"Humanitary assistance is given to children, women and elders". What about the others, who are not involved in the war, but affected by it?
Here's a rather useful sort of preemptiveness: warmongers should be jailed instantly along with the warmongers from the related camps, and let only those out, who will decide to cry, loudly, for a humanitarian amount of time, "war is stupid, I want to be part of, and help build a, civilization".
Here and there, I hear or read about civilization, and, while the dictionary says it's an advanced state of human society, i'm pondering a more operational definition of it.
A civilized society should be able to guarantee coverage for the basic needs of the modern human: food, shelter, health, knowledge (communication, education, research). As a limit, if a human is born today, he should be provided with these resources to live to the estimated end of his life, unconditionally. I mean that he should have no obligation to do any kind of formal work to acquire those resources, except the actions necessary to use and maintain them.
This provision is, in my opinion, what a civilized society basically means.
A society not being able to provide food, shelter, health and knowledge (communication, teaching, research) to all its new members, gratis (for free, as in free beer), is not civilized, I would call it primitive.
A truism: a primitive society is a society which can't afford to grow a modern human.
So, I'm pretty dissapointed I haven't heard of a civilized country yet (and I'm 40+, btw). If you heard of one, please let the readers and the author of this blog know.
Note: I'm not talking about making people compete for these resources, that still belongs to the animal realm, to a primitive world; a modern human is defined by having a natural access to them, and by his ability to maintain or create them so any neighbour can have natural access to them too.
There's a horrible term today, in wide circulation: "earn a living". What??! Why did you bring a newborn in this world? To put him to "earn a living"? Did you ever ask yourself if it's worth it? Better find a way to check that out before enslaving him to this idiocy.
Quite a few adults would say it's no problem with this, you have to earn a living, but if asked to state the motives for this attitude, it becomes clear that this answer is a matter of instinct: while you're alive, you should check the neighborhood first to satisfy your instincts, certainly you'll be able to satisfy some, and you can keep going hunting until you die. Fine, but that's just animal instinct, nothing part of the definition of a modern human, a civilized human. Again, it's nothing wrong with being animals, that's what we are, basically. But my point is that 'basically' isn't enough to make me or the surrounding society, civilized.
Some other adults would be shocked to listen to any alternative to "earn a living", their point being that, letting a human do whatever he thinks, the human would do nothing except consume food, so he will harm himself and the society around. That would be true only if the human wouldn't be naturally endowed with something beyond the animal features: capacity to learn.
A human, starting as an animal in a civilized society, can't simply consume resources (knowledge among them) without feeling miserably after a while, he will start looking for something to make him happy, and he will, given the resources above, understand rather soon that he'll not be happy himself unless the modern humans in the neighborhood are happy too. A modern human, in a civilized society, would start acting as a consequence of understanding his civilized context, that is, in as much freedom as is humanly possible.
Unfortunately, this is not the current situation with us, all of us. We are either born on somebody's property or work for somebody's property (watch carefully around), or work for 'our own' (those of us are the 'happy' primitives, the ones whose instincts are about to be temporarily satisfied mostly at the expense of their neighbours), so most of us are still animals and still living in primitive, tribal, societies.
So why give birth to children until those resources (food, shelter, health, knowledge (communication, education, research)) are there to let the modern human be? I see no reason. I barely understand the reason why we, the primitives, are still here and keep on going with the current tribal rules.
My only civilized reason of sticking around this mess is to help somehow building a situation where those resources will be available for the newcomers, this time by natural right of the modern human.
Friendly advice: don't take this goal too seriously, although everybody has at least the same civilized reason, we are so far away from civilization that you may find yourself, sometimes, forced into an aimless drift, aka, in primitive terms and in a primitive context, ignorant, jobless, homeless or hungry, whatever suits you.
It seems we live in a fourth world, in fact: most of what we do is hunting and being hunted, and breed in between; the current, tribal, categorization of the world (in 'developed', 'developing' and 'underdeveloped' peoples), is mainly a matter of hunting intensity and hunting tools: who gets the honors for grabbing that only bloody sausage and who's left to make the next one in the following hunting season.
This boring repetitiveness is due to lack of food, shelter, health, knowledge (communication, education, research), so, either we're too many as a total or we're mixed with too many hypocrites. Whichever is true (and nobody can really check either of them), we should breed less and think more (this one keeps the natural proportion of honesty/hypocrisy constant and, besides, it stays the cheapest) before moving things around, until our followers (yes, somebody will keep breeding, nonetheless) will manage to get their act together and build a civilization, so that their followers will be able to live as modern humans and not in hunting packs, like us.
If the public of a country funds some research or educational activity which results in an article, book or report, that should be accessible unconditionally to that public.
In other words, the results of any kind of activity that is at least partially funded from public money, should be accessible to the public, right? There's no justification for copyright, then.
Ah, some would say, public money, ok, but accessing the results of private research should be paid for. Wait a minute, the public pays that too, if you buy an apple, or a kind of detergent, you are funding the research of that company which sells you the detergent or the apple. So you have the right to access it and use the results.
When you hear that a large company is funding a large musical event, remember it's your own money at work if you ever bought something from them, if not, then it's your neighbour's money, so go thank him for that.
Copyright is a form of getting paid at least twice for the same thing. And it is only encouraged by the people who get a profit out of maintaining the copyright without participating in the creation effort of the copyrighted work (lawyers, publishers).
In the current form, copyright is just another way of transferring money from those who work, to those who make a business out of handling that work, and outside of that work. Aren't you tired of it?
So, what's the point of the copyright then? The only point is to make money at least once more for those who claim to protect such a concept, without ever getting involved in the real work. The irony is, they are already paid once by the same public, either by private or public funding, or by buying from them different consulting services.
Nobody writes or does something out of thin air, there are research grants people use to write books, and they get a salary for that too, or a raise, from either the government or a private company. And the public pays them both. So the public has the right of accessing their results.
My point is that whoever structures information, has the natural right to be considered the author of that work, and that's all of it. Because of that, the author gets known, consulted, hired and paid for those services. Who will hire someone else for help in that specific area where the author commited the work, unless that someone else became a specialist in the same area by making some other work visible?
Beside paying several times for this, everybody's access to the work paid for is effectively cut: copyright stands against progress, it slows down or postpones work built on previous works. If you want to acknowledge the funding of your public, copyleft your work or use a Creative commons license which ensures others can build their work on yours.
It's relatively cheap these days to provide access, electronically, to the research the public paid for, because almost everybody's editing on a computer.
Don't forget to ask that access for "free" to your government, today. It's not for free anyway: you already paid for it.
Today, I used Google and Yahoo to locate "the principle of limited property", or "put limits to wealth", or "imposing limits to wealth", curious enough, only my blog entry was shown, or no finding at all.
But I was expecting most of us are concerned with this issue because it's the primary thing which shuffles our lives permanently since the history has been heard of. Surprise.
What were the socialists been doing? Just tuning up the taxes?
I'll keep an eye on this, and will add new links if I discover anything related.