The cost of the benefit

One of the things I hate most about the modern world view is its entire "non-cost" ideology, or in a more suitable term; anti-ideology.
Everything has a cost, this is a principle not just in science; in physics; the law of preservation of matter is still more than valid in a non-quantum reality, in economics, each acquisition has a direct relationship with an expenditure, in politics; each policy represents a game of risks and bets to achieve specific goals at the same time those achievements represents negative impacts in other social sectors, but also a practical principle and a daily reality.
But the modern world speech doesn´t work in that way, any relationship between cost and benefits is evaded, is complete ignored. You CAN´T have any achievement without a cost; the evaluation of the cost is COMPLETE relevant to determine is the goal worth it, and the cost even represent the importance of the goal.

Then, why is this ignored when in the practical life it is so obvious?
Easy, because it sounds bad…
Just because that?...
Yes, it sounds bad, therefore, according the modern world judging system, it must be wrong. In this modernity, all the goodness must be selected not by an ethical evaluation, but by an acceptation of the masses, if the majority (note, by majority we must understand the portion of the population that has the favor of the liberal system public opinion, any other type of position or ideology, regardless their social proportion is wrong, therefore; evil) accept an idea, in the same way they buy a useless product, as something good, then it automatically become in the new moral, even if those ideas where the result of just a fucking temporal fashion.
But, all those promises in this "modern world" are not created by a system "per se", but as a parasitic bulge of pseudo-ideologies than live sucking the masses imbecility; so, this stage of social decadence is not product of a "malevolent plan" but as reaction of some political and economical systems to assure their existences in a world without order; I mean why fighting the decadence when you can just eat it?, it is more easy and the economical profit is bigger… stupid people waste more money.

Then, if the decadence is not product of the "great systems" the cause has a simple origin; the social cattle as a whole, which only has two ideals on life;
1. Living with all commodities, in a place where all desires are allowed.
2. And avoid any type of cost, responsibility or other type of scheme than represent a reduction of the delight of the desire.

Just uses the same logic than a teenager to understand how the mass work. And therefore to reason with the mass has the same result as to try to reason with a young drug addict.

Masses are stupid, then the best solution to reach power in systems than are based on the mass understanding approval is to feed their stupidity; aka, democracy. As a system, democracy only exist as a large popularity contest in which the "best looking" proposals and candidates are elected in extremely expensive processes, and of course those candidates are designed by the elitism of the oclocracy nests (modern political parties) and the plutocracy, and the most important thing in for this work; the proposals are designed to look "perfect" in start and ending… the key is never mentioned cost (remember than cost are bad, the masses don´t want to hear about them, "cost" scares the animals)  

Just look some common, little but important examples of this;

• "The new and fabulous way to lose weight without any effort" forms to look "fabulous" ignoring the health risks. Do you want to be in shape? Do exercise fat piece of crap!!! It is cheaper, it works and you are going to feel better each fucking day. Besides exercise oxygenates the brain, therefore you are going to be less stupid (in theory). The problem; exercise requires commitment and perseverance; DISCIPLINE (a type of cost, and therefore and evil concept)
• "The easy way to be a genius without expending times of studying". There is no real knowledge without the appropriation of it, the management of information requires the discipline of mind, and there is not short ways to acquire it; but no, today people eat all the shit of the internet, a sea of data than have been never produced by the real application of the scientific method, and even less, by the philosophical questions… opinions are sold as truths and people are pleased to eat them as delicacies, why?, because it better sound intelligent to a mass than can understand the difference between the data and the wisdom… wisdom requires cost, therefore it must is wrong.  
• "Change the world, from your seat"… this is my preferred one; this complete ridiculous concept that the "virtual revolutions" are significant even in the lesser way. People then just does nothing more than saturate their virtual spots with virtual shit. The triumph of Facebook was to erase the real face of the people, to transform them into date bases at the cost of the real world will.
• And the second option of this is also stupid, "Prove than you are politically active; Demand than anyone else solves the problem"… the march of the so called "99%" of the crap to demand jobs; people that see in the system the enemy and their only solution is to demand to that same system to resolve the problem, clamming the farce of the majority ignoring than the "real working class" is suffering and working, resolving their problems  and feeding them without receiving anything as a payment. Those animals know a shit about the reality, and the only scheme they demand is one in which the State must provide them everything, work, stability, progress but without accepting any type of direction or responsibility.
• Even the new concepts of "art", which are just physical products of undisciplined minds, mind than never acquired the knowledge of the historical configurations of art, and therefore can handle it. Calling "art" just to any piece of chaotic representation that not even the author's mind can understand and any chest can feel.

All that presents us the delusion of this "new man", a type of person that not just enjoys his laziness, but that justifies it as the first step of a new liberty. The perfect son of the profit system in which the new idols are not the workers, or the sages, but the gadgets producers or the beasts of fame. The "modern man" is nothing more than a person than can´t manage his own fucking life, and therefore only has the capacity to look for excuses… why do you thing than mental problems are seeing in this days a another way of vanity?, because it is simpler to blame the external circumstances of our own imbecility.  

The goal of the modern society is to reach the same level of existence than the animals in a fucking zoo, to be locked in cage, enjoying all the animal pleasures and putrid desires just to rise the hand sometimes to ask for the system´s food… is the system give it to them, those animals are going to roll around their shit with a smile in their soulless faces for the rest of their useless lives.

The golden plate of the modernity has been written; "The Man has dead…"

There are no benefits without sacrifices; the modern world condemns this reality as a sin, as if this fact would be invented to force to the people to the sacrifice instead the commodity, the last goal of the modern man.
Then the modern world systems promotes than the panacea of all the problem of the society is more freedom. Each time something presents to the modern societies as a problem, the liberal way to "resolve" it is to approves it (except when this represents a menace to the system), so, it is just the perfect sale tactic, why does explain the causes, origins and effects of something when you can just say that is new and good? The decadence is funnier than the sacrifice, therefore according this view, it is better.
If in the individual aspect, a person can´t be healthy without a regime of exercise, and self regulation in nutrition, with responsibility and constant work and discipline, how it is possible than the social entity acquire social health just with more freedom instead more Order? It is just impossible than a person reach healthiness with a life of licentiousness, and the same logic must be applied to the society.
Freedom is not the solution, and more freedom is just going to generates more of these spoiled assholes than claim in the streets and the internet that they are the 99%... the 99% of what?; of a social corpse.
Of course the internet is full with this promotion of this "99% propaganda", but then I ask something; if they are really the 99%, and if they are really making a massive social demanding… then why it is so fucking useless and meaningless?...
Some people thing this is a "revolution"… but don´t fuck the term; a real revolution (and one made by the 99% of the people) would be destroying the system in a so wonderful blood bath, than the French revolution would looks like a Disney movie. This is not a revolution, it the opposite, this is the victory of the system; the best prove of the social imbecility.  
Terrorists belong to the 1% remaining, and they have really changed the world in a more efficient way and in less time than those whiners.

But if liberalist systems didn´t created that degenerate man, they had helped in his consolidation as a "valid option"
ORDER and CONTROL are the worst blasphemies for the liberal mind, at the same time it demands the stability than only can be reached with them. If the social garbage want a guarantee of a progress given by a State then they must shut their mounts and obey whatever the State declares as the way to progress (of course in this point some people are stupidly thinking than I´m talking about totalitarism or as a complete social submission, but not, the term STATE has anything to do with the term GOVERNMENT, even if the saxon mania of language destruction has fused both terms)  
And if that 99% of the crap declines its duty, then they are automatically rejecting all their benefits. They are not demanding "jobs" in the sense of demanding work by the Nation for the Nation; they are demanding individual satisfaction of the individual pleasure.

There is nothing free, and the stability and progress have a price; the Order.

Economical growth and economical development, for example, are two goals that are mutually exclusive, the rise of the productivity and the market efficiency are the results of the economical freedoms and those are also an important (but of course not the unique) cause of the income inequality and poor index, economical development then requires a State dominance of economics, something than reduce the economical freedom and therefore the economical growth. There is NO any option than can achieve both in a same optimal level.
And following the last example; Justice and freedom are also mutually exclusive. The "DERECHO" (I´m using the Spanish word because the English language has no term to refer to a system of production, study and management of the law in term of ethical deepness, social impact and scientific origin, this because the common law, which give more weight to the opinion, is antagonist in origin and process to the Civil law, which gives more importance to the Order) proves that a system consolidated to achieve complete liberty, also generate the collapse of the Stability.. This is not an invention of me; the prevalence of the ORDER over the liberty is the essence of the SOCIAL CONTRACT, when each person give away personal freedoms to acquire the security of a State, a security that is also guaranteed with the reduction of the natural freedoms of everyone else in the society. Therefore, it is the Order, and not the freedom, the base of the security and the social development.
Then, the civic freedom is only the consequence of the social order, and never the solution of the social problems. Just as in economics there is no invisible hand in the market, there is no invisible hand in the social freedom than guarantee the social progress; in fact, the plenitude of freedoms is just the evidence of the lack of the State, and for this, the lack of the security and a structured society. The "derecho" also explains that concept of "rights" (a civic freedom) can´t exist without the notion of social responsibility… the DUTY.
The liberal solution of more freedoms is just equal as to give more chocolate to an obese asshole, of buying more toys to a spoiled child (following  two of the former examples of the exercise and the demands of the supposed 99%), and what happens with obese people, they just feel worst and worst with each gained pound. Without the social control; the Order, none institution can guarantee the protection that each individual must have just by being part of a society.

Then, the peace doesn´t came with a white pigeon of peace, but with the cold steel of the swords of the Duty.

But then, there is no any inherent freedom?
Yes, for the people who want to be part of a State there is one:
The State people can demand only one natural freedom, the liberty to acquire total responsibility to a unique and unified social institution created by the society as a whole, with this; the only freedom is the self responsibility of the society with itself and the liberty that only the Order can give. The only inherent freedom is the Right to reach the DUTY. This is the base the functional society, in which any individual has the right to acquire the responsibility to his society using just his will and capacities, and the principle of the Citizen; a person that acquires the total capacity to assume his responsibility in the stability and management of the State.

The person who resign to this right, automatically lose the capacity to demand any benefit of the society and therefore to the State; because there are NO free benefits.

At the end, the DUTY is the final stage in social progress, and the only solution of the social problems. Not the desires, not the liberties, but responsibilities, and in this point is when we see than if not all people can assumes the duty, then not all people deserves Rights, and if the DUTY is seeing as the only "Natural right" (natural because it is previous to the State, because it is its base) then no one who demands Rights has the excuse to avoid it.

But this freedom can´t be product of the social desire, but a natural consequence of the history and the historical values; therefore, only the Nation can be the guideline of the formation of the State, and the only creator of the parameters of the Citizen. Then, the principle of the self-regulation of the total responsibility is nothing more than the principle of the total service of the people to the national society, and total service is nothing more than the DUTY; which is the complement of the Civic freedom, and its only base. The real liberty, the civic freedom, is then the result of the accomplishments of determined points, and just as in any work; the benefit is result of labor, and only a result.