Unpredictability vs Authority

[Gary Childress]

The more society is democratic the more unpredictable it can be. It leaves no single view dominant, rather all individual views have equal weight differentiated only by which view has more adherents. Every election is, in some sense, a roll of the dice for any given interest group.

Rational direction is more authoritarian. However, if it is done right, then (in theory) it could potentially lead to the best outcome (assuming what is the best outcome is known or knowable). However, if it is done wrong, or if there is no discernable 'better' or 'worse' outcomes, then it can lead to tyranny--a situation that is intolerable or else destructive to (at least) some if not almost all or the majority of members of a society.

Which is the better place to stake one's ground? Should we stake our ground on unpredictability or should we stake it on authority?

[Sculptor]

No.

A single Autocrat can be far more capricious than a democracy,
With Authoritarianism you are putting all your eggs in one basket without the chance of mitigation.
Change is only possible if the autocrat or tyrant changes.
Democracy tends to have responsive change as a given.

[Gary Childress]

No.

A single Autocrat can be far more capricious than a democracy,
With Authoritarianism you are putting all your eggs in one basket without the chance of mitigation.
Change is only possible if the autocrat or tyrant changes.
Democracy tends to have responsive change as a given.

"Autocracy" is not necessarily the only way that 'authority' manifests itself. "Autocracy" means rule by one absolute ruler. I'm not speaking specifically of that. Of that I'm not in disagreement with you. It seems self evident to me that no single individual should have absolute power. However, 'authority' can also manifest itself in terms of 'experts' or 'advisors' or even a simple majority dictating to the few who are considered to be mistaken in their views. In short, "authority" can sometimes be good if it is in possession of accurate knowledge and/or good intentions. However, if authority is mistaken or corrupt, then it can (at least theoretically) lead to bad results (if there is such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' results).

[Sculptor]

No.

A single Autocrat can be far more capricious than a democracy,
With Authoritarianism you are putting all your eggs in one basket without the chance of mitigation.
Change is only possible if the autocrat or tyrant changes.
Democracy tends to have responsive change as a given.

"Autocracy" is not necessarily the only way that 'authority' manifests itself. "Autocracy" means rule by one absolute ruler. I'm not speaking specifically of that. Of that I'm not in disagreement with you. It seems self evident to me that no single individual should have absolute power. However, 'authority' can also manifest itself in terms of 'experts' or 'advisors' or even a simple majority dictating to the few who are considered to be mistaken in their views. In short, "authority" can sometimes be good if it is in possession of accurate knowledge and/or good intentions. However, if authority is mistaken or corrupt, then it can (at least theoretically) lead to bad results (if there is such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' results).

Without some so of democratic oversight then history tends to show that one mind seems to end up directing the show; be that a tyrant, a dictator or monarch.
Monarchies tend to rely on and encourage tradition, and are antithetical to change.

[Gary Childress]

No.

A single Autocrat can be far more capricious than a democracy,
With Authoritarianism you are putting all your eggs in one basket without the chance of mitigation.
Change is only possible if the autocrat or tyrant changes.
Democracy tends to have responsive change as a given.

"Autocracy" is not necessarily the only way that 'authority' manifests itself. "Autocracy" means rule by one absolute ruler. I'm not speaking specifically of that. Of that I'm not in disagreement with you. It seems self evident to me that no single individual should have absolute power. However, 'authority' can also manifest itself in terms of 'experts' or 'advisors' or even a simple majority dictating to the few who are considered to be mistaken in their views. In short, "authority" can sometimes be good if it is in possession of accurate knowledge and/or good intentions. However, if authority is mistaken or corrupt, then it can (at least theoretically) lead to bad results (if there is such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' results).

Without some so of democratic oversight then history tends to show that one mind seems to end up directing the show; be that a tyrant, a dictator or monarch.
Monarchies tend to rely on and encourage tradition, and are antithetical to change.

I agree completely regarding autocracy. No one of sound mind in this day or age wants that. Perhaps it's best to have a mixture of democracy (rule by the people) and authority (rule by experts)--one essentially moderating or mitigating the deficiencies of the other.

[Sculptor]

"Autocracy" is not necessarily the only way that 'authority' manifests itself. "Autocracy" means rule by one absolute ruler. I'm not speaking specifically of that. Of that I'm not in disagreement with you. It seems self evident to me that no single individual should have absolute power. However, 'authority' can also manifest itself in terms of 'experts' or 'advisors' or even a simple majority dictating to the few who are considered to be mistaken in their views. In short, "authority" can sometimes be good if it is in possession of accurate knowledge and/or good intentions. However, if authority is mistaken or corrupt, then it can (at least theoretically) lead to bad results (if there is such a thing as 'good' or 'bad' results).

Without some so of democratic oversight then history tends to show that one mind seems to end up directing the show; be that a tyrant, a dictator or monarch.
Monarchies tend to rely on and encourage tradition, and are antithetical to change.

I agree completely regarding autocracy. No one of sound mind in this day or age wants that. Perhaps it's best to have a mixture of democracy (rule by the people) and authority (rule by experts)--one essentially moderating or mitigating the deficiencies of the other.

At the moment we have a modicum of democracy, ruled by "experts" totally in the control of mega-rich corporation, who not only own committees, authorities, NGOs, advisory boards, and also own the politicians themselves.

Plato had a similar idea about rule by experts. I wonder how such a thing might work. Who chooses the experts?

I can show you a group of experts that demonstrate that global warming is a scam, and another group that says the earth is in desperate danger.
A group that insists on the current economic model and another that would overthrow it in favour of MMT.
This fracture goes much deeper though. to every walk of life.
Nina Teicholz's "Big Fat Surprise" outlines the corporate funded paper trail which as led to our current Dietary guidelines which , over the last 40 years have presided over the greatest acceleration of obesity, T2D, and heart disease.
Responsible for expert advice still sees Diabetic associations refusing to name sugar and other carbs has the primary cause of diabetic failure.

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I've transformed my health by ignoring experts over the last year and a half.

[Gary Childress]

Without some so of democratic oversight then history tends to show that one mind seems to end up directing the show; be that a tyrant, a dictator or monarch.
Monarchies tend to rely on and encourage tradition, and are antithetical to change.

I agree completely regarding autocracy. No one of sound mind in this day or age wants that. Perhaps it's best to have a mixture of democracy (rule by the people) and authority (rule by experts)--one essentially moderating or mitigating the deficiencies of the other.

At the moment we have a modicum of democracy, ruled by "experts" totally in the control of mega-rich corporation, who not only own committees, authorities, NGOs, advisory boards, and also own the politicians themselves.

Plato had a similar idea about rule by experts. I wonder how such a thing might work. Who chooses the experts?

I can show you a group of experts that demonstrate that global warming is a scam, and another group that says the earth is in desperate danger.
A group that insists on the current economic model and another that would overthrow it in favour of MMT.
This fracture goes much deeper though. to every walk of life.
Nina Teicholz's "Big Fat Surprise" outlines the corporate funded paper trail which as led to our current Dietary guidelines which , over the last 40 years have presided over the greatest acceleration of obesity, T2D, and heart disease.
Responsible for expert advice still sees Diabetic associations refusing to name sugar and other carbs has the primary cause of diabetic failure.

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I've transformed my health by ignoring experts over the last year and a half.

I hear you here. It's difficult to have faith in 'authorities'--especially when those "authorities" are caught in lies and deception, often with most evidence seeming to point to selfish motives being responsible for those lies and deceptions. I tend to be cynical as well, as you may have gathered at times. But I do want to be careful not to throw the proverbial "baby out with the bathwater." Some degree of direction from an 'authority' can be a good thing. Knowing whether that authority is driven by the right motives or a 'good heart' or whatever, seems to be another matter altogether.

In the end, I may just die a skeptic and agnostic. Not to say those things are particularly good qualities but they do seem warranted to me. But I have to be careful and not become a preacher. Still, it's tempting at times.

[Sculptor]

I agree completely regarding autocracy. No one of sound mind in this day or age wants that. Perhaps it's best to have a mixture of democracy (rule by the people) and authority (rule by experts)--one essentially moderating or mitigating the deficiencies of the other.

At the moment we have a modicum of democracy, ruled by "experts" totally in the control of mega-rich corporation, who not only own committees, authorities, NGOs, advisory boards, and also own the politicians themselves.

Plato had a similar idea about rule by experts. I wonder how such a thing might work. Who chooses the experts?

I can show you a group of experts that demonstrate that global warming is a scam, and another group that says the earth is in desperate danger.
A group that insists on the current economic model and another that would overthrow it in favour of MMT.
This fracture goes much deeper though. to every walk of life.
Nina Teicholz's "Big Fat Surprise" outlines the corporate funded paper trail which as led to our current Dietary guidelines which , over the last 40 years have presided over the greatest acceleration of obesity, T2D, and heart disease.
Responsible for expert advice still sees Diabetic associations refusing to name sugar and other carbs has the primary cause of diabetic failure.

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I've transformed my health by ignoring experts over the last year and a half.

I hear you here. It's difficult to have faith in 'authorities'--especially when those "authorities" are caught in lies and deception, often with most evidence seeming to point to selfish motives being responsible for those lies and deceptions. I tend to be cynical as well, as you may have gathered at times. But I do want to be careful not to throw the proverbial "baby out with the bathwater." Some degree of direction from an 'authority' can be a good thing. Knowing whether that authority is driven by the right motives or a 'good heart' or whatever, seems to be another matter altogether.

In the end, I may just die a skeptic and agnostic. Not to say those things are particularly good qualities but they do seem warranted to me. But I have to be careful and not become a preacher. Still, it's tempting at times.

For governments to be healthy they need an established civil service with strict rules of engagement, and a core of honour. A sort of continuity that will do the bidding of the democratically elected leadership without "bias".
Such a thing is sort of impossible since such an institution always tends to be conservative, by their very nature.
Nonetheless the British civil service did the bidding of a radical Labour government in 1945, which saw massive public housing being built and the start of the National Health Service. The conscience of the civil service and their code of honour was in part fulfilled because there were significant numbers of left wing academics employed by them. Since the code would prevent any questions about political preference left wingers were able to find themselves in positions of power that gave a fair chance to the incoming Labour government which ran on a transformative programme. However by the 1970s the security services had managed to mobilise against the left and was partly responsible for the fall of the Wilson/Callaghan administration. Wilson resigned because of dirty tricks, holly paranoid about the phone taps and other tricks. Agent provocateurs were used in the Labour Unions to instigate strikes that discredited Labour.
This all helped Thatcher and the TOries to enjoy power for the next 18 years whilst Labour tore itself to bits with internecine struggles. By the time they had come back to power you could turn from a Tory to a Labour and be unable to tell which was which; just like Orwell's pigs and men.

[promethean75]

"The more society is democratic the more unpredictable it can be. It leaves no single view dominant"

there are so many values held mutually by all people that even if a billion people took a vote, you'd still have a majority vote for certain fundamental things; some kind of law and order (tho they may not agree on 'how'), right to due process (same), right to own property (same), freedom to move (same), etc. in that sense the way a democracy would move would be very predictable becuz u know what er'body wants basically. there would be 'dominant' views, very many of them. not for nothing does all this spring out of the material relations of the society.

as a side consider what the Wolff pointed out. isn't it absurd that we ended up with an industrial society in which the average person spends at least eight hours a day doing something they have very little say about in exchange for a livable (or barely) wage?

don't think marx or capitalism or nothing.... just clear your dome and step back and just survey the situation for a sec. first of all how the fuck r u gonna have to labor for eight hours a day in the 21rst century? what's the problem... a single individual requires very little to live on daily. some clothes, food, a shelter. factories literally put out units by the hundreds of thousands of every kind of conceivable commodity there is. that quick. now if it's that easy to produce shit, why are peeps working so gotdamn much?

ah. u just had it for a sec. u got the marx and smith shit out of your dome and something instinctual stirred inside u when u gazed upon the peeps and saw them working so much.  u know SOMETHING IS WRONG with that setup but you're afraid to voice your dissent becuz you'd be a communist pilled beta-male pussy and your friends wouldn't like u anymore.

bro where is your sense of pride and dignity from your work? or do u even work? when u have a valuable skill that u are rewarded for and that makes u important, how can u be a pussy? and for real for real, society doesn't give a damn about u unless u do have valuable skills and that's the way it should be. but the way we go about arranging that is wonky af. there should be a tremendous respect for labor in all people and around that attention, that concern, the whole of society should be arranged. 

the only way u wouldn't be able to think the situation absurd upon looking at it would be if u weren't a wage earner. u can't not think this shit is bananas I'm saying.

siriusly. 21st century. Eight hour work days. in financial debt before u get out of college. start a credit card and get a part time job. establish a credit line and get a loan for a house u won't own for at least thirty years (takes two weeks to build one. I've done it a hunerd times as a wage worker). working full time now and tryna get overtime becuz your insurances and property taxes went up and now a dozen eggs costs nine dollars and u don't have enough money at the moment to get any gas. so, naturally, u put what eggs u have left into the gas tank to get to the grocery store to buy more eggs. it's completely self defeating but this is the kind of mess people are in.

you've all become acclimatized to this madness and u don't even know it. it isn't logically or physically necessary for there to be capitalism for civilization to work. u can't ack like it HAS TO BE LIKE THIS.

[Agent Smith]

"I believe we're making a mistake," Tom had a worried look on his face. "I agree, just because chipmunks have fur doesn't mean they're wombats. Hey Harry, do wombats have fur?" Dick asked. "Yeah, wombats have fur, but what do wombats and chipmunks have to do with ... with ... what is it we're talking about?" Harry was confused, utter bafflement was his forte despite having earned 2 PhDs. "We're talking about that ... that ... thing ... discovered by ... by ... that guy, what's his name? he used ta only go swimming at night because he had that ... that ... oh for god's sakes, does anyone know what or who we're discussing?!" Tom had a memory of a goldfish, he sometimes forgot his own name, and once he couldn't find his house. Dick lost interest ... quickly ... and Harry was not sure whether wombats were carnivores or herbivores or omnivores.

[Gary Childress]

"I believe we're making a mistake," Tom had a worried look on his face. "I agree, just because chipmunks have fur doesn't mean they're wombats. Hey Harry, do wombats have fur?" Dick asked. "Yeah, wombats have fur, but what do wombats and chipmunks have to do with ... with ... what is it we're talking about?" Harry was confused, utter bafflement was his forte despite having earned 2 PhDs. "We're talking about that ... that ... thing ... discovered by ... by ... that guy, what's his name? he used ta only go swimming at night because he had that ... that ... oh for god's sakes, does anyone know what or who we're discussing?!" Tom had a memory of a goldfish, he sometimes forgot his own name, and once he couldn't find his house. Dick lost interest ... quickly ... and Harry was not sure whether wombats were carnivores or herbivores or omnivores.

Take a deep breath and just do what you think is the right thing for you to do to the very best of your rational abilities. If it turns out to be a wrong thing to do, then at least you didn't do evil deliberately and knowingly=maliciously. If it turns out to be a right thing to do, then you can pat yourself on the back, at least until the next decision comes along requiring your sober attention and then you'll have to focus and worry a little about your choice there too.

Personally, I don't begrudge people for honest mistakes. I'd be a hypocrite to do so. However, deliberately choosing evil is another matter altogether. Then it comes down to what is justifiable and what isn't. If a person does evil under the influence of extreme pressure, suffering or duress, then it's regrettable but maybe not severely punishable. However, if someone does evil just to trade in their fully functional Toyota Corolla for a Lamborghini (just to pull a random example), then they've got some serious explaining to do.

Hope that helps a little, Agent Smith.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

BTW: I forgot to mention, moral dilemmas also count as relatively reasonable grounds for at least presenting a defense of evil deeds too. They're a little more difficult to defend than honest mistakes but they are a bit easier to defend than doing evil for reasons of strictly self-gain. However, self-preservation (as differing in degree from "self-gain") can count as a moral dilemma under certain specific circumstances--usually, it would need to involve existential self-preservation--providing one hasn't done extreme harm and is therefore worthy of existential self-preservation. If someone does extreme harm, then existential self-preservation may be on the table but not necessarily, depending on who the judge or jury are.

And of course, to reiterate, the ideal is to do the right thing AND to do no harm in the process. If you can't accomplish the former (doing a positive unconflicted benefit), then aim for the latter (no harm). And do so to the best of your rational abilities. That's all I would ever ask of someone. (Of course, I can only speak for myself and not others). I wish you the best and may you make the best decisions.

[Agent Smith]

"I believe we're making a mistake," Tom had a worried look on his face. "I agree, just because chipmunks have fur doesn't mean they're wombats. Hey Harry, do wombats have fur?" Dick asked. "Yeah, wombats have fur, but what do wombats and chipmunks have to do with ... with ... what is it we're talking about?" Harry was confused, utter bafflement was his forte despite having earned 2 PhDs. "We're talking about that ... that ... thing ... discovered by ... by ... that guy, what's his name? he used ta only go swimming at night because he had that ... that ... oh for god's sakes, does anyone know what or who we're discussing?!" Tom had a memory of a goldfish, he sometimes forgot his own name, and once he couldn't find his house. Dick lost interest ... quickly ... and Harry was not sure whether wombats were carnivores or herbivores or omnivores.

Take a deep breath and just do what you think is the right thing for you to do to the very best of your rational abilities. If it turns out to be a wrong thing to do, then at least you didn't do evil deliberately and knowingly=maliciously. If it turns out to be a right thing to do, then you can pat yourself on the back, at least until the next decision comes along requiring your sober attention and then you'll have to focus and worry a little about your choice there too.

Personally, I don't begrudge people for honest mistakes. I'd be a hypocrite to do so. However, deliberately choosing evil is another matter altogether. Then it comes down to what is justifiable and what isn't. If a person does evil under the influence of extreme pressure, suffering or duress, then it's regrettable but maybe not severely punishable. However, if someone does evil just to trade in their fully functional Toyota Corolla for a Lamborghini (just to pull a random example), then they've got some serious explaining to do.

Hope that helps a little, Agent Smith.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Muchas gracias for the tip. I need all the help I can get. Your experience and knowledge shines through the mist of unknowing. Since you changed the subject, I'll offer me two cents - progress has been made but it's not the kind you'd have preferred but beggars can't be choosers, no? I'm particularly fascinated by the shape of your mind. You look like the well-rounded types which means you have the luxury of choice. I wonder what you'll have for your next meal.

[Gary Childress]

"I believe we're making a mistake," Tom had a worried look on his face. "I agree, just because chipmunks have fur doesn't mean they're wombats. Hey Harry, do wombats have fur?" Dick asked. "Yeah, wombats have fur, but what do wombats and chipmunks have to do with ... with ... what is it we're talking about?" Harry was confused, utter bafflement was his forte despite having earned 2 PhDs. "We're talking about that ... that ... thing ... discovered by ... by ... that guy, what's his name? he used ta only go swimming at night because he had that ... that ... oh for god's sakes, does anyone know what or who we're discussing?!" Tom had a memory of a goldfish, he sometimes forgot his own name, and once he couldn't find his house. Dick lost interest ... quickly ... and Harry was not sure whether wombats were carnivores or herbivores or omnivores.

Take a deep breath and just do what you think is the right thing for you to do to the very best of your rational abilities. If it turns out to be a wrong thing to do, then at least you didn't do evil deliberately and knowingly=maliciously. If it turns out to be a right thing to do, then you can pat yourself on the back, at least until the next decision comes along requiring your sober attention and then you'll have to focus and worry a little about your choice there too.

Personally, I don't begrudge people for honest mistakes. I'd be a hypocrite to do so. However, deliberately choosing evil is another matter altogether. Then it comes down to what is justifiable and what isn't. If a person does evil under the influence of extreme pressure, suffering or duress, then it's regrettable but maybe not severely punishable. However, if someone does evil just to trade in their fully functional Toyota Corolla for a Lamborghini (just to pull a random example), then they've got some serious explaining to do.

Hope that helps a little, Agent Smith.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Muchas gracias for the tip. I need all the help I can get. Your experience and knowledge shines through the mist of unknowing. Since you changed the subject, I'll offer me two cents - progress has been made but it's not the kind you'd have preferred but beggars can't be choosers, no? I'm particularly fascinated by the shape of your mind. You look like the well-rounded types which means you have the luxury of choice. I wonder what you'll have for your next meal.

At this point, I can only go off of guesses of what is going on with you based on your cryptic posts. When I see one that looks like something familiar to me I may respond if it appears like there might be something alarming involved. For example, the one you posted above that I responded to, seemed to indicate some confusion or inability to keep one's thoughts clear and on track. All I potentially know of you is that your career apparently involves making decisions that may put a person in a position of potentially doing evil (if I understood a couple of your responses to me correctly).

I apologize if I'm wrong or misinterpreted your post. I don't have a crystal ball or magic abilities, only common sense. My thinking was that If a person doesn't have clear thinking in such a position, then that can be trouble for everyone involved, including you. If one doesn't have clear thinking in such a position, then one has to be at least guided by some rules that will at least mitigate possible harm if nothing else and hopefully keep a person's conscience relatively clear. Would you agree?

If you want to know what my next meal is for whatever reason (breakfast), then it will likely be something along the lines of a hot dog, peanut butter and jelly, or a baloney sandwich. That's mostly what my mom and I have in the fridge, that's mostly what we like to eat given our means. I'll be happy to report what I choose after breakfast is over, if that will help.

Choice is a "luxury" we all have for the most part. No one is without choices and the free will to make a choice based on the forewarning that what they do will be followed by consequences that they perceive to the best of their ability to be the consequences of whatever choice they make. When one is in a position of service to others as I have been, then it becomes particularly important to make choices that one can live with.

If one doesn't agree that they need to make choices they can live with, or if one doesn't consider doing the least harm to be the very least best option when in such a position as described above, then feel free to apply whatever other standard you feel is best. However, no one is guaranteed to be be free from the consequences of their choices, regardless of their position in life. What we do, we are responsible for. Sometimes a person can get away with making bad choices that have bad consequences--or cheat the public justice system.

There are no guarantees that a person's mistakes (even honest ones) will become known or evident to those he serves, however, even if that does happen, then we still have to deal with our own knowledge of what we did. No one aside from someone with Alzheimer's or something can escape the knowledge of their own culpability in something. If a person is banking on getting Alzheimer's and going into oblivion (or whatever) being ultimately held unaccounted for any damage they did to others, then good luck. If you've made some bad choices that you don't want to live with, then you may want to start eating foods and engaging in behavior that are so far known to facilitate or increase the possibility of the onset of Alzheimer's in that case.

By the way, I drive a Toyota Corolla and not a Lamborghini, in case that should be another concern of yours for whatever reason.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Agent Smith]

Take a deep breath and just do what you think is the right thing for you to do to the very best of your rational abilities. If it turns out to be a wrong thing to do, then at least you didn't do evil deliberately and knowingly=maliciously. If it turns out to be a right thing to do, then you can pat yourself on the back, at least until the next decision comes along requiring your sober attention and then you'll have to focus and worry a little about your choice there too.

Personally, I don't begrudge people for honest mistakes. I'd be a hypocrite to do so. However, deliberately choosing evil is another matter altogether. Then it comes down to what is justifiable and what isn't. If a person does evil under the influence of extreme pressure, suffering or duress, then it's regrettable but maybe not severely punishable. However, if someone does evil just to trade in their fully functional Toyota Corolla for a Lamborghini (just to pull a random example), then they've got some serious explaining to do.

Hope that helps a little, Agent Smith.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Muchas gracias for the tip. I need all the help I can get. Your experience and knowledge shines through the mist of unknowing. Since you changed the subject, I'll offer me two cents - progress has been made but it's not the kind you'd have preferred but beggars can't be choosers, no? I'm particularly fascinated by the shape of your mind. You look like the well-rounded types which means you have the luxury of choice. I wonder what you'll have for your next meal.

At this point, I can only go off of guesses of what is going on with you based on your cryptic posts. When I see one that looks like something familiar to me I may respond if it appears like there might be something alarming involved. For example, the one you posted above that I responded to, seemed to indicate some confusion or inability to keep one's thoughts clear and on track. All I potentially know of you is that your career apparently involves making decisions that may put a person in a position of potentially doing evil (if I understood a couple of your responses to me correctly).

I apologize if I'm wrong or misinterpreted your post. I don't have a crystal ball or magic abilities, only common sense. My thinking was that If a person doesn't have clear thinking in such a position, then that can be trouble for everyone involved, including you. If one doesn't have clear thinking in such a position, then one has to be at least guided by some rules that will at least mitigate possible harm if nothing else and hopefully keep a person's conscience relatively clear. Would you agree?

If you want to know what my next meal is for whatever reason (breakfast), then it will likely be something along the lines of a hot dog, peanut butter and jelly, or a baloney sandwich. That's mostly what my mom and I have in the fridge, that's mostly what we like to eat given our means. I'll be happy to report what I choose after breakfast is over, if that will help.

Choice is a "luxury" we all have for the most part. No one is without choices and the free will to make a choice based on the forewarning that what they do will be followed by consequences that they perceive to the best of their ability to be the consequences of whatever choice they make. When one is in a position of service to others as I have been, then it becomes particularly important to make choices that one can live with.

If one doesn't agree that they need to make choices they can live with, or if one doesn't consider doing the least harm to be the very least best option when in such a position as described above, then feel free to apply whatever other standard you feel is best. However, no one is guaranteed to be be free from the consequences of their choices, regardless of their position in life. What we do, we are responsible for. Sometimes a person can get away with making bad choices that have bad consequences--or cheat the public justice system.

There are no guarantees that a person's mistakes (even honest ones) will become known or evident to those he serves, however, even if that does happen, then we still have to deal with our own knowledge of what we did. No one aside from someone with Alzheimer's or something can escape the knowledge of their own culpability in something. If a person is banking on getting Alzheimer's and going into oblivion (or whatever) being ultimately held unaccounted for any damage they did to others, then good luck. If you've made some bad choices that you don't want to live with, then you may want to start eating foods and engaging in behavior that are so far known to facilitate or increase the possibility of the onset of Alzheimer's in that case.

By the way, I drive a Toyota Corolla and not a Lamborghini, in case that should be another concern of yours for whatever reason.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Excellent! Your heart is in the right place which is more than I can say about myself, Gary Childress.