Day 256: Will LIG result in a Centrally Planned Economy with a Coercive Government?

This blog-post is a response to a Facebook Comment made in relation to the Living Income Proposal.

"Government is still government. Centrally coerced power nonetheless."

I suggest reading the blog ‘How Companies will be Nationalized and What does it Mean? LIG’ for more clarity on how we suggest nationalization is to occur – where it is NOT the government that would centrally own/control the resources ‘on behalf of the people’ – it would be the every citizen directly being a shareholder of the nationalized companies. This means that the companies will not be used in favor of the government – but in benefit of the population as a whole. Herein, no changes really have to occur in how the companies are operated today, the only difference is where the profit goes and who takes part in shareholder meetings. 

" "If we define competition as the ability achieve the best living condition in a society " has absolutely NOTHING to do with competition within a free market sense. Such fundamental misrepresentations / rebranding of words is disservice."

Competition for the sake of competing/winning is a disservice to society as a whole. This is what the ‘invisible hand’ doctrine is all about – that self-interested competitive behavior yields result that are favorable to others in society, which was not intended. However, currently this competition has, let’s say, ‘evolved’ to the point where the ‘losers’ in the competition literally lose everything – including those things that are supposed to be guaranteed human rights. This is where LIG intends to make a difference. Competition is useful from the perspective that it creates an environment where participants strive to create the best product and the best service – which in turn enhances the quality of life of the members of society (which is what is referred to in the quote you mentioned) but it shouldn't do so at the expense of an individual’s ability to provide themselves with living necessities.

"None of these terms mean anything. "Activation of the economy"?"

Simply referring to increasing economic activity, employment and productivity.

Who knows what standards they employ for not interfering with the "nationalization of natural resources". How do you qualify "interfere with public services"? Who the hell even determines what is objectively the "highest quality"? This is complete monopoly of resources, enstated through force / coercion / compulsion, with extremely ill-defined definitions of language. This is one step away from having a dictator.

You’re using quite a slippery-slope type of argumentation here – it would be a good example of ‘how not to do it’ in critical reasoning courses. Anyhow – monopoly of resources: no – it would be quite the opposite – resources would be owned by every citizen of a country and would no longer be able to be controlled by a few. Remember – it is not government that owns the resources, it is the citizens directly. Also – it’s not that we are suggesting to have only one company provide for instance electricity and that this company should be nationalized and that this company will now receive funds from the government that other companies don't - No – we encourage healthy competition between firms supplying the same/similar services – whether these are ‘nationalized’ firms (in the sense that is discussed in the Living Income Proposal) or whether they remain in private hands.

 A HUGE issue with this program, besides the mind-blowing idiocy in their understanding of basic economic concepts, is the perversion of price. I guarantee you if you linked a good description on how they intend to replace the price mechanism I'll blow it away in a second. Not even Zeitgeisters' resource-based economy can figure this out.

 You know how monopolies are kept in check in a FREE MARKET? Companies A, B, C, D. A uses profits / loans to buy companies B. Company C raises the price of his business since he knows that company A is trying to corner the market. If Company A tries to buy D he either already used so much of his $$$ or took on so much debt than company D can simply hold on and corner the market himself.

 Self-interest and FREE markets naturally limit these things. It is self-regulating.

How about collusion? A, B, C, and D form a union and agree to raise prices across the board. Guess what? The first company who defects from the pact and drops his prices gets the WHOLE market share. In return the other 3 companies HAVE to lower their prices as well.

Probably have never heard that in your entire life.

Please – I suggest you get your head out of your economy-books and rather do some real-life investigation. How can Nestle, for instance, have 12% of the WOLRD market if the free market is so self-regulating? Theory and practice are not the same thing. The free market is inherently not designed to take into account, for instance, living conditions – as you probably know – equilibrium wages have nothing to do with living wages – yet, how can we allow companies to set prices that adhere to market-principles, when it means they cannot pay their employees a proper wage? With LIG we suggest to make minor adjustments so that at the very least, everyone’s human rights are guaranteed and so that any worker is actually recognized as someone who participates in providing their labor for the benefit of society through producing goods and services, through a wage double the living income.

You require to consider that ‘pure’ free market principles are nothing more than a nicely formulated set of justifications the elite uses to continue abuse in the market. So, I suggest supplementing your studies with independent research, so that you can come to grips with what is really happening and how it doesn't match the economic theories. 

It's a big ol lie that the government "protects" you from monopolies and collusion. They kill the competition and FORM the monopolies. Governments take out the risk of monopoly by taking AWAY the risk. Ever hear of bank bailouts? Privitized profits and socialized losses? They only got that big anyways because of the government. The problem isn't banking. It's the coercive nature of government which traps people (under the point of a gun) to this fraud.

Again – we propose a very limited role for government with Living Income Guaranteed and suggest that as much as possible is done automatically to minimize the possibility of fraud and inefficiency.

Bureau of Standards? I mean the hell, it is not economically efficient of ideal to produce everything to the "highest-standard" possible. Should a lead pencil be made from Brazillian hardwood? Would wooden pallets for shipping all be required to be made from hardwood to withstand maximum weight load? Would we even have the existence of goods such as particle board / press wood / mulch (after all ALL of these were reinventions of waste products which had no productive use before...... but according to this theory we should have not have even cut the lumber before we planned what to do with the chips). You put this policy in place 100's of years ago and we'd have no such thing as cheese or whey protein because damn........ once you make the cheese we'd have to employ 100 researchers to find out what to do with the whey! Guess no cheese until we figure out the "perfect plan" eh?

Here you’ve taken words out of context. With the Bureau of Standards the intention is to go back to good-quality products. Of course, there is no purpose for a pencil to be made from Brazilian hardwood. But there is a purpose for a microwave to last for 50 years instead of 5. So – we’re here looking specifically at equipment/tools that are not actually consumer-goods in the sense of, for instance, food that is consumed – where you buy it, you consume it, now it’s gone and you have to buy more. Equipments/tools were originally designed/meant to last a long time, but as it was realized that if you make something to break – people have to come buy a new one – inferior materials started being used and tools/equipment started becoming consumer products in that you use it only x times/ for an x amount of time and now it’s broke and you have to buy a new one. Such behavior creates consequences not only for the current but for future generations as well, as it perpetuates a wasting of resources. So, the Bureau of Standards is a suggestion to ensure we do not waste resources on inferior products. This is something the free market does not regulate, because it is an external cost. Yet, it is absolutely important that we start pacing our rate of production to the physical if we want to keep living on this planet. It is not, however, a means for central planning. In the same way we have regulations for safe food-production – there should be a Bureau of Standards for quality tools/equipment because it is in everyone’s best interest.

The understanding of the fundamentals are completely whack. Even if you cut past this hogwash it ultimately is just coercive force / violence by the state put into extreme, pretty much Soviet Russia or Communist China. Centrally-planned, coerced ideals through "objective calculations" that seem good on paper but starve millions due to misallocation of resources.

Not really worth any more of my time. All of the 10+ pages from this program have been utterly shameful. If it wasn't for the fact that stupid people can "democratically" vote and enslave the rest of us under this type of tyranny I wouldn't even bother.

I suggest taking a breath – letting go of your fears, and with the perspectives given in this blog – read the proposal again – so that you may see it for what it is, rather than filter it through your mind – as you’re currently making associations and interpretations that are in no way part of the LIG proposal.

For context and more information:

Living Income Guaranteed - the Proposal: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Living Income Guaranteed YouTube Channel - watch the hangouts: https://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch 

Living Income Guaranteed Website: http://livingincome.me

Read More

Day 208: Is Equal Money a Fascist Regime?

Continuing from yesterday's blog - Day 207: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia? - we're here going to have a look at the common accusation that Equal Money Capitalism or the Equal Money System will be a Fascist regime - where some even claim there will be some form of concentration camps where people will be brainwashed...

It is never really clear what the context is in which Equal Money supporters will apparently go and do this brainwashing, so I will walk through the different contexts that I see could be referred to.

The first one is the idea that the Equal Money supporters will attempt to utilize mind-technology to try to persuade anyone who does not agree with the Equal Money proposal. In terms of this point - there's really nothing to worry about. We've stated several times that Equal Money will only be implemented through Political means. This means that: if a vote is held to determine whether an EMS system would be implemented and the vote determines that the majority is not in favor of Equal Money - then it will simply not be implemented. There's not more to it, no-one will go and harass anyone that did not vote for Equal Money. That's completely non-democratic.

If the vote determining that the majority votes for implementation of Equal Money and you're then asking: what about the minority that does not agree with Equal Money? That is a point that is established by the democratic rules today. When the majority votes and the vote is binding, the minority has to adjust to the binding vote. That is how democracy operates at the moment. Once Equal Money is then implemented, the democratic system would change. Direct democracy will be instated in such a way that voting is no longer about implementing the policies and decisions that the majority wants, but will stand in relation to agreeing whether the proposed policy is indeed what is best for all. So, if one votes for the policy, one agrees that the policy is best for all. If one disagrees with the policy, one must provide proof that there is inequality in the equation and that it will cause harm that can be prevented - and then one can suggest adjustments to the proposed policy or suggest alternatives.

From this point onwards - if individuals continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and the policies that are established through such democratic means - three things can happen.

Scenario 1 - one takes some time to adjust and after a while sees that the fears one had about Equal Money had no real foundation, and in seeing how society operates according to the principles of Equality and What is Best for All - that it actually works out.

Or - scenario number 2: you continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and express this disagreement through democratic means. Each one will have their online LifeProfile where they will stand in direct contact with the government administrators. When such input is received, you will be asked to supply specific information in terms of how you see yourself being harmed within the current system. If the information you provide indicates that you are indeed being harmed unnecessarily - solutions will be implemented to correct the disharmony in the design of the system. If it is found from the information your provided that the cause of your discontent is not within the system as the system is sound within the principles of harmony, equality and what is best for all - then support will be provided in terms of explaining how alternatives of the current system would cause greater harm. These points would have been scientifically determined through the policy-making process. If these explanations are rejected by the being without other reason than 'I just don't agree', then this may indicate that there may be some psychological imbalance where the person is not sufficiently capable of considering another as equal to themselves. In these cases, then, psychological support will be offered, where professionals will be available to assist you in correcting your own psychological disharmonies. This will not be compulsory. Forcing a person to change will not result in actual self-responsibility and self-correction - one can only correct oneself - therefore, assistance can be offered, but it cannot be forced upon the person. If assistance is refused, one will have to live with one's own discontent as the refusal to change will be one's own responsibility.

In the 3rd scenario - the disagreement with Equal Money will be expressed through spiteful behavior in deliberately acting in a way that is in disagreement with the laws and rules that have been established through democratic means under the Constitutional principle of what is best for all. In such cases, one has decided to deliberately cause harm and disharmony. Again - firstly, it will be investigated whether your discontent flows from a disharmony within the system that would cause you to 'act out'. If this is the case, steps will be taken to correct the problem. If this is not the case, then one requires to face the consequences of one's spitefulness. When a being is deliberate within causing harm and disharmony when one lives in a system that supports each one equally and provides the best results for everyone - there will be no more choice involved. One will be placed in a facility for self-correction. One has at this point forsaken one's rights to be a part of the society as one is willing to harm others within the society, and has created oneself to be a threat to others. Within the self-correction facilities, again - one will be assisted and supported to correct one's own abusive patterns. No one will attempt to change you - because one can only change oneself if the change is to stand within actual realization, understanding and integrity. This the only valid change. Therefore, professionals will continue to support you, but if one does not support oneself towards actual self-correction, one cannot expect to return to society, considering the risk one poses to others.

Herein - consider that these self-correction facilities are not concentration camps and the procedure is very similar to the correctional system that is in place currently. However, currently - when individuals break the agreements of society, they are branded as 'criminals' and are removed from society where they are placed in a cell as punishment, and from that, supposedly they 'learn a lesson'. We have seen that this approach is not effective. Firstly, because many of the 'criminal behavior' is a direct outflow and consequence of a system that does not support each one effectively, causing individuals to resort to crime to support themselves. When crime can be prevented in the way we structure our society, it should be done - but this is not sufficiently considered within our current system. Secondly - most people coming out of prison do not learn any lesson. Instead, they feel alienated and often fall back in their previous patterns. Those imprisoned are not sufficiently supported in understanding their own psychological and behavioral patterns and are not sufficiently guided in terms of how they are able to correct these patterns. Therefore - self-correction facilities will be the correction of what we currently know to be prisons - where individuals are no longer abandoned or punished - but unconditionally supported to as effectively as possible be re-integrated into society.

Related articles

• Day 206: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia?
• Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 203: The Mockery of Democracy Continues - Dead People Voting in Zimbabwe
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 200: Collapse of Global Civilization Inevitable?
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 201: The Power of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More