I've been thinking about the steps in a person's day.
1) wake up
2) do stuff
3) sleep or death
Steps 1 and 3 seem fairly mundane and step 2 is the interesting one.
It seems the standard model of personal economics now seems bizarre. For centuries, some variation of the serf system thrived throughout the world. One was either a landowner, property or a subsistence farmer/hunter/gatherer. Now the whole concept of "jobs" and "home owner" and "consumer" doesn't really parse into this system at all.
I was musing on the Klondike gold rush. A handful of people made a fortune, a few made a comfortable living and most failed and of course, some died. By a modern definition, becoming a Yukon panhandler seems like an irrational choice. Yet I can't help but think of the adventure, the excitement of being in a boom town, the opportunism, the fresh start as worth it. If I could be guaranteed not to die on the way up, and as long as I wouldn't be hungry for too long, I would make the trip. These things can't really be guaranteed, but I think I am resourceful enough to ensure success.
In short, does modern life seem to be missing something to you? I think we still have a serf system, it's just masqueraded in such a way as to cause undue stress. People stress because they don't have a job or their house isn't big enough or they missed GoT or whatever. There is no real middle class, the alleged middle class is simply the lower class pretending to be the upper class, wheras the alleged lower class just accepts a diet of Pepsi and Jerry Springer. That seems to be the trap - as long as you continue striving to be an elite, you are playing into their hands, as the elites in any system rig the system to make it difficult for you. I have always said that anyone not yearning for system collapse is either really rich or really dumb. Rather than striving to be elite, we should strive to dismantle the elite.
On the radio I heard a poll suggest that more teenage girls would rather be Justin Bieber's personal assistant than the President of Harvard. When the President of Harvard was interviewed, she said she'd rather be Justin Bieber's personal assistant to. (I just made that part up). It's really a false question. The question should be: do you want to climb the socioeconomic ladder in one elite-designed method, or another? The only way to win in the system is to design the system.
I mean, I get and like our established institutions. I like that I live in a country where I don't need to bribe officials. I like that the rule of law is generally obeyed and respected. I like that McDonalds has predictable quality. However, I think the cracks are beginning to show in the system. Speed Limits are a complete joke. The sign says "Maximum 100" but means "Minimum 100". Institutions only work when people strive to maintain them. The Egyptian constitution has went through several revisions through the past few years and each revision added new "human rights". The constitution for several years always had rights, but they were listed with a "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" attitude. The constitution said there could be no political prisoners, yet the prisons were full of them. Speed Limits in Ontario are like that.
Never mind the actual bloviation of institutions over time. Big government is terrible, but also inevitable without revolution.
Really, Brexit was a good thing as it stirred up the system. All systems have to suppress something to keep the system functional. You can even see this in family's that have an alcoholic where they won't mention the drinking. Here's the reality check: unless you are an elite, there is a good chance that you are being repressed. Keep shaking that revolution 8-Ball until it comes to an answer you like - "Looking Good".
