Throughout history, there have been the warrior class rulers that lorded over their peasant farmers that tended their land. Kept in ignorance through lack of education and kept in servitude to serve their lord, peasants were basically slaves. Today, we are under the illusion that things have evolved beyond this scenario. But don't most people toil their lives away so that some wealthy land owner can enjoy the millions of dollars produced on the backs of his workers? The wealthy lord is seen as the conqueror that deserves his position in life. The wealthy boss is respected by his workers just as the feudal lord is respected and admired by the peasants he rules.

Today there is an illusion that you too can achieve a level of greatness but how much does that actually happen? How many people really advance to a higher station in life beyond the one in which they were born? Most people are born into the working class and that is where they stay. The quality of life has increased for the working class but the quality of life has also increased for the wealthy. The level of the working class is as far away from the wealthy as it has ever been, the scale has just been shifted and everyone has it better than it was.

Larger and larger political states are required to support the creation of larger and more advanced war machines. When spears ruled the battlefield, a relatively small infrastructure was needed to mass produce the weapons of war. More advanced weapons such as crossbows, chariots, catapults, and armor require a more advanced infrastructure to develop and mass produce.

Borders of nations expand until there is no more room for expansion either due to a natural boundary or another nation's boundary. If the other nation is drastically weaker as well as filled with valuable resources, it will be consumed by its neighbor. When nations achieve an extremely large size, it is not worth trying to conquer one another. In the animal world, intimidating threats serve as a deterrent for combat because even if you are clearly bigger and stronger the little guy still has sharp teeth and claws and might get lucky enough to severely wound you. With substantially sized and well resourced nations, it is to the point where even if you conquer them, you will be severely hurt by it and so it is not worth it.

Surviving through each and every day of your life used to be something that you had to worry about as a human. Some humans still have this worry today, but for those of us with computers and other modern luxuries, we pretty much take surviving into old age for granted.

Even today we can not survive without a group of other humans helping us out. A naked infant left in the wild won't survive. Some species on earth are born and never see their mothers again but we as humans survive by being in a group. Maintaining that group is critical to the survival of each member. Without elderly members to pass on a lifetimes worth of life-saving information, the young would die. For example, during a famine an elderly member can remember back to when they were just a child and point out a root that is not eaten by current members but is abundant and was what his/her tribe ate when they went through a similar famine. Without young members to hunt and gather food, the old would die.

As an aside, the reason elderly are no longer respected could be due to the ability of recording history in books. We no longer have to rely on the elderly to tell us what to do in a situation that we are unfamiliar with and which they already lived through. Elderly are no longer valuable resources since the information they contain is available in books. This is not entirely correct though, due to their longer existence the elderly have the potential to have learnt more and processed more data. This could give them a broader outlook and provide them with more informed opinions. It does not always turn out that way but the potential is there.

Without cooperation, the group would die. Due to the critical nature of maintaining the group, those humans that did not exhibit cohesive group dynamics ceased to exist. Natural selection produced humans that were successful in groups. Our behaviors and decisions reflect this group living. In teenagers for example, being part of a group is what drives their behavior. They base their self-worth on how they are valued by their group. They act in accordance with their group whether rational or not since it is about trying to conform as much as possible so that they are considered a successful member of the group.

In a pair-bond comprised of humans, decisions should be made by either a benevolent dictator or by consensus. If the pair is comprised of rational decision makers, then consensus should be utilized. If instead one's decisions are based on irrational "feelings" then a benevolent dictator should have the final word.

If logical, rational, and structured thought form the basis of both parties decision-making process than they should always strive to reach a unanimous decision. Problems can be hammered-out with a logical discussion and the most logical course of action to solve the problem will bubble to the surface. If emotional issues surface and cause a lack of objectivity in one or both of the parties then this will be recognized and weighed into the discussion. Once everything is weighed in, a best course of action will be undeniable and agreed upon. If it does not work out that one of the party concedes to the correct course of action, then chances are that they are acting irrationally and not following a logical argument. Remember, even though it might turn out that it is wrong in the future, there is still a "best course of action" that can be decided upon given the current data.

If two people cannot base their decision making process on sound logic, then it is better to designate one as the benevolent dictator. This should be the person that is shown to make better decisions more often. If you are wrong more often then not, what makes you think you are correct about this one particular issue? You are better off letting someone that is correct more of the time make the decisions. When two people argue without sound logic, then the outcome is hopeless. Both parties are providing unsubstantiated arguments which neither has any reason to believe over their own unsubstantiated and illogical reasoning. Both think they are correct and since their arguments are not based on logic, they cannot be disproved by logical means. Nothing will be resolved and only hate and anger will come from such a futile activity. Because of this, only a dictator that has the interests of both parties in mind, should be allowed to make the final decisions. It has to be trusted that the chosen dictator has the couple's best interest in mind.

If neither of these conditions can be met i.e. a logical partner or a benevolent dictator, then joint decision making should not be undertaken. The people should remain as individuals and not pair up.

The purpose of a government that was created by the people, for the people, is to provide for its people the basics of life. To achieve this goal, it should provide a means for the acquisition of food and shelter as well a safe environment from dangers both foreign and domestic.

Due to limited resources, it must develop a structured method to fairly distribute the resources that provide the basics of life. The current system in place is not fairly distributing resources. Certain segments of the population are provided for more so than others.

For example, certain segments of the population are safer than others. Should greater wealth provide for greater levels of safety? Do the wealthy have more of a right to life? Do they deserve better and healthier food choices that also assure their longevity. Do they deserve safer working conditions? Is it then fair to not provide top of the line health care to the ones working in hazardous professions? Why do the ones that require the least health care get the best health care?

Certain segments of the population are better educated than others. Again, should greater wealth provide for greater education? What possible benefit is it to maintain large segments of the population ignorant and ill-educated? Is it a form of slavery in order to keep them working in menial jobs? Why isn't every person that is a part of the "people" educated to the fullest extent of possibilities? Why is it fair for those that already have all that they need to have even more while keeping those that have little in the dark about how to achieve more?

The system in place is unfairly distributing resources amongst its citizens. The basic rights of life are stolen from most and given to the few. Those not receiving their share cannot just join the ranks of those elite few. It is an exclusive club with high barriers to entry. With history as a guide, it will either be a noble elite that recognizes this unbalanced scale and strives to balance it or it will be a revolution by the people, for the people, bloody or otherwise that will bring about its balance.

You people suffer from having an incorrect perspective on life as well as from having unrealistic expectations. For one, you have no bearing on human history compared with your current position and lifestyle. A hundred years ago or even a thousand years ago you would have been born into service at a wealthy estate. The majority of people on earth have always been laborers and not rulers or wealthy elite. Your days would have consisted of labor-intensive tasks repeated every day of your life.

You are under the assumption that life has all these great and wonderful fruits that are just there for the plucking. But as a quick study of human or non-human lifestyles will show, life is mundane and ordinary. The sun comes up, you gather food, eat, defecate, gather food, procreate, eat, defecate, and then the sun goes down and you sleep.

Too many stories have told you otherwise. Stories that were written by the most mundane of people that sat alone for hours on end doing absolutely nothing of interest except in their minds as they sat and wrote what they thought. Most of them did not live the lives they wrote about.

There is nothing wrong with the mundane and the ordinary. It is how animals have lived for the past millions of years i.e. "same crap, different day". It is how humans have lived for the past 100,000 years of their existence as well. You will most certainly cause yourself grief by trying to obtain something outside of the natural order of things. It is unrealistic and the wrong perspective. You have to learn to love the small things like sunshine on your face, the taste of fresh ripened fruit, a smile, a laugh, a cute cat, etc.

The best thing for you to do is to find a comfortable spot with some good and decent people and relax and enjoy the simplicity of life. Most people think that fulfillment and happiness are god-given rights and something that they should have naturally. But fulfillment and happiness will never be a constant thing, all you can do is appreciate them while they are there for the moment.

the thought of tearing the flesh off of the bone of an animal repulses most people except when it is cooked and served for dinner. they eat it just fine because of an altered perspective. most women would say they would never kill another person but then ask what if someone were harming your child and a lot would find killing acceptable. to some, insects are nasty, dirty little pests that should be exterminated and to others insects are a vital part of the environment. to some, the idea of a lion killing a gazelle is awful but to others it is a natural part of life which without the gazelle population would increase to the point that they would run out of food and starve to death. it is all perspective. change it, and your life can be as good or bad as you perceive.

modern slavery is just an extension of every civilization of the past

Every ancient civilization was based on slavery. There had to be someone to do the manual labor that built the empire. Monuments had to be built and granaries had to be filled. The royals, clergy, and bureaucrats were the educated elite that prospered from the toils of slavery.

Slavery has served as the foundations of civilizations even into modern times. The U.S. was based on slavery, which without, would not be the wealthy nation it turned into. Slavery is free money to get you started in your empire. It gets you over that initial hurdle of starting an empire with little money. If you need money to start an empire but you need an empire in order to make that large a sum of money then your answer is to use slaves.

Has slavery really ended though?

Slavery most likely began from the enslavement of defeated foes in war. You took the families and brought them back to your home and made them your slaves.

Modern corporations vanquished small companies and left the employees out in the cold to rot. They now have to come groveling to the corporations for employment on the terms that the corporation sets.

If you are working for the benefit of others instead of you and your family then are you not a slave? If you are not sure if you are working more for someone else's benefit than your own then ask yourself this: Who gets richer from your labor? Do you or does your boss who is already rich? Is it the usual case of the rich getting richer? Someone is benefiting a lot more from your labor than you or your family. Has slavery really ended?

A long time ago in human history there were little tribes of people all around. One day a baby was born. This baby grew up to be hell bent on world domination. From some fluke of nature, this baby had an inkling to enjoy the idea of world domination. That's all it took. This baby then went on to rally his tribe to conquer a neighboring tribe. He then went on to conquer all the tribes in his known world. His genes that contained his love of world domination spread to his descendants. Like a tree branching out, his descendants branched out and conquered more and more all while spreading their genes.

Those tribes that lived in peace and harmony and thought that the world was a big enough place for all tribes were consumed by the tribes that contained leadership bent on world domination. When a dominating tribe met another dominating tribe, war also ensued. When both tribes were equally matched, boundaries were created. The dominating tribes would expand and consume until powerful opposition forced it to stop.

This consuming and expanding is what created the political boundary lines on maps in our atlases. Many countries would have gladly expanded into all of europe until it was one solid country. Opposing forces stopped this from occurring.

Our ancestry is full of conquerors. It is in our blood. Unless resistance is offered, conquerors will rise from our populations and try and follow through with their quest for domination. If you offer no resistance, you will be taken advantage of and consumed in an ever-expanding empire sought by a conqueror.

need to go on hiatus again. need to catch up on reading. infrequent updates. read extensive archives if looking for something to read.