What Humanity Gave Up

I think I know how to explain this now!

I call it, "What Humanity Gave Up." And the point of this thing is that humanity gave it up but did not need to give it up. When people talk about greed being the root of all evil or money being at the root of all evil, this is really what they are talking about. So let me explain this to you and then I'll conclude and hopefully it all still makes sense:

Originally, mankind possessed the land, they grew crops, hunted, built homes and lived pretty simply. 

Then, factions formed--or perhaps in the process of discovery, they formed--either way it doesn't matter, factions formed. People started to get greedy and envious and other people hit on hard times and they all did the same thing: they attacked those people who were outside of their faction. 

Again, their motivations were: They wanted more than they had. --Everyone could fall into that category, whether because they had 0, nothing, and wanted enough to meet their needs, or because they wanted more so that they could live the life of luxury--they merely wanted more. Then, they used force to get what they wanted: more.

 To protect themselves, these farmers and hunters had to develop weapons and defenses. Some people had to devote more of their time training than farming in order to be at sufficient skill to protect those who were farming and hunting and building. 

In boiled down terms: because someone wanted to fight, someone else had to defend. Attackers and defenders were formed, and some did both: attack and defend. 

But those defenders, the original humans, the ones who truly had a grasp on what it meant to be human--they gave up the life of farming and hunting and building and existing, just because someone else forced them to--some other human who was greedy and out of line and rogue and evil. 

Conclusion:

The thing that humanity gave up was freedom. True freedom. 

We could have been an idealistic society where everyone is given a parcel of land and told: make do with what you have. And some people who were given worse land than others could have just accepted their fate and struggled through life and died, possibly a short life. 

This type of society could still buy and sell, it could be capitalistic so long as there was no force--only free will to give and take according to their own conscious. 

But, the reason that this society is idealistic is because at some point, someone gets greedy, someone says "my capitalism is superior" and they make deals that are unfavorable and "forceful" in many regards (blackmail, for example, or deceptive, pressure tactics, etc).

We gave up true freedom a long time ago when we decided to protect ourselves from others who would steal from us.

These days, American society is tipping towards an even stranger philosophy. The belief was instilled early on in the founding of the US goverment that people were obligated to take care of the poor--specifically that they were obligated to EDUCATE those who can't afford education so that everyone would be given an equal ability to vote. Previous to that point, to receive an education, you had to work for it, you had to save and then pay for your education. Today, we have politicians seriously promoting free college education--paid for by the wealthy, just as it was in the past. And let's be honest, the arument does not need to be stretched much to fall in life with the original intent of the founding fathers: to make sure peopel were smart enough that they could make an educated vote--even with a high school education they can't make an educated vote, so what difference would a cheap college education make? 

This argument for public schooling extended to today where we offer free assistance to the poor via food stamps, housing vouchers, baby formula, etc etc--because if they aren't in good health, how could they focus enough mental capacity to make an educated vote?

We can argue many different ways that socialism is merely the act of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots for no other reason than to give the have-nots a better chance at living. This, in theory, could be a good system, but it relies heavily on force: Big brother takes from those who have and forces it to be handed out to the have nots. 

Both Capitalism (deceitfully robbing the poor by "capitalizing" on limited resources) and Socialism (forcing those with means to give to those without means) are doomed systems. 

The reason they are doomed systems is because of greed and more importantly FORCE. 

Wherever there is force, there is no freedom. If you do things out of force, you do not have freedom. 

If you pay taxes of any kind because you are threatened with jail time or confiscation--then you are being forced and it is no different than when the bad guys came to the farmers and demanded food from them. This is force. If you are drafted against your will--this is force.

Half of humanity gave up freedom when it forced the other half of humanity. Until we can find a remedy for this, there will be no freedom.

I have a warped sense of Friendship

This article was prompted by a conversation I had with Courtney, but I'm going to stray from using the traditional dialectic format.

I was attempting to tell her how difficult it is to have fans and stalkers and how my personality is the type that wants to be nice to everyone and have no enemies. I told her that I have tried two methods to deter these people from bothering me: 1) Telling them off in some form; 2) ignoring them. I think both responses fall under Competition/Aggression vs Avoidance, but I don't need to take this article in that direction.
At one point in our conversation, I made a realization about all of these people. A few of them actually:

First, I realized that I have an agenda with each of them, and that agenda is that I want to be friends with them.

Second--and this is where it gets complicated--I think they all want to assimilate me.
I think they want me to share an emotional bond with them as strong as the emotional attachment that they have with me. And somehow, (if you've read my other articles) that we'll experience the exact same things and be completely on the same page and unified. They want me to be on the same level that they are and when they are giving, they want me to be giving, then when they are passionate, they want me to be passionate, or playful or angry. They want me to be so firmly connected to them that I'm a continuation of them as a person, and that's no good. It's not good for me. It's unrealistic.

This theory explains a lot... my previous ex's were attached to me because I really was emotionally tight in that way with them, but then they fell apart when I strayed because I am my own person.
Every date I've been on in the last two years has gone the same way: if I wasn't emotionally mimicking them, they wouldn't be interested, but if I matched their emotions and parroted back to them, they would want to come back for more. All of my "fans" or stalkers or whatever you want to call them seem to be holding out for hope that one day I'll suddenly become just like them and emotionally connect to them and never let them go, but to me that's a little nauseating.

I like people for being themselves and being respectful of me. I like to connect emotionally with people, but I don't expect it and don't hold out for it, and don't pine for it. I want to share experiences with people, but I want them to form their own opinions and emotions of those experiences-- let me repeat: I do not want them to mimic my emotional responses to experiences that we share. I want them to form their own emotions and opinions. --I don't know what I have said in the past; it's been a while since I re-read what I have written, but connecting on that level is not the raison d'etre.

The raison d'etre for any relationship is to share the same moment of time, both feel positive emotions regarding it, and then both communicate about what they are feeling.
It is watching a moonrise together and person A sharing a story about how their father used to take them star gazing and how it felt so peaceful and safe, and person B sharing their emotions about how they are so glad to be around person A and how they make them happy.
--Notice: Both people shared different things in this hyp-examp. One was emotionally nostalgic, building neural pathways between the association of person B and their father. Person B was feeling emotionally grateful, happy and content that person A was in their life.

I would love to be EITHER A or B.

That's where I think I have a warped sense of friendship.
I don't care about WHAT emotions are expressed as long as they are positive.
I also don't care what the experience is, so long as it can be talked about positively and communicated positively.

Those seem to be the ideal ingredients: positive emotions, and communication. Though, the communication is more of a catalyst. The positive emotions are necessary for sure, but sometimes you don't need to communicate to trigger the reaction.
At least... this is what I've found anyway.