Test All Things; Keep What is Best

What if we could, together, create a world where this wasn't necessary?

What if we could create a world where everyone had what the needed?

Would there still be problems and challenges? Yes, of course!

We believe that we are so advanced as a species and yet we have never 'evolved' past the fight for survival! We have so much in this world. So much abundance, so much technology, so much knowledge, so much energy! And yet so many go without or are brought up in a way where they believe that they have nothing to contribute and must fight for their survival. We have systems in this world that do not ENSURE everyone's survival.

Does it have to be a choice between total competition for survival versus totalitarian control?

Is it possible for us to create a world where everyone has what they need and yet those who work hard can also be rewarded for their work?

Do we have to choose between capitalism and communism?

Can we not listen to Jesus when he said (in Thessalonians) "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" ?

Race, Division, Competition, Survival

In reference to the recent video of several black teens abusing a white "special needs" man:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-police-race-motive-video-attack-44570046

"Police believe the victim was targeted because he has "special needs," not because of his race."

I don't have all the facts, so I am not in a position to know what exactly happened other than what one can see on the actual video which is online, but if the tables were turned, and this were 4 white people beating a black guy and making him drink out of the toilet and yelling "F*** Obama" isn't it obvious that the media would jump on it as racially motivated?

What is sad is that there is a definite attempt to divide people by race in this country by those in positions to benefit form chaos and fear.

When will we come together as humans and learn to live in harmony? 

Its easy, though perhaps intellectually lazy, to just blame the people committing the act, and while it is important that we do not deny others' responsibility for their choices and actions, we must at the same time look at the total environment and how it plays a role in shaping the choices that people make. It is rare that we as individuals make choices in a vacuum. There are rarely any completely free choices, totally unencumbered by past experience, memory, education, upbringing, beliefs, etc. The danger, that those on the political right would fear is that this line of reasoning would excuse the 'bad' behavior of those who do harm to others. On the other hand, though, the left would fear that we would unnecessarily punish those who 'know not what they do' and have been influenced 'unfairly' by "systems beyond their control," as Frank Zappa put it.

I was listening to Stefan Molyneux yesterday and he brought up a point about not taking pride in one's gifts. For example, pride in one's inherited intelligence is a false pride because one did not 'earn' it so to speak through applied effort. It came naturally through no fault of one's own. He said rather that, speaking of his own intelligence, he sees it more as a responsibility to use to the benefit of the world, as a servant, so to speak.

Where do we draw the line in terms of our individual responsibility to the collective. We understand the danger of putting the needs of the abstract collective above the needs of an individual, especially when the benefit is only seen in the abstract collective but nowhere individually. 

Take someone like Warren Buffet, who self admits that he has a higher genetic propensity to compete in a 'capitalist' system. Does he have a responsibility to only use that gift for the benefit of all and should he suppress his ability where it might benefit him at the cost of others? If we live in a system that has no physical restraints against this then shall we leave it up to the individual to make the moral choice to use both their gifts and developed abilities in a way that benefits everyone (or at least harms no one.) The question, though, is whether in a completely free system, where even from birth there is no coercion and all of one's needs are met whether one would develop any desire to do anything that would harm anyone (at least not intentionally).

Is it possible for us to see ourselves as individuals but also as an integral part of the collective and to place the interests of both equally? I don't think that this is something we can 'enforce.' Meaning, we are not going to create a utopia where there is an enforcement of equality amongst all where each one benefits to the maximum extent possible. Because, as humans, if we are not engaged in creating our own happiness then what are we doing? Isn't our happiness intrinsically linked to our engagement with reality? If we are merely following government mandated prescriptions that are designed to keep us in line so as not to harm anyone then can we be happy? It seems to me that it must be by our own choice that we do no harm. It must be by our own choice that we seek to provide value or benefit to others or even to ourselves. The question then is why is this not happening already? Why is our system such that it reinforces a mindset that only seeks to put one's own survival first, all the while believing that one is self-sacrificing for the common good. And those who reject any form of morality and are the most competitive seem to come out on top. Is this an accident of nature? Is it just that we haven't evolved enough? Is it just that we haven't learned our lesson as of yet? Is it by design? If so, who is designing the system?

Is not the system a reflection of the collective? Could a totalitarian system exist made of individuals who accepted nothing less than self-direction?

What are your thoughts?