Focus on Life™

We seem to be very efficient, but unfortunately this does not mean that we are doing the right things. Saving the environment is the next new trend. Everyone wants to get involved and be part of the latest fashion. But below the hood not much have changed after all. The methods are the same and the results may be less than impressive.

For many of us it is not about saving the planet but reducing the guilt. We are bluffing ourselves and trying to be good citizens. However, this does not change the underlying facts and the ongoing destruction of the planet. Still, we are carrying on with our lifestyles and ways of working without changing anything radically. By our actions we are saying that we are concerned and I can do this and that but I don’t want to go any deeper. I’m not willing to do major sacrifices. This is my life—no matter how twisted or destructive its impact might be.

Buying carbon credits is easy. Following your carbon footprint and compensating it may sound like that you’re helping out in a big way. But what is it exactly that you’re trying to do? First you consume (destroy and pollute) and then you feel guilty or concerned about it and compensate by buying some credits that may either be someone ‘rights’ to pollute that have been sold to you or you are planting something back to nature that will take decades if not centuries to heal and compensate the loss you made. How can you be so sure that there is enough time left for future generations and your credits to ‘payback’ before the whole planet has been destroyed? You did not stop the destruction and pollution in the first place. What you said was that you’re continuing to do your mess now and you will fix it later somehow. And who has said that carbon credits or any other single concept is the right solution for the damages we are causing?

Regulators are keen to impose new taxes and restrictions on various items and processes. Energy is ‘bad’ in general and needs to be highly taxed. Some ‘alternative’ energy forms are preferred over others and there are sanctions and incentives for certain activities and actions. In an overall level we are forced to act in a unified and specific manner but in reality we may help out someone’s business interest more than save the planet—we just continue the destruction in another way that is more ‘socially’ accepted. How does it help the environment that governments impose taxes on energy? It certainly helps the government to get more revenues by appealing to our ‘responsibility’ to our living environment. At the same time the very same government is telling us that growing crops and other biomass for fuel are saving the planet and these forms need to be subsidised. What happened to the overall impact and energy input-output efficiency? We are just recycling the money and boosting business, not saving the environment. Guilty revealed and the new fashion trend harvested, mainly supported by coercion.

Money does not buy love. Neither can it buy nature. By looking around us it’s obvious that we have not learned this lesson. No matter how much money you have still you cannot undo the damage for rain forests, polluted water and land, corrupted crops and extinct species. We are good at destroying but very poor at creating. What has taken tremendous amount of time by nature to build we are destroying almost in seconds compared to the overall time perspective. We are irresponsible and ignorant of our support systems. What else can be said when we prefer short term at the cost of our children?

Guilt does not solve the issue, neither paying more. Something more profound is needed. We need to reconsider our priorities and values. We need to reassess our relationship with this planet, with nature. Now we consume. We use, utilise, and throw away. This is a one-way relationship that is not sustainable. We are living in a closed system called the planet Earth. We cannot pile up things forever and expect that our trash and pollution are well hidden and do not come back to us. Who do you think are already eating, drinking, and breathing hazardous waste? So far things have not gotten better. Our current solutions are not working. More regulation, more penalties, more subsidies, more forced ‘one right way policies’ are not the answer. The question is not what you do but why you do it. Everybody can do his or her own share. There is more than one way to live in this planet. Now it is time to explore and experiment other approaches that are based on a more balanced way of existence. What is it that you’re paying for?

How can you set-up a society like ours in case you want to repeat the current model from scratch? The instructions are very simple but do not expect people free willingly to align with your system.

Give people an illusion of control but take away their power. Centralise decision-making power away from local level where it would be most useful, effective, and also transparent. The further away and more consolidated the power the easier it is to make decisions that impact and possibly harm a large amount of people, and at the same time make people feel powerless and not capable of being in control and in charge of their own matters.

Release people from their own responsibility and tell them what they can and cannot do. This can be practiced by the powers and centralisation put in place. Most of the people are just relieved if the can obey rules and have a false sense of security where someone else is thinking and protecting their lives—in essence from themselves and their choices.

Control key resources. One of the most effective ways of control is to secure a permanent and exclusive privilege to be in charge of the means for indirect exchange. This instrument allows to manipulate, allocate, and define the direction of the society. One of the benefits of the monopoly is the right to create claims for resources without contributing anything back to the society. Using as a means of exchange something intangible or practically worthless in other usage enables to fabricate money out of thin air. This is very useful way to reallocate wealth in society.

Remove individuals’ means to protect themselves. Practical way to make people passive is to offer them physical protection and in return they are not allowed to use any other means to protect and seek justice. By monopolising justice it is possible to use the system’s resources against the very people it is supposed to protect. There is no objectivity and equality anymore when the asymmetry has been put in place: a private party against the system that is in practise defining its own rules and using coercion as a final means to execute it.

Make people dependent on your system. Create programs and schemes that distribute resources among the members of the public so that the system is acting as a middleman. Offering goods and services for ‘free’ or based on some arbitrary criteria remove the individual’s incentives to excel and support oneself. Direct employment by the system is the most natural way to tie people and resources as an integral part of the system. The more extensive the distribution of wealth the larger the impact and more integrated the system becomes to the society. One of the most effective ways to create dependence is taxation and other schemes that confiscate the financial resources from individuals. In some cases it is enough to keep intact the ‘ownership’ (or the claim for the resources) but centralise the control of the assets, for example by forced savings to dedicated funds.

Create a closed system that keeps people busy and turns them against each other. Imposed fear and lack are ways to produce an atmosphere of rivalry and controversy. Artificial lack can be fabricated by using a monetary system that has an inherit fault in it: there is never enough money to settle all accounts. This forces people to fight for resources and to protect their existing wealth by producing more economic activity out of scarce and limited resources. In short, perpetual growth is needed to keep the system going. By (re)distribution of resources via the system as stated above emphasises the fear once people are made dependent and passive for the ‘benefits’ given to them. They will turn against each other in order to protect their personal sources of dependency.

Remove personal responsibility and liability. In order to make the system work seamlessly it is beneficial to introduce a double-standard moral code where the system is not accountable for its actions in the same manner as individuals are, would they conduct the same deed. This enables central decision-making by selected members of the society without them being personally liable of the consequences of their actions. The system itself starts to live outside of its own rules and principals but is still run by the members of the society. People can only blame themselves—they have carried out all the actions.

Keep away from the limelight. At the end of the day it is not necessary to be a public figure and still influence the system. There are always people available that are willing to do the dirty work, and they can be replaced. Special privileges can be bought and the system manipulated when you have the financial resources for it. Some members of the society have a greater incentive to seek benefits for themselves and for their own advancement than to protect and cooperate with their fellow citizens. They are more than happy to make the decisions that harm the environment, people, pollute the planet, and destroy the future of the society. And in most of the cases they are not even aware of the consequences and do their acts in good faith or out of ignorance. The urge to tell others what they are supposed to do and save people from themselves appeals to many. And after all—who’s there to blame in a system like this?

“Politics is not about public interest but someone’s special (economic) interest.”

“Life is about giving, and the rest is taken care of.”

“Nothing has any meaning except the one we give to it— everything simply is.”

“Humbleness is all it takes.”

“The impossible happens when the possible is ignored.”

“If you don’t know what to do, meditate.”

“The (future) wealth is in the people, the past is in the tangible assets.”

“Skills, knowledge, and experience build the future.”

“Life is simple—thinking is complicated.”

“Only two things: the ones you think are important, and those that are.”

“Happiness is a continuous flow of life.”

“Nothing to say, everything to realise.”

“You are what you think, say, and do.”

“Your senses know nothing, they merely register movement.”

“Only when you have done enough, you can be.”

“Complexity is easy, simplicity requires mastery.”

“Society is persons.”

“Separate money from politics and you find very little interest on public matters.”

“Poverty is a relative term. Don’t expect it to disappear from the lexicon any time soon. One can be poor or rich—it’s just a matter of definition.”

“Enjoy the moment. That’s all there is.”

“Our legal tender is based on a threat of violence, and nothing else.”

We take things for granted. Sun will shine in the morning, subway will transport you to your destination, people will sell you the goods and services you need and so on. Everything we have experienced in the past will be at our reach also tomorrow. All this is true in the short term and provided that in the meanwhile there are no drastic changes. But how can you recognise something incremental and familiar that is causing big changes to happen in the medium to long term? Often we do not. We are ignorant.

If you do not appreciate the small things how can you expect to value anything else either? We take as granted that we have clean water, comfortable and predictable climate, adequate resources, clean environment, and a beautiful nature. Still we are every day acting in a manner that is destroying all the things we value, permanently. Water is only clean when it is not polluted by many sources over an extended period of time. Climate is moderate and predictable only when the proportion, quality and quantity of vegetation and forests stay within certain boundaries. The landscape remains beautiful only when it is not built over or harvested for some other means.

Destroying is easy. We are masters in exploitation and taking things apart. Reverse engineering and using something do not mean that one is capable of understanding the creation process or even the objects of interest. Only an ignorant person is proud of his/her achievements while leaving a mess behind. Harmony and balance are only possible when there is enough understanding and appreciation for the resources that enable one to take the next steps or further stages of development. It is very shortsighted to assume that one is capable of getting something indefinitely without causing dramatic changes along the way. Our industrial revolution and very rapid one-way consumption of resources has lasted only a few centuries. Still we have been able to cause permanent damage and destruction in almost every part of the planet. We are often blind to the things that develop over time. Unfortunately consistent havoc by billions of individuals every day can and will make a big mess. Ignorance is no excuse. We still need to live here, and so do the future generations.

Oxford American dictionary has a definition for our behaviour: “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.” And guess how this type of one-way and shortsighted living is called? Parasitic. A parasite does not appreciate its environment and supplier of the resources it needs. It is ignorant. Where is the sophistication and high culture we are so proud of? At least it is not visible in our everyday actions. Small things put together make the change—for good or worse. Don’t just think about it, start appreciating what you have. Today.

Everybody talks about it and still we don’t seem to get our house in order. How can we make our planet a better place for all of us? Talk is cheap and so far we have been too ignorant to get rid of the whole issue in large scale enough.

How do you deal with a harassing and aggressive person in your neighbourhood? You let the person know that his or her behaviour is not accepted or supported by others. All of us together define the rules and the accepted behaviour in our societies. By our very actions or non-actions we create our surroundings every day. Our ignorance and tolerance for aggressive and hostile intentions enable them to exist and flourish.

There is a very easy way to stop wars. Just follow the money. Who finance the wars? Who makes the final decisions to declare them? A war does not happen if people are not supporting nor allowing it to happen. Passive and ignorant attitude towards aggressive intentions in massive scale make us sheep that are lead to things that individuals in a personal level would not allow to happen. Our political systems are not stable–they are tilted towards reckless and irresponsible behaviour. All this is possible because of so called collective responsibility and financing—very few decide and gain but everybody pays the consequences, and nobody is personally liable. Things just happen—almost automatically. We cannot control them. Or this is how we are made to believe. The truth is that we just hand over our personal power to other people who are willing to use it, even against us. Organisations, political systems, or ideologies do not fight—only people do. Just think about it.

If you study the history you will find that most of the wars are declared by some sort of concepts or entities called nations, governments, or rulers. But only a handful of people cannot make entire societies into brainless killing machines that just destroy themselves beyond belief and any sense. How do you call a leader without followers? A person taking a walk. There are no wars if there are no people who are willing to fight. There are no wars if there are no enabling financing or weapons. Who makes the weapons? We do. Who finance the wars? We do. Who fights the wars? We do.

As long as we believe in some great archetypes of visionary and omnipotent leaders, rulers or administrative bodies that know what is good for us and tell us what to do there will always be people taking the lead and readily telling others what to do. Responsibility seems to be a very difficult lesson to learn. Similarly using one’s own common sense and reasoning are also rare skills. Why it is so hard to see that there is no such a thing as something for nothing or free lunches without paybacks?

Peace is possible only when we appreciate our own personal power and freedom so greatly that we are not willing to give it away or tolerate violent and aggressive behaviour from anyone. How do you declare wars if there are only people? And more importantly who would declare wars if there are only people minding their own business and protecting their personal freedom against any aggressor. Peace is a sign of ultimate strength—not weakness. So far we have only managed to destroy and create havoc. We have not deserved peace yet—we have not appreciated it enough to make it a reality for us. We have been driven by our personal greed, jealousy, and hate. Peace cannot be imposed—you have to live it.

Why is politics often associated with corruption, dishonesty, and shallowness? You may be surprised to notice that there is a common denominator underneath that we have often forgotten or just haven’t bothered to think about at all.

Franz Oppenheimer once described the only two ways to work in a society. The first is based on voluntary cooperation among people where everyone is dependent on the contribution of others for creating a greater wealth in the society. This is called the economic means. You are cooperating with other people and exchanging the products and goods based on your own free will and judgement. Those concepts (i.e. products and services) will be successful that many people individually decide to favour by using them. In other words the society is ever changing and finding new ways to satisfy each individual’s needs and wants. People are trusted with the responsibility to choose for themselves and to let them to decide and know what works for them in increasing their personal happiness. Or actually there is no one to “trust” the people their choice but each individual is aware that everyone is responsible for their own life and they are the only ones who can make the right choices for them. Therefore there is no ‘people’ but only persons that are acting together by free will of choice and are aware of their responsibility for everyone else as well. Society works only when everyone contributes something positive and creative, no matter how little that is—destructive behaviour provides only havoc. If everyone is just taking, soon there is very little to take from.

The only way any society will flourish is that there are people who are producing goods and services that are innovative and demanded by other people. Production enables the wealth and sophistication in any high culture. However, people will not create or produce if they are not able to trust that they are sufficiently compensated for their efforts. In addition they need to be assured that the circumstances in the society are not expected to change in a manner that jeopardized their work that often may require significant amount of resources for extended periods of time, even years, to finish the production. New innovations and creative solutions require free will and a joy of creation. Seldom anyone bothers to go for great lengths of trouble if they are not appreciated or, even worse, if they are brutally being used or stolen of their efforts.

Oppenheimer’s second way is called the political means. This concept cannot work if nothing has been produced. It is relaying and based on other people’s efforts and work. In other words it does not produce anything new and thus increase the wealth of the society but focuses on distributing the existing wealth by arbitrary decisions. And how do those people that are working and creating things that are demanded by other people allow this to happen? They do not—they are forced by violence or a threat of violence to subdue. There is a proper word for this type of behaviour and it is called stealing. In the economic means there is no problem of distribution since people cooperate voluntarily and agree upon the terms how to trade and utilise products and services between themselves. Just visit your local supermarket and buy an apple. You did not force the supermarket to give you the apple nor did they force you to buy it, and even better—there is no third party telling you what to do or not to do. Only thieves have a problem of distribution of confiscated goods. And since the objects are already alienated from their rightful owners there are infinite amount of ways to divide the stolen wealth, and none of them any more rightful than any other and all of them are just arbitrary decisions made by third parties that have no credit for the wealth in the first place. If you approve to take by force in the first place you have very little saying about your noble or great causes for justifying your actions: you steal or you do not—there is no middle ground and a thief is a thief no matter the cause.

And what has all this to do with politics? Everything, the whole discussion in politics is about from whom to steal by force and how and to whom to share the confiscated wealth. A crime is no less crime if you use a middleman to do your dirty job. And ‘legalisation’ of stealing is no less stealing—it’s only legal stealing. The only difference between organised crime and legal stealing is that only the latter is protected by a greater use of power and force in the society. The basic idea of brutal use of force is still the same dating back thousands of years in history; only the tools and the camouflage are different. The modern lexicon is based on terms like taxation, rules and regulations, laws, and executive orders. They all are just different names for forcing people to unilateral transactions that they would not do voluntarily. Only the political means is a zero-sum game since there is only so much of confiscated wealth in any given moment. The economic means is based on freedom of choice where people are cooperating voluntarily. And implicitly it also means that both parties are willing to interact with each other and thus are content with the outcomes as well: you are happy with your fresh apple and the supermarket is happy with the amount of money you exchanged the apple for.

Next time you hear terms like trade tariffs, subsidies, welfare benefits, taxation laws or any other favourite sweet talk of the politicians see the real game underneath and ask yourself: who is forced to act/non-act and who are the ones to gain from this? Nowadays stealing is a fine art and therefore there are many ways to conduct the job. Inflation is one of them but surely not the only game in town. Many of the legislations are based on the principal where someone is restricted of access to some part of the market or to act freely among any other member of the society. For example, governments are masters of creating monopolies or oligopolies for some members of the society and forcing all the rest to interact with those specially selected members only. Often, protectionism is labelled as something beneficial: consumer protection laws, safety and health laws, approval processes and licenses, and so on. Special interest privileges delivered by your favourite politician: someone will gain and someone else will lose. Surely enough there are still those that have needs and are happy to receive more without giving anything back. They vote for politicians to solve their problems. This is the formula of politics—it is based on violence.

Equality means that both parties are in the same level, respected and treated according to the same standards. This is the theory, but in practise we seldom face it in reality. Unfortunately we have created this system ourselves and thus are responsible of the results as well. We are living among double standards.

Some rules and principals are necessary to coordinate and enable voluntary cooperation between people. Predefined terms direct what is tolerated and what is not. If everyone is aware of the rules later no one can get excused of ignorance. But this is only half of the issue. The rest is based on the fact that everybody is treated in a similar manner and according to those predetermined terms. Today our societies are not working this way.

We have created an artificial system that is above the level of individuals. In practise we have made people a sub-class to a system that everybody is forced to subdue. Sadly enough this system is run and abused by the very same people. There is no one to blame but us. Still we feel helpless and little against this monstrous structure. It is inhuman, not responsible to any single individual, and disregards any personal circumstances. We call it the common or public good. It goes over any person or group of people. Public good is more important than the individual members of the society that are supposed to be part of and create this concept called ‘greater good’.

When faced with this ‘public good’ an individual can be considered sacrificial or ‘a liability’ that can be destroyed mentally, financially, or even physically. Collateral damage is a term used in other ‘public good’ missions. Nevertheless they are similar situations were individuals are insignificant in respect to some greater thought-forms or concepts facilitated by some others members of the human family. In our age ideas and ideologies are used as vehicles to rule and manipulate other members of the society.

This conceptual structure we have created is above any individual. In practise it means that an individual is alienated from her rights to self-defence, freedom, and equality among other members of the society. How can you make sure that you are treated fairly if you don’t have any practical means to make sure and follow-up your case as well? A very simple example is taxation laws. Tax authorities are not accountable to people or any individual. They are part of the structure that is above the people. They get their power and force from the very persons that tolerate and maintain the organisation in existence. Still these authorities are not responsible of their actions. There is no objective third party that can assess and mediate the disputes or matters at hand. International and domestic voluntary cooperation sectors have found ways to handle and resolute dispute and argument situations in a fair and objective manner. Chambers of Commerce offer business mediation (arbitration) services that are swift, final, and respected by both parties. And most of all they are selected by the parties themselves and thus trusted as well. None of this is available for individual members of the society. We are forced to subdue to the rules and laws of the stronger party that is not accountable to any single individual or party.

To make matters even worse it is worthwhile to consider the amount of members of our societies that are directly dependent of these arbitrary structures in form of a salary or employment. How objective do you regard the people that are paid by the public sector? Do you think that they are making decisions that are against their own or the organisation’s survival instinct? Seldom you see public organisations admitting their wrongdoings or making exceptions for any individual. They are not countable for their ‘customers’—they do not need to be—they are getting paid by taxes that are collected by force. Only voluntary cooperation is dependent on the other party, otherwise there would be no cooperation. Coercion is one-way communication that is based on violence or a threat of violence. Just think about it—how objective is any party that is using force as the final (or even as the first) argument? And on top of this you don’t have any choice.

You are surrounded by your past. All the tangible items and assets represent the earlier achievements. The same applies to your monetary wealth as well—it is only storage of your previous efforts and endeavours. The past is not the future; you need to create something new in between.

Basically everything goes through a cycle of creation, sustenance, and decay. It does not really matter whether we talk about knowledge, skills, physical goods, or even our thoughts. The only constant is change. It stays and forces everything else into movement. Effort is required to keep up with the changes in the world around us.

Tangible things are relatively easy to produce—if you only know how. And this is exactly the point. We need ideas, innovations, experience, knowledge, and the right skills to get something done. A beautiful house/car or any other physical good or product does not last forever. They need either be replaced or maintained. This information is always within people. Persons make everything happen.

Diversity and specialisation are the means that enable our society to have a wide variety of different tangible items and products available to us. There needs to be people who have the required skill set and the production tools to create the items. They do not come out of nowhere—they represent the existing expertise and knowledge.

We often take services and products as granted, and can only start to appreciate them when they have first demonstrated their non-functional nature. If your bathroom pipe is leaking then suddenly a plumber is a very valuable person for you. Actually your life becomes pretty unbearable without the necessary reparation skills!

The richness is not in the goods and things around you. They are only the presentation of the wealth in the society. The future success needs to be earned every day. No money can buy you food if you are in an isolated island. Similarly the wealth of any society can be measured only by the richness and the variety of experience, knowledge, and interaction among its members. Specialisation is only available when there are enough goods and services available to take care of the more general needs of the members of the society. If you need to grow your own food and prepare it as well there is less time available for other activities. In a similar manner any specialist is dependent on the work and expertise of the other people in the production chain. We all need each other. If you are not contributing or loving what you’re doing everybody is worst off. Do you see how personal freedom is very closely linked to the well-being and the wealth of the society?

Expecting to gain more than one is willing to put on the table is foolhardy. Forcing others to comply with it is stealing. The motives vary from jealousy, low self-esteem, laziness to greediness and everything between. In any case the idea is to get away with the scheme without being exposed. Current politics is based on this principal.

Voluntary cooperation between people does not need regulations and control. They are required to force something in place and to keep something out. Special privileges are based on structures where the gains are separated from the liabilities and the responsibilities—a free ride. The formula often works so that everybody pays (in form of coerced payments) and some selected few reap the benefits. There are also fancier names for all this: tariffs, tolls, trade restrictions, subsidies, protective laws and directives, sales and energy taxes, and so on. They are all too important to be left for the grown-up adults to decide upon themselves and be responsible of their actions and choices.

Our monetary system is based on the same principal. The current legal tender is nothing but a dictum that is backed by the government’s threat of using violence against its citizens. The only difference between you printing your own notes and the government is the amount of force you’re lacking. Currently the money system is based solely on the amount of money in circulation. Its value is dependent on its volume. Otherwise the paper (or digital) nominations are entirely useless. And the best part is that the government having the monopoly decides when and how much more money it will issue. This is stealing as well. Another name for it is inflation. And don’t get fooled by the consumer indexes or any other official measures of inflation. The sole source of inflation is the increase in the monetary base. Period. The rest is only a matter of time for the ripple effect to penetrate the entire economy and to adjust the prices for the new volume of money in form of price changes.

Government does not produce anything. It needs the politicians to steal from you. They can do it either by collecting more taxes or inflating the currency. The latter is easier and less disruptive for the public to accept. The end result is the same. Everybody pays and only a few gains. In the case of inflation those closest to the new money in circulation benefit the most in form of getting services and goods still with old (low) prices and in the reverse those are hurt the most that need to buy things with the new (high) prices but are not able to raise their own prices accordingly. The economy does not need controls and politicians, but your government and the beneficiaries of its special privileges need. Just follow the money.

Free competition is very disturbing for some. It’s ruthless for those that do not serve the society. And how do we know this? The law of the market is very simple. You vote by your free choice—those that serve you the best you favour and support, and the rest need to cope without you. This continuous change forces everyone to serve the interest of their customers with the utmost care. Unfortunately the political control over the markets is so dominating nowadays that basically everything is controlled and regulated by the government.

In addition, ‘public’ services do not need to listen to the customer. They get their money by stealing from you so they could not care less. The prime motive of any organisation is its self-survival no matter whether it is a ‘public’ or private entity. The only difference is that only the free market based organisation needs to be humble in front of the customer. It relies on the voluntary cooperation and interaction among its customers. It cannot survive without the customer in the long run. Organisations (even private) that rely on coercion are in a different position. They get something for nothing. Actually they are the healthier the more they gain stolen goods. No wonder lobbying and politics is the biggest business in town. That’s where the money is made in our ‘modern’ society. Everybody pays, only a few gains, and the overall society goes down the drain. Looting is never a long-term plan—someone needs to produce before it can be stolen. Currently it is more lucrative to steal than to create. How do you see the odds?

It is assumed to be noble to live for others. This nobility can take many forms and some of them can be very difficult to identify. Still, in most of the cases the underlying motive is not benevolent even though the appearance tells a different story. Selfishness has many disguises.

No doubt serving and helping others is the highest cause there is, but not always. It is worthwhile to consider the motive for the help. In many cases the true motive is not pure and noble, on the contrary, it is an ego trip and boost without any limits. Hard to believe? Well, if it were really about the others there shouldn’t be any need for anybody else to know about the aid. Also the compassionate act should not direct any unnecessary attention to the helper. Any expectation of reciprocity is not an act of compassion. And this means anything, including the little word ‘thanks’ from the one you supported. Helping others can also be a way to reduce one’s guilt of something else in which case the issue has really nothing to do with helping others. It is just a means to deal with one’s own conscience.

What about the target of the help, is it far away and somehow exotic? People in the next block might as well need your help but is it somehow better if you focus on greater distance to give your aid? Often it would make more sense to help people close to you since you can make a larger impact—in addition of being a practical example for others.

Often taking care of one’s own business is quickly condemned as selfishness—having only a negative connotation nowadays. But this is a great fallacy as well. If everyone was supposed to pay attention only for others without caring for one’s own needs there wouldn’t be anyone feeling good and balanced anymore. The reality is exactly the opposite. In order to help others one needs to be in a solid position to give a helping hand. The only way to give a lot is to have plenty as well. This does not apply just to material things but basically every quality and virtue there is. If supporting others is an act of compassion then it should be carried out with the upmost care and the best possible way. Giving the best you have is not a light-hearted issue, is it? This is the test you most likely fail provided that you are not doing it solely for the compassion and love for others.