This may sound crazy, but I actually thought up of a lot of things while on my ride back home from school. My primary thoughts actually came out from seeing this motorcyclist hogging the second lane of the expressway even though the third lane was very empty for quite a long stretch of road. Even though he was at the leftmost of the second lane, my taxi was still stuck behind him only until the first lane's traffic was cleared. And I actually thought of calling that motorcyclist a stupid idiot for hogging the road (driving at only around 65 kph). From that incident, I eventually thought of how inconsiderate this guy was and probably how many road users are inconsiderate too.

And from that "inconsiderate" thought, I actually thought about democracy. I personally felt that having inconsiderate people actually indirectly stems from democracy. You may not see the link there but I thought I saw it. Democracy is mainly about the majority ruling of people or citizens themselves and one important aspect of it is the freedom and rights of the people: I believe in such and such and thus I should have that right/power to do such and such. Ultimately, selfishness will step in once again and make people believe that what they believe or think represents the others too. And to a larger and more negative extent, they start to not consider the others when they do their things and become inconsiderate. They believe they live in this world where everything should go their way because of this warp mindset of a self-democracy (something similar to democracy on a personal/self level). But of course, this may not apply to everyone as different individuals grow and think differently.

Thinking about democracy, I definitely would come back to think of communism. Something which utterly failed in the end. What I am interested to write about is how it could actually fail. Personally, I feel that communism a very good model of governing in the ideal world. I am not communistic in any world. In fact, I'm more of a communal idealogic. However, communism is in fact a very ideal model of governing, which in fact cannot exist in this real world. It can never exist and that is why it eventually started to fail everywhere around the world (when democracy was seen as an indeed much more pragmatic model in reality).

So why did it even fail if it's so perfect and good? Truth is, perfection and idealism on earth cannot exist. This may be more of a personal belief (and so will the below statements and opinions be), I guess, but I do hope you read this with an open mind. So, therefore, communism could never exist at least due to human nature of selfishness (Hobbes' natural law states so). Right at the bottom of the communist hierarchy (the place where all citizens, regardless of merits, are in), communism looks good when everyone is equal (in economic sense). However, what happens to the state and people governing it? I personally believe greed and corruption occurs at that level. Yes, the state takes in everyone's contribution and deliver them equally back to citizens. But, only a part of everyone's contributions goes back to them, with the rest gone to the "state" and government. Without the transparency, vices happen almost quite rampantly and easily. So in the end, people may just realise the wickedness of this government and communism may thus fall partly due to this.

So, what about democracy? I personally believe it is good to some extent but ultimately, seriously flawed. It's quite obvious where the serious flaws are in this world we are living in now. One major flaw is that inconsiderateness that it indirectly cultivates (as explained in paragraph 2). Another flaw, which is something similar to inconsiderateness, is the frequency of strikes and riots (or violent/disruptive activism) in highly democratic society (e.g. South Korea and possibly, France). I believe disruptive activism occurs because of inconsideration of others. The activists know their rights (or something of concern) are compromised and thus organize demonstrations which impair the society (and country) more than it improves it. I'm not saying activism/demonstrations are no good. But disruptive ones aren't good; a cleverly packaged activism is better without any severe impairment or disruption of the society. It's like what's happening in Thailand recently. Previously, the reigns of each party only lasted a few months before the other comes into power. And then, in less than two to three months, strikes begin and the society is disrupted. On and on, in a vicious cycle that ultimately downplays the nation's status in the world. Full democracies are no good at all when the nation becomes simply too diverse and complex. Arguments tend to occur when every single person has a say; everyone wants their own way of doing things implemented and nobody wants to compromise.

So, what I'm driving at in this post is that there will be a change when people starts realizing the serious flaws in full democracy. Democracy isn't that good yet and there will be much better ones. There won't be a need for revolution but an evolution is necessary. Revolution may take too much of resources and bring chaos to the highly integrated world today. Evolution slowly brings forth changes to the democracy. It might happen quite soon or much later but probably I would say give the world a decade to do this. I say, 10 years it will be for democracy to evolve. But whether is it a post democracy or new model of governing which will take over democracy... Nobody is sure.

P.S. If this post appear a little too complex for your puny brain, I apologise. LOL. Just kidding. It might take a while to seep in or probably I'm just writing something that only I understand.

I decided to write this post because of some sudden inspiration (well not exactly sudden since it's triggered from something). I'm not sure how many of you always experience this: somebody is feeling down and you decided to ask them and they shared about it a little but after a while they got a little emotional and stopped sharing (decided to take a break); thereafter, you'll be worrying for that person (thinking whether you could have done more for him/her). For me, this is always the case (be it the person's problem being a psychological or physical health one). So right now, I'm rather distracted and concerned over the person's emotions and problems. I'm not sure how I could help but I know I can help the person.

However, I have to say I really appreciate someone to start sharing his/her problems whenever he/she isn't feeling good. It's not easy to do so, especially explaining in words whatever that happened emotionally or visually. After sharing them, it'll usually (and I'm generalizing a little here) make someone feel slightly relieved of that problem. It doesn't make things go away: things can't go away itself either. It just makes you think lesser of that problem (generally) or think much clearer about that problem (in some cases as sharing often puts the problem in a clearer form of words). So it's good to have a person sharing his/her problems in my opinion and I really appreciate people for being able to do that.

Sharing goes a lot deeper than just talking about the problems. If it is just talking about the problems, it won't be called "sharing"; it'll be called "telling" instead. It uses the same word as sharing love and sharing items for a reason. Sharing requires that emotional bond and perhaps friendship for it to happen (probably not so much about friendship as sharing can take place amongst strangers). By sharing, you bound another person together instantaneously (immediately and yet can be for a very short duration) with your emotions. The people that are involved in sharing share the same feelings for that moment of sharing. That is what is so special about being able to share, be it sharing problems, toys, love or testimonies (and lots more).

I've gone a little more into a whole new field of sharing because I thought of some things that I felt that it's nice to share with everyone. In fact, I think everyone should share their constructive views of things (not arguments) freely. Blog! Write and talk! A little advertisement about my upcoming forum plans: Write-and-talk! Hehe...

Not really applies for this blog... This blog is not entirely on its own. In fact, I prefer to see this blog as an extension to the main one or as a section of that. And so, why do I have the blog split into different sections? Well, the reason is simple: not many wants to read lengthy and non-understandable posts. And so, this blog serves to let my friends who are interested to read those lengthy posts; instead of having everyone reading the same single blog flooded with many different types of writing or posting style. For those who are here to read them, I thank you for spending your time here doing so.

The following text is a reproduction of one post found in my past blog.

---

Well, perhaps not everyone know that you can learn a lot from just a game of chess. From chess, you learn patience, foresight and even how life is played.

I hardly am a good chess player and probably will ever be (as I always fail to practise it). My style of playing chess? A very newbie and lousy method of reciprocating opponent's move (some chess pros might just scowl at me for doing that). That is why I appreciate being the second player to play. It's simple: just follow what your opponent has moved and then slowly start thinking once you can no longer follow his/her move. I feel it's scary to make your own different move and in turn a wrong move may lead to your defeat. But, however, reciprocating others' move is not that good after all.

I have started to adopt the reciprocative style ever since I had a few great defeats at the game of chess. I fail to initiate for fear of losing the game and even not being able to continue on in a tournamnet (and thus losing the ever-so-precious opportunity to get what you had always wanted).

But, reciprocating is tough and always appears so dim in terms of success rate. The opponent may trick you into making a mistake (which is when you meet an evil opponent). But most importantly, the other party of the chess board may fail to see her/his mistake or even am also fearful of taking any steps. If both party does this, both party has lost; even though this may result in a draw. They have failed to be aware of each other's style of playing chess or simply, their moves.

Life is often just like chess. But with an element of fatality or danger that chess never has. You don't treat humans just like chess pieces or even the chess players. Humans have their own emotions that chess pieces or even chess players (when they are playing a game of chess) don't have.