Philiosophical Babblings

Date: 2000-06-07 18:52:02

So suppose there's a hypothetical ideal system X, which only exists in hypothetical worlds, and its real-world broken equivilant, X'. X' is not the ideal situation, as it has been distorted to the point where numerous loopholes exist to allow rich or resourceful people to manipulate it to their own gain, at the expense of the remaining members of soceity (or whatever the group directly affected by X'), who do not manipulate the system. Occassionally power struggles break out between two entities, each trying to use the loopholes to gain the upper hand on their opponent.

So the question arises when one considers what an individual should do. There is a continious spectrum between two extremes. On one hand, there is the individual who ignores that system X' even exists, who through either concious choice or pure ignorance behaves as if X were in place. The other extreme is an individual who is fully aware of all of the loopholes in system X' and uses them to furthur his or her own goals. I belive that both extremes are harmful. Case (a) is dangerous, as it leaves the individual open to being exploited by case (b). However, it is not as dangerous as case (b), which can lead to an even worse state, system X'', with even more loopholes than system X'.

So what should one do? It is my conclusion that the best possible course of action is to dwell somewhere in the middle of the continium, fully aware of the exploits to the system but only using knowledge of such exploits to protect one's self from them, while activally working to fix the system into one closer to X.

USA Tour, Florida: 20 Days