Prudence or preparation for warMethods for a deputy or a militant to devise and justify defense expenditures
How to find out what is an optimal defense budget :? Alles ist psychologisch Defense is the art of action (immune system training) and reaction (defense). 1) Peeling off the threats -reaction part policy All states have ministries of defense not offense. Words from abroad, whether threatening or reassuring, are something no one in the field should take too much notice of. We have actions at our perception. Just actions can be taken into account. In other words we think we know what missile tests, dispatches or satellite photos mean, but in what they show we see us, we don't know the other side intentions. We show and mirror the presumptions. Here there is an endless room for interpretation of the threats, from downgrading to paranoid war mongering. Optimal defense cannot be a direct or emotional response to threats. We don't know the past [what are direct causes]. nor future nor how to respond appropriately....[ experiments, signaling status games, showing off?]. We pretend to know what some international mischief really meant. All defense ministries have a weakness for ¨unintended¨ provocations and detest the sincere and modest relativism of 'I do not know'. If the level of investment in defense is a response to threats, the idiotic ideal of being prepared for everything is being born., It would be good to describe them from the 'all I know is there is the inner negativity bias [evolution biology pessimism]' point of view and then estimate, by history, survey or expert group, what % of recommended spending is recommended (inflated) in terms of the ideal of being prepared for everything. I.e. also how many % are overstated as a bidding bait/ sacrifice when competing for a budget, how much is inflated in terms of looking forward to tinkering tenders, army tunnels and profits, and how many % are inflated due to exaggeration and cooking of threats as a logical consequence of the homeostasis of organizations for threats, recognition or fight. These 4 tendencies bloat defense spending. This 'reactionary' bloat [the media justifications by threats are likely to be used and so showed] can be estimated and truncated. 2-Ask the grass, foundation of the state Another method of defining defense investments is to make them such {especially their content, not just budget money} that each of the citizens feels as comfortable as possible. Say if there is an 10000 USD offer per head to be spent let my head decide what to do, where to allocate or perhaps how to upgrade my own feeling and integrity via practice with rifles and pals and perhaps save some for the next year ...as in Switzerland. AI-driven surveys or referendum would help here. 3-Ghosts of the past ... Recognizing a trauma driven budgeting There are inherited griefs and grudges and these claims to fate or others are shared not only via the culture but also by mysterious ways ( epigenetic transfers) across the generations. It's a pity that there seems to be noone studying the macro of this epigenetics. (Micro is studied my psychiatrists, family-constellations therapists and such) UN does not have a body to estimate average sense of national entitlement as a debt against another nation or the fate. But these exist and fidget with military budgeting. Under unresolved grievances, it is easy to weaponize as the hope of repayment confers status. TI-esque studying, tagging and rating should bring about broader recognition and perhaps applications such as cross-country settlements that, according to science of these injustices, could cleare away mutual claims and restore, reconciled the macro mind gestalt . 4-If we are the prey then.. policy Do the Russians, the Germans, the US, the Slanted-eyed or whosever devils want to take all from us? Do they aim and arm diligently and is it really all they want? If so, the defense is the utmost priority. How much an aggressive foreigner spends depends on the plunder potential. Traditional intra species genocide, where one tribe kills everyone to have a place to breed, felt the most logical as there were shared proper-pillage profits. This used to be an accepted game until the oil regions and media. Now it is more like an industry using states {nationalism, lobbying] for its own resource driven pillage/profit. One should see motivations such as hostility [NATO as a bully] or envy behind those preparing to attack. On the side of peace, one must see the spotlight effect where everyone thinks a] they are the best and so have more b] the others envy it {the wall and fence culture} and c] the others are same judging them by our eyes, {we don't like you and so we don't understand that you don´t care about us}. This is possible in an area where the neighboring area is overrun with militant people. I don't think there are many more left of those. Here indeed it will not be fought with missiles (sorry no tenders bros) but with bespoke bio weapons like viruses. CZ CZ Kterak zjistit jaký obranný budget je optimální_::? CZ CZ Obrana je uměním akcí [imunitní systém] a reakcí na útok. 1) Reagujeme na hrozby Všechny státy mají ministerstva obrany nikoli útoku. Slova z ciziny, ať výhružná či uklidňující, jsou něco, na co by nikdo v oboru neměl brát přílišný ohled. Máme k dispozici činy. Tehdy lze brát ohled na činy aneb myslíme si, že víme co ukazují raketové zkoušky, depeše či satelity. Co ukazují vidíme, ale nevíme. Zde vzniká nekonečný prostor pro výklady hrozeb od snižování po paranoidní war mongering. Optimální obrana nemůže být přímou reakci na hrozby. Nevíme, co to je. Přímo neznámé příčiny, budoucnost ani jak vhodně reagovat (experimenty?) či co opravdu nějaká mezinárodní nekalost {lze očekávat, že všechna ministerstva obran mají slabost pro ¨nechtěné¨ provokace} znamenala. Prvním nepřímým krokem je mnoho spíše pesimistických [evoluce preferuje pesimismus] výkladů dle snahy o ideál přípravy na vše. Pokud by byla míra investice do obrany reakci na hrozby, je dobře je popsat a pak odhadnout dle historie, anketou či expertní skupinou, kolik % doporučovaných výdajů je doporučováno (nadsazeno) z hlediska ideálu přípravy na vše, kolik % při konkurenci výdajů z rozpočtu je nadsazeno jako licitační oběť, kolik % z hlediska těšení se na cinknuté tendry army trafiky a profity a kolik % z hlediska přifouknutí a pečení umělých hrozeb jako logického důsledku homeostázy organizací na rozeznání či potlačování hrozeb. Tyto 4 tendence nadýmají výdaje na obrany. Toto reakční nadýmání je možno odhadnout a odseknout. 2-Záloha základ státu Další metodou definice investic na obranu je učinit ji takovou, aby se každý našinec cítil co nejlépe. Základem bezpečnostních tanečků je zvýšení statusu organizátorů i participantů. Nic nezvedne hormon (pocit) jako si jednou ročně s kolektivem zatančit. Dejme lidu možnost si odhlasovat domobrany s pravidelným provětráním fald, pušek či houfnic. ( Schweiz). 3-nevyřízené účty Lidé s nevyřízenými účty tyto musí (nelze žít) řešit (Gestalt terapie)nebo musí změnit hodnoty . Obdobně tak neřešené křivdy z dob do 2 generace bývají stále čerstvé. Je možno mstít se za babičku, když rodiče nic nepodnikli? Asi ano. Za prababičku snad už ne, to by byla vyčůranost na ospravedlnění krádeže. (Hle vykopávka střepů prapředka = patří mi pozemek.) Škoda, že OSN nemá orgán na vzájemné zápočty dle odhadů těchto křivd, tak aby se zjistilo, která národnost, kmen čistě nejvíce nárokuje. Výsledky by závisely na indexu subjektivní síly času. Čas dluhy vždy smaže. Pokud by se chytrou propagací či virem síla indexu času zvýšila, křivdy by mizely a útočný (zbrojní závody) rozpočet by mohl být změněn na obranný až udržovací . Zde je variabilita největší: nemá li stát, národ či kmen vyřízené účty, což každý přirozeně chápe jako sumu nevyřízených rodinných křivd, je snadné zbrojit a čekat zisky, protože naděje na splátky dodává status. 4-Jsme kořist Kolik cizák vynaloží energie, záleží nejen na averzi či sdílené paranoie (9-11 attack on us US), kdy jde o to nepřítele vyhladit, ale také na lupu, aneb co si na nás Rus, Němec, Ušák, Šikmohled či kdo může či chce vzít. Tradiční invaze bývaly v končinách s ropou. Věda říká, chce li ministerstvo čehokoliv dožít konce století, nechá miliardu let biologických usazenin usazenu. Na straně přípravy na útok jsou tedy hodnoty statusu= motivace dominance, nepřátelství [NATO as a bully] či závisti a zisku = kořisti. V období míru je nutno ctít zkreslení spotlight effectem. Každý si myslí, že to co má, má větší než tržní hodnotu. Toto se na úrovni státu projeví jako zhmotnění vlasti zbožněním hodnot, tradic, kulturních i přírodních památek. To co nemá obsah je najednou chráněno zákony a je předpokládáno, že nám cizé národy tuto vlast závidí {kultura zdi a plotu}. Podle sebe soudíme tebe, a když vás nemáme rádi, tak nechápeme, že jsme vám shumafuk. Nejlogičtější se jeví tradiční mezidruhová genocídka, kdy jeden druh ostatní pobije, aby se měl, kde množit. To je možno v oblasti, kde je sousední oblast přemnožena militantním lidem. Takové kmenová napětí byla příčinou vzniku mnoha států, ale mezi sousedními již skoro nejsou,. Kurdové či Palestinci stát nemají, a tak je jejich vlastní státy jako nádor stíhají. Jde o území? Nevim Zde vskutku nebude bojováno raketami (sorry no tenders bros), ale spíše cílenými biozbraněmi.
0 Comments
I do not believe the communist ideal that people in a non-local society [say over 3000 members] would add to the common good as well/much as they could given their options.
No dear comrades, only in a local transparent society, the ideal of giving freely what I could is possible. Only there I can trust the reciprocation when all my needs are being met. Reciprocation is not working where there is a mist (may cover freeloaders) and-or mistrust i.e. with secrecy or when dealing with strangers. The rules of non-local deals are thus written in [town to state] laws since people would at large try to play the strangers (system), as you comrades did when you preached this ideal yet drank your privileges. Very few, probably nice, pure and perceptionally manipulated, believed {or still believe} this ideal since actions speak louder than proclamations. Comrades who climbed the opportunities ladder did not believe this ideal. They spoke lie using the party ladders and niches to become directors... claiming the companies successes, pretending to know the future when planning. The employees played this system their way. Their motivation was way under ´giving as much as one could´ and the saying among the bestest party outsiders went: 'they who do not steal steal from their family'. Zappa nodded and said 'people like to own stuff'. Our socialist past was a special case of unfair -ism when the privileges of the party members were implicitly and sincerely given= stated in the laws. Samewise the wealth equality was fairly praised and controlled as the old bourgeousts were punished just because they were richer. Today the fairest system is in Scandinavia because it is the most transparent one. Not as many players, few hidden motivations. Of course it has its problems and ways to deal with them. Niches in nature or society tend to be monopolised by one species, one solution. The bestest way. If the way is a new organisation, the problem's niche of abuse is created. In the case of monopolised solution, the transparency is a must, since every organisation created to cope with something has an existential interest in keeping that thing. With secrecy there is a free reign for the natural tendency of hidden adding to the problem despite the coping declarations. Firemen starting fires is old as state. The definitions of what needs to be classified must so be regularly contested. Any option for an experiment should be given a green light. Say, in one region some data is a secret yet in a similar another it is not. A good candidate for a secret act may be preventing the attacks on transparency. Like in this city we will secretly curb gdpr and other threats to its minimum and in other region openly. Competition/experiment here is to openly say: just in our region we keep the public transparency in (say) everyone´s income statements... Later one would be able to assess which worked better, which region´s society is healthier in individual happiness and lower corruption. Assessment is not by experts but surveys. A short time should be put on the publication of the old secrets so that the experiment conditions and results can be publicly viewed and expertly studied. In an organisation to cope with problems (at niches of abuse), there is a pressure to keep the gravy trail of non transparency or a monopoly. This will/force would try to suggest there is a trade of between transparency and competition in this, the most important of problems. The importance of a problem is subjective. One of yardsticks is in how much pressure (lobbying, corruption, keeping ´natural´ monopoly narration, holding on the old paradigm) is there to keep this problem being dealt by a monopoly or at least secretly. The secrecy of power (only 2 strong parties duopoly), of NATO top meetings with no minutes, of tenders condition manipulation suitable for chosen competitors. Is there a natural monopoly? Army? In a changing environment of many facets it is more likely than not that there are viable alternative, creative ways to make profit in the previous natural monopoly realms. The monopoly so dissolves. For example. The foreign security aka wars and invasions started to being dealt by alternative contractors, flexible forces with a more direct gravy trailing to the organisers than from the usual secret army tenders. “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” ― Frank Zappa Well, the minimum wage makes no sense in a 'normal' unspoiled societies with no subsidies or state sponsored pensions. This norm is now rare since there are traditions driven by a will to redistribute. It started with the pensions for loyal police or soldiers...now for anybody, rich or poor, there is always a trickle down for the redistribution organisers. [More organising means more posts to give to people who decide upon others. The ego flows in when you find your love to profile, test, label and give subsidies to others.] The wordings of forms to fill when asking a state for anything ...like entering.. are evidence of spoiled society.
If there are state benefits [housing and such], the firms would take a notice and, especially in cultures of high self reliance, can pay the low-skilled unorganised workers peanuts. The tested benefits do not let people fly. Clients are afraid to leave the scraping class. The scraping ones spend {and live and work} badly. A generous minimum wage law automatically uncurses workers and so improves the society. The lower middle [and poorer] workers should be given rather max viable wages since it helps their position as a customer [as well as an able worker/employee] and so rather helps their industry. With a generous minimum wage, the ego falls away and time flows letting one to live, as if in the zone. An interesting minimum wage effect went on in Seattle where it helped the local demand after goods and services. The low skilled industries were rather helped. More waiting jobs got open. A waiter with 50% extra USDs per hour does not save but spend it in their pub :) You know those lucky ex poor lottery winners- they jump to riches and spend as if there was no future [which is, with no saving for future, not] Later, with some nasty addicting habits, they go back to rags. This may be pretty a general rule. If so [a sudden {contrast} winner=spender effect] the workers would later get used to the surplus income, save more. Spending less, they will loose their zone-blessings. This would add troubles to the industry and raise the barriers to input the trade. Benefits curse life. Wage rise blesses, but especially in the fresh memory one. |
Authorbiodive.weebly.com Archives
August 2021
Categories |