Saya bersalah hari ini

Seorang pegawai negeri menyelesaikan pelayanannya, dan saya memberikan dia uang. Karena biasanya dalam keadaan begitu kalau swasta yang mengerjakan saya kasi tip. Tapi dia ini pegawai negeri dan tidak seharusnya diberikan tip.

lihat http://www.kpk.go.id/gratifikasi/index.php/informasi-gratifikasi/mn-ketentuan-gratifikasi

buka tulisan "Informasi Gratifikasi" Dan download "Buku Saku Gratifikasi"

Aturan-aturan yang terumuskan

Saya mengalami sendiri masalah-masalah yang terjadi dari aturan-aturan yang tidak terumuskan.
Komunitas kadang-kadang mengalami benturan melawan individual karena individual tidak mengikuti aturan-aturan inherent.
Masalah ini mungkin lebih teratasi kalau orang-orang mau merumuskan dan mengumumkan aturan-aturannya.
Aturan-aturan yang tidak terumuskan kesannya feodal, eksklusif, mau mempermainkan orang lain, dan illiterate.

Conviction variance

Sometimes the justice system actually can't know whether somebody's guilty or not, but because a serious case has been brought up, they have to decide something.
I think there are variances of convictions:
Guilty,
Not guilty,
Safe boundaries.

When a murder has happened, there's an instance when it's not safe to let someone loose into the society even though he/she might not be the murderer. There's substantial prove even though not at 100% mathematical/quantum certainty that he / she was the murderer, to not let this guy loose.
I think in this instance the law should be able to suspend him/her from common societies for the sake of safety. But I think it's wrong for the law to convict this person guilty.
For example there were lots of witnesses saying that this guy was at a place during the night. But there were also some who said that the person was at another place.
Well it was night and some people looks the same when he/she was drunk and/or using similar make ups.
So even though there were no lawyers to present the case, judges who are rational could consider this possibility and should be undeterminant because it's just right to do so.

Points based vote

(Notice, links to external sites will lead you to different page that's not mine. They're going to collect informations from you, and would have rules to maintain their solutions. Please be respectful to their terms and condition, and read their privacy policies for YOUR POWER/your rights).

OK, now please watch these videos to become aware of what I'm talking about or if you already know politics then...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmP81NW9_O0

Now, I have an idea, why not point based, alternative voting system? One that gets rank one score 7 points, one that score number 2 get 6 points, etc?

More reason why do we have to be good?

The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy but of mutual solutions.
We see that protection to intellectual property could lead to some more inventions, even when some might argue that current form of IP law hindered some other types of potentials but, I would say that respecting and giving thanks to the source of our mutual solutions is a crucial part of progress.

Giving thanks to sources of solutions, like planting back the forest, and not bombing the coral reefs, is the only logical thing to do.

Therefore it's not about how much sacrifice you made when creating a solution but how useful your solutions are.

Therefore little things that people do actually are very valuable beyond imagination. The fact that people held themselves from doing criminal activities like stealing, hurting other people, and rioting... the fact that people participate in the law and also good mutual values in the society. Shows that we also have to give thanks to these non-practicioners of evil and practitioners of good.

But if we were to do that, wouldn't it mean that we're to loose most of our money to these people?
Certainly yes.
But since we are also people who often or maybe for some of you always do good for people, then you too deserve thanks from the society I think.
Therefore if you do evil lifestyle, I think you owe to the mutual solutions you enjoy right now, like orderliness, peace, kindness, good prejudices, helpfulness, public facilities, public knowledge, etc... and I'm telling you and reminding myself... these are very, very, very, very, very... expensive.

Farmers' Monarchy v.04

Farmers have to be able to eat, sleep, get normal entertainment, access to internet, sanitation, life insurances, fuels, basic health treatments, other living costs, and some savings for their children's education.
Therefore the price of a sack of rice need to be increased to the point where they could do so.

New Law proposal:
1. Put a floor on price of food.
2. The floor level was based on prices of other commodities, if one commodity (other than food) gets too expensive, automatically the floor will increase accordingly.
3. All individuals should be given a land since they were born, that can't be sold. That piece of land is their "basic property right". If they want to move the location of the land they could do so, but they can't not have any land.

So the price for the sack of rice should be at about Three million rupiahs if this system was used (2012). Currently the price for a sack of rice is less than 250,000 rupiahs.

Expected results:
- Less urbanization
- Only the really skillful would work at public office, the less skillfull would choose another job. And this might leads to better synergy, less public salaries, less peers burden for the truly skillfull, less unproductive workplace politics in the supposedly people serving oriented public offices.
- Farmers have their deserved dignity, appreciation for their truly hard works, more investments and research would be dedicated for them.
- Businesses considers farmers as serious customers.
- More resistance against small group of ultra rich people to monopolize the farmlands and the ocean.
- More wealth for everybody in the long run.

I encourage this to be performed by the whole world.

Life, Freedom, Dignity

Dignity is the power to say no
If a fisherman met with a customer, and the customer offered too cheap of a price for his fish. He could say no.
Scientists, programmers, musicians, could say no to those who wanted to use their products by the help of the Intellectual Property Law.

Now why do this POWER to say no is very important?

What is life?
What sets us apart from non living things are our ability to say no from experiencing some interactions. We could see what's coming ahead, and decide whether or not we'd like to experience it.

Therefore, freedom is not given by the government, freedom is inherent in our life. The power to say no, is essential to life. Freedom is when you have the power to reject unpreferrable interactions and chose to experience the preferred ones. Without the power to say no, we are not free, and without freedom we are not alive.

When you took somebody else's dignity, you're killing him/her.