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 157: Growing your Own Food and Equal Money

"You can't tell people they can't do something because that will motivate them further. So my hypothetical situation is this. You plans are in full swing and the majority of the planet is behind you but thousands of people don't like the system of ordering food at the touch of a button or swipe of a card and they gather in their city square and protest outside your building then more and more people join until there are endless seas of angry people outside your building that no longer want to be dependent on your system and instead would like to grow food themselves but in your fields that your system has acquired do you let them grow their own food or do you call the riot police to sweep these complainers off your front door. In addition to this I would say I don't want to be dependent on nothing but the earth for it has enough to provide for all without your idea of regulating it we need abundance in all reaches of the globe so we need only ourselves and our generosity. "

Any points of discontent with the organization of society, can be reported by each individual through their online Life Profile (see Politics Wiki page). Riots, marches, demonstrations and massive protests are only applicable in a system where the people are not being heard and where the system stands in opposition to the well-being of the population. Within an Equal Money System, each point of discontent will be addressed on an individual level - where you don't require thousands of people to stand together to make themselves heard. When addressing a point of discontent, which indicates a point of disharmony, it will be assessed whether the disharmony is a result of the organizational structure of society or whether there is a point of disharmony within the person, such as for instance a lack of understanding regarding particular policies and the research these policies are based upon.

Within your example of growing one's own food, there are several points to be considered. Firstly, any point that is made available to one person, must be made available to all people equally. Therefore, to allow one person to cultivate land for food production, implies allowing everyone to do the same. Within this, it must be considered whether it is Best for All to convert such massive amounts of land for agricultural process when this is not part of the Earth's natural expression and can have ramifications in terms of the harmonious balance that is required for the Earth's Life Support System to function effectively. Secondly, the desire for growing one's own food must be investigated. Meaning: does it stem from a lack of quality from the food that you are receiving? In this case, for each one to grow their own food is not necessarily the required solution - but instead one would require to upgrade and better the already existent food production processes. If the desire to grow one's own food stems from simply wanting to participate in such activities as growing food, then each one can on a voluntary basis participate in the already existent food production processes.

Currently, many resort to growing their own food as a coping mechanism because the profit motive compromises the quality of the available food. Without the ability to influence those processes directly, such a reaction is understandable, because there is no alternative. In a system of Equality wherein the well-being of each individual is safeguarded by the Constitution, one would not need to resort to coping mechanisms for the purpose of bettering the lives of only a few. Instead - each one will engage to find solutions that better the life of All. 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Read More

Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Jury of One’s Peers?

A system of justice from the perspective of having to evaluate and assess what must happen when a person is in a mental disorder, and therefore disrupting society, through a Jury of One’s Peers, is not an effective procedure. The effectiveness of peer-review lies within the expertise and level of skill of those reviewing. A procedure through a Jury of One’s Peers based on a selection of citizens from a broad spectrum of backgrounds (race, nationality, gender, education) in no way whatsoever ensures the effective evaluation and assessment of a person’s disorder and decision of specific correctional facilitation. The only point such a jury of peers serves, is to provide a broad spectrum of bias through which a person’s behaviour resulting from mental disorder is assessed.

The assessment of a person’s behaviour ought to be based on a very simple pattern: is the pattern that one is living that which is Best for All Life or is it Not? As such, the legal system won’t be as much a system that is governing or regulating according to the laws that exist – as most of the laws will cease to exist in an Equal Money Justice System. The justice system will operate very simplistically. You will have your primary constitutional law and you will have your management regulations – which together form your guidelines according to how man co-exists in harmony.

At any time when behaviour deviates from the principles and guidelines to sustain harmony in society, one will go through a process of origin identification and correctional facilitation by experts.

The Less Laws, the Less Crime

“The more laws are written, the more criminals are produced” – Lao Tzu

The focus of Justice within an Equal Money System will not be that of criminalization, it will be a matter of harmony or disharmony. A harmonious society cannot create criminals, because crime as such does not exist, and can only be the result of the laws in place creating it. Laws dictate what is legal and what is illegal. In a society where regulations are formulated according to the principle of what is Best for All, there will be no reason to step ‘outside’ of the law. If ‘illegal’ behaviour does take place, it is not sufficient to merely label the behaviour as ‘criminal’ and attempt to ‘force’ the individual to comply with the law, or simply remove them from society. Instead, it requires to be re-assessed whether the regulations in place are indeed Best for All. If the disharmony is not a result of the existent regulations, the disharmony requires to be corrected on an individual level.

Therefore, there will be no criminals – criminals only exist as the result of a disharmonious society, where instead of looking at what is in the Best interest of All and assessing people’s behaviour within the principles of harmony or disharmony , laws are designed to protect certain interest groups and thus by implication excluding others

There will thus be only One Law, as the Rule of Law as the Constitution based on Equality and what is Best for All Life. All other guidelines will be in the form of policy and regulation, which will be required to be laid out within the utmost specificity. Within adhering to specificity and clarity to the utmost level, no space is left for the interpretation of law or policy. If at any stage it turns out that a door for interpretation was left open, this would indicate that the law or policy is not good enough and will have to be specified to close the gap. As such, there will no longer be a need for lawyers as ‘experts’ on law or courts for the purpose of interpreting the law. Education within the Equal Money System will provide everyone with the necessary reading skills to be able to effectively read and assess laws and policies for one self – at the level that it should be assessed, so all can be on an equal ground of understanding and clarity.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Justice

www.equalmoney.org 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

Read More

Day 153: War on Democracy

Watch this

Related articles

• Day 140: Congo - Children Torn from Families as we Speak to Fight as Soldiers in Civil War
• Day 138: USA - Land of Liberty and Democracy?
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire
• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy

Read More

Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System

Many people ask the question whether 'What's Best for All' and 'Democracy' from the starting point of 'the majority rules' are not contradictory or incompatible.

What is being looked at within such questions is a scenario where a majority wants to enforce a particular policy -- but this policy is not best for all – what then?

Many democracies existent today are constitutional democracies. A constitution contains a set of fundamental principles and guidelines according to which the particular state will be governed. It is thus a 'framework' within which all decisions, policy and legislation are made. Whenever a new policy is being developed or when policies are reviewed -- it has to be checked whether it adheres to the base principles, as outlined within the Constitution. If they are not -- they are considered to be 'unconstitutional' and can hence be disregarded. This also implies, that even in democracies today -- one cannot vote on policies which are in essence unconstitutional, and there is thus a 'limit' on what is acceptable and allowed. So, what we are introducing within and Equal Money System, where Equality and What is Best for All are the base principles of the Equal Money Constitution: is nothing New.

Within this, it is thus implied that achieving and enforcing what is Best for All is not contradictory to democracy per se -- as the available options to be voted on, will always be within the framework of what is Best for All. As such -- voting will not exist from the perspective that one is presented with a policy and either 'likes' or 'dislikes' it based on an opinion one has and would vote accordingly. Instead, one will be presented with policies which have been designed by various agents from various backgrounds/expertise who have volunteered to contribute their time to design policies as frameworks and guidelines in terms of how particular points are to be managed -- and these are always designed within the starting point and context of Equality and what is Best for All. The end result coming from this process, will then be peer reviewed to cross-reference the proposal and make sure that all points are aligned within what is Best for All and that no points have been left unconsidered.

All of these processes, will occur in a transparent, publicly available manner -- where at any moment, anyone can check the movement of information -- leaving no space for 'hidden agendas'.

Upon completion of the peer review, the particular proposal or policy will be presented to the public for voting -- which is then in essence the final stage of review/cross-referencing. Within the voting process one is then in fact indicating that one agrees that what is proposed is indeed Best for All -- and if one disagrees, one would have to back up this disagreement with the necessary proof and evidence -- upon which the policy/proposal can be revised/re-evaluated (simply having an 'opinion', is thus not acceptable).

Within this structure Education will play a major role, within ensuring effective education to all children in order to provide them with the necessary mathematical, scientific and common sense skills and insights, to be able to evaluate and participate within policy formulation or policy-review effectively.

The focus is thus on the Participation of the Majority within directly taking part in the policy creation process.

Within this, the approach of 'Prevention is the Best Cure' also plays a vital role -- where we want to ensure that all policies and decision-making are done in order to prevent consequences resulting from inequality. When consequences have already manifested, this would indicate a major problem in the effective application processes where a point within the foundation is unsound and 'cracked' so to speak, which results in having to 'go back' and fix things -- which is unnecessary and could have been prevented, and these points would as such require urgent attention. We thus want to ensure at all all points are taken into consideration at all times, so that a sound foundation can be in place which will prevent unnecessary harm and abuse from taking place. This is in contrast to our current system, which only acts after problems and consequences have already taken place and only then devise solutions -- which is in essence, doing everything 'backwards'.

Related articles

• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy
• Day 111: Evilution - Neocolonialism - Part 2
• Day 128: What We've Failed to Consider about Policy and Voting
• Day 141: Even the Rain: Water Politics - Catastroika
• Day 140: Congo - Children Torn from Families as we Speak to Fight as Soldiers in Civil War
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire

Read More