Three makes a business: Conclusion

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

Conclusion

Let's look back at the questions we proposed in the introduction.

What actually is a business?

How does it come to be?

What purpose does a business have?

What purpose does it serve?

What kind of people make up a business?

What makes a good employee?

What makes a bad one?

What kind of people become customers?

What makes a good business?

Why do some go under?

We can now provide the answers:

A business is a money processing entity. The goal of a business is continued existence. It grazes for a specific type of money that grows on land consisting of a specific type of customer. It's internal structure is defined by the kind of money it is adapted to.It is created by the evolutionary niche it fills. The effects of processing this money are products and a lighter pocket of the customer.

Employees are hired and fired based on their attitude, effect and social aptitude. In most businesses you will find combinations of all the possible values of these three characteristics in its employees. In theory you can distinguish between good and bad employees. In many businesses and for many positions people are hired and fired based upon subjective notions (in the absence of tangible production).

People become customers out of want or need. They become our customers depending on our choices for advertising, treatment and product quality. Our decisions are guided by the available competition.

Three makes a business. The choice of grazing lands, the inner workings of the company and the approach of the customer are the key areas when it comes to conducting business. A good business plan is based on a study of these three areas. Companies that go under fail in one or more.


With this knowlegde we can understand our lives better as customers and employees. Our powers and vulnerabilities. We know what a business wants from us and what we can get out of it. For the business owner the areas that require attention are laid bare.

Now it is up to you to restart the renewed battle for survival.

Three makes a business: Succes or failure

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

Good business versus failed business

A business is an entity that seeks out and processes the money of the customer via the labor of the employee. The effect is the product. The only purpose of a business is to exist.

So what makes a good business and why do some go under? It all comes down to the decisions of higher management. They are responsible for the following:

The selection of grazing lands. If people are no longer demanding phone lines, a telecom company can either die or choose to diversify. For instance by providing multimedia products and mobile connections.

The inner workings of the company. Health is important for the brain, the nervous system and the individual cells. If you have excellent workers but can't get orders down to them, your operations cease. Individuals that provide the desired effect have to be selected and maintained.
Material management, facility management and logistics are an important part of the innerworkings as well. If you pay too much for raw materials and can't get the product out in time your company might fail.

The approach of the customer. As higher management you have to accurately determine what type of product you want to sell to which type of customer under what kind of conditions. A famous example is VHS versus Beta-max. You can have an excellent product, and be very proud of it indeed, but if you fail to convince the customer, you loose.

A good company succeeds in these three areas. A bad one fails in one or more.

Next chapter: Conclusion

Three makes a business: The customer

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

What kind of people become customers?

Let's first give a definition of the customer and the product. If we continue to use the metaphor of the company as a cow: customers are people that are after a company's dung and in the pursuit of which get their grass cut. Of course this is not very flattering. Here is a more neutral version.

The customer: a person that purchases a product.
The product: a service or object produced by a company intended for sale.

These are very clean definitions. However they just focus on the physical action. Let's take a closer look at what a customer actually is.
Every employee generates manpower. Or better said: working hours. The effect of these working hours is a product. In exchange for the effort, money is given to the worker. A resource that can be exchanged for any other kind of resource. When buying a product, the customer exchanges his or her working hours for those of someone else, swapping the products he produces for products of his choice, essentially having produced these himself. In effect the customer is the agent who decides on what manpower is spent. A company just stores products temporarily while handing out money to employees. It again receives money when a customer buys the product. It also provides the working space.
The net result of all this would be zero. In reality, there is the market place. I will make no attempt to explain its complexities in this text. For this text it was enough to make the point of what a customer really is, and what essentially happens in a purchase.

Different types

Now we know what a customer is, we can look at the different types of customer. When hungry, we buy bread. When we got the money, we buy a fancy car. There are two types of customer:

The willing customer: a person motivated by want.
The unwilling customer: a person motivated by need.

Note, need always supersedes want. For example, let me provide you with either drugs or bread. Which gets bought? Want is a subjective term. I might judge you to want drugs and need bread. You might need the drugs and opt to forgo the bread.
Of course you might think of many more types of customer. Happy, sad, enthusiastic, disinterested, loyal, disloyal, incidental, habitual, etc. In this text making the essential difference is enough. When we buy a product the chief actor is need or want. Other characteristics such as behavioral, psychological or socio-economic characteristics merely impact on need and want. All customers and companies can be classified by just these two (a company might produce bread, or fancy cars).

Getting the customer

So how do we get the customer to become our customer? And once they bought our product, how do we keep them loyal?


Advertising

Well we first have to communicate existence of our product. We can do this in two ways:

Honestly: it exists. You can buy it. It does this and that.
Dishonestly: let us lure you in. Our world is wonderful. We give amazing purchase value. We will tell you with a smile that it does this, that and more... so much better than anything out there. But really it doesn't.


Advertising has the greatest effect on the first purchase. Once a customer knows the product, the effects diminish. Of course if the customer is happy with the product, advertizing for a new product can have great effect.
Depending on customer psychology, market and product, advertizers choose a mix of both reality and fantasy based elements.


Treatment

Secondly, we treat the customer a certain way. There are two extremes for this continuum. They are the same for what we do and how the customer perceives it.

Good treatment: the customer experiences treatment matching or exceeding his standards.
Bad treatment: the customer experiences treatment below his standards.

Treament of course has impact on each individual purchase. However the effect is most felt in the area of customer loyalty. Very bad treatment might scare customers away from even the initial purchase. However if your company treats people allright, but the competition treats them great, you will still loose business. Treatment is also influenced by the type of customer. Whether a person needs or wants something, makes a great difference.


Product

Then there is the product. In recent times it has seemed that the actual product matters less than the customers perception of the product and the company. Take Apple versus the rest. Samsung, LG, Sony, they all wish their customers could have the same experience with their products as Apple customers. It has been argued.. that the products are virtually indentical in their capabilities and production costs. Perhaps Apple customers just prefer the beautiful and seductive fantasy created by the Apple company above the more mundane experience provided by it's competition. However, it still matters if your product works as advertised, or not. If Apple were to produce a defective ipod, their customer base would shrink.

There are two basic types of product:

The single purchase
The service

These are the extreme ends of a continuum. Bread for instance is per unit a single purchase but  a service when customers go back to the same bakery each time.

There are two classifications for any product:

A product based on need
A product based on want

There is one intrinsic characteristic of any product: the continuum called quality. The product works as needed or it doesn't, or somewhere in between.

Based on the kind of product we sell and customer we want to sell it too, we can make a choice for the quality we offer.


Means versus waste product

Do note that in this text we state that products can be seen as the waste products of an organism like a cow. You could instead state that products are the means by which companies collect money. Like the mouth of a cow. Products enable the company to graze money.. Perhaps there is merit to both metaphors. However, if you look at what happens to money in a company and why people buy products the original metaphor of this text holds up.
Money is processed into usable materials for the company in the same way an organism processes food. It becomes infrastructure, real estate, salaries, bloodvessels and cells. And after all usable materials are collected from the food, the unwanted materials are pushed out, which are helpfull to generating more grass, but can not sustain it since more is taken than delivered. Grass grows because of sunshine and materials in the earth. Eventually grass exhausts the land it resides on. Usually rivers etc. prevent this by carrying sediment down hill. The same goes for the customer, it's not sustained by the product, the product only helps it a bit. Most of it's materials are delivered by other means (income stream).
Products tempt the customer to give money to the company. It's the temptation (advertising -which includes the product being on the shelve-, treatment, etc.) that is the mechanism by which it is collected. This is the mouth. Only after collection and processing a product is delivered. The company's adaptation to its environment includes the mouth, the way it sells (collects grass).
Now you can say: Well hey, for most companies, you receive the product immediately after buying. But this is just a temporal paradox. It's a little like the company already produced dung from the money it has yet to receive. More exactly, it's the dung from the previous money of the previous customer. For some companies like a custom furniture company, the metaphor of the cow holds up even in the temporal sense.


Competition

There is one more factor that decides whether people become our customer. The available choice. Our own decisions on advertising, treatment and quality are directly impacted by the competition, or lack there of. Location is a good example. If people have to travel too far too reach your business, they will opt for the competition. This referred to as a local monopoly.

Company policy

When we leave out morals and law, the choice businesses make for how they advertise, make products and treat customers depends on the type of product, the type of customer and the position in the market. Let's look at a few examples.

For simplicity, we disregard other factors in each example.

Two types of customer: need versus want. Grocery story versus jewelery story. A jewelry store has to tempt the customer to buy, a grocery store only has to be there. People will buy food no matter what. There is no need to lie about the product. There is no need for quality and good treatment either.

Two types of product: single purchase versus service. Car company versus telecom company. The financial risk of lying is higher for the telecom company than for the car company. The latter only has to convince the customer once. The same goes for quality. As long as the customer believes he is making a good purchase, it doesn't matter if the fuel economy is actually lousy. As for treatment, the car company only has to treat the customer well once. After that, calls can be ignored.

Two possible market positions: monopoly versus competition. General Electric versus Apple. The need for effective advertising is high if people have plenty of choice. The same goes for quality and treatment. Apple has plenty of competitors to worry about. It needs to excell in all areas. If you are the only one who can make certain types of industrial generators, you can afford to make different choices.

So when do people become customers?

People become customers out of want or need. They become our customers depending on our choices for advertising, treatment and product quality. A great influence on our choices is the available competition.

So what makes a good business? Let's explore this subject in our last text.

Next chapter: Succes or failure

Three makes a business: The employee

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

What kind of people make up a business?

Let's take the cow again as a metaphor. The actions of a cow are directed by it's brain. The brain communicates these actions via the nervous system to the cells.

Leaders: people that make the plans what the cow should do in order to survive and grow. They are the brains of the company. They decide on the what and when.
Communicators: people that communicate the orders of the brain down to the cells, and the reactions of the cells back up to the brain. They are the nervous system of the company.
Workers: they are the guts, bones and muscles of the company. They process the food, move the body around and carry it's weight. They give off signals of compliance, content and malcontent to the nervous system.

Of course things are a little more complex, both in nature and in business. A body consists of various organs and other cell groups with specific functions. There are muscles, kidneys, lungs and the heart. In companies these individual parts often have a similar structure to the whole, consisting of a local brain, with local communicators and local workers.

Commonly in business the different groups of people are named thus:

Higher management: central leadership. one way outgoing communication.
Management: local leadership. two way outgoing communication.
Employees: workers. one way outgoing communication.

So now we are done with talking about the people that make up a business. Right? Well... not quite. There are more characteristics yet unrevealed.  We can discover these via some additional questions:

What are good people to have?
Whom can you do better without?

Good people, common people and bad people

Let's look at the people first. There are many character types and traits, depending on which psychology book you happen to open. What kind of traits are important for a business? For which positions? Leadership, endurance, foresight, loyalty, self reliance, team-player...?
I won't attempt to echo any business school psychology texts working out detailed descriptions for each possible kind of position. Instead let's keep things simple. People make a certain contribution to the company. They do this with a certain attitude towards the work in a social enviroment. Thus there are three factors when it comes to employees. There is attitude, effect and social aptitude. There are three basic types of employees for each.

Effect
Future makers. These are the people that help the company to increase in value.
Steady rollers. These people maintain the value of the company. They keep it shipshape.
Failures. People that decrease the value of the company. They harm production and morale.

Attitude
Progressive people. These are people with idea's. They put in more effort than is required. They care about advancing the company.
9 to 5 people. People that put in the required effort, but no more. They do not volunteer idea's. The company is just a job to them, in order to eat and pay for housing.
Slackers. These are the people that do not care about the company. They put in minimal effort, if possible below requirement.

Social aptitude
High. People that are well liked and well connected. Often able to acquire positions well above ability. They often end higher than where they started.
Medium. People that are just part of the group. They get along fine with everyone. They progress at a steady pace through the hierarchy of the company, often settling just a few positions above where they started.
Low. These people lack the ability to present themselves well and connect with people. Or they just don't care. Often they are disliked and shunned. They could be either anti social loners or just awkward. Often these reside in their starting position forever.

Combinations
In each employee there can be any combination of these three characteristics. Do note, attitude and effect are not the same thing. A person with a thousand idea's that loves the company is not necessarily a future maker. Lets look at some combination examples.
-You can have a future maker who is a slacker and a loner. A brilliant scientist that is often absent and disliked. Could not care less about the company. Still when available this persons minimal efforts provide the company with the greatest new products.
-You could have a steady roller that is a progressive. Sadly the idea's provided are not worth much. Still the work done on maintaining the company is well worth the pay.
-Then you might see a failure, who just puts in the hours from 9:00-17:00. However with a very high social aptitude this person is able to convince everyone the job is important and gets done very well indeed.

Hiring and firing

Personnel gets hired and fired based on these three characteristics. Attitude is judged in the interview, and effect is judged from previous employment. Attitude replaces effect if there was no previous employment, or the effect of which can't be judged.
Social aptitude is often not judged consciously as a trait. Interviewers and managers are people, and often they just experience the other person, liking or disliking him or her. However this trait is at least as important as the others for getting hired or fired. It decides the favorableness or harshness of the judgment on the other two. Bad attitude and failure can gradually wear down the effect of high social aptitude during employment.
When it comes to firing, effect and social aptitude ofter matter more than attitude. This is because higher management often favors productivity above attitude. Futheremore, like and dislike are important factors in the willingness of a boss to fire you

So who gets to work where? 

When it comes to higher management, management and employees, which variants are most represented where? You might be tempted to give a quick logical analysis. If you were an employee you could tell me higher management would of course be full of people with high social aptitude. Not necessarily skillful ones. If you are in higher management you could judge that employees are mostly steady rollers, with a 9 to 5 attitude.
If you ask me, well, i simply don't know. I have no figures, only logic and observation. The chances of getting hired for higher management depends a lot on your social aptitude. But the same goes for the position of common employee. The interviewer has to like you. Being effective is as important for keeping your job as employee as it is for a manager. Then there is this: you can only hire and fire the people that are there. Some companies have the luxury of being able to pick out the raisins from the porridge. Other just have to select all kinds. It is likely the different types of people enter, work in and leave a company equally spread over all levels.
This estimate is quite apart from any attitudes the lazy 9 to 5 worker bees might have towards the soulless incompetent management.
There is no need to look in detail at why people become employees, since this can be directly mapped on the needs, wants, attitudes and aptitudes of people and companies.

Now we can take a look at the customers. After that we could analyse what makes a good business and why some go under.

Next chapter: The customer

Three makes a business: The definition of a business

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

The definition of a business

Lets start with the how and the why. If we know how something is formed and why, perhaps we can more easily answer what it is. Directly focusing on the what might get us blinded by the many parts a business consists off.

How a business comes to be

Suppose there is no electronic telecommunication. We have to send letters or travel in order to communicate. Suddenly someone genius invents the phone. A very handy device. Instead of sending letters people can now connect instantly. In the area of communication phone service is usefull for everybody. A social demand emerges. So another genius starts a business. Why? To provide a livelihood for himself. Out of demand one can make money. It's such a good idea that many people join the business as employees for the same goal. They want bread on the table, and telecom seems a good way to do it. The emergent organization quickly becomes an established one. With a management structure and a product delivery structure it provides the public with what they want and thus its members with a livelihood.

The purpose of a business

Since a business consists of individual people, that gather and work as a collective to provide people outside the organization with a product, we can detect three separate purposes:

Individual purpose: to provide a livelihood.
Collective purpose: the continued existence of the organization.
Social purpose: to provide service X in area Y for customer Z.

I have already taken the liberty of defining these purposes. The definition of the first purpose seems clear. We all need to eat. The second and third do not. To the casual observer the social purpose is also the collective purpose. Businesses exists to provide products, do they not? So let's ask some more questions and see if these early definitions hold up.

Does a business have a collective purpose?
seperate from the social purpose?
seperate from what it produces, from what it does?

Is there even such a thing as a collective when it comes to people working in a business?
is a business more than the sum of its parts?
is there an emergent entity? 
or are we just a bunch of individuals doing our thing that happen to gather in the same place?


Entity or individuals
Any organization is an entity apart from the individual blocks that form it. It emerges out of the combination. This is what organization does. There are individual parts that might do one or more things. Lamps provide light. Windows provide protection against weather. Seats provide comfortable storage of people. Wheels provide mechanical transport. If you connect these individual parts, a new entity emergences: the car. A car is not a window based product, a lamp housing, or a wheel extension. None of the individual parts can do what a car can, yet together they are something new, an entity that has its own separate existence.

Goal: existence or product
The goal of an entity in the telecom world seems clear. To provide telecom service. A product. However is this what they are really after? Perhaps they are after the customers money? A livelihood? Maybe the product is just an effect of this desire..
Let's look at nature for guidance. Grass appears as the result of evolution. A cow comes along and starts eating it. What is the purpose of the cow? Does it come there specifically to make sure it doesn't grow to long? Does it come to fertilize? No. The cow comes because it its hungry. It isn't at all concerned with any purpose related to grass. It wants to eat. It wants to live. That is it's purpose. By effect it does provide a service in the world, cutting grass and fertilization via dumping dung. However the cow itself does not have this purpose. The services provided are merely the effect of a hungry cow.

The cow itself of course is also a result of evolution. A being adapted to eat grass. So there is a cause and effect relation to grass and cows. Because there is grass, there is evolutionary room to evolve a being that can exploit this resource. So the nature of a cow is directly related to the nature and existence of the grass. It's a grass processing facility.

The mistake often made is this: to either confuse nature with purpose, or effect with purpose. The purpose that a cow strives for is to survive. Not to process grass. Not to cut grass or dump dung. The nature of a cow is a grass processing facility. By processing grass, it survives. The effect of this effort to survive is cut grass and dung. This happens to have a social function for the environment the cow lives in. It is without intent, but it is still there.

So the goal of a business is not to provide a service. It is to survive. To exist. As a result of this desire, it seeks out grazing lands, processes grass and provides a service to these lands. Via evolution a business is the result of adaptation to the grazing lands that are there. 

The stated purposes hold up. Now we know how and why businesses come to exist. We can now proceed to the definition.

What is a business?

Let's break down what a business is with telecom as an example using the metaphor of the cow.

There is land. For a business land consists of people. But not just any people, customers. People that want products in a specific area. In this case the area of telecom. So the land a telecom company can graze on is customers that want telecommunication.

There is grass. The land consisting of customers interested in telecommunication is fertile ground for a specific type of grass. Telecom money. The money people are willing to spend on telecommunication.

There is a cow. In the land consisting of customers interested in telecommunication products, the type of cow that can harvest the telecom money that grows there, is the telecom company. A fruit company can't digest telecom money.

There is dung. The telecom money that grows on the land consisting of customers interested in telecommunication products is cut by the telecom company, processed in it's stomach, and after extracting vital nutrients (salaries), the byproduct is returned to the land. These are the telecom services.

So now we can define a business. The definition becomes as follows:

A business is a money processing entity. The goal is existence. It grazes for a specific type of money that grows on land consisting of a specific type of customer. It's internal structure is defined by the kind of money it is adapted to. The effects of processing are products and a lighter pocket of the customer.

Next chapter: The employee

Three makes a business: Introduction

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

INDEX
Introduction
Definition
The employee
The customer
Succes or failure
Conclusion

Introduction

A business. The workplace. A social gathering with a purpose. A place where things get done. People and materials are moved around and money is exchanged. Everyday some kind of a result is achieved. We all go there. Either as customer or as employee. Not a thought spend on it. So let's do just that.

What actually is a business?

How does it come to be?

What purpose does a business have?

What purpose does it serve?

What kind of people make up a business?

What makes a good employee?

What makes a bad one?

What kind of people become customers?

What makes a good business?

Why do some go under?

Let's see if we can answer these questions one by one and enhance our understanding of a business. In the next text we will focus on the definition of a business. From there we can explore the employee, the customer and finally list the factors important for an effective business.

Next chapter: The definition of a business

Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

INDEX
Freedom versus Oppression: Introduction
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

We have defined freedom as the freedom to pursue our own desires coupled with the absence of limitations placed by others. How should we then define oppression? What do you think of when asked the question: what is oppression?

Basic Elements

The basic ideas about freedom were divided between freedom to and freedom from. A desire and a limitation. Any ideas about oppression could then be classified under freedom from, or better said oppression by. Oppression would be a limit placed upon your desires by others. Thus the basic elements of oppression would again be desire and limitation.

If we follow the analysis from the previous article we can define oppression as follows:

Any kind of limitation placed by others upon the pursuit of our own desires.

However, let's not be hasty and take a closer look. It is too easy to simply follow the definition of freedom, even though freedom seems the logical mirror opposite of oppression and they should have a all elements in common. What state of being is to be oppressed? The absence of free choice? Or the lack of freedom to choose? Perhaps the presence of desire or the presence of limitation? Maybe it's simply being forced to carry out someone else's desire. We need to explore these questions before we can determine a more solid definition.

Concepts derived from oppression

Lets take a look at a few concepts derived from oppression and see if we get any wiser. There are several kinds that spring to mind immediately. There is the oppression we choose, oppression by fate, and oppression by force.

The oppression we choose

I choose to go to work each day. I do not want to. For me, it is oppression. I would rather be sipping margarita's in the Bahama's. If only that could be my job. My jobs limits me in what i want to do. Then there are the social niceties. I choose to say good day to everyone, and hear out colleagues i am barely interested in. I could choose not to, as some do. However that would mean people would shun me. Life would be more difficult. Still, i find it oppressive. And how about going to the dentist? Do you like sitting in the waiting room for 30 minutes of dread? Followed by another 30 of sheer horror once they call you in.

It seems the oppression we choose needs to be in our definition of oppression. Let's put it to the test by asking some relevant questions. Whom can we blame? Is it possible overcome this oppression? Well we can blame ourselves. I choose to go to work. I can overcome it myself, by not going to work. That is easy. Harder would be to convince my boss to give me money without me showing up. However, why do i go to work anyway? Why do people choose their own daily oppressions? Now we come to the issue of what is practical and what is not. The reason i go to work is obvious. I need to eat and would like a roof over my head. I accept the oppression in order to fullfill my desire to feed. There is no one to blame for the human need to feed, and it can't be altered. Chosen oppression has at its source an intrinsic desire that can not be altered. It is pointless to include in any definition of oppression. Only oppression with an external source we can blame and resist effectively seems relevant. This would be other humans.

Of course you could argue the following: if your parents let you and your brother choose between cleaning the floors or doing the groceries, it's still chosen oppression and from an external source. However the choice for doing the groceries is motivated by the desire to be free from filth. The doing of chores itself can be separated from the choice. It falls under external oppression by force.

Oppression by fate
The next concept is oppression by fate. Here are a few examples. I feel oppressed by my age. I am no longer a spring chicken. I can't do what i like without consequence anymore. I live in a poor African nation. I can't get a good job and escape disease. I feel oppressed by my situation. I have math class every day which i suck at. I feel oppressed by my own lack of capability.

With this concept we can apply the same logic as before. Only oppression from an external human source seems relevant. What we can not alter is useless to blame and therefore impractical to include into a definition of oppression. Any fate based oppression simply falls under either human based oppression or non relevant oppression when it comes to the definition.

Oppression by force
Oppression by force seems to be the most relevant to our definition at first glance. It is the most well known form of oppression. It has the most famous example: slavery in the United States. Another example is one of the many the Nazi rules for Jews: Jews can not walk on the sidewalk. Oppression by force consists of two variants. People telling you what to do, or else - and - people telling you what not to do, or else. Oppression by force can thus be divided into limitations upon our own desires and the forced pursuit of the desires of others.

This last element provides difficulties for our earlier definition. If i am forced to work in the cotton fields i pursue the desire of my master. I am limited in my own desire to.. well.. not work in the cotton fields?? What if there is no desire that is being limited? What if we are soley forced to pursue the desire of the oppressor? Technically the definition still holds true. Oppression by force limits you in the pursuit of your own desires, even if you can't think of one right now, and even if you have to pursue someone else's desire. There is always something you would rather like to do, then slave for another. In order for the definition to be recognizable however, we would need to include external force and the desire of others.

We can now apply the same logic for any variant of oppression. Oppression from a source we can not alter seems irrelevant. Only oppression from an external human source seems relevant, and only oppression by force (or threat of force). Oppression still consists of the basic elements of desire and limitation, though external force and the desires of others seem to be the more recognizable.

Note: oppression by force can happen directly in the moment, or via the mere threat of action. A most famous example of the latter: oppression via laws. There can be made no effective distinction between force and the threat of force when it comes to oppression, since they have the same effect on the oppressed. They make people do things they do not want to do. The only substantial difference is that the threat could actually be hollow, a bluff. So in these texts i will make no distinction.

Choice versus oppression

In our previous text we determine that free choice is an illusion and only freedom of choice mattered. We also saw that without desire, we can not be, even though technically desire limits freedom and is thus a form of oppression. Our own desires can therefore be excluded as a form of oppression and free choice can be excluded as it's opposite.

The state of being oppressed is the presence of limitations upon our freedom of choice. We can be denied the pursuit of our own desires, or forced to pursue someone else's.

Oppression as a potential

Potential is relevant to oppression as we discovered in the text about the definition of freedom. Oppression lies not merely in the actual force used to suppress an attempt to fulfill a desire. It is the overall limit we experience on our potential to pursue our own desires.

The definition of oppression

At first glance the definition was as follows:

Any kind of limitation placed by others upon the pursuit of our own desires.

With the basic element of oppression being the same as for freedom: a desire and a limitation.

We discovered by examining concepts derived from oppression that force and the desire of others are very important sub elements to desire and limitation. Oppression can either be the forced denial of our own desires, or the forced pursuit of the desire of others. Without addressing this the the definition seems vague. We can now have two definitions:

Any kind of force used against us limiting the pursuit of our own desires.

Any kind of force used against us to make us pursue the desire of others.

However two seems a bit much. Can we make it simpler? After all, the limits placed upon our own desires would be motivated by the desire of others, and the forced pursuit of the desires of others would limit our own. If we want to boil it down to one definition we can use the following:

Oppression is the application of force in order to limit our own desires in favor of those of others.

In the next text we will take a look at what kinds of oppression and freedom there are.

Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

INDEX
Freedom versus Oppression: Introduction
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

Freedom versus Oppression: the definition of freedom

What do you think about when asked the question: what is freedom? Perhaps freedom from work. Or freedom from someone bullying you. Maybe freedom as the opposite of slavery. It could be that you see freedom as the possibility to do what you want, when you want. In this text i attempt to find a definition of freedom.

Basic elements

Ideas defining freedom can be classified in two categories. Freedom from and freedom to. Freedom from perceived negative factors, and the freedom to act upon a certain wish or desire. If i am freed from slavery, i can go about as i please. If there is no law enforcement, i am free to steal, murder of simply jaywalk. I want to eat burgers all day, but i fear early death. Once Hitler was beaten, European Jews could practice their religion once more. In these ideas there is always a coupling of two elements. A desire and a limitation to act. These are the basic elements of freedom. Any idea about freedom can be expressed in these two elements.

Concepts related to freedom

There are many concepts related to freedom in one way or another that could potentially impact our definition. For instance, suffering, opportunity and intrinsic capability. Would any freedom related concepts also impact the definition of freedom? Is there a need for several definitions of freedom? Let's take a look at a few examples of concepts that are related to freedom.

Intrinsic capability

If i desire to fly like superman, there is no human holding me back. However there is the oppression of gravity. Within my body, i lack the capability to overcome this limitation. Of course i can build a flying machine, or perhaps a machine that bends the laws of physics, or even reach a plain of understanding that lets me fly like superman, but at the moment, i can not simply walk out my door and take off. Believe me, i have tried. Intrinsic capability is a limitation on freedom.

However is intrinsic capability a practical or even fair kind of limitation to mention in a definition of freedom for mankind? If you are not capable, whom do you blame? Can it be changed? Is it practical for us humans to rage against nature? Against the way we exist? Perhaps not.

It could be that someone broke my wings, of course. I had the capability but lost it. That would not be an intrinsic limitation on my freedom, it would be extrinsic. It comes from an external source outside of my body. A human action. Freedom in this case would be to be free from the action of another. And this is achievable, by stopping this person, either by force or by persuasion. Of course this idea about freedom this would simply fall under: a limitation on a desire. No need to mention capability via a separate definition of freedom.

Of course if i simply lost my balance and broke my wings, what then? There would be an external cause right? Well that depends how you look at it. Whom is the blame? No one. It would also not be possible to alter this past event. The problem would simply become an intrinsic one again, a limit from my own body, without practical use in the definition of freedom.

Opportunity

Then there is opportunity. I never had the opportunity to become an astronaut. I had the capability but i wasn't selected. I was never given the chance to speak in front of my class, and thus become a great politician. My school did not believe in public speaking. My band was never picked up by the mainstream industry. We could have been great. These are just a few lost opportunities that have impacted my freedom to do what i want. You could say that my essential freedom, the American right to pursue happiness was lessened. So should opportunity not be included in the definition of freedom? The same logic we used for capability applies. If there is a human external cause that limits opportunity it would fall under freedom from the actions of others. A limitation. If it is just luck, the way the universe panned out, it would be pointless to include it.

Suffering
As a final concept i would mention suffering. After this one, i think we can keep applying the same logic if we were to find more. If you have cancer, you suffer. It would be great to be free from cancer. Or at least freedom from the pain, the debilitation. However, again there are things we can do something about, human actions, and things we can not (yet) alter, and where no one is to blame. The things we can not alter would be useless to mention. For the events we can have an effect on, it would fall under freedom from the negative influence of others. Freedom from a poised water supply (fracking) for instance. So freedom from suffering would not be specifically mentioned in any definition of freedom.

Now that we examined a few concepts, we find an important factor for our definition of freedom. For practical reasons, we will have to limit ourselves to the human dimension. Freedom to can only be about things we can actually do, and freedom from only concern human influences*. There are many more concepts you might think off, like the concepts of need and fear. As mentioned above, we can apply the same logic each time. Every freedom to and freedom from idea can be broken up into a desire and a limitation. No concepts related to freedom, have a separate place in the definition of freedom. No matter how important they are, no matter if they were the first thing you thought of when freedom was mentioned. There is thus no reason for separate definitions of freedom.

*to be more precise, sentient influences. however since there are no aliens yet, i only mention humanity.

Desire versus free choice

The actual definition of freedom is a little trickier than merely sorting out what we should mention in it and what not. We haven't fully explored freedom to and freedom off. What actually is it to be free? Free from what, free to do what? Freedom from desire, from limitation? What state of being is freedom? Is it the famed ability called free choice? Or freedom of choice? Let's take a look at desire versus free choice and find out what is useful in the definition of freedom.

If i have the desire to rape children, do drugs, or kill people, am i really free? You might say no. I would be suffering from mental disease. A burden on me and, if i act, on you. The best thing for me would be to be freed from these desires. The best thing for society would be to lock me up and melt down the key. A few easy conclusions. However, what about the desire to be famous, or eat a lot of chocolate? With some thinking, we might conclude these desires too would be something we best be free off. They lead to obesity and America's got talent. Clearly for a lot of candidates in hindsight something best done off camera.

Let's now make it a little more difficult. How about the desire to go for a walk each day. To help others, to read books, do science, to vote for Jesus. A desire moves us to to do these things. If i desire, i am still not free, or am i? Why do i want what i want in the first place? Can i choose not to want what i want? Can i choose something else to want?
My desires..they make me do what i want to do. But i simply have them. I have no choice not to want, only not to pursue. I can't choose something else to want. And no choice is ever free from desire. The choice to pursue would mean my desire to makes the decision. The choice not to pursue would mean my desire to be free from makes the decision. Usually from the punishment of society, or perhaps my own disgust.

And here lies the issue. A desire is absent of free choice, yet it rules our behavior. Our desires are programmed into us by the experiences of life, and our D.N.A. This means we can never be really free. We can not shed our desires. Or could we? Would true freedom perhaps mean we could choose what to desire, or choose not desire at all? Many people have pursued this would be true freedom. However, they were mistaken in their pursuit.

Why? Well, let's turn things around for a bit. What would choice mean without desire? What would a human being be without desire? If you are not motivated somehow, you can not make a choice. Matters would go undecided. Nothing would happen. Our species would go extinct. You might say, well, if you are not motivated by your own desires, you could attend the needs of others. Yet, the will to do so belies a desire. Namely the desire to help others. For whatever reason. Vanity, the need be liked, etc.
Free choice means a choice impeded by nothing, not even desire. The ability to make a choice without any predetermination. The pursuit of freedom from desire can of course be useful, to rid yourself of desires you yourself judge to be harmful. To entirely go without would mean the absence of being, of a soul. You would not exist. Just imagine it. No desire to...eat, breathe, talk, make fun, apologize, think, act. Thus no choice can ever be truly free. It is always motivated by something. And that something is always based upon a desire. Furthermore you can not freely choose what to desire and what not, because this choice too would be motivated by a desire.

Desire does limit our freedom, technically, but without it we would not exist, both in the existential sense and the physical one. Free choice is an illusion. It can not be included in any definition of freedom. Freedom of choice of course is covered by including our desires and the limits others might place upon it. In any definition of freedom, we would have to allow for human desire and remove free choice. It would include the freedom to pursue our own desires, and the limit others might have upon it.

Freedom as a potential

We are almost there. There is one more thing i want to mention. Potential versus action. Does freedom mean doing something, or having the potential to do something? People often perceive the latter as true freedom. Take the freedom to do what you want at work.. The boss is a limiting factor for a lot of people. Looking over your shoulder perhaps, setting up rules maybe, or judging you in personnel reviews. His mere presence might be perceived as limiting what you do or when you do it. However, would this mean if there was no boss, you would be eating pizza and throwing around computers all day? Or make funny prints via the copier? No. Most of us would tire of this behavior very quickly, if not out right reject it. We would want something to get done, to be useful.

Without a boss we would still work. However we would often choose to do things differently. People like to have the potential to do what they want. They would not take random and negative advantage of this. Having a boss is always at least partly unwanted. The reason for this is the overall limit a boss places on the potential to pursue our own desires. Not merely the limiting of actions that harm the company.

The point is that any limit placed on our potential to pursue any possible desire is felt as thus, a limitation.. The limit on our ability to commit murder, law enforcement, is still felt as a limit. Always, by anyone. Law enforcement limits our potential to act anyway we see fit. We would rather be without this limitation. That would be true freedom, would it not? No limits placed on our choice of action. No limit on potential. Of course this does not mean we would actually commit murder! Neither does it mean we don't want anyone to stop a murder. We very much do.
Our definition of freedom would have to include any limits placed on the potential to carry out our desires. Even the ones we agree with, or the ones we understand. They are limits, however useful.

The definition of freedom

At first glance, the definition is as follows:

Free choice, without any limitation on our actions.

If we apply what is said above about choice it would be:

The freedom to pursue our own desires. Coupled with: The absence of limitations on the pursuit.

If we then take into account what we discovered about some of the factors that might impact the definition, such as capability, suffering and opportunity, we discover that for practical reasons we would have to limit ourself the human dimension. The definition becomes as follows:

The freedom to pursue our own desires. Coupled with: The absence of external human limitations on the pursuit.

What we discovered about potential would not impact the definition. We could stress the importance of potential by saying: the absence of any human limitations on the pursuit. However, i think it is enough to just to be mindful of it. To smoothe the definition we can make it:

The freedom to pursue our own desires and the absence of limitations placed by others.

In the next text i will discuss oppression. Some of the questions that are generated by this text will be asked and hopefully answered. For instance, via the text about potential, you might wonder what kind and level of oppression is actually necessary.

Freedom versus Oppression: Introduction

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

picture: the dutch symbol of freedom and pictures of the reoccupation of indonesia

INDEX
Freedom versus Oppression: Introduction
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of freedom
Freedom versus Oppression: The definition of oppression

Freedom versus Oppression: Dutch Liberation Day Celebrations

Today may the 5th 2016 we celebrate liberation day in the Netherlands. The Germans formally surrendered to the Allies on 05-05-1945, more than 71 years ago. Ever since our country has been at peace. We the Dutch had lost much to the German oppression during the hunger winter in '44-'45. The Germans had taken all our food and many people died as a result of starvation. Liberation was the biggest moment of joy in our 400 hundred year history. Large parts of our country had been liberated by Canadians, who did not ask anything in return, and did not occupy our nation. After the war they just packed up and left, leaving us free. The world could not have been brighter, live could not be more promising. Or so one would believe.

A great cynical event took place almost immediately after our liberation. Our colony in the far east, Indonesia, had declared it's independence. However the Dutch government disagreed. We wasted no time reoccupying Indonesia and began a campaign to suppress the freedom of the people of Indonesia that lasted another 4 years. At the time a colony was seen as a legitimate form of possessing another people. Few Dutch had any considerations for the wishes of the Indonesian people. Might they not also want to be free?

How much cynicism must one posses, to commit such an act? You could state that we did not deserve to be liberated. It certainly would have been better for the people of Indonesia. Although today we give a lot of high and mighty speeches about the value of freedom and human rights, our tiny country has a rather large blemish when it comes to these values.

However our behavior is far from unique. The British and the Russians did the same. And so did the Indonesians. Indonesia is actually a large patchwork of peoples and islands. Today the largest population, that of Java, dominates the many smaller tribes and peoples. Often against their will. Take for instance the people of Atjeh. They are treated as second class citizens and denied many rights and opportunities. These histories are just a few examples of how mankind conducts its affairs in relation to itself. It seems no people or race is blame free. Even the freedom loving Americans have been known to support a dictator or two.

Given our conduct, questions arise towards the value of freedom and the nobility of mankind.

What is freedom?

What is oppression?

What kinds of oppression are there?

Why do we want freedom?

Why do we oppress?

Is it acceptable for others to be free?

Do we want others to be free?

Are we prepared to fight for the freedom of others?

How much of our noble nations actually holds up under examination?

Gay Marriage

Mainpage / E-Mail / Facebook / Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay marriage

In the last decade gay rights have been a hot topic. Many changes have occurred in many nations. The Netherlands adopted gay marriage, as did many of the states of North America. A debate rages between those for and those against, often based upon different viewpoints about rights origination from various religions and philosophies.

People on con side argue it is unnatural. That it is untraditional. That is debases conventional marriage. That it is against God. That only those who can produce children can be married.

People on the pro side argue that gays and lesbians can have meaningful commitments just like us, and ought to have those relationship validated in the same manner as we do, by marriage.

And you know what?

Both are right..

Let me explain.

Traditional Marriage

In early societies children were very important. Children meant survival and continuation of the group. They also meant security for the parents in old age, and survival of the line, or as we now know it, the genes. How do you secure the birth and raising of children? An important and immediate question for any society. In hunter-gatherer groups the right to mate could be secured by mere strength. The alpha male and his lieutenants could easily dominate the few dozen people in their groups. However in larger groups this was no longer possible. In order to make people work together there would have to be regulation in this area.

More important questions popped up when mankind moved beyond the mere hunter-gatherer groups to form the early settled societies. What is yours and what is mine, who belongs to whom, who inherits what? It all has to be regulated in order for a society to work.

For this reason marriage was devised. A social vehicle to bind two people into an exclusive child rearing relationship, the cornerstone of any early society. This institute provided not only secure child rearing but also social structure. It provided exclusivity to a relationship, thus securing posterity and ownership of both wife and child.

Of course, you can not just marry two people. In order to give the relationship true meaning and weight in society, a ritual is needed. Depending on the society, these rituals could vary immensely.

Usually however, since it provides absolute meaning, absolute truth, and absolute values, religion was involved to seal the deal. A marriage by God has true meaning, since God is absolute, and needs no other explanation or validation. Marriage was devised as a sacred ritual between a man and a woman, before God.

Marriage thus was permanent and divorce virtually unheard off. A divorce would not only break the sacred oath to God, but also destabilize the tribe. Every child producing couple counted towards the survival and power of the settlement.

Gay has always existed. In some early societies, people did not pay much attention to gay relationships, nor declared it an abomination. In Roman and Greek society, gay was accepted, but not taken seriously. How could they. Sex with another man or another woman is perhaps pleasurable, but what function does it have? No ritual was devised for a gay relationship.

In other societies however, it was seen as an abomination. How could God, whom we used to give marriage 'true' or more correctly, absolute meaning, ordain a non-child producing relationship? Man and woman exist to make children, marriage is the holy vehicle for that, why accept something that makes no sense at all: gay? It does not have a function, and it subverts or undermines the holy marriage. Man and man can't have children! It's a mockery. People who do it are unnatural and should be punished.

So this is why marriage became not only a tradition, but a sacred institute, not to be subverted by any means. It is the natural binding of man and woman before God in order to produce children. It secures the survival of the tribe and regulates society. It is completely understandable and even justified that people today seek to safeguard this institution from change.

Now let's take a look at the other side. Why are they also right?

Modern Marriage

Societies evolve. From alpha male led hunter-gatherer groups of a few dozen individuals to modern capitalist democracies involving millions of people. Across the world different societies in different stages of development are to be admired. Compare for instance the modern Americans to the relatively primitive Papoea's in New Guinea.

Knowledge also evolves. We used to think the sun went around the earth. Now we know that it is satellites that go around the earth, often sending us unwanted emails about Viagra. The sun remains at the center, if a bit wobbly.

Today we also know this: gay has always existed, and is common among many species of mammal. There are gay horses, dogs, cats, goats, mice, monkey's and apes. It is genetic. It is in the brain. Sexual attraction can be set on the same sex.

Our knowledge of gays themselves also increased. We know gay people can and do have the same feelings for each other as we do for our spouses. We know gay people are just like us. They are lawyers, businessmen, truck drivers, civil servants, teachers, criminals, police officers, construction workers, soldiers, politicians and even clergymen. They wake up in the morning and go to work or school. They pay taxes. They sometimes cherish their parents, or fight with them. They love going on a holiday and detest Monday mornings. When they grow up they often have multiple relationships before finding the one true person they want to live with. Just like us. And when they do, they want the relationship validated. They want it to mean something in society. They want to bind with their partner in a meaningful and traditionally accepted way. Again, just like us. They do not just want a piece of paper granting a certain civil and legal status, or a box on the tax form. They want the ritual we all know as the ultimate declaration of a meaningful relationship. They want marriage. It is the natural choice.

Traditionally an important part of marriage is children. Gays can not produce children. This is a hard fact. Of course they can and do obtain them via surrogates, traditional marriage or adoption... Data from various countries supports the notion that lesbian mothers or gay fathers can provide children with the same support we can, and have no influence on their sexual orientation. But this is besides the point. The hard fact seems not so relevant anymore. The continuation of the tribe is not threatened by a small percentage of relationships that do not produce children, since our societies no longer consist of a few hundred members, but millions. Child mortality has also vastly been reduced by modern medicine.

Regulation of society by binding a man forever and exclusively to a woman also seems a dated property of marriage. Many marriages end in divorce. Most of us have multiple relationships in our lives. Marriage of course still regulates and provides for a lot of matters, like material ownership and legal and civil status. However society is no longer dependent on people staying together, not even for the rearing of children.

Religion also is no longer the only provider of marriage. Many couples marry outside the church. And today there are many religions and so many strands of each religion. The meaning of marriage in modern society is no longer defined by religion. A Muslim marriage carries the same weight and meaning as a Christian or Hindu marriage. Of course for many people it is still a religious bond, but even though we believe our own religion to be the only true one, we still recognize the marriages before other Gods. And thus the social vehicle of marriage has become independent of a particular religion.

This is why the gay community is also right. Marriage has changed. It is no longer bound to the rearing of children or religion. Society is not dependent for survival on marriage. Yet marriage still is the ultimate existing validation of a relationship. Gays merely seek equal validation for their relationships.

The Choice

So now what do we do? Do we grant gays a vehicle to validate their relationships? Should it be called marriage or something else? Who ultimately has more rights to the institute of marriage?

It was predictable that the issue about gay relationships popped up in the West first. We are at a stage that we can see beyond the traditions and beliefs of the past, and understand that gay is natural. We can recognize that gays want a validation of their relationship.

Technically, we could deny gays the institute of marriage. Tradition defines it as a bond between man and woman. There is no denying modern societies need an equal institute for gays. It has become merely a question of title. They will just have to call it something else. They could call it civil commitment, or a declaration of partnership, or...?

There are reasons to overlook this tradition born technicality. Gays want the same recognition and validation for the same type of relationship we engage in. They want the same social benefits that marriage brings us. The new institution would be the same in practicality. Marriage already exists. Why create something new?

It comes down to our principles. What do we hold more dear? Life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness? Or tradition? Christians used be murdered in the Roman Empire for their non traditional faith. Protestants used to be executed for the same thing in medieval times. Traditions change. Do we choose to be petty, and force gays to create a new institution, or even go so far as to deny them validation of their relationships? Or do we choose to evolve as a society?

Fears

Gays seem fickle, and so do their relationships. Years of gay pride parades, movies and television shows have engraved this image of gay in our minds. Fringe characters marching in outrageous costumes are seen as representing all gays. This is not true. Your teacher is gay, your landlady is gay, your doctor is gay. Heck, your neighbor is gay. Perhaps even your own brother or sister. Maybe you never knew. Do they act all that odd? Do they go through a million partners every day? No. Most don't. Most gays are in fact perfectly boring human beings. People that you know. They slave away at normal jobs and have a relationship or two before finding the one. Gays and lesbians look for stable exclusive life-long partnerships. Just like we do. An example is the show Will and Grace. Jack is the stereotypical feminine and fickle gay person. An oddity in society. Will however is how most gays are. Boring... normal...

Another fear: does gay marriage debase traditional marriage? Could you marry a goat now? Well perhaps those people that are mean and petty should marry goats. It would make for great comedy. What is marriage, foremost, in our modern world, if not the recognition of a meaningful and permanent relationship between two people? Why would a man deeply in love with another man, debase the marriage between a man deeply in love with a woman? Marriage is meant to validate a meaningful amorous relationship between two equals, not between a man and an unsuspecting goat or a Hollywood woman and her chihuahua.

Conclusion

The argument against is gay marriage is both understandable and technically justified. It should be respected. But not honored. It is not of this time anymore. We have evolved. In the new world, as we know it today in the West, and many other parts of the world, we recognize what marriage means today and what it meant in the past. It was the sacred natural institute that bound man and woman before God in order to produce children. Today it is the ultimate validation of a relationship between two adults. Our fears about gays are unjustified. They are just people, nothing more or less. We should be noble, and grant equal rights to our fellow human beings. The lifting of the principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness above tradition is what has always evolved societies. This was true in the Roman world, as it is true today.