How is War Still a Thing?

If you look at human history and all the progress we’ve made, the technology, the infrastructure, the institutions, the various ways of communicating over enormous distances – instantaneously -  traveling into space, creating music, art – it’s pretty impressive. And yet – with all of this apparent evolution and progress, it’s hard to be optimistic about humanity’s history and legacy, because: there’s still this one huge nasty atrocity we keep doing, over and over again… we keep on waging wars.

This is the 21st century and war is still a thing we do – every day. It hasn’t been erased yet – we haven’t yet come to the day in time where we can say ‘wars – that’s a thing from the past – we remember it to make sure never to do it again’ – because it’s not, it’s part of our present and it looks like, part of our future too.

I’ve had many moments where I look at the news and get frustrated, horrified and mind-blown at the stupidity of war, the destruction, the senselessness – wanting to scream at those apparently ‘leading nations’ – WTF are you doing???

But is it that surprising really?

I mean – how can we expect continuous mutual cooperation, problem solving and conflict-prevention on an international and global level if that’s something we’re not living up to ourselves? Conflict PREVENTION – yes, you read that right – because for world peace to be the ‘new thing’ – we need to not only be able to master the art of conflict resolution, but also need to learn to prevent conflict, rather than waiting for conflict to manifest and then trying to ‘do something about it’. Conflict is nothing more than the manifestation and revealing of misalignments that were already present.

It is easy to blame politicians and diplomats for sucking at what they do – but in the context of ‘as above, so below’ – we’re all playing our part here – how often do we go into arguments with those around us, openly or behind their backs in the form of gossip and backchat? How often do we wait for ‘shit to hit the fan’ before we actually look at problems that we actually knew were there but conveniently chose to ignore? And when there is conflict, how often do we focus on solutions instead of sticking with our own self-interest, walking away or just wanting to ‘win’ the argument, regardless of the cost?

That is our responsibility on a purely personal level – but how about the following: if we are so frustrated with our leaders making bad decisions? Why are we still leaving these decisions up to them? Do citizens demand referendums before going to war? Do citizens get a say in any way about how their military gets used and who their soldiers will go to kill and terrorize next? Do citizens demand a say? How can we as children be taught about the horrors of world wars and then grow up to be adults who stand by and do absolutely nothing but focus on our own personal happiness and fulfillment, doing our best to look away and pretend it’s got nothing to do with us? Or how about this – why haven’t we yet demanded global demilitarization to instead redirect all the funds that go into wars and military development towards securing a basic income for everyone? Because – yes, let’s not forget – poverty is also still a thing.

So – let’s use that creative human brain that we must possess to be able to create things like cars, the internet, art and space shuttles to find and promote solutions, to get a say, to end things that shouldn’t be things anymore.

Join us in the Living Income movement – read the proposal – make your own blog and start sharing solutions, join a political party that has the provision of basic human rights on their agenda, or create one if there isn’t one, find out how you can participate in political decision making in your area, make your voice count.

Read More

Voting Fun – What does it Feel Like to Have a Say?

One of the pillars within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal is the substantiating of Democracy through Direct Political Participation. Technology is available to hold regular votes that includes a large number of individuals. These votes can range from participatory budgeting where each citizen is asked to approve the yearly national budget, to making decisions on a daily basis on a local/municipality level.

Now – before such increased direct political participation is a reality – let’s do a little test to see what it feels like. So – here are some mock-questions where you’re asked to give your input. Imagine that this relates to your direct reality (eg. your town) – and your answer has a weight that influences the outcome of the decision. Of course, in reality – a lot more context would be given to each question – providing information about the different options, what benefits and costs are involved. Pretend that you are aware of all these factors and are answering after having weighed the options carefully. At the end of the poll you’ll be asked what it felt like to have a say, where you can share for instance that you felt uncomfortable in a way or actually felt empowered.

Let’s have some voting fun!

Here is the link: http://surveynuts.com/surveys/take?id=38568&c=357448241DFNH

It won't take you more than 5mins ;).

Read More

Who is more Fiscally Responsible – Citizens or Elected Politicians?

In the blog-series ‘Democratization – Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG’ I briefly discussed an argument against direct democracy (placing authority directly in the hands of citizens rather than elected politicians) that dates from the time of Plato – the argument being that citizens would make ‘bad decisions’ and don’t possess the necessary intelligence, knowledge and skills required in political decision-making.

I came across the following information when browsing through the comments on a blog regarding the implementation of a Basic Income in Switzerland:

"Switzerland is an interesting laboratory for direct democracy.

I dimly recall a very interesting study by (I believe) University of Zurich (maybe 20 years old).

They analyzed for each of the 26 Swiss cantons (=states): (1) influence of direct democracy on canton politics (which varies by canton. Some cantons don’t have all that much direct democracy. Others such as Appenzell-Innerrhoden don’t even have a parliament because EVERY single law is passed directly by the people). (2) fiscal situation of the state.

The highly fascinating result was this:

the stronger the people can directly influence public spending and taxes, the healthier the canton’s budgets (!!). The people tended NOT to spend more than they had. Rather, the professional politicians (or the canton’s that gave elected officials greater power) tended to be more fiscally irresponsible."

Naturally, my interest was peaked and I went to search for studies about this topic. And, yes, you guessed it – I found the material supporting these claims. I think we can all agree that when states spend beyond their means – we have a case of bad political decision-making. According to the logic of the argument that it would be dangerous to have citizens directly participate in politics, we would expect citizens’ involvement within budgeting decisions to exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility. And yet – here we have an example that not only shows that citizens wouldn’t make matters worse – but that citizens would do better than elected politicians when it comes to balancing the budget.

If at any point it is relevant to ask the citizens for their direct input on a particular topic to increase democratic practices, it would be: how should we spend public funds? Voting a person into office is one thing – but it is the budget that really determines political policy for the coming year. Mandatory budget referendums should be a minimum requirement for any regime to qualify as a democracy, really. When the extent of your political participation is to vote someone into office – then all you have is ‘hope’ that the people in power will use public funds responsibly and for the purposes that you expect them to. Mandatory budget referendums would create a point of direct accountability towards the citizenry that once politicians are in power, they are indeed acting out their mandate on behalf of the people. It would immediately reduce corruption and prevent budgetary deficiencies down the line, where one is suddenly told that the retirement age has to increase and austerity measures are being implemented because there are insufficient public funds and one only then starts wondering ‘well, where did all the money go?’. 

The fiscal problems most countries are experiencing today could have been prevented. It is now a time of walking through consequence that has already been created and yes, it is worthwhile looking for solutions to address current problems head-on – but it is most important to prevent the same scenario from taking place again. In Dutch there is a saying ‘a donkey doesn’t bump his head on the same rock twice’ – seems like humanity can learn a thing or two from donkeys since we have this tendency of not even looking at what it is we bumped our heads on and why – but simply try to put some ice on the wound. However much we may be upset with governments and politicians – we are the ones who gave them the power to do what they did. The consequence that is here is as much ours as theirs – and rightfully so. If anything – let us at least learn from our mistakes – otherwise all the troubles we’re going through will really be for naught. Let us at least enshrine solutions within the constitution and develop new political practices that we can pass on to the next generations, because surely, part of the consequence we are experiencing is due to continuing traditions from previous generations, but that doesn't prevent us from rising to the occasion and creating new traditions to shape a better future.

Read More

Day 262: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt3

This blog-post is a continuation of the blogs

Day 260: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt1
Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

where we've been investigating what exactly stands in our way from living the principle of Democracy in its true form - with government of the people, by the people and for the people. Herein we identified two crucial factors that require to be addressed in order to bridge the gap between the people and government, being:

1. Education
2. Ownership of Economic Influence

The point of Education was discussed in the previous blog, where it became clear that for individuals to develop political capital in order to become effective participants in direct democratic decision making, we require to invest in the people through a Living Income Guaranteed.

Within this blog we look at the second problem:

Ownership of Economic Influence

In the first part of this blog-series we stated that:

"Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion."

Most are aware of the role of lobbyists in politics - but here some points of clarification:

"A lobbyist is an activist who seeks to persuade members of the government (like members of Congress) to enact legislation that would benefit their group."

"The highest paid lobbyists know that they can charge top dollar for their services because they can offer their clients access and influence at the highest levels of government. Not surprisingly, these firms' client lists are a "Who's Who" of the corporate scene; hiring these firms is simply beyond the reach of most organizations and special interests."

Those who can afford to hire the best lobbyists are able to affect change at the highest levels of government. This shows a simple equation: more economic power equals more political power. One can ask if lobbying shouldn't be made illegal - it definitely sounds fishy - but it is justified under the principle that anyone can make the government aware of their interests and ask to consider them in policy making. Some people are obviously better at this than others - and as with anything in a capitalist society - if there is a demand for services of a particular skill, the private sector will start to supply it according to the rules of the private sector. So - it seems that we will just have to compromise on the original principle - which is not meant to discriminate against who is able to/can afford to lobby the government - if we at the same time wish to retain a capitalistic free market system.

However, the Living Income Guaranteed proposal implicitly formulates a solution to this conundrum. The proposal suggests that every citizen of a country become shareholder of human rights companies (such as water provision, electricity, telecommunications, media) and natural resource companies (eg. mining companies) in their country, under the principle that such points should never be owned by  private persons as they should operate in the benefit of the whole of society. Such an adjustment would change the economic landscape from a political perspective quite drastically - whereas previously all huge corporations that can affect change through lobbying at the highest levels were owned by the elite in society - many big corporations would now be owned by the people and would become a source of effective economic influence and a vehicle for political participation on a level that simply did not exist before.

For a political dispensation to become democratically correct - we require to not only level the political but also the economic playing field because policy is determined as much by government as by the economic elite. So for those who have given up on democracy in the true meaning of the word: a Living Income Guaranteed would put an end to the compromised political systems of representation we have today.

There is one more objection to direct democracy that is still being raised - though in today's world it is so laughable I almost forgot to mention it. But here it is anyways: 'Direct democracy is not possible because it would just be too expensive and too difficult to get all the citizens in one place to rule the country.' In a world with the technology we have today - it is silly to still think of 'coming together' as a physical event. Facebook proves that it is possible to daily vote on issues - we're already doing it by the simple click of the mouse: 'Like'. So all that requires to be done is use the technology that has been developed and create online platforms for political participation.

So - there we have it: Education, Ownership of Economic Influence and Technology - all three points no longer an obstacle with the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed. Will we come up with more excuses - or will we realize that for the first time in the history of man we have the privilege of living in the day and age that the means and ability for implementing and practicing real democracy are available? Since everyone seems to agree that democracy is the best form of government, we at the Equal Life Foundation say: Put your money where your mouth is! It is not enough to call oneself a democrat or to support democracy 'in principle' - it requires investment in the people and an adjustment in ownership of economic influence - it requires us to ACT. Money makes the world go 'round and politics is herein no exception.

Read More

Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

I ended off the previous blog with the following:

"Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence"

Let's start with discussing the first problem.

Education

In principle, everyone seems to agree that the people should rule together - there is an undeniable sense of moral rightness within this - society should together lay down the laws by which it will organize itself and together give direction to their shared environment through public policy - simply because - we are all, individually yet together, a part of a certain society and there is no acceptable justification to exclude any free citizen from this process. In practice, however, Plato's argument still holds strong. "The people are too easily swayed by emotion"; "the people cannot see the bigger picture"; "the people don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of politics, economics, ecology, law, you name it". There is of course truth in this argument - however, it is not one that cannot be overcome.

Plato lived in the 4th and 5th century BC - so that's about 25 centuries ago - and still, we have not seriously attempted to overcome this problem in order to uplift our political system to the principle it morally requires to ascribe to. What have we been doing for these 25 centuries? Is it so hard to find a way to empower individuals so that they may be capable of critical thinking that in the last 25 centuries we didn't manage to come up with one? Or is it just that we haven't actually tried and rather gave up before having started because it is more convenient that way, at least for those individuals that currently do have the capacity of influencing decision making.

So - let's create a profile of the 'type' of citizen that would have the intellectual capacity of participating in political life.

We can imagine such a person:
- Having a rich vocabulary that enables him/her to participate in discussions in the political arena; big and difficult words are not seen as big and difficult for this person, they are words with a meaning
- Being relatively emotionally stable in that emotions/feelings do not play a decisive role in this person's decision making process
- Being interested in and informed in terms of current affairs

The points listed above refer to a person having political capital. So - what makes one person have political capital and another person not? How can such capital be developed and how can we facilitate the development of political capital within individuals in order to eradicate the education-problem standing in the way of manifesting a real democracy?

Which is one of the main variables that determines the richness of one's vocabulary?

SES.

'SES' is something you'll often see in sociological and psychological scientific research, because it determines almost Everything about a person's development, and place in society. 'SES' stands for socioeconomic status and formally refers to the income, job and education level of the parents. "Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts. By some measures, 5-year-old children of lower socioeconomic status score more than two years behind on standardized language development tests by the time they enter school."

Now - which is one of the main variables that determines emotional intelligence?

SES!

According to research: "High socioeconomic [students] are found to be more responsible, better able to make intelligent decisions using a healthy balance of emotions and reason, better able to focus on task at hand and pay attention. They have more control over their feelings as compared to low socioeconomic status students."

Starting to see a pattern here...

What makes a person interested in current affairs in such a way that they actually read the news and keep abreast of developments in the region/nation/world?

That question refers back to the first point of vocabulary; one of the main reason why people don't watch the news is because they don't understand the vocabulary involved, which brings us back to SES.
Secondly - many individuals do not understand the importance of watching the news in terms of how it affects them or do not see how them being informed about problems would increase the likelihood for the problem to be solved. This is a cultural point that is largely created through the very representative system of democracy we have today - where individual citizens simply do not see how their voice, how their views would make any difference. It is someone else's responsibility to come up with a solution, so why even bother getting informed? So - this particular problem that is preventing the development of political capital is the very political system in place today and can thus not be seen as a reason or argument for not changing it.

Political capital, like any form of capital, requires investment to grow and develop. Seeing that socioeconomic status is one of the main determining factors of the development of such political capital within individuals - and seeing that this political capital is a necessity to enable people to rule their country in terms of the principle of democracy we all seem to agree is best for everyone - it becomes clear that the 'problem' of education is not insurmountable - it only requires us to do a simple thing: Invest in the people!

And this is exactly what an implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed would do: ensure that each one has a dignified income, in other words - ensuring there are no more individuals with 'low' socioeconomic status in society. In seeing to what extent one's socioeconomic status affects one's abilities, one's opportunities, one's power to affect change, why would we allow anyone to have a 'low' socioeconomic status? We surely wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our own children - instead, we (would) want to give them the best possible nurturing grounds - and so - this courtesy, we should extend to all in society.

Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat but allows a representative system of democracy is a hypocrite, if they do not at the same time support a proposal such as the Living Income Guaranteed that would solve the conundrum of allowing the people to rule directly when currently individuals may not have sufficient political capital to do so. It is not acceptable to make such an assertion and then leave it at that - compromising for centuries on a principle that can be lived for real through a simple correction in how we value Life and substantiate it through real action.

To be continued.



Sources:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1103/017_16199ns1103_114_119.pdf

Read More

Day 260: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt1

Democracy - derived from the Greek words 'demos' (the people) and 'kratia' (power, rule) - refers in its most basic sense to 'rule by the people'. Currently the term holds a very positive connotation - it has been generally agreed upon in the Western/developed world that democracy is the only legitimate form of government.

There have been great efforts made by the West, through the IMF and the World Bank to 'encourage' other nations to adopt democratic practices. This was easy for especially the developing nations that called on the IMF and World Bank for financial support. All these institutions needed to do was: making 'democratization' a condition for the provision of financial support - and *woops* - we suddenly speak of 'waves of democratization' as though everyone has 'seen the light'.

Anyhow - most people will agree that democracy is the most legitimate way of ruling, because it allows for the highest degree of freedom for the individual.

In Ancient Greece it was a contested issue. The renowned philosopher, Plato, was against democracy and advocated rule by the wisest among society, the philosopher-kings (how convenient of you, Plato). He argued that most people have no business being part of the political process, because they don't have the required knowledge, insight or understanding for it.

Although not explicitly, we have been aligning to Plato's philosophy by no longer allowing each and every citizen to vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right, but instead working with a system of representative democracy, where we elect individuals that are seemingly more equipped to make such decisions on our behalf.

Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence

We'll continue this discussion in the next blog.

Read More

Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism

This blog post is in relation to a comment placed on one of our previous blog-posts - you can check out the full comment at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/02/day-186-invisible-hand-is-invisible.html#.URaxbvJBnTo.

"We can’t have equal pay because of the variable levels of experience, skill, and education. People should earn what they deserve, based on their education and skills."

The problem within remunerating individuals based on their level of experience, skill and education is that we're judging certain levels of experience, skill and education as good and others as bad. Herein, take the example of paying a technician more than a doctor - both are equally valuable contributions to society, yet we'll pay the one more because of a higher education level. In creating such divisions, you're giving people incentives in terms of what jobs to do based on money - where people will become lawyers and doctors and engineers because there's money in it - and not necessarily because that's what they would really love to do. And obviously, when you're passionate about your job, you'll push yourself to be great at it - not because of someone else's expectation, but because of one's own self-integrity. And a doctor who actually cares about his patients will be a better doctor than one who did it because he could and it would give him a nice personal life.

Also consider that not everyone has the same capacities. Some are naturally skilled in managerial tasks, others are really good with their hands - but again, both are equally valuable - so we can't remunerate one person more than another based on skill either.

In terms of level of experience - each one requires the time to grow in their profession, but that doesn't mean that we don't require the same amount of financial support in the meantime.

For more perspective on this point - please read one of our previous posts: Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism

"However, if we reduced the over inflated costs of crappy products, removed the fees for electronic services that don’t need manual labor, and diverted 50% of our national defense budget back into improving our infrastructure and economy. We would see new jobs, more tax income for the cause, and a happier, more productive community and labor force."

What we suggest in terms of pricing is to have prices determined through only considering the people who were involved in the production process. From a previous blog:

"Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage.

So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.

So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received."

And:

"It makes no sense to claim that one can 'own' a part of nature or the Earth - as physical resources - outside of oneself. Why? Because the Earth and nature were here long before us and they will remain here after we are gone - so how can we say that any of it is 'ours' - it's not ours."

To pay for resources, would imply giving money to the owner of the resource. But with the Earth being the owner, it makes to sense to give money to the Earth, because it means nothing to the Earth - money is only relevant in a human society. So - rather - we 'pay back' the Earth through supporting it in a physical manner. Each company will have an Environmental Department that is in charge of giving back what was received from the Earth insofar as this is possible.

Prices will thus be determined only considering that with the sales of the product, each one involved in the production process, ends up with an equal wage and this wage must be adequate to be able to live a meaningful life- which is a mathematical equation that can be worked out for each product and for each company. On these prices, taxes will be raised as government will still play a role within providing each one with their basic rights.

One of these basic rights will be employment. As you say - with technology able to replace menial tasks, we'll be able to create jobs where they are necessary - tasks that require to be done but aren't. The environmental departments of companies is one example. When unemployment is seen to arise - government requires to identify where further jobs can be created - or, another option is to reduce working hours or lower the pension age.

And yes - the role and magnitude of the defense forces must be reconsidered. If an EMC were implemented world-wide, they will likely no more exist as most wars are waged over economic reasons. When everyone is equally taken care of - there is no need to traumatize another country with physical violence to get it to comply to one's wishes.

"Unfortunately because people are elected into government based on their popularity. The politicians and powers that be are paid more than the average home, even though they have no special skills or experience. This leads to commerce and community decisions being made based entirely on the personal expectations, desires, and motives of the elected and now privileged group. With hardly any control from the people who elected them. Once they get there, they play a game of give and take with the community so they can keep their positions as long as they can. Serving in congress or the senate should be thought of as a privilege, there pay should be limited to that of an average household, to insure that they remain concerned for the welfare and health of the majority which they are still part of. In humanities quest for material items, fame, and fortune."

Totally agree. For politics, we suggest direct democracy where politicians are in essence merely administrators and not decision-makers and yes, where their wages are equal to those of everyone else. For more info on this, read: www.equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

"We seem to have forgotten about the value of checks and balances. Anytime a system is out of balance, it is doomed to eventually fall apart and fail. Thus the proper individual course, is always one that leads to beneficial results for the community. Which then logically leads us to the success of our entire society. As it sits now, life is great if your above or near the fulcrum of our economy. But it can be grand or desperate depending on where you are on the arms, and that in itself is a sign of inequality and unbalance."

Yep, totally agree!

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• 293. Services in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 185: Students feel fee squeeze
• Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 178: Zuma says to benefactors: "Everything you touch will multiply" - EMC will End Corruption

For more context, please read Jo'burg's R1bn 'present' to Zuma benefactor.

The Problem

At the ANC anniversary gala dinner, President Zuma of South Africa made the statement that "wise" businessmen who support the ANC could expect that everything they touch would multiply. In the Mail & Guardian, this has been called a 'controversial remark' - but is it really controversial if everyone is doing it?

Whoever supports Zuma will receive support in return - this is how political parties buy their power in a country. An example was in the newspapers just a few days ago - where Reddy Vivian's company was awarded a R1.25 billion contract to supply 'smart' electricity meters to the city of Johannesburg. The way in which the tender was awarded is full of irregularities.

• "Detailed allegations that an initial technical evaluation score-sheet was amended to improve the result for Reddy's company, Edison Power;

• The revised scoring pushed another bidder, Hefcom, below the cut-off 70% technical score. When price was factored in, Hefcom – whose bid was half the cost of Edison's – would have scored better than Edison;

• A letter informing Edison it had won the bid is dated before City Power supply chain management even received the bid recommendation or the chair of the adjudication committee had signed off on the decision;

• Edison's share of the contract was pushed up from an initial recommendation of a R600-million share of an R800-million contract to an exclusive contract for R1.25-billion; and

• A man central to the award, City Power chief executive Sicelo Xulu, is alleged to be "friends with Zuma" though he denies this."

If it hadn't been for friends-politics, and if tenders were awarded purely on quality, Hefcom would have probably been awarded the tender, which would have halved the cost for supplying the electricity meters. The South African public is being conned continuously as no decision is made in the best interest of the whole, but only in the interest of those in power - both the politicians and the companies. This type of neocolonialism is a big problem as it perpetuates inequality and brings about results that are completely inefficient, imposing unnecessary costs to those with less. And, where decisions are not made to support life but to support greed, the environment incurs higher costs as well - because the environment which gives life is simply not considered.

The Solution

Firstly, each one will earn an equal income within EMC. One of the problems we're facing today, which prevents people from working together to find solutions for common problems, is the fact that the value of a person is not recognised as being equal. And each one's value IS equal - Because we are all here and we are all Life - it doesn't matter in which form - without Life, you wouldn't be breathing right now. Yet, the current capitalistic system gives value through money in an unequal way - creating the perception and idea that people are not Equal. Understand - equal does not mean the same - we are not all the same. Some run faster than others, some understand math better, for others math is like an alien monster. We are not equal in capacities and skills in that we are not all the same - but we all are equal in value - there is no one more important then another, there is no one that deserves better opportunities than another.

Every time each one receives an equal income, each one's value is being recognised as being equal to that of another. When value is not equally recognised, it creates the perception that there is a lack of value to go around and that each one must compete to receive value. With everyone receiving equal income, such competition for value will for a large part disappear - because there is no fear of ending up without value and without recognition. Things like power-hunger will for a large part disappear due to this simple correction, as being in a position of power is merely one of the ways individuals attempt to find value and recognition through competition. With each one being out for themselves, the larger picture is forgotten, and one's responsibilities towards one's fellow human beings are forgotten. Once everyone is recognised as equal, working together as a group becomes possible, because things like jealousy, competition and sabotage no longer stand in the way.

Of course, in EMC - Politics will be different from what it is today - one will not give up their voice to a representative and then hope that this representative indeed acts in your interest. Instead - each one will be part of the decision making. We go back to the origin of democracy, which was direct democracy. Ones territories started becoming too big for people to gather and do the decision-making, a system of representation was introduced. And for a moment, this was the best option available. But with today's technology, we are able to implement true democracy once again - because we don't require to physically come together to discuss and vote on things. We discuss and vote on things with people far away all the time on the internet; on forums, on twitter, on facebook. So - to organise our political system in a way that everyone has a direct say is today possible and very do-able.

Those in political positions will merely be managers, but they will not be decision-makers - and therefore, will not have the ability to influence, for instance, who is awarded the tender for supplying electric metres.

Rewards

EMC will put an end to Corruption - making sure that the funds that are pooled together through tax is no longer wasted on the exuberant lifestyle of those in power. Tax money will be used to provide each one with their Basic Living Rights. You'll be able to follow these things online, monitoring the entire process of why a certain solution was selected and you'll be able to say whether you agree with the decision.

Obviously, less money and resources will be spent on investigating corruption, cycling cases through the justice system. With such distractions out of the way, we'll be able to truly focus on how we can enhance life - for humans, animals and plants - this will create a different world for everyone, the world we were told we lived in as children, but soon realised was a lie.

Related articles

• Zuma funder awarded R1.25bn tender
• Questions over Zuma ally's R1bn tender
• Day 176: Will the Elite Manipulate the Public to Push for Privatization in EMC?
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 170: Companies and Industries in EMC

Read More

Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System

Within the following blogs we'll be replying to a comment made in relation to 'Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System'.

How would new policy ideas be brought up? For example, if it came to be that the systems in place to provide for everyone's basic necessities became so efficient (many years down the road) that it was no longer necessary to have every human contribute 4 years to maintain it, how would it work to propose reducing the conscription period to, say 3 years and 3 months? Could individuals propose new policy changes or would they only be proposed by policy-makers as experts?

Within the stage of identifying policy-issues, everyone is able to participate, regardless of qualification or expertise. Each one will have a 'Life Profile', which is an online profile, like we are familiar with from networking sites such as 'Facebook'. This profile will be your main interaction portal with the political decision-making process, through which you can signal policy issues that require direction or alignment, as well as make your own suggestions as to how to correct the point. Therefore, the stage of the identification of policy issues is available to all, regardless of qualifications. Once policy issues have been identified and suggestions have been made by the general population, the next stage is initiated, which involves the policy formulation by experts.

It might be helpful to provide specifics on how these committees of law-makers will be assembled.

To answer this question we require to distinguish between the various participants within the law-making or policy-making process - which are:
- The general population
- Scientific experts
- The administration

In terms of the content of the policies to be decided on, only the general population and the scientific experts are relevant.

The role of the general population mainly pertains to the identification of policy-issues as well as the cross-referencing point in terms of voting on whether or not the proposed policies indeed adhere to the Constitutional Principles of Equality and What is best for All.

The role of the scientific experts pertains to the formulation of policy in adherence with the scientific and mathematical methodologies as laid out by the Constitution.

So - what role is left then for the administrators? The role of the administrators is a purely managerial function. They have in fact no more influence on policy-making than anyone else does. The type of functions administrators are to perform are for instance the convening of all identified policy issues by the population as well as their suggestions, the directing of all organizational aspects involved with bringing together a qualified committee of scientists with the relevant expertise in terms of the particular policy that requires to be formulated, the publishing of each step within the policy-making process, and so on. Their role is thus to ensure that the Rule of Law as laid out by the Constitution is followed without influencing the content of the policies themselves.

Members of the administration require to have a minimum set of qualifications and will be voted into office for 1 term. Ideally, each person will only be able to take office once in their lifetime to give each one who so desires, the opportunity to experience what is involved within taking in a position of responsibility in the world.

I'm assuming they will be payed beyond the basic income everyone is to receive in an Equal Money System- so does that mean they receive the same hourly wage as everyone else choosing to take part in work beyond the 4-year conscription period? 

Your question shows that you're coming from an understanding of the Equal Money System based on old information. The Equal Money System proposal is one that goes through change and adjustment according to feedback and comments we receive (like yours). So, I suggest reading the Labor section on the EMS Wiki to understand that there will be no relationship between labor and the resources available to you. In other words, there will be no hourly, daily, weekly, monthly or any other type of wages paid out in an Equal Money System. Each one fulfills their 4-year internship, which forms part of each one's educational curriculum, after that - for those who wish to in some way continue to contribute to society, labor is voluntary. Everyone is equal within this point and Administrators will therefore not receive any type of special treatment in terms of receiving additional resources or support while they are in office.

The point of resources allocation will further be clarified within the next blog.

Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire
• Day 141: Even the Rain: Water Politics - Catastroika

Read More

Day 142: Presidents under Fire

Shit is hitting the fan in many countries these days - several conflicts pertaining to the abuse of power of Presidents.

In South Africa, a vote of no confidence will be debated against President Zuma. One of the accusations is that the president used taxpayers' money to fund the construction of his R200 million residence.

In Thailand, 10 000 protesters gathered to demonstrate against Yingluck Shinawatra's government. She is accused of corruption and of being a puppet of her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra.

In Egypt, judges and prosecutors are strkking in Alexandria in protest of President Mohammed Mursi's decree that places him above the law. In what he says to be an attempt to protect the revolution, he issued an order that prevents any court from overturning his decisions - which makes it so he can rule unchecked until the new constitution is drafted. He claims the courts were about to disband the assembly that is writing the Egyptian constitution and wanted to prevent it. However, Egyptians fear the real agenda is not about protecting the revolution or new constitution, but to simply increase the president's powers.

It is becoming more and more clear that representative democracy never actually is representative and leads to catastroika. During campaigns people's perceptions and feelings about the candidates are manipulated in the candidates' favours - yet, when it comes to actual ruling - the reality of the situation is revealed: they never actually cared about the country or the people, they only cared about their own position, status and bank accounts.

Democracy today is far removed from what it was at its onset in the Greek citystates where the democratic form of government was direct democracy. In direct democracy there is no middle-man - no 'guy at the top' that is supposedly protecting the interests of millions. People rule directly. It is claimed that today it would be unpractical to have direct democracy - that the size of the countries is too big, that people don't have the time to go and debate policy-issues. However, considering the technology available today, these objetions are meaningless. If any time was a good time to have a successful form of direct democracy, it is now. We have phones, faxes - and most importantly: internet. Millions can cast their vote on an issue without a problem. We do it every day on sites such as YouTube and Facebook where we share what we like and what we don't like - there is no reason similar technology can be applied for more meaningful activities, such as participating in political life - activities which actually affect people's lives instead of just provide entertainment.

This is why the Equal Money System suggests the implementation of direct democracy so as to remove the need for people to rise up on the streets in protest of their governments where they are met by police, tear gas and rubber (at least if they're lucky) bullets. Direct democracy removes the need to place trust in another only for it to be betrayed afterwards - where it is truly the people who are ruling themselves.

Related articles

• Direct Democracy Ireland
• The Future of Freedom - Direct Democracy
• Thai police fire tear gas in clash with hundreds of protesters
• Thailand anti-government protests quelled by riot police
• New political party 'Direct Democracy Ireland' launched in Dublin

Read More