This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our Previous blogs:
Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
With regards to your comment I would like to draw your attention to the following Response which has been made to a similar comment on the Equal Money Goals on the Equal Money website Homepage :
The comment:
I do not like this Goal and Suggest Rather the Following…
"Who determines the "Best Possible Life for all on Earth"?" December 03, 2012 16:25
Our Response:
We live in a physical reality which works through particular laws of nature. 'What is Best' is thus never determined from someone's personal view or opinion - but derived from how things practically function and operate within this world.
Therefore, meaning of 'Best Possible Life for All on Earth' will be determined by each one through democratic means, where input must be backed up by scientific evidence and must take place within the framework of Constitutional Equality.
The same principle applies when looking at ‘what is equal’. When we say ‘providing for all equally’, we do not mean ‘providing for everyone the same’. On an individual level everyone still has different requirements in terms of tending to one’s needs – and thus the support one require will vary from person to person to reach an equal level of living standard. Within this, some will get more, other’s will receive less – depending on one’s individual situation – but the outcome remains the same in terms of having one’s basic needs taken care of and having everything in place to live a dignified Life. Determining what is required for each one to live at this level will require investigation and individual assessment which will take time and effort – but is not impossible.
Taking this into consideration, equality is not doomed to fail. In terms of ‘consent’ – all that is required to be agreed upon is that all are of equal value as Life within this world, and that one agrees that all ought to receive the support necessary to live a dignified life. In terms of determining the ‘necessary means’ for each, this will be mostly a scientific undertaking and not based on personal opinions. Conflict can then only arise when there is a point where someone does not understand why another or self receives or gives in a particular way and perceives a point of injustice/inequality to be existent. Herein, the scientific procedures/evidence would be put forward to indicate the extent to which someone receives/gives. Unless one can provide scientific evidence/proof that shows otherwise – one would have to re-align oneself according to the information put forward or go through a correctional process as insistence that something is ‘not fair’ while the evidence shows that it is equal, would indicate a form of mental disharmony within the person which requires addressing.
Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
The idea of equal contribution, equal share, equal this and equal that is probably doomed to failure form the beginning because it will require consent as to what an equal contribution really is. This is impossible to determine and thus causes conflict. Victor Schauberger develops a different viewpoint based on his observations of nature. Nature always produces abundantly so there is always enough for all. This idea is always adopted in the Venus Project. Taking these considerations into account, I believe it is possible to set up an "economic" system where all is indeed free and freely shared by all. - Axel
With regards to your comment I would like to draw your attention to the following Response which has been made to a similar comment on the Equal Money Goals on the Equal Money website Homepage :
The comment:
I do not like this Goal and Suggest Rather the Following…
"Who determines the "Best Possible Life for all on Earth"?" December 03, 2012 16:25
Our Response:
We live in a physical reality which works through particular laws of nature. 'What is Best' is thus never determined from someone's personal view or opinion - but derived from how things practically function and operate within this world.
Therefore, meaning of 'Best Possible Life for All on Earth' will be determined by each one through democratic means, where input must be backed up by scientific evidence and must take place within the framework of Constitutional Equality.
The same principle applies when looking at ‘what is equal’. When we say ‘providing for all equally’, we do not mean ‘providing for everyone the same’. On an individual level everyone still has different requirements in terms of tending to one’s needs – and thus the support one require will vary from person to person to reach an equal level of living standard. Within this, some will get more, other’s will receive less – depending on one’s individual situation – but the outcome remains the same in terms of having one’s basic needs taken care of and having everything in place to live a dignified Life. Determining what is required for each one to live at this level will require investigation and individual assessment which will take time and effort – but is not impossible.
Taking this into consideration, equality is not doomed to fail. In terms of ‘consent’ – all that is required to be agreed upon is that all are of equal value as Life within this world, and that one agrees that all ought to receive the support necessary to live a dignified life. In terms of determining the ‘necessary means’ for each, this will be mostly a scientific undertaking and not based on personal opinions. Conflict can then only arise when there is a point where someone does not understand why another or self receives or gives in a particular way and perceives a point of injustice/inequality to be existent. Herein, the scientific procedures/evidence would be put forward to indicate the extent to which someone receives/gives. Unless one can provide scientific evidence/proof that shows otherwise – one would have to re-align oneself according to the information put forward or go through a correctional process as insistence that something is ‘not fair’ while the evidence shows that it is equal, would indicate a form of mental disharmony within the person which requires addressing.
