Businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations require all of their members to be a productive member of the team.

They regard their members as being analogous to gears in a transmission. The people who do not fit into the organization, or who cannot contribute something of value, or who cause trouble, are evicted.

Nations are the exception. Nations are the only organizations that don't care whether their members are doing something beneficial for the group. Three examples are:

•		Nations do not care whether their schools prepare children for a modern society and provide them with useful skills, or whether the schools provide Jewish propaganda, worthless courses, or nonsense about religion or Freudian psychology. The Erie Institute of Technology has this document to explain what a social media influencer is, and they have a 15 month educational program to teach students how to become a social media influencer. There is no concern about whether the students are learning something useful from such courses.
•		Nations do not care whether the citizens create organizations that are beneficial to the nation. The ADL, the SPLC, CBS, the Mormon church, the think tanks, the BLM, and other organizations, do not have to justify their existence by providing evidence that they are beneficial.
•		Nations do not care whether people have jobs that are beneficial to the nation. There is no concern for whether we benefit from the people who create advertisements for children; the people who do telemarketing; the people who produce fingernail and toenail polish; or the social media influencers.

This constitution creates a city that follows the concepts of the typical business. Specifically, the only people allowed in the city are those who are willing to follow the culture and contribute something of value to the city. A person who cannot be a productive gear in the transmission must be evicted.

The factory workers, children, and other people who are regarded as low in the hierarchy have less influence over our future compared to people in management positions, but everybody in a team is an important member because everybody has some effect on the team and its future. Nobody can claim to be so unimportant that we can ignore what they do or say.

Everybody is influential directly and inadvertently. We influence other people directly when we tell them what to think or do, and we influence people inadvertently simply by existing.

Children also have an influence over our future because their behavior has an effect on our attitudes and goals. For example, if we were living in a city in which most of the children were retarded, mentally ill, stupid, badly behaved, or gang members, we would develop an unpleasant attitude towards children. Those children would dampen our desire to become a parent, get a job that puts us in contact with children, and help the children learn to ride a bicycle. The children would have less supervision and guidance.

Conversely, if we were living in a city in which all of the children were well behaved, everybody, including the children, would develop a pleasant attitude towards children. This would result in everybody having a greater interest in becoming a parent, and working with children at schools, recreational activities, or restaurants. The adults would be more interested in talking to the children, giving them advice, showing them how to ride a bicycle, and taking them on a trip through the forest or to a pond to go swimming.

In a free enterprise system, everybody who spends money, including children, have an influence over the economy, which in turn influences other people's lives and decisions.

We also influence one another's opinions, clothing styles, goals, leisure activities, and eating habits simply by encountering one another. Adults have an especially significant influence on children because children have a natural desire to mimic adults.

The homeless people are also influential because when we encounter them or hear about them:

•		They can stimulate us into thinking about issues we would not have otherwise thought about, such as welfare programs, abortion, religion, homeless shelters, euthanasia, and the genetic degradation of the human race. That distracts us from whatever we were originally thinking about, which is detrimental if we were thinking about something important. It can also cause us to change some of our opinions, or put us into a different mood.
•		They can cause us to change our activities, such as get involved with feeding the homeless people, or encouraging abortion, or providing shelters for them to live in, or looking for a way to push them into somebody else's neighborhood.
•		They can cause us to become annoyed or disgusted with our government officials, or with other citizens, for not helping the homeless people, or for not euthanizing them.
•		They can frighten us, thereby causing us to spend more time at home and less time in the city.
•		If we are planning to start a business, they can cause us to change our plans, such as changing the location of the business, or adding more security devices to the business. If we purchase more security devices, that alters the economy by providing more money to the security businesses, and less money to other businesses.

The homeless people can be described as "broken gears" who are influential because they are part of the transmission, and they affect the other gears. They have an effect on our lives because they are living with us.

The management of businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations do not allow homeless people to live in their facilities because they understand that homeless people are detrimental to the organization. Government officials are the only people in management positions that are stupid enough to let homeless people live among us and degrade our social environment.

Government officials either ignore the homeless people, or they provide them with handouts of food or housing, which does nothing to reduce the number of homeless people, or reduce the detrimental effect that they have on us.

Our prehistoric ancestors had to spread information with their voice, and they influenced people only by direct contact, so it required centuries or thousands of years for information to spread around the world. Furthermore, some information was lost because it never spread beyond a few people before they died.

For example, somebody thousands of years ago created the Antikythera mechanism. The information that was used to create that mechanism might have been in the minds of hundreds of Greek people, but the information was not recorded, so when the people who knew about it died, the information vanished.

Today an individual person can use technology to preserve information for future generations, and to distribute information to people around the world. Everybody today has the ability to become a significant influence over the future of the human race. Unfortunately, no society cares whether a person is a beneficial influence or a detrimental influence.

No society cares about the quality of information that we are provided with, and this allows children, crime networks, religions, businesses, lunatics, Israeli groups, and other organizations to manipulate and exploit us with false, nonsensical, and deceptive information.

Modern humans must be concerned about who is influencing our future, and why. Everybody today can be described as being a world leader because everybody today can influence the entire world through the Internet.

Most people are not trying to influence the world, and most people are not putting information on the Internet in an attempt to influence other people, so those people might respond that they are ordinary people of no importance, and the government should not be concerned with what they are doing. However, most people, especially men, are regularly giving lectures and advice to other people, so they are regularly taking the role of a leader.

Furthermore, modern technology allows everybody to be a significant influence over the entire world. For example, the people who give lectures on abortion, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, religion, racism, anti-Semitism, and nutrition might give lectures only to a few of their relatives and friends, but the people that they give the lectures to might react by spreading the information to other people, or spreading variations of it, or spreading alternative theories. That information might eventually get on the Internet, thereby spreading to people around the world, and to the future generations.

Furthermore, even if a person doesn't give lectures, he can become an influence over the world simply by interacting with other people, and affecting their attitudes and goals. For example, a badly behaved person can cause other people to develop bad attitudes. That in turn can alter their opinions, and altering what they put on the Internet, thereby altering their influence over the world.

George Floyd is an example of that concept. He had an effect on the attitudes and beliefs of millions of people around the world, but he never said anything to any of us, or posted any documents on the Internet. He became influential because some journalists, probably mostly Jews, decided to use his death to instigate racial fights and hatred of the police.

The Internet, television, printing press, and other technology allows everybody to become a world leader directly and indirectly. Everybody has the potential of being a very significant influence on the world. Nobody can claim that he should be able to do and say whatever he pleases because he an insignificant person.

We are no longer tiny, isolated, nomadic tribes. All humans today are members of one gigantic team. All of us can influence the world. Therefore, we must ensure that everybody is a productive team member. We cannot allow people to be a bad influence and justify what they do by claiming to be an "ordinary person of no importance".

Everybody today has a responsibility to be a productive and beneficial team member. This is the policy that all successful businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations follow. It is only nations that don't care whether its members are useful or destructive.

There are millions of citizens and organizations that are trying to influence our future by posting documents or videos on the Internet to tell us what to think or do, or by creating television programs that try to manipulate our attitudes or goals, or by creating advertisements to make us desire the products that they profit from, or by spreading propaganda about Nazis, Muslim terrorists, or white supremacists, or by trying to fool us into giving pity and enormous financial handouts to Israel.

It is dangerous to allow people and organizations to influence the world without ensuring that their influence is beneficial. We must pass judgment on who is providing the world with useful guidance, and who is a destructive influence.

All of the successful businesses, orchestras, militaries, and other organizations pass judgment on whether their members are productive, and if not, they are evicted. We need a government agency to do the same thing with the citizens.

The problem that we must resolve is who will pass judgment on whether somebody is a beneficial influence, and what to do with the destructive people.

The Journalism Ministry is responsible for determining whether a person is providing beneficial information, the Behavior Ministry is responsible for passing judgment on whether people are behaving properly, and the Courts Ministry is responsible for conducting trials to determine if a person is truly causing trouble, and what to do about him.

Another problem with technology is that it allows criminals to become more destructive, and it allows honest people to become destructive accidentally. For example, modern children can accidentally set buildings and forests on fire, and criminals can use drones to create even more extreme fires. The criminals of the future will be able to use robots, lasers, and biological weapons to commit crimes that are even more destructive.

As technology becomes more advanced, we must increase the standards for people to meet, including people in leadership positions, and we must pass judgment on which technology we need to put restrictions on in order to prevent accidental destruction. The License Ministry of the Quality Division is responsible for determining the restrictions on material items.

One of my documents about AI software points out that we must be concerned about the behavior of people, rather than be afraid of software. Government officials who do not have much of an understanding of technology will have trouble understanding the concept that people are dangerous, not technology. Those ignorant government officials will give us idiotic analyses of our problems, and they will create detrimental policies. Four examples are:

1)		In February 2024, the FCC outlawed phone calls by AI software, which is especially idiotic because the US government has continuously failed to stop deceptive and dishonest phone calls that are made by humans.
2)		In March 2024, Adam Schwadron, a Missouri government official, created legislation known as The Taylor Swift Act in response to the AI images of Taylor Swift that were "sexually explicit".
3)		In August 2024, David Chiu, the San Francisco city attorney, filed a lawsuit against 18 websites that allowed people to upload a photo of a person and use AI software to put their face on a naked body. He said the FBI is concerned that the AI pornography has a "devastating effect" on people's reputations and mental health, and has caused some people to become suicidal.
4)		In September 2024, Governor Newsom of California authorized two other laws to protect people in the entertainment businesses from AI images. He also authorized a third law to "ensure AI is not deployed to undermine the public’s trust through disinformation", and the federal government is considering similar laws.  In response, Elon Musk encouraged the parody video that Newsom wants to make illegal.

The AI software makes it easy for us to create images, but that is just one of many methods that we use to create images. We also create images with embroidery machines, laser engraving machines, oil paints, pencils, and sugar frosting.

Putting restrictions on AI software in an attempt to stop people from creating sexual images is as stupid as putting restrictions on oil paints in an attempt to stop artists from creating oil paintings of sexual images, or putting restrictions on 3D printers to stop people from creating sexually explicit sculptures, or putting restrictions on sand at the beach to stop people from creating sexually explicit sand sculptures, or putting restrictions on tattoo ink to stop people from creating sexually explicit tattoos.

It is also as stupid as putting restrictions on video cameras to stop people such as Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs from secretly making video recordings to blackmail people.

Likewise, trying to stop the AI software from creating sarcastic, amusing, or deceptive political information is as stupid as trying to stop ballpoint pens, typewriters, and video editing software from creating such information.

Governor Newsom and the other people who want to protect us from deceptive political information could not possibly be as stupid as they appear to be. It is much more likely that they are frightened that the AI software is making it easy for us to create images and documents that expose their crimes and their deceptive policies. They want to protect us from the AI software for the same reason that Jews want to protect us from Holocaust deniers and Nazis.

Our ancestors used their voice to express their opinions about government officials, and in 1720 an artist made what might be the first printing of a critical political drawing. Today we have lots of technology to create and spread information about government officials, but the technology cannot create the information. It is the people who create the information. The ballpoint pens, AI software, and printing presses are just tools that the people use.

The people who are chosen to be voters and government officials need enough of an understanding of technology and human behavior to realize that people must be held responsible for what they do, not the technology they use.

We must stop tolerating loopholes

Government officials try to solve problems by creating laws, and when a law fails to solve a problem, the government officials create another law. One of the reasons that their laws fail to solve our problems is because the governments tolerate loopholes. They play cat and mouse games with criminals, rather than eliminate the criminals.

By comparison, business executives demand that all members of the organization behave properly. For example, if an employee of a business were to use AI software to deceive other employees, the executives would probably fire him for disrupting the business, rather than send a memo to the employees to tell them that they cannot use AI software to create deceptive information.

A free enterprise system puts businesses into competition for their survival, and that results in the incompetent executives being driven to bankruptcy or fired, but the voters are so incompetent that they continuously elect government officials who have very serious mental disorders, and who are corrupt, selfish, dishonest, and incompetent.

We must raise standards for “experts”

No culture has standards for "experts", and this allows incompetent and dishonest people to become experts and provide us with idiotic advice. For example, this news article tells us that "experts have predicted" that "huge numbers" of us will be cheated by AI software.

The advice from the "security expert", Dr. Andrew Bolster, is that we "should always be wary of deals that are 'too good to be true'", and that we "should always consult with friends and family members to get a second opinion." However, his advice is promoting the buyer beware philosophy, not a sensible suggestion to reduce crime.

Creating sensible restrictions is difficult

Certain types of technology are truly dangerous, and need to be regulated. For example, ammonia and sulfuric acid are valuable chemicals, but we must have regulations on how they can be used, stored, and transported, and we must put restrictions on who has access to those chemicals.

However, creating restrictions requires analyzing complex concepts. Every culture is promoting the attitude that all people are equally capable of becoming excellent voters and leaders, but in reality, the majority of people will make average decisions about everything.

Therefore, the only way we will get intelligent restrictions is to restrict the voters and government officials to people who have demonstrated the ability to provide us with better-than-average restrictions, and who blame people for bad behavior, rather than blame the technology that the people use.

It is possible for us to create software that truly has diabolical intentions, such as designing software for a robot to make it secretly put poison into somebody's food. However, if somebody were to create such software, that person should be held responsible, not the software or the robot.

We need to put restrictions on who has access to sulfuric acid, explosives, guns, poisons, razor blades, airplanes, and many other items, because:

1)	Criminals can use those items for destructive purposes.
2)	Children can accidentally cause trouble if they have access to them.
3)	Adults can accidentally cause trouble if they don't know how to use them properly.

The images that we create with AI software can be used to deceive and manipulate people, which this Constitution considers to be illegal, but we can create deceptive images in many other ways. For example, NASA created lots of deceptive videos and photographs of astronauts on the moon. Furthermore, and even more important, the deceptive images that NASA created have caused a lot more trouble than the images of Taylor Swift.

Likewise, the deceptive images of Nazi gas chambers, ovens, and piles of shoes that are in television programs, movies, and books are causing more trouble for more people than the images of Taylor Swift.

Deceptive documents are more detrimental

The document about intellectual trials points out that information is very important to us, and we must ensure that it is honest. However, speech recognition software, word processing software, typewriters, pencils, and ballpoint pens allow us to create false and deceptive documents that are much more detrimental than the AI images.

Furthermore, it is easier to spread deceptive information with television and school books than it is by putting images on the Internet. Therefore, we should be more concerned with the quality of the information that journalists and schools are providing us.

This constitution requires the government officials to be intolerant of deceptive information, and to delete or fix the false information, but it is the person who created the deceptive information that we must be intolerant of, not the pencils or software that the person used to create it.

Deceptive information in the form of words is much more dangerous than deceptive images. For example, after the 9/11 attack occurred, the Jews provided lots of deceptive information about some Arabs living in caves, which deceived millions (or billions) of people into supporting a senseless war, and causing more suffering than is possible with images of Taylor Swift.

Actually, nobody suffers from images of Taylor Swift. The people who claim to suffer from images of naked bodies are suffering because they have chosen to suffer. For example, two government officials in New Jersey claim that the AI images are "an emerging threat that we need to address - today", but the images are a threat only to people who have chosen to feel threatened by them, so those people are responsible for their suffering.

This issue is complicated because the people who suffer as a result of seeing an image of a naked woman do not make a conscious decision to torture themselves. Rather, they were trying to satisfy their emotional inhibitions, and inadvertently tormented themself in the process. This concept was mentioned several times, such as here, in regards to the complaints by Jennifer Lawrence that she was suffering as a result of men looking at her body.

The people who suffer from images of a naked woman are suffering because they want to suffer, so none of us have an obligation to give them pity. The only thing that society is obligated to do is to ensure that everybody has an appropriate education so that they can make intelligent decisions about how to deal with problems of our modern era.

Prehistoric men would use AI software to create beautiful clothing, not naked women.

Prehistoric men would not have been interested in looking at images of naked women, and prehistoric women would not have considered an image of a naked woman to be dangerous or threatening.

If they had access to AI software, they would fascinated to look at images of people wearing beautiful clothing.

Millions of boys and adult men have obnoxious obsessions with sex and women's bodies, and millions of women become hysterical about nudity and sex because our culture is crude and inappropriate, and because we have terrible leadership, not because the human body is disgusting or dangerous.

Nobody is truly suffering from sexually explicit AI images, but everybody in the world is suffering from the deceptive information that is being provided by government officials, Jews, pedophiles, and other selfish and dishonest people.

We are also suffering from crime. For example, the crime is so extreme in some American cities that some businesses have been shutting down their retail stores because of the crime, not because the economy is bad.

We also suffer from automobile accidents, alcoholism, pollution, and overcrowding. Furthermore, hundreds of millions of people suffered as a result of all of the wars and false flag operations instigated by Jews. Many people are also suffering from the migrants that the Jews are bringing into Europe and the USA.

However, rather than deal with those serious problems, Governor Newsom and other influential people are more concerned with sexual images and political cartoons.

Restrictions on AI software would be a nuisance, not a benefit. It is more sensible for our legal system to hold people accountable for the information they provide to us, just as we demand that people be responsible for the medicines and foods that they provide to us.

If somebody uses AI software to create images or documents that are intended to deceive us, that person should be considered as a criminal, not the software. We should evict the people who try to manipulate, exploit, or deceive us, regardless of whether they use AI software, pencils, or video cameras.

Some people like to quote the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words", but, as already mentioned, the deceptive information that is in the form of words is much more destructive than images. For example, in 2016 many millions of people heard the accusations that some pizza parlors in Washington DC were involved with a pedophile network, and thousands of journalists, "Truth Seekers", and "Fact Checkers" quickly claimed that the accusations were false.

Their words allow them to protect an international network of pedophiles, and their connection to Israel, the FBI, the media companies, and lots of other influential organizations. There is no way to create an image that could have protected that pedophile network so thoroughly.

Everybody wants their medicines and food be safe, but most people don't want to verify the accuracy of the information that we are provided by journalists, government officials, the ADL, or the FBI.

This constitution requires the government to ensure that information is as accurate as possible. The people who deliberately provide false information are regarded as more dangerous than people providing dangerous medicines and foods.

For example, some people claim that there are tunnels underneath the Getty Museum for pedophile networks to abuse children. It is idiotic to ignore those types of accusations. If that information is false, the people who created it should be arrested, but if the Fact Checkers are lying when they claim that there are no tunnels, then the Fact Checkers should be arrested for protecting a pedophile network.

The contradictory information about pedophile networks are much more serious and damaging than images of naked women, but most people are more concerned with looking at, or censoring, the images of naked women.

Another example of this problem is that a news report and video claims that Kamala Harris hit pedestrians with her automobile and drove away from the accident, and another news report claims that Tim Walz drank a gallon of horse semen. The "Fact Checkers" claim that the news reports are false, but neither the public nor the government officials are interested in determining who is telling the truth, and arresting the people who are providing false information. Governor Newsom is more concerned with protecting us from political cartoons and images of naked women.

It is possible that the story about Harris hitting pedestrians and Walz drinking semen are based on actual events that they are being blackmailed over, but the details were deliberately distorted so that anybody who investigated the reports would conclude that they are false. The people who are blackmailing Harris and Walz may have released those stories in order to remind them that if they don't follow orders, information about their past will be made public.

However, not many people are interested in determining the truth about those stories, or whether our government officials are being blackmailed. As of September 2024, most people also seem to believe that Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs were blackmailing people for their own personal benefit, not to help Israel get control of the world.

Likewise, there is no concern from the public to determine who is lying about about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, or the assassination attempt of Donald Trump. The public also has no desire to arrest the people who are deliberately spreading false information about those events, and the government officials only want to arrest the people who criticize them or expose their crimes.

The people who are creating false information in the form of words are causing more trouble than the people who are creating images of naked women.

We should arrest people who put poison in food, not insult the people who eat it.

People who ignore deceptive information are as irresponsible as people who ignore a restaurant chef who puts poison into some of the food items.

The people who ridicule a person as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" for believing and spreading false information are as irresponsible as people who ridicule a customer who has eaten some of the chef's poisoned food.

Instead of ridiculing the people who believe that the Earth is flat, or that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, or that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, the most appropriate response is to investigate the issues to determine which information is accurate, why some people are promoting false information, and arrest the people who are trying to manipulate us.

When we ignore false information, we allow crime networks to deceive us. For example, after the 9/11 attack occurred, Jews around the world began creating lots of false information about what happened, such as blaming George Bush or some bankers for the attack; claiming that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs; and that the airplanes that hit the towers were CGI. Anybody who promoted one of their idiotic theories was regarded as a "stupid conspiracy theorist".

The people who promote false information in order to manipulate or exploit us should be regarded as criminals. However, most people, including most of the people who are above-average in intelligence and education, make stupid decisions about what is a serious crime, and who should be arrested. For example, we should arrest the people who lie about the Holocaust, such as the Rosenblatts and the ADL officials, not the people who investigate it.

Animals and prehistoric humans were subjected to dangerous situations every day. The primary source of danger was "nature", such as finding food and water, avoiding predators, and dealing with bad weather, and next most important source of danger was territorial fights with neighbors. Neither animals nor prehistoric humans could do anything to prevent those problems from occurring, so they had to accept them as a part of life.

Modern humans have that same attitude of tolerating problems, such as teaching children to be careful of criminals. One of our phrases that describe this attitude is "buyer beware". For example, we tell people to install security cameras and locks on their homes, rather than try to eliminate criminals. We teach children to be afraid of strangers, rather than eliminate pedophiles and human trafficking. We warn people to be suspicious of the information from salesmen and on the Internet, rather than remove the people who provide false information.

When a group of sheep is attacked by a wolf, the sheep run away, but as soon as the wolf grabs one of the sheep and begins to eat it, the other sheep relax and continue grazing, as if nothing had happened.

Humans are behaving in that same manner. For example, when a house is burglarized, the neighbors become upset, but after a while they relax and continue with their life as if nothing had happened. They do not make any significant attempt to prevent future burglaries. If the burglar is caught by the police and sent to jail for a while, nobody makes any attempt to ensure that he is honest when he is released.

We no longer have to worry about nature or territorial fights with neighbors. Instead, we need to be concerned about the behavior of the people we live with, especially those in influential positions. Furthermore, and more important, we have the ability to deal with people, so we must stop tolerating crime, deception, lies, abuse, and propaganda as if those problems are analogous to a drought or a tornado. However, it requires that we push ourselves into being critical of our leaders and citizens, and experiment with our policies towards crime, deception, and lies.

Billions of people today suffer from a problem that did not affect prehistoric people, specifically, bad genetics. Nature ensured that prehistoric adults were healthy and enjoyed life. Today, however, there are possibly billions of people who suffer occasionally or constantly from such genetic problems as bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, ADHD, allergies, migraine headaches, arthritis, diabetes, digestive problems, and dyslexia.

We have the knowledge and ability to reduce genetic problems in every generation, but most people are treating these problems as if they are a tornado. Specifically, most people accept and tolerate genetic problems, and feel sorry for the victims, just as they do with the victims of a tornado. Only a small percentage of the population is interested in reducing the number of children who suffer from genetic problems.

Some parents convince themselves that their child is retarded because God is trying to teach them something, similar to how they convince themselves that they are victims of a tornado because God wanted to teach them something. Those people are behaving like stupid animals, not intelligent humans, and they are torturing themselves and their defective children.

The whining about sexual AI images is another example of why it is necessary to expose children to nudity and information about sex and digestion. We cannot expect to create a pleasant life for ourselves when adults become hysterical about nudity, sex, waste products, and digestion, and they ignore pedophile networks, ritual murders, government corruption, false flag operations, and propaganda about holocausts and moon landings.

Adults, especially government officials, must make better decisions about what our problems are, and what a "crime" is. They cannot become hysterical about computer-generated images of naked women, or a woman who is breast-feeding a baby.

Our societies have become dominated by people who have almost no control over their sexual inhibitions and desires. Sexual issues are a part of almost all of the television programs, Hollywood movies, advertisements, and fiction books. Our government officials have such an inability to control their sexual desires that they are frequently accused of rape and pedophilia.

Our prehistoric, nomadic ancestors would not have become hysterical about naked bodies, childbirth, breast-feeding, or sex. We must expose children to these issues so that they become adults who are capable of dealing with the human body and its functions in a calm and intelligent manner.

The behavior of the majority of people is another example of why it is foolish to let the majority of people dominate our future. They cannot provide a society with intelligent guidance. They cannot even provide themselves or their children with intelligent guidance. They can only provide "ordinary" guidance.

Furthermore, raising standards for people cannot solve this problem. No matter how high the standards are, the majority of people will always be ordinary, and half the population will always be below average.

No matter how intelligent people become, there will always be a minority that will make better decisions than the majority. Therefore, no matter how educated and intelligent the public is, they should always be told to keep their mouth shut and follow the advice of a smaller minority that is more intelligent than they are.

Children have an influence on the attitudes and lives of their friends, parents, teachers, neighbors, doctors, and everybody else that they encounter. For example, when we grow up around badly behaved children, our craving to become a parent can be dampened. That happened to me. When I became an adult, I had no desire to have children, but years later, when I visited Europe, I noticed a lot of nicely behaved children, and it made me realize that having a family could be pleasant.

Everybody has an influence on other people. We should ensure that the people we live with, including the children, are a beneficial influence. We are fools to allow the badly behaved children to ruin our social environment. Feeling sorry for them, and tolerating them, doesn't help them or us.

We must stop regarding children as bundles of joy and acknowledge the evidence that they are nothing more than young humans, and that we must deal with the children who are a bad influence. Unfortunately, we have a powerful emotional craving to take care of children, so being critical of children requires a lot of self-control.

If a child were to provide other children with poisonous mushrooms or destructive dental treatments, every culture would do something to stop him. However, there is not much concern about preventing children from encouraging bad attitudes in other children, such as encouraging other children to get involved with pranks, rebellious behavior, or drugs. There is also not much concern about stopping the children from irritating adults or other children with their violent, selfish, or arrogant behavior.

A child who is a bad influence is analogous to the pigpen character in the Peanuts comic strip, except that he spreads bad attitudes and behavior instead of dust.

What is the difference between a child who gives poisonous mushrooms to other children, and a child who gives other children destructive attitudes?

Both children are detrimental, but a child who spreads bad attitudes is more destructive than a child who gives people poisonous mushrooms because everybody will quickly notice that people are getting sick from the poisonous mushrooms, and they will react by stopping the child from doing it. However, most people will ignore a child who spreads bad attitudes, or make excuses for him, which allows him to continue.

Every culture promotes the attitude that children are precious, and that we should tolerate their abusive behavior, but everybody must meet higher standards today compared to our prehistoric ancestors. Everybody must be a good influence on other people, and be a contributing member to society.

We must expect children to make a lot of idiotic decisions, and to frequently behave like monkeys, but the Behavior Ministry is authorized to raise the standards of behavior for children. The badly behaved children must be separated from the others in schools and recreational activities so that they don't encourage bad attitudes among the higher quality children, and they don't torment the teachers. The teachers are not obligated to tolerate badly behaved children.

The School and Behavior Ministries are authorized to pass judgment on which children are so badly behaved that they should be euthanized. They post their requests, and the Death Ministry will decide whether the children are euthanized.

Many adults claim that they received some good advice from their parents or other people while they were children, and that it significantly helped them later in life. One of my uncles is an example. He told us that he had a job to deliver newspapers in the morning when was a child and, and one day he complained to his mother that he was tired of the work and wanted to quit. She gave him some advice, which I cannot remember, but he said it had a beneficial effect on his attitude towards work, and he kept his job.

The adults who believe that they benefited from good advice often believe that we can reduce the number of badly behaved children by ensuring that all children are given good advice, also.

However, the issue of giving advice to children is complicated because advice is like any other type of information that we provide to children and adults. Specifically, information has value only to the people who can understand it, and who are willing to do something with it.

Advice is useful only to children who have the mental characteristics to understand and use it.

Many parents have given excellent advice to their children about food, work, school, drugs, alcohol, and venereal diseases, but only some of the children benefited from it.

The same is true with adults. For example, millions of adults have been provided with valuable advice, such as avoid credit card debt, gambling, drugs, venereal diseases, and unwanted pregnancies, but many adults could not follow the advice.

Millions of adults have also been provided with information about the World Trade Center towers being demolished with explosives, and that the Apollo moon landings are a hoax, but they ignored or ridiculed that information.

Millions of adults have also been provided with information about genetics and evolution, but most of them prefer to believe in some type of supreme being, or that the human mind is like a piece of clay.

The same concept applies to warning signs in our cities. For example, a lot of adults saw the "No Swimming" sign at a pond in Disneyland, and they avoided going into the water, but one day a mother let her child "wade" in the water, and he was killed by an alligator.

A warning sign provides us with information, but the information is valuable only to the people who have the intelligence to understand it, and who have the emotional desire to use it.

This concept was also discussed in regards to "laws". A law provides us with information, but a law has no value to people who cannot understand it, or do not have the emotional desire to do use it.

We must deal with the unpleasant issue that some people will not respond properly to certain information, and we cannot fix their mind with punishments or rewards. We must accept the evidence that most of the people who are alive today do not have the intellectual and/or emotional characteristics necessary to deal with this modern era. They are analogous to low-quality gears in a transmission.

When children misbehave, we have to decide whether it is because of the child's genetic characteristics, or because of some environmental issue, such as improper parenting, or because of the bad influence of other children.

For example, the child who was killed by the alligator at Disneyland might have been so badly behaved that his mother gave up trying to control him and let him go in the water, in which case the child should be considered responsible for his death. We should not hold adults accountable for children who are uncontrollable.

This brings up the issue of "fairness". Is it fair to hold an adult accountable for the terrible behavior of a low-quality child? This Constitution advocates euthanizing the badly behaved children rather than let them torment the parents and other people. This is essentially the policy that businesses follow. For example, an employee who is troublesome is fired. His manager is not held responsible for his bad behavior, and he is not allowed to keep his job and irritate other employees.

We must expect children to be more troublesome than adults, but we need to set standards for them. This constitution advocates setting standards so high that parents enjoy raising children, and the people who work at the children's facilities also enjoy the children.

Adults should not be in the role of prison guards who are trying to control violent and destructive children, or in the role of nurses who are trying to control mentally ill and retarded children. Children should be as we expect them to be; specifically, a pleasure.

Children have a strong desire to torment the misfit children because that is nature's way of getting rid of some of the defective children. However, that process is cruel and ineffective. We need to improve upon it, and the method that this constitution advocates is to have the Behavior, Children, and School Ministries identify and remove the troublesome children. The mildly troublesome children can be put into separate schools or neighborhoods, but the more seriously destructive children need to be euthanized.

Although animals sometimes react to a problem with violence, their preferred method is to run away and hide from it. It is acceptable for animals to do this because most of their problems are the type that they can solve by running away, such as predators, floods, fires, and volcanoes.

Humans inherited that desire to run away from problems, but not many of the problems of a modern society can be solved by running away from them. We hurt ourselves when we ignore such modern problems as credit card debt, dishonest government officials, teenage gangs, and pedophile networks.

We must be able to analyze our problems and experiment with solutions. When modern humans hide from problems, we allow the problems to persist or become more serious. For example, many alcoholics are hiding from their alcohol problem rather than analyzing it and experimenting with solutions to it. They are not ignorant about their alcohol problem; rather, they are trying to run away from the problem. This allows the problem to persist, or get worse.

Furthermore, hiding from problems can cause our culture to become idiotic. For example, the alcoholics who ignore their problems are creating the impression that alcohol is an "adult beverage", and that it is fun to become intoxicated at dinners, weddings, and parties.

Another example is that many bald man try to hide from baldness with comb overs, wigs, or hair transplants. There is nothing wrong with a bald man getting a hair transplant, but there is a significant difference between a man who gets a hair transplant but pretends he did not get a hair transplant because he is trying to hide from his baldness, and a man who admits that he has a hair transplant.

Likewise, there is a significant difference between a woman who dies her gray hair but pretends that she did not dye her hair, and a woman who admits that she dyes her hair.

The difference between those people is that the person who hides from his problem is deceiving other people. This can cause other people who have those same problems to feel as if they are misfits, which can cause them to want to hide from the problem, also. This encourages more people to be deceptive, which creates an unpleasant social environment.

Some of the men with comb overs, or who use hair sprays, might be afraid to swim in public areas because they don't want the water to expose their baldness or their plain hair. Those men will have a dampening effect on the people who want to go swimming, and they may avoid some other recreational or social activities because of the fear of their baldness being exposed. When there are only a few of those men, they are insignificant, but if most of the men were like that, they would have a detrimental effect on our social and leisure activities.

Some men shave their head in order to make their baldness less noticeable, and of those men, only a few can admit that they shave their head because they don't like their baldness pattern. Most of them pretend that they enjoy the chore of shaving their head every morning. Those men are encouraging idiotic and deceptive behavior, and they are only fooling themselves because we can see that they are bald when we get close to them.

The people who lie about their problems and deceive us about themselves are detrimental to our social environment because they encourage awkwardness, shame, embarrassment, fear of nudity, deception, and the fear of the truth.

By comparison, the people who are honest about their problems encourage other people to acknowledge, analyze, discuss, and experiment with their problems. They help everybody acknowledge the evidence that nobody is perfect, and that all of us should look critically at ourselves, admit to having problems, and find ways to deal with our problems so that we don't ruin our lives or disrupt other people's lives. That attitude provides us with a more pleasant and productive social environment.

People who are willing to admit to having problems, and who can investigate those problems, are going to be able to eventually find ways to reduce the problems.

For example, if we were to study the issue of gray hair, and create a People database with details of everybody's life, we would be able to figure out how much of the gray hair is due to genetics, and how much is from such environmental issues as diet, stress, pollutants, and the side effects of medical drugs.

We cannot reduce gray hair, baldness, alcoholism, skin blemishes, mental illness, allergies, and other problems by hiding from them. We need to acknowledge our unpleasant characteristics, investigate their cause, and experiment with solutions. This will result in discovering that some of our problems are inheritable, which means that we can reduce the problem only by restricting reproduction, but that is an issue that frightens most people to such an extent that every culture is hiding from it.

Men should deal with problems, not hide, pout, or have a tantrum.

By hiding from the issue of genetics, we are allowing the genetic disorders to become more severe and numerous with every generation.

The only way we can reduce genetic disorders is restrict reproduction to the genetically superior members.

Nature handles this problem by putting all creatures into a battle for life, but that is a cruel method, and it no longer works with humans. Modern humans must pass judgment on which people should reproduce, and/or pass judgment on which children should be sterilized or euthanized.

We must raise standards for the people so that the majority are capable of understanding and accepting these concepts. The people who cannot must be regarded as having a mind that is too similar to an ape to be a member of a modern society.

This section pointed out that we could more easily enjoy hot weather if we put beautiful swimming pools near our apartment and office buildings, and if we could take our clothes off and jump in the water while naked.

We could also enjoy cold winter evenings by scattering some pools of warm water around the neighborhoods, and children would have a more pleasant childhood could jump into the pools while naked this without fear of pedophiles or bullies.

By using the water in a pool to cool the buildings or refrigeration units, we would be able to heat the water in an economical manner.

Until the past few centuries, everybody was naked when they were swimming but today there is tremendous resistance to nudity. How much of that resistance is due to our becoming accustomed to bathing suits, and how much is coming from people who are embarrassed of their ugly body?

When I was in high school, all of the students would take a shower after the physical education classes, and we would be naked in front of one another. Several decades ago the high school stopped that practice because there were so many ugly, fat, and deformed students that they were too embarrassed to be naked. The students today let their clothing soak up the perspiration, which is using their clothing as a "full-body diaper". This should be considered as more evidence that the US culture is a failure, and that we are breeding ourselves into retards.

People today are much more deformed, overweight, and ugly than they were centuries ago. A significant percentage of the population today is too embarrassed of their body to be seen naked, and some people avoid public swimming areas because they are so embarrassed of their body that they don't even want to be seen in a bathing suit. We are allowing the human race to become a creature that hates itself.

The people who don't like their gray hair, or who don't like whatever their natural color is, are not solving the problem by dying their hair. The dyes can fool us when we are at a considerable distance from them, but when we get close enough to have a conversation, we can see that their hair roots and eyebrows are a different color.

Likewise, when we are close enough to have a conversation with a woman, we can see whether she is trying to cover pimples, wrinkles, or blemishes with cosmetics.

The same is true with people who are embarrassed to be seen in bathing suits or naked. They are not fooling us by wearing clothing. We can see the outline of their ugly body, and we can see that their posture is terrible, and we can see that their face is ugly.

The people who are trying to deceive us about their blemishes, gray hair, ugly body, or whatever they dislike about themselves, are not fooling us. Rather, they are tormenting themselves. They are in a similar miserable situation is liars because they must continuously maintain a deception throughout their lives. Our life will be more relaxing and pleasant when we don't have to maintain lies, and we don't have to maintain a false image of ourself.

Most people, possibly all of us, are more concerned with the attractiveness of a person's face than the attractiveness of his body, and we care more about his personality than his face, but most people are more concerned about hiding their body. I heard of one man who would wear socks at the beach because he considered his feet to be ugly. That is as ridiculous as a person wearing a paper bag over his face when he is at the beach because he considers his face to be ugly.

The people who believe that they can hide their ugly or fat body with clothing are not fooling any of us. Clothing cannot transform an ugly person into a good-looking person, or a fat person into a thin person. Bathing suits are especially useless for hiding a person's fat body, bad posture, or ugly face.

We judge a person's appearance primarily by their face, not their body. Therefore, a person who has an ugly face will be regarded as ugly regardless of what type of clothing he wears, and regardless of how nice-looking his body is.

Our sexual inhibitions has resulted in culture that is encouraging idiotic behavior and attitudes. The ugly people who believe that they are hiding their ugliness with clothing and bathing suits are only fooling themselves.

Likewise, we encourage idiotic behavior, and waste our time and resources, when we promote the attitude that we can hide ugliness and baldness with cosmetics, comb overs, hair dyes, and wigs.

We would have a more relaxed and pleasant social environment if everybody could accept what they are, and could accept what other people are. We hurt ourselves when we try to hide from our problems, or when we are embarrassed of ourselves, or when we create a false image of ourselves. We also waste labor and resources on the production of cosmetics and hair dyes.

We should produce cosmetics and jewelry only for special social affairs, not for everyday life, or for ugly people to try to deceive us.

Likewise, we should wear bathing suits only when there is a sensible reason to do so, such as to protect our body, or to keep breasts, penises, and testicles from flopping around. However, the bathing suits that are being produced today are not designed for a sensible purpose, except perhaps those for athletes. The bathing suits for the ordinary people are designed for appearance and sexual inhibitions.

The only sensible way of reducing the problem with ugliness, baldness, deformed bodies, and other defects is to restrict reproduction.

Can we expect good leadership from a man who is dishonest about his hair color, or his hair care services? How about a man who believes that he is hiding his baldness with a comb over?

The answer is a personal opinion, but this constitution believes that we will get better leadership from people who can be honest.

The top leadership position should be restricted to people who encourage beneficial behavior and discourage deception, insults, revenge, and fantasies.

In order for us to benefit from constructive criticism, and in order for us to order for us to pass judgment on one another's mental characteristics and the value of their opinions, we must stop regarding criticism and job performance reviews as an intrusion of privacy, hurtful, hateful, or disrespectful. We must switch to regarding criticism as a valuable analysis.

Constructive criticism is detrimental only when people continuously repeat the same criticism. For example, obese people do not benefit by having thousands of people advise them to reduce their food consumption. That is as irritating as somebody continuously poking us with a stick.

We must also differentiate between insults and constructive criticism. Insults are detrimental, but we cannot hurt a person by giving him constructive criticism of his job performance, opinions, or behavior. If our analysis of him is idiotic, then we hurt ourselves, not him, by making ourselves look stupid, uneducated, or arrogant.

If a person is hurt by our criticism, it is because he made himself become hurt, and he is responsible for his "suffering", not us. If he reacts with violence, he should be considered unacceptable for this modern world, and evicted. We don't tolerate violent animals, and we should not tolerate violent humans.

There are so many people who react to criticism with anger, violence, and pouting that we resist criticizing people. This causes a lot of problems, especially with the economy. For example, I personally know of a man who was fired from his job. He applied for a job at another company, and the manager called his previous employer to ask about his job performance, but she gave him a wonderful reference rather than admit that she fired him.

He was then hired, but was fired after a couple weeks for incompetence. The woman who hired him called his previous employer to ask why she said he was a good employee, and she admitted that her company was afraid to be honest about firing people because they were worried about employees filing lawsuits. Her advice was to never believe anybody's references because there are so many businesses that are afraid to tell the truth about the employees they fire.

The people who are unable to tolerate criticism are like broken gears in a transmission. They are causing trouble for all of us. We should not be frightened that being honest with other people will cause them to become angry, violent, or depressed. In this modern era, everybody must be able to handle reality, and be able to look critically at themselves.

Every culture is encouraging the lies and deception by promoting the attitude that we are "nice" when we ignore the unpleasant aspects of a person. This constitution requires the government to change that attitude. Specifically, instead of being afraid of people who cannot handle reality or constructive criticism, the government must regard them as crude, primitive creatures who are unacceptable for a modern society. The government has the option of putting restrictions on them, such as restricting them to certain jobs and neighborhoods, or evicting them. We will have a more relaxing and pleasant life when we live among people who can handle honesty and reality.

Another attitude that we must change in order to improve our society, and especially our leadership, is the attitude that firing a person is a terrible thing to do, and that a person should be ashamed of being fired. We must regard firing a person as helping him find a job that he is more suited to, rather than hurting him. And we must become especially willing to fire people in leadership positions.

In a free enterprise system, firing a person can cause tremendous financial problems for him and his family. As a result, employees and labor unions put up a significant resistance to firing employees.

The situation is especially bad in the USA because the American people are allowed to file court cases against their employer by claiming that they were fired because of sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, or discrimination.

I have heard some employees of large businesses claim that one of their incompetent team members was promoted to a management position rather than fired. Unfortunately, that puts incompetent people into the management positions.

I have also heard accusations of a business transferring an incompetent employee to a department that was doing work for the government because incompetence was more tolerable with government contracts.

The churches have been doing something similar; specifically, the church employees who are accused of pedophilia are often sent to work at another church, rather than arrested.

This constitution creates an economic system in which nobody has to fear being fired. Instead, being fired is considered to be a part of the process of the process of discovering our talents, desires, and limitations. Everybody should be willing to try different activities in order to determine what they enjoy, and what they can do properly. Failing at a job or activity should be considered as acceptable as trying on a particular shirt to determine whether it fits properly.

We do not insult a person who tries on a shirt and discovers that it doesn't fit, and we should not insult a person who tries a particular job and discovers that he is incompetent at it.

Actually, we have the opposite attitude with clothing. Specifically, we often ask other people how we look in a particular clothing item. We want their constructive criticism rather than fear it.

We should have that same attitude with all other aspects of life. We should want other people's constructive criticism about our job performance, behavior, opinions, and attitudes so that we can improve ourselves and our lives.

We want constructive criticism of our clothing.		We should want criticism of our job performance, also.

We should encourage one another to experiment with life, and to discover our particular mental and physical characteristics and limitations. We should admire the people who develop a good understanding of themselves.

Some people who oppose constructive criticism point out that the criticism is often inaccurate, and that inaccurate criticism can hurt a person's feelings, lower his self-esteem, and cause him to give up on whatever activity he is trying to do. Those people promote the attitude that we should provide people with praise and encouragement.

There are even more people who oppose the criticism of children. Many of them justify giving children praise instead of criticism by telling us about a child who was criticized but who became a talented or impressive adult.

A popular example is that Einstein did not speak properly until he was nine years old, and although he excelled in math, he was a mediocre student in other subjects. Furthermore, his personality was so annoying that he was expelled from school. He eventually got a teaching degree, but could not find a school that was willing to hire him. However, despite his unimpressive childhood and irritating personality, he ended up becoming the greatest plagiarist of all time.

Did Einstein become a plagiarist because he was criticized during his childhood? Did he develop an irritating personality because he was criticized rather than praised? Would he have become an honest person if he had been praised?

We will never know how Einstein's childhood affected his attitudes and behavior, but there is no evidence that praising children will cause them to become honest, or develop a pleasant personality. There is more evidence that praising children can encourage them to become arrogant, selfish brats.

Animals did not evolve for an environment in which they are pampered and praise. They evolved for a brutal and deadly competition for life. The young animals that become the most successful as adults are those that are exposed to reality, and who learn to deal with it.

This constitution believes that human children were also designed to be exposed to the real world so that they can learn to deal with problems, criticism, disappointments, and failures.

Although adults will occasionally misunderstand a child, and give him criticism that is inaccurate, constructive criticism is valuable to both children and adults. Even if somebody's constructive criticism is inaccurate or worthless, we cannot be harmed by it.

Constructive criticism can also be useful for the same reason that competition is beneficial. Specifically, it can inspire a person to become better.

Animals were designed for a competitive environment. When we are pampered, we tend to become spoiled, arrogant, and lazy. We are stimulated by competition. Constructive criticism is a type of competition, so we should react to it by trying to become better, rather than react with hatred, pouting, or violence.

Some adults have posted documents or videos on the Internet in which they complained that they were criticized for being a lower when they were a child, and that they reacted by becoming so angry at their critics that they decided to put effort into developing their talents in order to prove that the criticism was inaccurate.

If those people had been praised rather than criticized, they might not have put much effort into developing their talents, and that might have resulted in them remaining as losers.

Animals were designed for competition, so the criticism inspired them to become successful. However, instead of thanking their critics for inspiring them to improve themselves, they insult their critics for not recognizing their talent.

Animals evolved to be under constant pressure. We did not evolve to be pampered, or to be free to do whatever we please. We do our best work, and enjoy life the most, when we are under pressure to solve some problem. Therefore, criticizing children who are doing a terrible job, or who are behaving in an annoying manner, puts pressure on them to improve themselves. This is beneficial, not destructive or harmful.

The children who react to the constructive criticism or competition by crying or having tantrums are inferior children. The children with better mental qualities react by putting more effort into their tasks. The children with the best qualities of all are those who are grateful for the constructive criticism and competition.

Nobody can truly understand himself, and we are biased towards ourselves. Therefore, we benefit from constructive criticism because other people can sometimes give us a view of ourselves that we would have never noticed.

However, nobody can truly understand anybody else, so when we give somebody constructive criticism, it will only be our particular opinion, and it will never be perfect. Therefore, nobody should be upset that somebody's constructive criticism is inaccurate. We must expect constructive criticism to be imperfect.

In order for us to determine our abilities and limitations, we must be willing to experiment with different situations, activities, and people. This requires that we be willing to fail, have the emotional ability to acknowledge our failures, and have the intellectual ability to analyze and learn from our failures.

It is impossible for somebody to be among the best in every job, activity, and situation. Everybody has slightly different characteristics, and our culture should encourage us to figure out what our abilities are, and how we can reach our maximum potential. Our goal should be to become a member of a team that we truly fit into, rather than demand that a team accept us, and complain about discrimination if they don't want us.

It is also impossible for everybody to be the best friend or spouse of everybody else. Therefore, our culture should encourage us to be honest with people, find somebody who likes us for what we are, and not try to deceive people into becoming our friend or spouse.

The schools, businesses, social clubs, and other organizations should not be afraid to let a person know that he is substandard in some area, or that he is annoying other people, or that he does not fit into a particular team. Likewise, an organization should not be afraid to evict a person who is a misfit. We should not be ashamed of ourselves if we are a misfit in a particular team, and we should not regard ourselves as superior to the people who are misfits in our team.

None of us should be afraid to let the potential spouse realize that we have decided that we don't want them as a spouse. The people who react with anger or violence should be regarded as behaving like an animal.

We must be willing to suffer failures in order to truly understand ourselves and find a job, spouse, friends, and activities that provide us with the most satisfying life. We should not be afraid of failures, or ashamed of them. By experimenting with activities and situations, and learning from our failures, we improve our life, and we become better team members.

The people who cannot accept failures, or learn from their mistakes, are denying themselves the opportunity to improve their lives. They are tormenting themselves, wasting their life, and irritating the rest of us. They are dirt in a transmission; they are animals in human clothing.

This constitution creates an economic system in which everybody shares the material wealth, so when a person is fired from their job, they are not going to suffer in any manner. Although the firing will be recorded in a person's history, it is not considered as evidence that the person is inferior to other people. Rather, it is evidence that the person was not well suited to that particular job at that particular time in his life.

Eventually the AI software will be advanced enough to use information about our failures and successes in school, jobs, leisure activities, and relationships to help us determine which jobs and activities we are most likely to be good at and enjoy, and which people we are most likely to form compatible friendships and marriages with.

Furthermore, being fired from a job does not disqualify a person from applying for the same job later in his life. The reason is because he might be able to do the job properly when he has more knowledge and experience.

When a child learns to walk, he falls down frequently, but we do not insult the child, or consider him to be incapable of walking. Rather, we regard falling down as a normal part of the process of learning how to walk. We should have the same attitude for people who fail at a particular job, school course, or recreational activity.

Another way to look at the issue is that getting fired from a job should be considered as being similar to conducting an experiment that fails. A scientist who is afraid of failing will be less productive than a scientist he is willing to fail because he will be too cautious with his experiments.

As always, these issues are more complex than they may appear. There is a point at which a scientist is taking too many risks and failing so often that he is wasting his time and society's resources. Likewise, a person who gets fired from his job every few months should be investigated because he is likely to be suffering from some type of a mental disorder.

We must expect scientists to fail occasionally at their experiments, but failing constantly should be considered a sign that the scientist is incompetent, or suffering from some type of intellectual or emotional disorder. Likewise, getting fired from a job occasionally should be considered as a normal part of a person's attempt to understand himself, whereas a person who is fired every few months all throughout his life should be investigated.

Since this Constitution creates an economy in which everybody is taken care of, we do not have to fear being fired, and managers should not be afraid to fire an employee, or feel guilty about it.

It is even more important for us to be willing to fire people in influential positions, such as government officials, professors, and scientists. Nobody should feel guilty about passing judgment on the job performance of somebody in a leadership position, or advocating that a particular leader be replaced so that somebody else can try the job.

In the distant future, people might figure out how to read DNA to such an extent that they can determine a person's talents and desires, thereby allowing them to determine which job he should prepare for, and who they should work with, but, as of today, the only way a person can determine which job he can do properly, and which team he fits in with, is to experiment with different jobs and teams.

We should admire the people who have the courage to fail, and who react to failure by learning about themselves and improving their lives.

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to do anything they pleased, but that did not cause trouble because their primitive technology did not give them many options to be destructive.

By comparison, our modern technology provides us with a tremendous number of options for being destructive accidentally and deliberately. It is no longer possible to allow each person to do whatever he pleases. We must put restrictions on our freedom.

When we give people "too much" freedom, one person will eventually do something that he should not do, either accidentally or deliberately, and that can encourage another person to do the same thing, or something similar. As more people decide to do what they please, the team becomes less productive and efficient. It can also result in lowering morale, instigating fights, and eventually causing the team to break into smaller groups or individuals.

Every society has noticed this concept and created several expressions about it, such as the "give an inch" expression, or the "draw the line" issue.

Unfortunately, there is no way to determine how much freedom is "too much". To make the issue more complex, the amount of freedom that is "too much" depends upon the minds of the people. The more stupid, mentally ill, uneducated, inexperienced, selfish, or violent a group of people are, the more restrictions they need. An obvious example is that a group of children needs more restrictions compared to a group of educated, intelligent adults.

More information about this concept is here (our culture is limited by our mental abilities), and here (laws).

Modern leaders must be able to understand that we need restrictions on our freedom, but that they cannot figure out what the restrictions should be, so they need the courage to experiment with the restrictions. This requires that they be able to look critically at their experiments, and learn from them. They need the courage to try something different when an experiment fails, rather than continuously repeat a failed policy and hope that it eventually works.

Most husbands dominate their marriage, and parents dominate their children. Unfortunately, the majority of men will always provide ordinary or below-average leadership to their wives and children simply because most men have minds that are ordinary or below-average.

This was acceptable in prehistoric times because the women and children did not need much leadership, but the complexities of a modern society require the women and children to get much better leadership today. Instead, they are getting leadership that is inadequate for this modern era. Most men cannot even providing adequate leadership to themselves.

The prehistoric parents did not have to provide much leadership to their children, or much of an education. Parents did not have to worry about who their children were forming friendships with, either. Today, however, the situation is dramatically different. Children must now deal with issues that are too complex for them, such as drugs, money, candy, jobs, school, pets, video games, and clothing fashions. Children today need a lot of guidance, but they are not getting it from their parents, and the other children are often providing terrible leadership.

When children form friends, one of them tends to be dominant, but he doesn't become dominant because he is the best leader. Rather, he tends to be the most aggressive or selfish. This can result in children being influenced by their friends who push them into dangerous, idiotic, wasteful, or destructive activities.

The adults today must be concerned about which children are influencing the others, and whether their influence is beneficial. It is no longer sensible for adults to ignore the effect children have on one another. Adults today have the responsibility to prevent the neurotic, aggressive, and selfish children from encouraging bad attitudes and behavior.

This is one reason that teenagers are sent to Teentown. Specifically, putting the teenagers into their own neighborhood will make it easier for adults to observe them and stop the badly behaved teenagers from causing trouble.

It will also be easier for the adults to identify and deal with the teenagers who are showing signs of mental disorders. Many of the adults who committed crimes showed symptoms of mental disorders when they were younger, but their parents were too biased to notice or care.

Many people complain that they suffer from a "lack of opportunities" due to discrimination, poverty, white privilege, sexism, or bad luck. Although it is true that the free enterprise systems allow wealthy parents to provide their children with opportunities that other parents cannot provide, everybody has more opportunities and they can use.

Although it is difficult to become wealthy, we have so many opportunities to make a living that millions of legal and illegal migrants to Europe and the USA are successfully making a living, even though many of them are below-average in intelligence, have almost no education, are illiterate, and/or cannot do basic arithmetic.

It is also difficult to create scientific knowledge, but all of us have contact with foods, animals, plants, chemicals, material items, people, dirt, rain, and our own bodies, so we all have an infinite number of opportunities to discover some useful knowledge about those things.

All of us have an infinite number of opportunities to discover something about the universe, regardless of our material wealth, education, and fame. Isaac Newton noticed that a prism can transform sunlight into a rainbow, and he did not need an education, wealth, white skin, or fame to notice that.

People have noticed "dewbows" for millions of years, but most people didn't have enough of a desire to study them.

There were undoubtedly a lot of people who had noticed that prisms create rainbows, but did not do anything with that observation. And for millions of years, people have noticed that drops of dew create rainbows.

Everybody has opportunities to make a living and discover something about the universe, but a person needs the initiative and talent to do something with his opportunities.

Unfortunately, most people don't have enough interest in learning, thinking, or exploring to take advantage of their opportunities. Most people prefer to spend their life titillating their emotional cravings for food, status, sex, and babies.

Furthermore, every society is promoting the detrimental attitude that we will have the most pleasant life if we can have servants work for us while we spend our time lounging and entertaining ourselves. A person who is trying to avoid work is not likely to notice or take any of the opportunities available to him.

A few examples of the opportunities that everybody today has, regardless of their wealth or fame:

•		Everybody has some mental and physical disorders, such as eyesight problems, allergies, diabetes, or digestive problems. Therefore, each of us has the opportunity to learn something about our particular problems. Furthermore, the Internet gives us the opportunity to let everybody in the world know about our discoveries, thereby helping other people with similar problems, and allowing other people to add to and improve the knowledge.
•		Almost everybody is in contact with wild or domesticated animals, and various types of plants and trees, so everybody has the opportunity to learn about those creatures.
•		All of us have to sleep, so all of us have the opportunity to learn something about how we sleep, dream, perspire, move, and talk in our sleep, and how we wake up in the morning. Men have the opportunity to notice that they have an erection when they wake up in the morning, and how that changes as they grow older.
•		All of us eat food, including homeless people, so everybody has the opportunity to experiment with foods, notice how foods affect our health and attitude, and notice that some foods become moldy, dry, or discolored.
•		All of us wear clothing, so everybody is capable of experimenting with clothing, learning how to take care of clothing, and finding ways of recycling or reusing old clothing.
•		The people who get married and have children have opportunities to learn about sex, marriage, raising children, and the differences between men and women.
•		Those of us who use computers, phones, refrigerators, ovens, bicycles, scissors, paint, or other material items have the opportunity to learn about the items that we use. That gives us opportunities to create or improve our material items or software.

Everybody has more opportunities than they can possibly use, but most people don't realize they have opportunities because they prefer to behave like the animals. Specifically, rather than analyze and discuss some aspect of the world, or conduct experiments with something, they prefer to avoid work, give lectures to other people, and entertain themselves with food, sex, revenge, babies, and television.

The people who react to problems with anger, pouting, or apathy, rather than by analyzing the problem and experimenting with solutions, are also unlikely to notice their opportunities to discover something useful.

All of us have lots of opportunities, but only a few people have the mental characteristics to notice and take advantage of their opportunities. The top leadership positions in society should be restricted to men who have shown some success in learning about the world. A person who has lived for decades without improving himself or learning anything about life is not likely to be a good leader.

This concept was also true during prehistoric times. The men who were the best leaders of a prehistoric tribe were those who noticed things, such as how the clouds could help them predict the weather, and how some trampled vegetation could help them identify the direction and time that a particular animal had traveled through the area. The men who did not notice much about the world were less effective as leaders.

Our leaders should excel at learning about the world and improving themselves, but our modern societies have become dominated by people who don't seem to have learned anything about life. They never provide us with intelligent analyses or guidance. They seem to get into leadership positions because they have excessive cravings for status or wealth, and a willingness to cheat in order to achieve their goals.

Our leaders are so incapable of learning from their mistakes and noticing their opportunities that they don't notice or care that their policies are continuously failing to reduce crime, traffic congestion, flooding, and other problems. Instead, they repeat the same failed policies over and over. That type of person cannot provide us with leadership.

We learn nothing from the people in leadership positions because they don't have the initiative or desire to learn or explore, and they don't have the courage to experiment with life. Their only concern is providing themselves with excessive amounts of material wealth, status, sex, and servants, and eliminating their competitors and critics.

There are lots of different and conflicting proposals to deal with crime, marijuana, alcoholism, abortion, traffic congestion, divorce, immigration, unemployment, and other problems. We must restrict leadership positions to the people who are the best at providing us with intelligent analyses of the proposals, as opposed to people who can only promote their personal opinions and criticize everybody else's opinion. They must also have enough self control to choose the policies that are the most beneficial to society rather than to themselves.

Although we cannot expect our leaders to be perfect, we can expect them to show an above-average ability to distinguish between intelligent explanations, insults, nonsense, and vague remarks. For example, our leaders should be able to give us intelligent analyses of such disputes as:

1)		Is a "liberal arts" education of value? The government has complete control of education, so this requires we restrict leadership positions to people who can make wise decisions about what type of education will be useful. For example, many people have complained that students are wasting their time on liberal-arts educations, but a journalist named Nathan Heller defended liberal arts courses with a document that claims: "The goal of such an education isn't direct career training but cultivation of the mind." We should restrict leadership positions to the people who can give us an intelligent analysis of that document and help us understand whether it is valid justification of a liberal arts education, or whether it is nonsensical.
2)		Which suggestions are beneficial? Everybody is encouraged to post complaints and suggestions on how to improve our lives, but this requires people in leadership positions to make intelligent decisions about which of those documents are beneficial, and which are so worthless that they must be moved to the Deleted category, and which people are posting so many worthless documents that they should be prohibited from posting in the Suggestions category. For an example of what the people in leadership positions must be able to do, a person posted a message that criticized Jordan Peterson as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he posted a link to this video to provide supporting evidence of his accusation. Another person, who supports Jordan Peterson, responded with: "It is so easy to tear someone else down once you realize that your life will never amount to anything. The person who created this is very similar to you...both nobodies who have nothing going for themselves. So tearing down someone else is the only way you can make your life worth living. I hope you find the mental help that you need sir." We should restrict leadership positions to people who realize that the response is: a) It is an insult because it describes the person who created the video, and the person who posted a link to it, as "nobodies" who have a life that will "never amount to anything", and who need "mental help". b) It is an unsupported accusation because it accuses the person of "tearing someone down", but he has no evidence that the person who made the video, or the person who posted a link to it, is tearing someone down. We could describe the video as an "analysis" or an "opinion" of Jordan Peterson, rather than a "tearing down" of Peterson. c) It is vague and generic because it doesn't refer to any particular person or subject, which allows us to use it against any person and any remark. We could even use his remark as a response to the person who made the remark by changing a few of his words: It is so easy for you to tear down the person who made that video, and the person who posted a link to it, once you realize that your life will never amount to anything. You are a nobody who has nothing going for himself. So tearing down other people is the only way you can make your life worth living. I hope you find the mental help that you need sir. Using his remark as a response to him is analogous to holding a mirror in front of an ugly person who is accusing somebody of being ugly.
3)		Which products are the most practical? The ministers make all of the decisions about which products to produce, and what their features will be, and this requires that they be able to make excellent decisions about which products need the most labor and resources to produce or operate; which create the most pollutants; which require people to do the most unpleasant jobs; and which will be the most beneficial to us. For example, should boats, trucks, snowmobiles, or other types of vehicles use internal combustion engines or electric motors? Energy Innovation posted this PDF document which claims that most electric vehicles are cheaper to own than gasoline vehicles. It has several remarks about the importance of government subsidies for electric vehicles, such as: • These monthly savings are contingent on the existing $7,500 federal EV tax credit. • Without this tax credit, most models are no longer cheaper during the loan repayment period. • Our modeling shows that increasing the tax credit amount as currently proposed in Congress, significantly improve EV ownership economics, with a $10,000 tax credit making EVs cheaper in nearly every state vehicle comparison. • "Federal tax credits are critical to maintaining competitive EV financing and ownership costs during the financing term. Without them, purchasing an EV becomes significantly more expensive on a monthly basis. The influential positions should be restricted to people who realize that it is absurd to claim that electric vehicles are more economical because of federal subsidies, and it is especially absurd to claim that electric vehicles would become even more economical if the subsidies were increased. It is as idiotic as claiming that gold would become more economical than copper if the government subsidized the price of gold. A person in an influential position should realize that when the government subsidizes a product, the people who pay taxes are being forced to contribute some of their money to the purchase of those products. Furthermore, the subsidies require some employees in the government to do some work, which means that those particular employees are wasting their time on a nonproductive activity. Since no society has standards for information, the employees at Energy Innovation and other organizations can make any nonsensical claim they please, and journalists, such as Tim Levin of Business Insider are free to promote their nonsensical claims.
4)		When has a government official justified his policy? Government officials are required to justify everything they do. For example, when they alter the policy for abortion, they must post a document in the Explanations category to justify the changes. This requires we restrict government officials to people who can provide us with intelligent explanations. For example, one of the remarks Ronald Regan made to justify prohibiting abortions was: I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born. We must restrict leadership positions to people who can provide us with an intelligent explanation of whether that remark is justifying the prohibition of abortions, or whether it is nonsensical, or whether it is an attempt to manipulate emotions. Our leaders should also be able to tell us whethere that remark is similar to any of these remarks: • I've noticed that everyone who supports assisted suicide wants to remain alive. • I've noticed that everyone who supports the firing of employees wants to remain employed. • I've noticed that everyone who supports the eviction of misfits does not want to evicted.

It is easy for us to  provide intelligent analyses of rocks, squirrels, and aluminum alloys because those items do not stimulate any of our emotions. We can think about those items without any influence from our emotions. However, when we try to study people, various emotions can be triggered.

For example, our arrogance and our craving for status causes us to regard ourselves as superior to other people, and superior to all of the animals, but that gives us an extremely biased view of humans and animals, which in turn will prevent us from developing intelligent analyses of humans. Our emotions will push our thoughts towards conclusions that make us feel good.

In order to produce intelligent thoughts about people, we must be capable of looking at ourselves in the same unbiased manner that we look at a squirrel or an aluminum alloy. We must also be able to look at ourselves as critically as we can look at other people, and we must be able to look as favorably at other people as we look at ourselves.

There are undoubtedly millions of people who are capable of providing us with intelligent analyses of humans, but their inability to control their emotions is preventing them from reaching their potential, and causing them to develop stupid theories about humans.

For example, they cannot see the similarities between themselves and an ape, or between themselves and the criminals, alcoholics, retards, and hoarders. Instead of realizing that their critics are people who have a different view of life than they do, they come to the conclusion that their critics are ignorant, stupid, evil, or cruel people who must be suppressed, intimidated, arrested, blackmail, or murdered.

When we select leaders, we should look for people who have shown evidence that they can regard themselves as "people", rather than as a superior person. They must be able to accept their competitors, rather than try to eliminate them. They must be able to see the similarities between themselves and everybody else. They must be able to realize that all people are all just subtle variations of the same species of ape. They must also realize that all of us will have a better life when we work as a team to do what is best for society, rather than selfishly do what we want to do.