Employment & Philosophy

There are times when thinking deeply leaves me with a troubling question.

It is an assumed fact in America that a man, having possession of a marketable idea, creates a business in order to bring it to fruition. Employees, insofar as they are necessary for the functioning of the business, are brought in. Especially given the world as it is today, you could be an excellent employer and very respectful of them, but they may still not actually want to be there; it is another assumed fact, after all, that a man, having possession of a marketable skill, takes whatever job, out of those offered him, that he hates least, or which puts him on the road to a job he someday wishes to have.

That's a little cynical, but the basic problem worries me. I have long thought to myself that it might be nice to be of my own business, bringing my ideas to fruition, rather than being someone else's labor. However, in principle, this only puts others in the same position I would have been in; they will be hired for no other purpose than to see my dreams completed, and they are given a paycheck for no other reason.

If I could afford to pay employees enough, with a flexible enough schedule, that I was furthering their dreams, or at least keeping them fully happy, that would be one thing. But without being a highly successful business (or a billionaire, or striking oil/gold/rare earths/whatever), there is no way to provide so much extra to employees. If I did manage to be a runaway success, without question there would be competition, and how well my company functions would be a major factor in whether or not it continued to be successful. At that point, "maintaining the company" becomes the dream which I am asking others to do for me, instead of chasing their own dreams.

That's not quite correct, I'm sure, and it's a jumbled mess of thoughts in any case. The more basic question still stands--if I wanted to build a company or small business that didn't betray anyone, how could I do it? If I was hiring the business-standard way (take applications), the people who are coming to me are people who are looking for a job; they most likely didn't seek me out because they want to do what we're doing, and they almost certainly didn't seek me out to help me with what I want to do. Isn't it a bit cold to ignore that? But what other option do I have?

Even if it were some sort of communal projects company where all employees have their own babies that we help each other out with--and that's slow, risky, and for something as specialization-of-labor as software, may not be really feasible--even then they're all still restricted in what they can do by the people I'll hire, or in other ways, what assistance I render.

This all ignores, of course, the glaring fact that I have no money to invest in the first place. However, as a philosophical question, I think it's important. Since the dawn of corporations--and probably before--the soul-crushing single-mindedness that a company can impose has been felt by all sorts of people who wanted options but found few if any. Who hires me and how they work me will be a serious consideration for the rest of my life; if I have good money and free time, I may be able to make my projects myself, and go into business for myself. But if I'm only accomplishing others' goals, and if they see me as nothing more than a means to their ends, could I lose myself? Haven't so many before me?

I don't want to betray others, not if they're going to offer to help me with my dreams. What can I do? Is it just because of inexperience that I don't have an answer?

Open Letter to the Few

Dear Rich People, National Leaders, &etc:

I have something to say to you. You're probably not going to understand it right away; the reason for this is that I'm really bad at getting to the point. Proof of this, if it's needed, is that I haven't said what I'm going to say to you yet. You may want to skip ahead.

What I'm going to say is that I was playing Minecraft today. If you don't know it, it's a tedious computer game in which you dig, and by digging receive blocks with which you can build. It's the sort of game where you spend so much time digging that you end up spending more and more time building new tools; I dug in the sand all day and made new shovels for digging the next day before I went to bed. There are other things I could do in the game, but I wanted to build a fortress, and that involved getting and using a lot of resources.

This is where the point begins: Building that fortress is boring. I have already spent hours of my time, days and days game time, working with little immediate payoff. I do it because it's a project that I want to see done, and one I'd like to do. I do it, in short, because I'm a geek. Perhaps more importantly, I do it because I it's something I think is cool.

I'm willing to spend inordinate amounts of time doing really boring things in order to be part of something cool. Work happens. Shit, being BORED is work. I spent my childhood being bored in as interesting a way as I could, because nobody gave me anything interesting to do. I took my toys and built with them, and wove stories and games into them. Do I have anything to show for that? Hell no. This is the second part of the point.

We're waiting for you, rich people, powerful people, to have anything at all that's interesting for us to do. You remember this thing called money? Perhaps you've encountered it in your life before. It's the resource we would use, if we had it, to fund our ideas and make our own cool things happen. We don't have it. We don't have it because we don't have good-paying jobs, and/or because we don't have large pools of funding to do with as we please.

Meanwhile, that money isn't doing anything in your hands. But wait, you say, it's going into investments, with some in the bank gaining interest. Well, here's the thing about banking and interest: You are supposed to get it back. That means that the money was never actually spent, and the people you're giving money to don't actually receive anything. Every single penny that they receive they are obligated to make later. That rules out hundreds of thousands, maybe millions or more, of projects that would be really really cool. Maybe even useful. Projects that could change the world, or change people's outlook on life.

Another game I've been playing is Sid Meier's Civilization IV, a game in which you basically simulate a new world history given the technologies, history, and cultures of the world as it stands today. Funny thing about civilizations: When you build libraries, when you build statues, when you build aqueducts and roads, you aren't actually making all that much money back. What you get out of it is a change to the world around you. People are educated, inspired, healthy, and mobile. Wonders of the world? They inspire your entire civilization, nay the world, but the inordinate amount of resources it took to construct them are lost for good. Period, the end. If you constructed a wonder of the world today, something so amazing you'd be remembered forever, you'd likely go bankrupt.

Back in the early days of humanity, nay continuing even today, private citizens didn't tend to have the resources to do anything until someone gave them a task. For most of human history almost everyone was growing the food they would eventually eat. Now we do all kinds of labor, but the end result is the same: nothing new happens because we don't control the means of production; rather, we ARE the means of production. YOU have to give us something to produce.

But here's the interesting thing. When you look at the world today (by which I mean the first world, which has admittedly far too much time on its hands compared to places that are worse off) you see people doing what they want to do. Sports, gaming, writing, movies, music, all of these are indicative of the idea that people want to be part of something interesting, and they want it so badly they'll pay money and spend their off-hours doing it.

But you guys, who have the means of production that we lack, aren't spending any money on interesting things that we could make for you. If you're doing anything, you're investing, which means that we aren't allowed to do anything that doesn't turn a buck. Me personally, if I had a million bucks (or more) I'd be chasing after any number of projects I have whirling around in my head; video games, tabletop gaming, books, movies, computer architectures, buildings, philosophy, and plenty of other things. Many of these could actually be businesses, but not being a businessman, there's no way I'd ask for an investment or even take an investment. I'm depressive and inexperienced; even though I dream big, even though I'm the sort of technically-minded dumbass that could put it all together eventually but doesn't, there is no way I'll ask because you want a guarantee that I'll succeed and pay you back. Depression doesn't work that way, and neither do most of the really interesting projects out there. I'm not doing what I'm doing to make profits, or even break even. I'm doing what I'm doing to see something awesome get done.

(None of which is to say that I wouldn't pay people back if I made it big. I'm not a greedy sonofabitch, I just don't honestly believe I'll succeed. Could succeed, sure. Could do something really awesome if I DID succeed, heck yeah. But WILL succeed? Nobody's ever treated me like I was going to be a success at anything. I'm not wasting other people's money on a person who shows no promise, even if that person is me. That's all beside the point.)

The point is, ask. Not ask me, but ask of the world. Say, "You know, a giant-ass statue carved into a mountainside would be great. What do we need to do, and what should it be?" Or ask, "You know, a giant school in the middle of nowhere that takes up 1000 acres and is filled with the best minds from anywhere, who'd want to be a part of that?" Or perhaps, "If I organized the best dog trainers around the world, and gave them access to whatever dogs they wanted, and we kept a project going for dozens or hundreds of generations, how intelligent could we get those dogs? Would they be as smart as humans? Would they be smart enough to live in the civilized world without owners? Could they teach other dogs?"

You don't have to take my word for it, but there are an inordinate number of things you could do that would really alter the way we look at the world--that would alter the way the entire world sees itself. The only thing America has had to look up to in the last 20 years are sleazy corporations, lawyers, technology, a dying space program, religions that haven't been updated in millenia... what is that we're supposed to be inspired by? Or are you just all happy being part of a world that doesn't care anymore, because there's nothing else to accomplish?

Free Markets & Infrastructure

This was going to be a slashdot comment, but I decided it was too long.

Somehow we must nail this myth that deregulation means competition: it doesn't

I could be convinced, assuming nobody educates me on my ignorance, that the idea of free markets was from the beginning not actually meant to include the kind of infrastructure we see today in telecoms, power, and transit--or at best, it was simply not thought about.

Infrastructure is essentially a two-phase investment--in the first part, huge sums of cash are used to build it out, and in the second, relatively small sums are used to maintain it, while it receives little (if any) income. That means in principle that
1) It requires a substantial investment for phase I
2) That investment will not be paid back for an exceptionally long time

However, assuming that the infrastructure is well made, everyone who uses it will be happy. It is perceived as a steady revenue stream (assuming it is paid for--counterpoint being roads) because it improves quality of life and is therefore worth the payment. That payment will not come as a lump sum by the consumers (which would repay the initial costs), but only through a long subscription. If that cost is too high--which is necessary to pay back all the loans or recover the investment, and therefore finally be in the black--consumers balk. If the cost is too low, it takes an unreasonable amount of time to cover both the investment and the maintenance costs; especially given loan interest, it can be utterly devastating.

However, there is a median price which is presumably just fine. The biggest question is, "will the company accept it?" And this in my mind is where free market and infrastructure part ways. Free market rides entirely on people's ability to turn a profit. You aren't supposed to turn a profit right away when providing infrastructure, but someone who comes from a capitalist world will see "continuous revenue stream" as "unlimited profit" and will bleed the market dry trying to achieve that profit. From the standpoint of the company itself, as long as it someday is guaranteed to turn a profit it has succeeded. From that point forward, the infrastructure is in place and the debt is paid off--the world is better than it was before, nobody's the poorer for it, and meanwhile the company has been paying everyone their salaries, which frankly should be what the employees worry about anyway. However, from the point of view of An Executive In The Company, the value of The Company rests on Profits This Year, and An Executive is of no value if The Company is of no value.

Setting aside whether or not you trust the government with internet/telecoms and power, they really are public interest and should be treated as such. Even if you say that private companies will do telecom improvements faster, etc, there really ought to be a minimum value-per-service such as is provided by cheap government utilities. I have to imagine tons of people would gladly pay reduced cost for reduced service in telephone, power, and internet if they're currently paying for more than they need. As long as those functions get moved out of "these are infinite profit potential" and into "if you need it, it's there," then that should fix the process at least a little.

Powers of 10

If I had $1, I'd waste it.
If I had $10, I'd hang on to it a short while before spending it, probably on food.
If I had $100, I'd waste it, but slowly, dragging it out for a while.
If I had $1,000, I'd waste it rather quickly.
If I had $10,000, I'd try to live on my own for a little while, and probably end up wasting it.
If I had $100,000, I'd try to live on my own, but meagerly, to rest and recover and discover myself. I might try to make some progress on things while I'm at it.
If I had $1,000,000, I'd try to start a business doing things I love, while trying to keep enough money to live on.
If I had $10,000,000, I'd waste a bunch of money on frivolous things, then start my business, probably not being as careful with that as I should.
If I had $100,000,000, I'd probably get some kind of god complex, set up all the businesses that I have ambitions on, and not brook opposition if I had my mind set on something. kind of a scary proposition.
If I had $1,000,000,000, I'd probably go swimming in it, and drown. Metaphorically, I mean.

Romance

Why is it so hard to find a man that knows how to truly romance a woman. I mean like dinner, conversation, opening doors, etc....and excpecting nothing in return at the end of the night except a kiss.

This is a question I stumbled upon on a Craigslist ad. The answer is actually pretty simple, although hard to say just right: You're expecting the wrong thing from the wrong people.

Sharing meals, having good conversation, being polite, and not expecting anything in return are what you do with people that you care about--with everyone that you care about. Coworkers, classmates, exes, that nice girl you met, that nice guy you met, that nice transvestite or transsexual you met, anyone.

Caring about people--giving them affection, and giving them a piece of your time, wanting them to be part of your world--is not romance, and if you expect that sort of thing to only be found in romance... people who truly believe that are going to be jerks, exactly because they're not nice to the people they care about by habit. And if you find someone who gives affection to everyone around them and try to get them to give it only to you--because you believe that doing otherwise betrays your "romance"--you will hurt them, hurt the people they care about, and make your own world a sadder place.

Nobody who is genuine treats the people that they love differently than they treat everyone else around them. If you want to see men who are gentlemen, who enjoy taking meals with you, who enjoy talking with you, then you must encourage them to do so even when it doesn't benefit you. If you encourage them to only think about the person they're Romancing, then they will only do these things when they want something from you--your relationship and most likely sex.

All flowers--from the most beautiful, to weeds--grow from their roots, into whatever ground they are planted in. If you want a flower to grow strong and healthy, you must care for its needs, which is a tedious business. You must understand that we are all gardeners, and we are all flowers. If you neglect the flowers that you pass by every day, you will most likely neglect the one flower you truly mean to cultivate, if only by force of habit. And those that you find truly are good at tending to flowers, the true Romantics, only learned how by being good gardeners, every day, to everyone.

Gender Wounds

I feel like the genders have been damaged, on purpose, in order to make them a 'match' for each other. By damaged, I mean that each side has been told to do and be something, rather than a normal, thinking, feeling purpose, solely so that someone can fill a role that by rights, they should be fulfilling on their own. It's a sort of... "You won't be liked for yourself; you'll be liked based on standards." So men try to be useful, and women try to be pretty, and neither of them focus on what they'd do if they ever convinced a mate to be interested in them.

It's stupid. Any man worth pining for has more nuanced interests than breast size, and most won't run out on a romance because you're average rather than pretty. Any woman worth lusting after isn't going to spend her entire childhood learning to look pretty--because once you and she are past the banging stage and gotten settled down, all those years she dedicated to looking pretty are either going to be no longer useful, or else she's cheating on you. Well, movie stars excepted, I suppose.

Now mostly, I think, men get the better side of that deal. On the other hand, men are supposed to be easily seduced--that's the whole point of the "women looking good" obsession, after all. Look good, get a man, end of story. If the man is married happily, well then, ruin his life, because he's supposed to still be seduceable. Oh, that panicked look on his face where he feels the bonds that are precious to him slipping away? He'll get over it. After all, you have tits. Whoo.

And then there's women. Okay, you got a guy, you got married, maybe you even got a kid, maybe the kid's even grown. If you fell for the stupid bullshit, you now no longer have any purpose, even though you're still alive. What do you do? Look pretty again? Have more kids? You didn't spend your formative years on something silly like, you know, hobbies, or ambitions, or a career.

Are people actually like this? No. Fortunately, even the worst cases will likely hit a hard time, fall out of the storybook, and land on their feet, even if they scrape their knees on the way down. The point isn't that people are forever scarred by this, it's that the feeling is there, and frankly speaking, that feeling does not trust human beings to be human beings. It does not trust them to be able to deal with the opposite sex in a rational way, in spite of thousands of years of breeding, and it tries to force them to be something they're not. Most people, except maybe a crazed subset, will end up normal in the end, because normal is the way humans were designed.

But I'd like to see something better in this world--I'd like to see a place where people weren't expected by friends, relatives, and suitors to be something other than humans with their own thoughts, feelings, ambitions, and standards. I don't know what I can do to help the world be like that, but I'll certainly try to do my part.

But it's really not all that easy. After all, I, too, like tits. Guess I must just be a man.

Politics

I think that politics is the fine art of saying "That problem is unsolvable; here, have a cookie." If it's a very nice politician, they won't even charge you for the cookie; if it's a very bad politician, they'll throw you in jail for bringing the problem up in the first place.

The problem politicians have now is that as more and more smart people learn more and more about the problems at hand, they come to understand that almost none of them are unsolvable, and they expect the politicians to actually do the job they were hired to do instead of being politic.

Frankly I wish everyone who thinks that politics is a better idea than actually trying should be shot. Whether something small and sharp is shot into them, or they themselves are shot out of a cannon that's just strong enough to get them out of office, I don't care.