Might is Right...even when it is wrong. We choose to support the corrupt or the virtuous every day. The greatest evils are hidden in truth. Example : Toxic compassion. An overcompensation to the most needy in society.
There are no evils hidden in the truths, only evils hiding from the truth. Might is like a stick, it can be used as a weapon to protect your children from a beast (right) or used to gouge out your own eyes (wrong). Power is a tool that is neither right or wrong by itself - it depends on how is obtained and the use it is given. It is impossible for might to be right and wrong at the same time, as it is impossible for compassion to be toxic. If one truly feels compassion for somebody one would never be compassionate in a "toxic way", because "toxic compassion" is an unfair punishment and to unfairly punish somebody we feel compassion towards to is to unfairly punish ourselves. Unjustified self-destruction is not compatible with compassion. Thus, toxic compassion does not exist. We humans adapt to the environment by adapting the environment to us. Those that leave their destiny in the hands of those that have obtained power at the expense of the common good (and that will use power against the common good) are doomed. I do not only to refuse to leave my destiny in the hands of evil but I also refuse to leave my people's destiny in the hands of evil. You can use MyStick to protect yourself and others from the beast or let Mother Nature decide what will happen between you and the beast. I created the weapon but using it is up to all of you. - Francisco
@@FranciscoVazquezMyStick O.k. Listen... Those in power run the world. That is might. Might is right even when it is wrong because those in power make it so. Lets say someone mugs you with a weapon in the street. This is wrong to you. They take your valuables and get away. They have made it "right". Understand now? Now on to the next : Evil hides in truths all the time. It uses a truth as a cloak to infiltrate society. Look at diversity and inclusion. Starts off as a good, but turned into something ugly. Punishing certain demographics with violence to make things more "even". This is toxic compassion. Yes caring too much for others can be a negative if it destroys you. ALL things can become evil if taken to extremes. Water is good. Drink too much and you will kick your air addiction. I leave my destiny to no one.
Jordan Peterson asked “what’s the greatest threat to mankind?” He responded “narcissistic compassion”: fake cynical compassion portrayed by narcissists to gain personal power by pretending to care about others.
Very good info. What If you work for an organization that isn’t corrupt per say, or doing anything illegal, but has an attitude of treating the world including its employees as a means to an ends, who do as little as possible? Leave if you can.. but if you are stuck, are you never justified in putting yourself first at the expense of the org? Is it just a matter of law & technicalities? Is there room for a sense of justice & retribution if one sees it as getting even? Like if you are on salary, but required to sometimes work overtime for free but also requested to take vacation hours if missing any time? Why not get even in some way for such an obvious unfairness? Why not steal? Or even sabotage, perhaps just waste resources like time that’s technically not against the rules or law?
Thank you for your comment, those are great questions. From a corruption point of view, the answer to your first question is... it depends. If the ends are the common good/ something that is good for the organization, then the managers of the organization would not be behaving in a corrupt way by treating its employees as means to an end. For example, I heard that some people back then criticized the allied generals for the Normandy landings because they "showed no care" for their own troops lives. Although there were numerous casualties, the operation was a success and therefore it was good for both the allied countries and their troops (and humanity!) in the long term so, this would have not been corrupt behavior even if the troops were just used as means to an end. However, this is a very special case - it is hard to conceive a normal situation in which treating employees like things would be beneficial for the organization in the long term so, this kind of behavior is normally corrupt. "Are you never justified in putting yourself first at the expense of the org?" If you ask me what I personally believe is "the right thing to do" in that situation, I believe it would be (1) trying to change the organization from the inside or (2) leaving the organization. If you are asking me whether there are any situations in which putting yourself first at the expense of the organization would not be considered corruption, the answer is no. You could go on strike and damage the organization in the short term to help the organization improve in the long term (if the strike is justified and it works) but sabotaging is corruption. On the other hand, you could also find ways to use your position to do something good for yourself without affecting the organization in any way but there are not that many examples because most employee actions have a consequence (negative or positive) and a cost of opportunity. - Francisco
I did access your Stick and its confusing. Worst one have nothing marked on them? just a zero? You need to have a much clearer website with easy to understand information.
Democracy usually lead to corruption as leaders think more about what is good for themselves in short-term. For instance a member of parliament have 4-5 years to make as much as possible. However, in a country where they have monarchy they don't think this way as their next generations will be there to have the responsibility then they usually are less corrupt as they want to save their honor and their families honor. Furthermore, I think you meant freedom of speech lead to less corruption not democracy itself.
Thank you for your comment. I partially agree with you. Whether an organization has an owner, and whether that owner is leading the organization or not, determine how corrupt that organization is. In fact, ownership distribution and how much of the organizations is owned by the leaders are among the most important parameters used by MyStick algorithm to measure the corruption levels of organizations. I think we both agree on this. Democracy is not perfect against corruption but I strongly believe it is the best system against it. It allows citizens to remove corrupt political parties and corrupt leaders from leadership positions by (1) voting to others, (2) creating their own political parties and outcompete corrupt political parties in the election and (3) becoming the leaders of the country and by doing so ensure that the country leaders seek for the common good. For democracy to be an effective mechanism against corruption there are unfortunately a few requirements; 1. Citizens should understand the true nature of corruption and its consequences because otherwise they will not care enough about it. 2. Citizens should be able to identify corrupt behavior among political parties/ politicians. 3. Citizens should have the courage to create their own political if there are not honest alternatives. In other words, democracies have an owner too (all of us) but the owner does not always behave as such. Some people do not believe these 3 requirements can ever be fulfilled but I personally will not give up - that is why I am investing everything into helping citizens fulfill requirements 1 and 2. Monarchies have advantages against corruption but they are not perfect either. I will not go into detail but (1) over the course of time the most corrupt people in the country will be the one surrounding the royal family (3rd Uncomfortable Truth about Corruption) and (2) corrupt members of the royal family can use their absolute power against the common good (including their own family interest). When allowed, corruption tends to grow until infinity (4th Uncomfortable Truth about Corruption). When this happens in a monarchy there is very little that can be done about it in a peaceful way. - Francisco
I so much disagree with so much information in this video. Sadly its just an advertisement for some guy's business project, disguised under what appears honest objective. 😕
Can't somebody have an honest objective and search for his own benefit at the same time? As explained in the video some behavior is beneficial for both the individual and the organization. It does not embarrass me to admit that I will profit economically from MyStick because it is a win-win situation. Linking my economic interest to MyStick is like tying the captain to the ship. In other words, it is an incentive for me to offer a reliable service. - Francisco
Might is Right...even when it is wrong. We choose to support the corrupt or the virtuous every day. The greatest evils are hidden in truth. Example : Toxic compassion. An overcompensation to the most needy in society.
There are no evils hidden in the truths, only evils hiding from the truth.
Might is like a stick, it can be used as a weapon to protect your children from a beast (right) or used to gouge out your own eyes (wrong). Power is a tool that is neither right or wrong by itself - it depends on how is obtained and the use it is given.
It is impossible for might to be right and wrong at the same time, as it is impossible for compassion to be toxic. If one truly feels compassion for somebody one would never be compassionate in a "toxic way", because "toxic compassion" is an unfair punishment and to unfairly punish somebody we feel compassion towards to is to unfairly punish ourselves.
Unjustified self-destruction is not compatible with compassion. Thus, toxic compassion does not exist.
We humans adapt to the environment by adapting the environment to us.
Those that leave their destiny in the hands of those that have obtained power at the expense of the common good (and that will use power against the common good) are doomed. I do not only to refuse to leave my destiny in the hands of evil but I also refuse to leave my people's destiny in the hands of evil. You can use MyStick to protect yourself and others from the beast or let Mother Nature decide what will happen between you and the beast.
I created the weapon but using it is up to all of you.
- Francisco
@@FranciscoVazquezMyStick O.k. Listen... Those in power run the world. That is might. Might is right even when it is wrong because those in power make it so. Lets say someone mugs you with a weapon in the street. This is wrong to you. They take your valuables and get away. They have made it "right". Understand now? Now on to the next : Evil hides in truths all the time. It uses a truth as a cloak to infiltrate society. Look at diversity and inclusion. Starts off as a good, but turned into something ugly. Punishing certain demographics with violence to make things more "even". This is toxic compassion. Yes caring too much for others can be a negative if it destroys you. ALL things can become evil if taken to extremes. Water is good. Drink too much and you will kick your air addiction. I leave my destiny to no one.
Jordan Peterson asked “what’s the greatest threat to mankind?” He responded “narcissistic compassion”: fake cynical compassion portrayed by narcissists to gain personal power by pretending to care about others.
Very good info.
What If you work for an organization that isn’t corrupt per say, or doing anything illegal, but has an attitude of treating the world including its employees as a means to an ends, who do as little as possible?
Leave if you can.. but if you are stuck, are you never justified in putting yourself first at the expense of the org? Is it just a matter of law & technicalities? Is there room for a sense of justice & retribution if one sees it as getting even?
Like if you are on salary, but required to sometimes work overtime for free but also requested to take vacation hours if missing any time? Why not get even in some way for such an obvious unfairness? Why not steal? Or even sabotage, perhaps just waste resources like time that’s technically not against the rules or law?
Thank you for your comment, those are great questions.
From a corruption point of view, the answer to your first question is... it depends.
If the ends are the common good/ something that is good for the organization, then the managers of the organization would not be behaving in a corrupt way by treating its employees as means to an end. For example, I heard that some people back then criticized the allied generals for the Normandy landings because they "showed no care" for their own troops lives. Although there were numerous casualties, the operation was a success and therefore it was good for both the allied countries and their troops (and humanity!) in the long term so, this would have not been corrupt behavior even if the troops were just used as means to an end.
However, this is a very special case - it is hard to conceive a normal situation in which treating employees like things would be beneficial for the organization in the long term so, this kind of behavior is normally corrupt.
"Are you never justified in putting yourself first at the expense of the org?" If you ask me what I personally believe is "the right thing to do" in that situation, I believe it would be (1) trying to change the organization from the inside or (2) leaving the organization.
If you are asking me whether there are any situations in which putting yourself first at the expense of the organization would not be considered corruption, the answer is no. You could go on strike and damage the organization in the short term to help the organization improve in the long term (if the strike is justified and it works) but sabotaging is corruption. On the other hand, you could also find ways to use your position to do something good for yourself without affecting the organization in any way but there are not that many examples because most employee actions have a consequence (negative or positive) and a cost of opportunity.
- Francisco
It is a bit over-simplified, but still useful. Maybe individual responsibility for truthful behaviour could be emphasized
I did access your Stick and its confusing. Worst one have nothing marked on them? just a zero? You need to have a much clearer website with easy to understand information.
Hiring your friend over better candidate is actually a virtue and loyalty.
Democracy usually lead to corruption as leaders think more about what is good for themselves in short-term. For instance a member of parliament have 4-5 years to make as much as possible. However, in a country where they have monarchy they don't think this way as their next generations will be there to have the responsibility then they usually are less corrupt as they want to save their honor and their families honor. Furthermore, I think you meant freedom of speech lead to less corruption not democracy itself.
Thank you for your comment.
I partially agree with you.
Whether an organization has an owner, and whether that owner is leading the organization or not, determine how corrupt that organization is. In fact, ownership distribution and how much of the organizations is owned by the leaders are among the most important parameters used by MyStick algorithm to measure the corruption levels of organizations. I think we both agree on this.
Democracy is not perfect against corruption but I strongly believe it is the best system against it. It allows citizens to remove corrupt political parties and corrupt leaders from leadership positions by (1) voting to others, (2) creating their own political parties and outcompete corrupt political parties in the election and (3) becoming the leaders of the country and by doing so ensure that the country leaders seek for the common good.
For democracy to be an effective mechanism against corruption there are unfortunately a few requirements;
1. Citizens should understand the true nature of corruption and its consequences because otherwise they will not care enough about it.
2. Citizens should be able to identify corrupt behavior among political parties/ politicians.
3. Citizens should have the courage to create their own political if there are not honest alternatives.
In other words, democracies have an owner too (all of us) but the owner does not always behave as such.
Some people do not believe these 3 requirements can ever be fulfilled but I personally will not give up - that is why I am investing everything into helping citizens fulfill requirements 1 and 2.
Monarchies have advantages against corruption but they are not perfect either. I will not go into detail but (1) over the course of time the most corrupt people in the country will be the one surrounding the royal family (3rd Uncomfortable Truth about Corruption) and (2) corrupt members of the royal family can use their absolute power against the common good (including their own family interest).
When allowed, corruption tends to grow until infinity (4th Uncomfortable Truth about Corruption). When this happens in a monarchy there is very little that can be done about it in a peaceful way.
- Francisco
I so much disagree with so much information in this video. Sadly its just an advertisement for some guy's business project, disguised under what appears honest objective. 😕
He told truth
Can't somebody have an honest objective and search for his own benefit at the same time?
As explained in the video some behavior is beneficial for both the individual and the organization.
It does not embarrass me to admit that I will profit economically from MyStick because it is a win-win situation.
Linking my economic interest to MyStick is like tying the captain to the ship. In other words, it is an incentive for me to offer a reliable service.
- Francisco
Humanity is long gone beyond repair.. I'm glad about it too. 😰😨👻
I like watching google suffer for its woke AI debacle.