (1) a principle originally utilised by
communism, that on every list of electoral candidates
just a single candidate is placed - so whatever
voters would tick, this sole candidate always is
"elected", (2) the change of the area where a given
politician proposed his or her candidacy (i.e. if a politician
discovers that is unwanted by voters in his or her own
place of residence, then he or she places his
or her candidacy in completely different place
in which people live who are not his/her neighbours
and thus personally do not know his or her, so
still have not learned dark sides of his/her character),
(3) there is no position on electoral lists marked
"none of the above" which would allow voters
to express the lack of confidence in all candidates
proposed for the election, and thus would force
electors to propose a next list of candidates, or
(4) the popular today in several countries principle
of selecting politicians called the "Mixed Member
Proportional (MMP) system", and used presently
e.g. in New Zealand and in Germany. For example,
according to this principle of MMP, these politicians
who are rejected by the nation "elect themselves"
by placing their names on a special list from which
then they are taken to governments (parliaments)
in case they are not elected by the voters. In the
result, if one reviews e.g. the list of these 121
members of parliament, who in 2005 constituted
the parliament of New Zealand (i.e. the country
having around 4 millions of citizens), then it turns
out that a significant proportion of them was NOT
elected personally by the nation, but only "elected themselves"
by being taken from such a "list". (Rolls of these
121 members of the New Zealand parliament for
2005, with markings whom of them were elected
by the nation and whom were elected by themselves
via the list, are published in New Zealand newspapers, e.g. in
"The Dominion Post",
issue dated on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, page A1, or in
"The New Zealand Herald",
issue dated on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, page A7.
It is shocking how many New Zealand politicians
have by their name the label "list". If then one
analyses thoroughly the activities of these politicians
from the "list", then it turns out that they are these
ones who are the most annoying and create the most
problems to the nation.) Notice however, that I use here
example of New Zealand only because I live in this
country and thus have opportunity to observe what
exactly happens in it. But I am ready to bet, that in every
country from the present world happens approximately
the same, only that these "tricks" used by politicians
of subsequent countries can be slightly different for
each country, to adjust better for the local conditions.
According to totalizm, the increasingly larger
necessity is building up to gradually improve
our systems for electing leaders and governments,
and for allowing these leaders and governments
to keep power. These improved systems would
need to make sure, that no politician grabs the
power without being previously elected democratically
and personally by the required majority of the
nation which is later going to rule. Furthermore,
it is necessary to introduce some independent
body, in previous item called "electors", which
will keep eye on morality and constitution. Means,
members of this independent body would
make sure that each politician holds the power
only for as long as is supported by the nation
which he or she rules. Furthermore, these electors
would organise and govern the elections of
subsequent cadencies. In turn when a member
of government looses the support of the nation,
these lectors would declare new elections, in
which this unwanted politician would have the
right to stand, but together with other candidates
for his position. Notice, that it would be the best if
these three electors would be the last three presidents
of the country, who finished their cadences. After all,
they have the required experience to keep eye
on the members of governments which are to come
after them, so that these members do not do anything
harming the nation, and do not abuse their powers.
#C3.
Let us NOT lower down moral standards of the entire society to please a few homosexuals:
In the explanation of "moral laws" from item
#F1 of this web page, the so-called "moral
field" is described (this field is also described
on a separate web page on
moral laws).
Moral field interacts with all intellectual activities
of people. It has this attribute, that every
human action may be carried out so that
it either runs uphill, or slides down, in this field.
If a given activity runs uphill in this moral
field, then according to the philosophy of
totalizm
it is defined to be a "moral" activity. But
if the activity slides down in this moral field,
then totalizm defines it to be an "immoral"
activity. Every human action, depending on
the circumstances and manner it is carried
out, can become either a moral action, or
an immoral action. For example, slapping
someone is immoral if it is carried out with
the intention of harming or putting down,
or moral - if it is carried out with the intention
e.g. to return a fainted person to conscience.
In order to make possible a continuous
evolution and the development of the
universe, laws of the nature were so designed,
that every person is continually tempted
with pleasures and easiness of carrying
out actions which are immoral. However,
the moral and spiritual development of
people places the demand on each one
of us, that every person should individually
overcome in himself or herself all the
temptations of immoral acting, and
choose to act in exclusively a moral
way, by refusing to undertake immoral
activities.
Temptations of immoral acting hide themselves
in practically every human activity and behaviour.
For example, sexual intercourses may be carried
out in moral manners - which generate happiness
to those who participate in them, or in immoral
manners - which are sources of harm and deviations.
Medicines may be used morally for healing,
or immorally for satisfying drug addictions.
Work may have a moral character - thus
generating wealth and consumable goods, or
can be immoral - thus harming and exploiting
people. Etc., etc. But in spite that life constantly
tempts us with the easiness and instant benefits
of immoral activities, our moral and spiritual
development imposes the duty on us to do
only such activities which are moral. Thus the
major requirement of life of people is to shape
all their activities in such a manner, that these
activities always overcome temptations and
weaknesses that trouble us, and carry out
only whatever is moral.
The problem with the to-date understanding of
morality by our civilisation is that not knowing
about the existence of moral field people were
unable to define unambiguously which actions are
moral, and which immoral. Therefore, for example
some sexual deviations (e.g. homosexuals
and lesbians) become considered to be
"moral" - in spite that in fact they slide down
their practitioners downhill in the moral field.
In the result, several countries introduced
laws recently, of the type of "Civil Union Bill"
from New Zealand, which sanction selected
sexual deviations as legally permitted (e.g.
for homosexuals and for lesbians), and sometimes
even grant couples of homosexuals and
lesbians the same rights and privileges which
previously were reserved for heterosexual
marriages. However, if one analyses these
deviations (e.g. homosexuals and lesbians)
from the point of view of their paths across the
moral field, then it turns out that they are
immoral. This is because they move people
who practice them downhill in the moral field.
For this reason, the philosophy of
totalizm
classifies all sexual deviations (including
homosexuals and lesbians) to the same
category of immoral activities, to which belong
also all other actions which move people downhill
in the moral field, e.g. drug addiction, alcoholism,
obesity, smoking, etc. Simultaneously totalizm
insists, that people who are troubled with these
deviations, have a duty to fight them down in
themselves in the same manner as drug addicts,
alcoholics, obese people, lazy ones, etc., are
fighting out sources of their own weaknesses
and problems.
The fact of defining homosexualism and lesbianism
by totalizm to be immoral activities, introduces a
whole array of consequences. For example,
in the light of it, all laws which legalise homosexuals
and lesbians, of the type of "Civil Union Bill"
from New Zealand, for totalizm are contradictive
to the statement of moral laws, and as such they
require vigorous fighting down and removal.
Totalizm considers such laws to be immoral
gestures of politicians, who try to please sexual
deviants in order to gain their votes. Unfortunately,
these gestures are harmful for the society, because
they lower down moral standards of our civilisation.
Totalizm will vigorously fight them down and
eliminate from the public life. Totalizm also
recommends condemning and opposition
against any form of promoting such deviations,
e.g. via glorifying them in films, plays, books,
someone's styles of living, etc. In fact, it is a
duty of every practitioner of totalizm to boycott
all initiatives, events, and people, who promote,
glorify, or treat as moral, the manifestoes
practicing of such deviations, or who contribute
to any other form of lowering down moral standards
of humanity.
Part D:
Justice, law, and order:
#D1.
Let us cause that justice does NOT need to be purchased, and that it can be afforded not only by richest people:
I wonder whether the reader considered
ever how just is the present system of
justice. Interesting results of research on
this subject were published in the article
"Cost of justice is too high", published on
page A1 of the New Zealand newspaper
"The Dominion Post",
issue dated on Wednesday, January 3, 2007.
This article states, amongst others, quote:
"Justice is the preserve of the rich,
a clear majority of New Zealanders
believe. Seventy per cent of respondents
to a Justice Ministry survey about the
court system, said the cost of going to
court was too high for most people."
And we need to remember that the
justice in New Zealand is proud of being
one of the best in the world. So what
about their own justice must be thinking
people from other countries which are not
so fortunate like New Zealanders? In turn,
when a justice needs to be purchased,
and it is affordable for only the most
rich people, then is it really decent to
call it "justice". On the other hand,
when the so-called "justice" is not
what it is called, then what is it?
#D2.
Let us make life easier and let us improve prosperity by the totaliztic reduction of numbers of laws and regulations:
The intriguing part of human laws is that
so-far it practically never went through any
structural improvements. In the result,
present human laws are only increased
in volume relatives of laws which existed
on Earth already thousands of years ago.
Means their structure, principles of formulation,
and also manners of presenting, are exactly
the same now, as they were in antiquity.
Of course, in the meantime almost all other
areas of human lives were improved structurally.
Laws, however, managed to resist of any
progress, and remain one of these rare
human creations, which are as old-fashioned
as this is only possible - means almost
the same old as humanity itself. Of course,
this introduces tragic consequences. Due
to the resistance to structural improvements,
laws currently begin to spread more injustice
than justice. Also people who generate
and implement these increasingly more
harming laws (i.e. lawyers), become
increasingly old fashioned. In many
countries they even dress in an ancient
manner. So they locked themselves in
shells like snails, and are not ready to
join the progress of the rest of the world.
In turn the old fashioned laws which they
continually multiply, increasingly stronger
tighten the loop around our necks. Of course,
lawyers are happy because of such a situation.
After all, they are entitled to ask for increasingly
higher payments for spreading promises
that they help us to save ourselves from this
suffocation by laws. But is really the increase
of income of lawyers the true goal for which
laws are created?
These readers who learned a bit of principles
of computer programming, probably remember
that there are two different approaches to
program preparation. One of these is very
old. It eventuated spontaneously soon after
the invention of computers. It is called the
"procedural programming - PP"
approach. It depends, amongst others, on
the preparation of a new, separate program from
the very beginning, for practically every problem.
In this way in old times every problem had
an own program, which was prepared separately
for it. In turn the world needed to increase
rapidly the number of programmers to cope
with this infinite production of multitude of new
programs. Lawyers on Earth work just like
this old procedural approach (PP) to programming.
Every separate matter is regulated so-far
by a separate law. In the result, so many
separate laws multiplied in the world, that
presently no-one is able to comprehend
them all - including into this also lawyers
who so eagerly produce these countless
laws. Laws are also so entangled, that whenever
any government wishes so, it is able to use
them for punishing practically every inhabitant
of Earth and for practically every activity
that this someone ever carried out.
In the meantime computer scientists specialising
in the so-called "software engineering" (i.e. the
discipline in which, amongst other,
I used to be
an university professor) managed to accomplish
a huge breakthrough in principles of programs
preparation. Namely these scientists gradually
developed a new approach, which is called the
"Object-Oriented Programming - OOP".
I should mention at this point, that I personally took
part in these efforts, as I was one of the first scientists
who from the very beginning participated in the
formation of OOP idea. For example, on 21 and 22
July 1979, I presented a refereed paper entitled
"System obliczeń inżynierskich przykładem
oprogramowania o zwiększonej efektywności
pracy" (i.e. "System of engineering calculations
an example of software with an increased effectiveness
of work"), on the scientific conference in Rydzyn
near Leszno, Poland. This paper proposed a kind
of new programming language for engineering
calculations. Although at that time I was unaware
of this, the system which I then proposed, displayed
the majority of attributes of present OOP systems
(and this was in 1979 - when in the world almost
no-one have heard of OOP). Well, according to
this newest OOP approach, new programs are
prepared only once to a completely new so-called
"class of objects". Then, just by using principles
of so-called "inheritance" and "polymorphism",
in a simple manner they are fast modified to all
similar classes of objects. Presently totalizm
proposes to utilise exactly the same OOP approach
to human laws. In such a case all non-criminal
laws, which describe precisely the operation of
a whole country, can be reduced to the volume
of a typical small "road codex". So every citizen
of a given country will be able to learn them
all without a greater difficulty. Thus, the need
ceases to exist for so many lawyers as presently.
After all, these OOP laws become so simple, that almost
no-one will be forced to use lawyers to understand
them and correctly apply them in life. Means, after
this implementation of this OOP approach, laws
cease to suffocate us like a huge boa snake, and
also cease to make our lives miserable. They
would also become so easy to learn, that everyone
could master them in their entirety. Of course,
such their improvements would also require
putting slightly more effort into generation of
new laws - after all, problems must be
appropriately re-formulated in OOP, before they
are expressed in the form of programs - so
that these problems fulfil several strict conditions.
However, it is no harm for lawyers to learn
contributing some thoughts into their work,
instead of just repeating avalanches of words.
Anyway, examples of such totaliztic "OO laws"
(i.e. "object-oriented laws"), which I am presenting
below and also presenting on a separate
web page in a form of statute for the political
party of totalizm,
reveal that this re-formulating of problems is
relatively simple for implementation, and almost
everyone (including lawyers) should be able
to carry them out easily.
Totalizm proposes to use this OOP approach
to the improvement of human laws, as one of
a whole array of offers to humanity, that the
possible formulation of the political
party of totalizm
is able to present to the society. These offers
generally state as follows: "if the nation is going
to support the political movement of totalizm,
then this movement in return is going to eliminate
everything that in present times torments
us and makes impossible for us to carry out
moral, happy, peaceful, prosperous, and
fulfilled life". After all, this web page illustrates
how everything that torments and destroys
our social life can be easily eliminated. It also
illustrates, how moral, happy, prosperous,
peaceful, and fulfilling life on Earth becomes
after this elimination. In the further part of
this item, I am going to illustrate
the principle on which totalizm proposes
to reform non-criminal laws with the use
of just such OOP approach. Please notice,
that everything that exists in a given country
then would be classified into two basic
categories, namely the "class of consumers"
(means people), and the "class of producers"
(means businesses). After such a re-formulating,
only a single general law would be developed,
which would regulate all "consumers" (means
all people), and another single law - which
would regulate all "producers" (means all
businesses). In turn all possible exceptions
would be regulated with the use of principles
of "inheritance" and/or "polymorphism".
So let us now analyse together, starting
from the very beginning and explaining
step by step, how all this would be accomplished
practically, and what would be main
benefits from such a historic reform
of laws.
* * *
Present laws are like a kind of constrictor
snakes, which gradually wrap around our
society and suffocate it. Therefore totalizm
states that the simplest method for the
significant improvement of life and for the
increase of prosperity, is to simplify drastically
these laws and regulations. In fact totalizm
indicates an easy manner of simplification
of laws and regulation to such a size, that
the laws ruling precisely the functioning of an
entire country, could be expressed easily in
the volume not bigger than a typical road
codex. After the simplification these laws
still would be able to regulate precisely the
entire non-criminal life of a given country.
In turn, after such a significant simplification
of laws is completed, the biggest nightmare
of our times will be removed. After all, then
also bureaucrats would disappear, who spoil
a significant proportion of our happiness and
eat up a significant percent of prosperity of
the nation. Also present parliaments and
gatherings, which are flooding the society
with these oceans of increasingly
incompetent laws, become unnecessary.
This in turn would cause, that parliaments
would finally stop wasting for this overproduction
of laws this proportion of the budget of the
country, which they used to eat up. Thus
societies would be able to utilise for more
moral goals their share of budgets. The
need would also cease for present number
of lawyers. After all, such laws of the size
of typical road codex almost everyone
would be able to learn in the entirety,
and use correctly wherever necessary.
There would also be no need for this large number
of various bodies, commissions, instances,
and institutions, which presently do nothing
else, but generate increasingly complicated
regulations and then torment people with them.
The totaliztic recipe for a drastic shortening
and improvement of laws and regulations
is very simple. It states, that
in laws it is
necessary to separate the function of
consumers from the function of producers.
In turn the key for both these functions
is the "right to sell". The class of
consumers according to
totalizm would include all these who
do not need the right to sell, and
whose right to sell makes so complicated
present legal system. To this class belong
for example all citizens of a given country,
means all people. (Belong also all
non-profitable societies, e.g. scouts.)
All functions of consumers boil down
to finding for themselves a single source of income,
and then purchasing or hiring for this
income goods that they wish to consume.
Totalizm proposes, that the consumers
would be allowed to gather their financial
income from only a single source.
This source could be either an
income-oriented employment in a business
(in a producer), or drawing dividends
from the business owned (but only
from the main one, even if a given
consumer would own several businesses),
or getting some form of financial
support from the government
(e.g. a retiring pension, scholarship,
unemployment benefit, etc.) After
purchasing goods and consuming
them, consumers would give out to
various businesses all "rubbish" that
would be left after their consumption.
Because consumers would not have
the right to sell, this "rubbish", means
everything that would be left from their
consumption, would be given for free
to appropriate businesses, e.g. to a
junk yard, to rubbish collectors, etc.
Consumers would not pay taxes
at all. After all, they themselves would
not be allowed to sell anything. But
they would have the right to own one
business, which in turn would have
the right to own any number of further
businesses. (Thus practically every
consumer could own an unlimited
number of businesses, mutually organised
into a hierarchical structure.) In turn
each one of these businesses would pay
taxes, so it would have a right to sell
for the owner anything that this owner
would order it to sell. Because of such
a simple functioning of consumers,
all of them, and also all their activities,
could be described by laws and
regulations which would be just
a few pages long.
A completely different from the class of
consumers would be the class of producers.
Producers would be a class which includes
all possible businesses, institutions, workshops,
factories, etc., that exists in a given country.
No matter what they would produce. Because
in totalizm all these producers (means all
businesses, institutions, etc.) would be
the same in the face of law, thus in a given
country would exist only a single law which
would regulate all of them. If in fact there
would appear a need to specially distinguish
a producer, then laws which regulate all
producers would be subjected to the principle
of "inheritance" and/or "polymorphism"
described by present so-called "Object-Oriented
Programming" from today Computer Sciences.
Due to including all producers in a single
law, this law could also be very simple.
Namely, every producer (means every
business, institution, company, etc.)
would have an owner. The owner could
be either a single person, or a family,
or a corporation, or shareholders, or
other producer, or government. The
owner would define the statute for this
producer, means the document
which would describe how it operates,
what does, what is its organisation,
what it supposed to do with the profit
earned, how much the director earns,
etc. The owner could give away (for free)
this business, or dissolve it (liquidate), or
announce it to be bankrupt. (Notice that
owners whose businesses bankrupted,
would be disallowed to create or to
purchase any new business for the
period of time depending on the amount
of debt at the time of bankruptcy.)
If the owner of a given business would
be another business, then this owner
would have also the right to sell all
businesses that it owns. But if the owner
would be only a "consumer", then could
NOT sell the owned business - because
consumers do not have the right to sell.
However, his/her, or another, business
would then be able to sell a given business
on his or her behalf. The owner would
decide what should be done with the
profit earned by a given business - i.e.
should it be paid to someone in dividends,
accumulated on a special account, or
given away to an indicated business.
Furthermore, the owner would always
hire and fire the director of a given
business. Of course, if the owner is
a private person and wishes so, he
or she could hire himself, herself,
a spouse, a son, a daughter, etc.,
for the director of a given business.
The director would be responsible for all
aspects of the operation of given business.
Means, would hire the personnel and
delegate duties to them, would define
salaries, would be the legal employer of
all people employed in a given business
(apart from himself, or herself, as the employment
of the director would always be done by the
owner of a given business), would represent
this business legally, would look after the
production, etc., etc. Every business would
have to employ at least the director which
would be responsible for it. Only then this
director would decide whether he or she
needs further employees, how many
of them, what salaries they receive, what
responsibilities and duties delegate to them,
etc. In his or her actions the director would
be responsible before the owner of a given
business, and before the law that prevails
in a given country. Every business would
have the right to carry out any possible
economical activity. So it could, amongst
others, sell owned or produced goods,
services, and businesses. But it would be
obliged to pay taxes to the government.
The functioning of all businesses that exist
in a given country would be described by
a single law which would rule all of them.
After all, due to the separation of consumers
from producers, all existing businesses would
operate on exactly the same principles.
The functional and legal separation of
consumers and producers - as described
above, would only enhance the functioning
of people. It would not disadvantage nor limit
them in any way.
For example, the same as presently, then
also every consumer could buy for himself
or herself everything that could afford, and
also sell everything that would wish. Only
that, in order to simplify and standardise
laws and regulations about sales, consumers
could not sell this by themselves, but would
be obliged to firstly donate it (for free) to
one of their own or someone's else
businesses, than this business would sell
it on the behalf of these consumers. But
the huge benefit of such a small reorganisation
of the sale, would be that all laws and regulations
would then be reduced drastically. After all,
then only a single law would be needed
to describe functioning of all businesses.
In turn this single law would regulate all
producers which exists in a given country.
Means that the present thousands of laws
would then be replaced by a single law.
It is worth to notice, that this complication
of present laws results just from the lack
of separation of consumers from producers
that is proposed by totalizm. This is because
if one joins together these two categories,
then the world becomes filled up with
hugely complicated system of various
configurations of consumers and producers.
In turn for each such configuration separate
laws and regulations are necessary. For
example, only in the category of retired
people then tens of different sub-categories
must be distinguished. To regulate each
one of them, completely different laws are
needed at present. And so, there must
exist retired people who do not have
anything, thus they do not sell anything.
There must also exist retired people who
have some property, thus who "sell"
various services that bring them incomes.
Further ones have funds in banks,
thus they "hire" these funds to banks.
Then there will be such who have some
products for sale, e.g. retired farmers
or factory owners. These also must be
regulated by separate laws. To all these,
further laws must be added for the
retired people who are paid from separate
sources, in different amounts, etc., etc.
So just only for retired people a huge
number of laws and regulations must
exist in non-totaliztic (old) systems of laws,
which (laws) even the best lawyers probably
ceased to comprehend completely.
In turn in the totaliztic laws, from the
legal point of view all of them would
be treated exactly the same as all
other consumers. Also the class of
producers would be then treated by
the totaliztic laws in an exactly the
same manner, means each one
of them would be treated the same
as all other producers.
The simplification of laws proposed by totalizm
would hugely simplify also the governing of
the country. In fact, the entire totaliztic country
would be governed by the government
which is similarly small like the government
of Switzerland. (It is almost sure that the
prosperity of Switzerland results from
the government of it.) For example, the
government of such a totaliztic country
could be composed of only one president
plus e.g. seven ministers, all democratically
elected by the entire nation every 5 years.
(In addition such a government would
need to have 3 electors. These electors
every 5 years would organise democratic
elections of governments of subsequent
cadencies. They would also keep eye
on members of the government to check
whether they do not break the constitution
e.g. by immoral actions or by abuse of
power. But these electors could be e.g.
presidents from last 3 "completed" cadencies
of the government, so they would not need
to be elected separately.) So the totaliztic
country would be deprived this "heavy
head" nourished by the slim body of the
nation, means would not have this huge
number of politicians present in present
governments, the only skill of which
sometimes is just spreading confusion
and avoiding responsibilities. Each out of these 8+3
members of the totaliztic government
would also be a legal owner (for the duration
of his or her cadence only) of several
governmental businesses which would
assist him or her in ruling the country.
For example, the minister of economy
would be the owner of taxing business
and the business of registration of
other businesses. In turn the minister
of foreign affairs would be the legal
owner of the passport business and
the business of managing embassies.
So the government would rule the country
through directors of these businesses.
There would be no need for present
governmental institutions nor for present
bureaucrats, and also for this whole mass
of laws that regulate operation of governmental
institutions and employees of government.
After all, businesses with the aid of which
the country would be governed, would be
regulated by exactly the same laws as
all other businesses of a given country.
In turn without governmental institutions
and bureaucrats, there would be no queues,
problems, disappointed citizens, harm,
injustice, etc. The totaliztic simplification
of laws described here would cause a
"snowball" effect of cumulative simplification
of everything, would return the control over
what happens in the country back to people,
and would impose the clarity and transparency
to all matters of a given country.
The separation of consumers from produces
proposed above, and the strict defining them
as general "classes", would introduce also
a whole range of benefits to all other areas
of life outside of laws. For example, in
economics this would limit the freezing of
capitals because of consumer savings. It would
also increase the vigour of the market
with thousands of these new producers.
After all, the government would then
assist every consumer in forming his
or her own business and with starting it.
In turn, after this formal side of forming
new businesses is solved, scores of
individual owners of these businesses
could intensify the market with their highly
competitive production and services.
In the social life this would eliminate the
present sources of injustice, and would
decrease the exploitation of one groups
of people by other groups. In the fight
with crimes this would take away the majority
of present sources of crimes. After all, it
would clarify who is responsible for what,
while e.g. in case of someone's criminal
bankruptcy it would force these truly responsible
to pay back their debts and would deprive
them the right for owning other businesses
for the required period. In
morality this would eliminate large groups
of people who presently live from making
lives of other people miserable. Etc., etc.
* * *
Of course, totalizm is able to carry out
not only reduction and simplification of
functional laws described above. It already
worked out principles of operation of much
more moral than presently criminal laws.
The essence of these totaliztic improvements
of criminal laws is explained in volume 7 of
the monograph
[1/4].
#D3.
"Morality cancels illegality" - means we should demand moral behaviours not turning all people into lawyers:
Our
present governments are really extremely
productive in generating various bans. So
without a break they continually announce
increasingly more complex laws. Then for
our taxes they employ a whole pack of officials,
who make sure that citizens in the reach of
power of these governments learn these laws
in the entire their complexity and obey them
at every step they take. In the result,
present governments try to transform the
entire population into lawyers. So if someone
has no inclination to learning law, or (like me)
practices totalizm in his or her life and thus tries
to always act morally and according to his or
her own conscience - no matter what the human
law orders to do, then these governments make
life of such someone enormously miserable.
What is even worse, many out of these new
laws and rules do not even try to be moral.
Therefore, if someone in his or her life is
directed e.g. by the own conscience, then
must continually get on the collision course
with these countless legal requirements.
The result of all this is that
in present times
acting legal is placed in front of being moral.
Of course, according to totalizm this is
unacceptable situation. After all, it causes
that human laws are directed against moral
laws and moral field, which were established
by God and which people should obey in
the first instance at the highest priority.
I
personally believe that I probably have a higher
than average knowledge of human laws. After all,
I received a thorough formal education, many
matters I understand rather well, and in addition
I practice totalizm in my life, which disallows to
do anyone a harm. But in spite of this, I break
continually my nose on increasingly repressive
laws which limit our actions today. So how
these laws must trouble simple people
who do not received a formal training at my
level, and also who do not practice totalizm.
For ordinary people present laws must be
like a kind of slowed stoning carried out by
authorities for punishment that someone has
no ambition to learn exactly all laws that so-far
were issued by governments. In addition
bureaucrats carry out this stoning for the money
of victims - after all, these are taxes of ordinary
people which pay all the overproduction of
repressive laws, and also pay the operation of
institutions and salaries of bureaucrats which
enforce these laws on people. In the result,
present law mercilessly beats people
literally on every step they make, without
looking that victims of this law in fact did
not harm anyone and that their life ambition
is not to transform into lawyers.
In
order to provide here an everyday example of a
blind enthusiasm with which present laws make
our lives miserable even when we do not do
anything wrong, I describe here an event which
for almost a month affected me personally and
kept me busy, starting on 14 November 2005.
It was the time when over our planet dark clouds
of the so-called
"bird flu"
were gathering. So in order to assist somehow my
family in Poland, I decided to send them a whole
range of various herbal anti-flu medicines. One of
posted medicines were tablets of "Echinacea", means
the "immune booster" which in Poland supposedly is
unavailable, while in New Zealand it is overloading
shelves of almost every supermarket. The problem
with these tablets is, that originally they are sold in
glass bottles. So to prevent these bottles to break
during the transport through a half of the world, I
removed the content of two bottles into a plastic bag,
and to the parcel I packed this plastic bag instead
of the original bottles. In the bag I also placed a
label which explained exactly what exactly it contains.
The postage of this parcel (ED145101656NZ) to
Poland through an international express courier
service, cost me 55 NZ dollars. But immediately
after I posted it, I started to receive telephones
from New Zealand customs which required from
me the prescription for these loose tablets - because
they were out of the original package. I explained
to them, that tablets of "Echinacea" can be purchased
in every supermarket and I do not have a prescription
for them. I also explained to them, that the reason for
which I repacked these tablets of "Echinacea" in a
plastic bag was that I did not wish the bottles break
during so long trip. I also appealed to them, to not
send me the parcel back, but to let it go, because
the return of it will be synonymous with punishing
me in spite that I am not a criminal. In spite of my
explanations, on 24 November 2005 the entire
parcel was returned to me. After it arrived, it turned
out that the parcel was unpacked by customs, while
the content of it was thoroughly examined. Means
that custom officers knew that whatever I explained
to them about the re-packing is true, and that I do
not do anything immoral or harm anyone with my
parcel nor that what I posted is anthrax, explosives,
or a narcotic (if it would be a narcotic, custom officers
would not fail to send me immediately to a court).
They knew that I have not committed any crime,
while my only problem was that not being a lawyer
I have not learned the entire law relating to custom
matters of the country in which I live. Thus they knew
that only because of my lack of knowledge of all
custom laws (although according to my logic and
rational acting) I did not fulfil this their legal requirement
that the tablets of "Echinacea" are posted in original
bottles instead of a plastic bag. In spite of all this, they
punished me through returning me the parcel for
which I paid to be delivered to my family in Poland,
not to a local custom office and then back to me.
Is this punishing me for the "lack of knowledge" completely
"legal", "moral", and "fair"? According to human
law probably is "legal". After all, the New Zealand
custom office punished me in that way - and I am
sure that it has a whole pack of lawyers on the
service and it would not do anything of this is not
"legal". (It is neither the first, not probably the last,
time when human laws punished me for the fact
that I do not know all of them.) But according to
totalizm such an action of custom officers is NOT
"moral" nor "fair". After all: (1) the parcel which
I posted did not harm anyone, (2) custom officers
checked it and for sure knew that what I explained
about re-packing the tablets of "Echinacea" is true,
(3) I am also ready to bet that they analysed whether
what I am posting agrees with what I wrote on
the custom label of the parcel (after all, probably
the reason for which they opened my parcel was to
check whether I do not post any narcotics, anthrax,
or explosives) - so they were able to rectify easily
the problem by either removal from the parcel (with
my consensus - after all they discussed with me by
telephone the content of this parcel) and returning
to me only this part of it which induced their reservations,
or by sticking to the parcel some sort of their label
stating something along the lines "checked by the
custom office and does not contain any forbidden
substances", and also (4) for the activities of these
custom officers I already paid long ago with my
taxes which I pay systematically for many years -
so there was no need to charge me additionally
e.g. through not respecting my payment for the
delivery of this parcel to Poland (after all, I paid
$NZ 55 to deliver my parcel to family in Poland,
not to carry it out from the post office to local
custom office, and then back to the post office
from which I needed to collect it by myself).
Of course, after I received the parcel back,
for the sake of justice and fairness I wrote
an application to the post office for refunding
me these $55 which I paid for delivery of it
to Poland. On 10 December 2005 I received
an information that my payment in fact will be
refunded. A cheque with the refund arrived
to my hand on 21 December 2005.
When the first parcel returned back to me, I designated
further $NZ 55 for another parcel. From this second
parcel I removed the unfortunate tablets of Echinacea
which according to information of custom officers caused
previously the return of the first parcel. Just in case
I also removed from it all other less vital medicines
which I was posting previously. In this second parcel
I left only one pack of the anti-flu medicine, which I
considered to be the most effective. On 28 November
2005 I posted again to Poland this second parcel
with just only one pack of the most vital medicine.
But also the second time this another parcel was
intercepted by custom officers. On 1 December
2005 these custom officers telephoned to me and
requested that I post them a prescription for this
pack of medicine. So I spend another $NZ 5.50
for a fax and send them this prescription. After
sending it, a worrying long silence started. Because
of this silence I began to wonder whether I did not
commit a crime for which the "big brother" is
looking through laws to find out how to punish me.
Only on 5 December 2005 I discovered that
the medicine was finally released from New
Zealand. But it immediately got jammed in a custom
office in Poland. Polish custom officers attached
to the arrival of it so many formalities, as if it
was an import of a whole tank together with a
few years of supply of ammunition (they were
unimpressed that the same parcel was already
checked by the New Zealand custom office).
In order to comply with all these formalities,
my family in Poland needed another 4 days,
so that was able to collect the medicine only
on 9 December 2005.
As this is clear, in present times even such
banal matter as the postage of anti-flu medicine
to someone, is transformed into an enormous
legal problem which is almost impossible to
get through by a normal citizen. I will not discuss
here the situation, that the postage of a medicine
(which is aimed at good of people) through an
international express currier, in this case took
almost entire month. (For comparison, e.g. a
postage of a book on "Harry Potter", i.e. which
would mainly support the interests of UFOnauts
on Earth, via the same currier and at the same
distance, would take no longer than 3 days.)
So if this medicine is needed for a dying person
to save the life, it would not be allowed to arrive
even for the funeral of this person.
The
above event is only one out of a whole range of
similar cases which I experienced myself, and in
which various bureaucrats caused that
so far illogical legal requirements are always
placed before logical morality.
I am also sure, that every reader many times
broke his or her nose on own series of just such
cases. I personally believe that cases of such
ruthless, immoral, and non-fair behaviour of
bureaucrats existing supposedly to "assist" society,
with the elapse of time will only increase. Already
now they make our lives increasingly more difficult.
In future probably they will cause that everyone
will be forced to become a lawyer. After all, in present
situation ruthless bureaucrats have the right to punish
everyone who does not fulfil even the least vital
legal requirement. They are also allowed to punish
people countless number of times without checking
whether these legal requirements are "fair" and
"moral". This in turn allows bureaucrats to encourage
present governments and institutions to multiply
infinitively various laws which are immoral and unfair.
For example, if custom officers and post offices
produce a sufficient number of laws of the type
described in my previous example, then they
will be able to take payments for the delivery
of parcels, but they always will be able to find
some unfulfilled legal requirements which will
allow them to return these parcels without effort
and without the need to deliver them to addressees.
Therefore, according to the spirit of totalizm,
I believe that it is very urgent to introduce a
totaliztic principle, that morality
always invalidates the illegality.
This principle would state something along
the lines, that "in every case when someone
does NOT fulfil a legal requirement, but acts
morally and does not harm anyone, the fact
of this moral behaviour inv
