Can we Live Simply Ever After?

When you tear down everything that makes life a burden, when you strip away everything that complicates life and sucks the joy out of it – there’s not ‘much’ left. Much from the perspective of: you can go without many things. Many things in our world currently make our life ‘fuller’ but not necessarily more ‘fulfilled’ – BIG difference. Have a look at what we have made ‘life’ to be – human life is super-complicated – it is true, we’ve made a terrific mess.

In the past 7 years, I’ve set out to discover what a person needs to be ‘happy’ – happy from the perspective of ‘not being in wanting’, where you have everything you need and there is nothing you are missing out on – your life is complete. Turns out – there’s not that much a person needs to have to be fulfilled, really. The more you remove the clutter, the clearer you see your relationship with yourself – which is the key to your own happiness.

If we had a blank slate – it would be easy to provide everyone with that which is needed, because it really is rather simplistic. The challenge is not in seeing what needs to be achieved – the challenge lies within creating the solution from where we are now. How to move from complexity to simplicity? Are we ready to live in simplicity, to simply live? Are we ready to let go of the clutter that we’ve given so much value to?

Have you ever watched those survival type TV shows where people have to survive on the bare minimum in the wild? Most of them will come out of such experiences with a new perspective on what’s really important in life and how most of the stuff we do and participate in, really doesn’t add value or support life /living in any way. And yet – how many of them actually follow through on implementing these fresh perspectives in the form of huge life changes? I daresay very few. Most of them will revert back to old habits, because everything in and of ‘human civilization’ is pushing each one to conform to the status quo. It seems to be the same with world change – everyone actually knows what does and doesn’t make us happy and fulfilled, and yet – there seems to be this fear of missing out and losing out if we were to change the status quo – because we’re all apparently so happy with how things are today. To be honest, I’m not sure what humanity has left to lose, so much of what could make us ‘great’ as a species – honor, dignity, care, compassion – seems to have been lost a long time ago. We cannot look at the state of the world today and make claim to any of these qualities.

And yet, I have no doubt that we could, that we can, that the potential exists – for us to be that species – that species that lives in harmony with itself and its environment, that species that knows what is truly important and doesn’t participate in things that will only create harm, tension and discord. It will require us to change our definition of ‘happiness’ – and to realize that living simply doesn’t mean living in poverty, or that living *with* riches means to live a rich life. It will require us to realize that letting go is not the same as losing out...

So, humanity – are you ready to live simply ever after?

Read More

Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice

This blog post is a continuation to:

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Substantive Justice as part of Legal Justice has to do with the rules as laws are just or not. Here, what is specifically understood as 'just' is: are 'dues' specified in a just way. In other words - does the law specify who gets rewards and who gets punishment in a just way?

Obviously - this is again very concerning, because that would indicate that we have already as a society and as a humanity accepted that justice is maintained through handing out punishments and rewards. And where does this acceptance and allowance come from? From the time when we were children, where we were treated with this warped concept of 'Justice' by our parents. But why do parents punish and reward their children to, apparently, 'educate' them into becoming 'good people'? Do parents really try to assist the children in being the best and most honorable version of themselves - or are they actually just molding them in order to fit in in society and be able to survive in the current system? The current system where, if one has any actual consideration  for another, it will stand in your way of being successful - because to be successful requires of a person to not care of the consequences of one's actions in the current economic system.

Ultimately - why parents punish and reward is to encourage certain kinds of behavior and discourage other kinds of behavior. When a child throws a tantrum - the parent punishes to make the behavior stop. But does that assist the child? Does the child gain any understanding of the experience that they just went through? Obviously not and the reason why this is not happening is because parents themselves don't understand where they own anger comes from, where there own thoughts come from and how they accumulate energy within themselves until the culmination point reaches the point of no longer being able to suppress it and then it all just comes out. Parents cannot educate their children, because they have not done this research for themselves and have not assisted themselves to work through these experiences. And they never have because no-one ever assisted or educated them to be able to do this. And so the cycle has always continued - where children, generation after generation, are being controlled through manipulation as punishment and reward - learning to suppress what the parents have labelled as 'bad' and trying to present what the parents have labelled as 'good'. But no actual change takes place -the child is the same child, but has just learned how to blend in in order to avoid punishment and attract reward. So - the child is not a more honorable child because it has now been conditioned to act a certain way. Being an honorable person, a person with integrity, is not a consequence of conditioning, it is a consequence of consideration and understanding. So long as those points are not present, then we cannot speak of honor or integrity.

And the same principle is being applied in the Justice system - showing that the justice system still hasn't grasped the concept of Justice. A just society - is that a society in which human beings have been conditioned to tolerate each other to the highest degree possible - or is it a society in which each human has actual and real consideration for each other human? Those are two entirely different societies - so why are we settling for the one where Justice is but a mirage, an illusion, a projection and a farce?

For real justice to take place, any behavior that causes harm in a society should be addressed in the form of having the abuser go through a process of education and self-introspection, assisted by professional psychologists, to trace back the origin of their behaviors and being shown how this behavior can be corrected. I mean - how else are we expecting to change our society if we do not address the origin of the behavior that we see as problematic. Trying to 'keep a lid' on things is part of why outbursts take place - and so, our educational paradigm that forms the basis of our justice system is a very big part of the problem we face today, where crime is soaring, where people can barely tolerate each other, where hate speech runs rampant, where bickering is a daily sport, where wars of all kinds are so common that we've numbed ourselves to the news coverage images.

The very fact that the word 'Substantive' as in 'Substantive Justice' is used to denote the practice of punishing and rewarding as a means of managing and controlling human behavior already shows a contradictio in terminis.  Because nothing substantial is going on within it - in fact, it's all about upholding a make-belief idea of justice - a justice that does not actually care about creating the just society, a society of integrity and honor in each living being towards themselves and every other being - but a justice that protects the interests of the few - those who can afford them being protected.

To substantially change the fabric of society, we require to first pay attention to the substance of ourselves. To continue utilizing 'human nature' for the existence of system of control is unacceptable. We can change our nature, we can change our substance, and so - change our society to one that doesn't require us to use the carrot and the stick approach. We claim to be so great, to have created 'civilization', to push for scientific progress, to place a man on the moon - but when it comes to our own nature -the one thing that we are truly responsible for - we're suddenly incapable of changing it, too limited to put our own affairs in order? How can that be rationalized?

Related articles

• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 389: The Policeman in the Head that Raises our Children
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Dag 113: A Family Tree of Judgments
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money

Read More

Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?

For context, read the full discussion of this communication on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Equal-Money-System-1/What-is-the-Equal-Money-System/answer/Marlen-Vargas-Del-Razo?__ac__=1#comment1799680

So you would deny free movement of labor? In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them. If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return? Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?

Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?

This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?

“So you would deny free movement of labor? “

There will still be a free movement of labor in terms that individuals are able to choose what career/direction they wish to commit themselves to. So no, we do not deny free movement of labour - in fact the movement of labour will be greatly enhanced as there will be less barriers in place that keep people from pursuing what they want to engage themselves in life.

“In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them.”

The Government will only intervene when the Market requires assistance in creating employment and ensuring that basic goods and services are produced for everyone. As such there is no 'central planning' -- the Government will only intervene when required.

“If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return?”

The assumption that technological advances rely on capital, risk and profit returns is an incorrect one. We can see this even in the simple things like Open Source Software -- look at for instance Linux and Ubuntu, many Operating Systems today are based on this technology which was not profit driven. When the profit motive is removed and funding is provided, technological advancement is dependent on people's passion and motivation. Within this consider also that funding will not be tied to profit and thus there will be larger space for technological innovation which has previously been ignored 'because there's no money in it'.
You can read more on this point here:
Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

“ Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?”

One would engage themselves in their job from a starting point of self-enjoyment and integrity. Many people today to not engage or commit themselves because the job they do is merely done from a starting point of survival and having limited options available. One will have to motivate oneself and assume one's responsibility to the betterment of society as a whole. Within having a real choice for the first time people will choose the jobs that truly interest and stimulate them which in itself will aid in the engagement, commitment and quality of the task done. It’s time to realise that we can move beyond being puppets who only move when our strings (=money) get pulled and realise that we can live and contribute simply from a point of self-respect and dignity – both for ourselves and others.

“Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?”

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money Capitalism -- we're merely replacing the variables that drive supply and demand to support Life instead of profit. On this topic you can read the following blogs:

Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

“This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?"

The implementation of an Equal Money Capitalism system already implies a shift in values -- away from profit and consumerism to Life and responsibility. This implementation requires to go through the normal political processes and thus would be implemented through consent --  which means there would be consent on the basic principles and values.

Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. You will receive everything you need to live a comfortable Life -- anything more would compromise others for the sake of one's own desires and is unacceptable. As such there will be no 'for profit companies' in the sense of pursuing indefinite growth in the name of greed -- it will thus not be an option to be considered. In terms of 'wanting more money' you can read the following blog:

Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Linux absolutely does not prove that profit motive does not provide the best return. You are taking an exception to the rule, and trying to draw a new conclusion. Open-sourcing does not require large amounts of capital or risk, so it is a poor comparison. For every "Linux" you show, I can point towards the airline industry, the automotive industry, the computing industry, the biotech industry, the healthcare industry, etc; all industries that would not exist if there was no capital and return/risk economic calculation for investors.

Of course you'll be able to, for every Linux, point at a huge amount of companies/industries that grew within the profit-motive principle - because we live in a capitalistic system. At the moment, people are being motivated through profit, so that is how the point moves at the moment. However - the assumption is always made that it is impossible to do without the profit motive - and to refute such assumptions, it is sufficient to have one example that proves that it can be done otherwise. From there, it is a matter of identifying the conditions of the environment within which growth and innovation would be best supported.

"Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. "

Ah, this tells me all I need to know about this "equal money capitalism".

You have to understand that the current capitalistic system has been designed to 'manage', 'manipulate' and 'control' the self-interested nature of the human being. So, capitalism recognises that human nature at the moment is faulty. However, instead of actually supporting individuals to move beyond such self-interested attitudes and behaviors, capitalism takes advantage of it by pushing people's buttons so that most slave away and some can live a God's life. So - EMC recognises the same problems within human behavior and attitudes - however, instead of manipulating people and trying to control them, we suggest to actually address those issues, resolving them and thus empowering each one. Now tell me - which of these approaches would you say is mind control?

Related articles

• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• 301. The Rules to Play the Game
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 191: Entertainment and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 174: Loyalty to Life in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 190: Fairness in the Work Place and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 180: Is Instagram Big Brother?
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

This blog is in response to a comment made on the ‘Logistcs’ Goal on the EM Homepage:
http://equalmoney.org/goals/15-logistics   http://equalmoney.org/goals/15-logistics

Goal: Logistics

In the Equal Money System, the Banking System Infrastructure will become the Logistical System that manages and Allocates resources and goods to Each Individual in the World on an Equal Basis. And your bank card will become your Life Card, which you will swipe every time you Draw Goods and Services from the Global Life Support System. The Logistical System will make sure that each person receives their just dues and at the same time will prevent abuse and exploitation. Each person will have access to the Global System to review the current Status of Available Resources and to vote on effective distribution and allocation – and to place preference selections and make suggestions.

Comment:

"I do believe this market-absent socialism has already been proven impractical and inefficient. Especially when coupled with a form of direct-democracy type resource management such a system would surely be impossible, if not impossible then at least impractical and doomed to fail. A market mechanism, even a socialist one, is necessary, and will allow for efficiency. Command and Control, especially decentralized command and control, is a doom driven system. You need to include some form of market mechanism in order to make this successful.

Response:

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within both Equal Money Capitalism and Equal Money. The Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money will merely replace the variables that the drive Supply and Demand in a way that actually benefits Human Life and the Planet as a whole. The Market Mechanism will thus be an holistic / ecological one – where the conditions which require to be in place to ensure a life of Dignity will signal/drive the Demand and in the Economy and whereby Supply will respond accordingly within taking into consideration Earth’s capacity to provide resources. This implies that in terms of resource distribution the priority will be placed on Needs over wants – and once needs are taken care of we look at what else is available to provide for people’s wants within the principle of sustainability and prevention of consequence (eg. where the providing for wants does not come at the expense of another).

It is then not so much a ‘Market-Force’ driving the Economy but a ‘Life-Force’ within placing Life as the principal point to be honoured.

For more information, please read:

Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 180: The Word 'Capitalism' in 'Equal Money Capitalism'
Day 184: The Relationship between Ecology and Economics in Equal Money Capitalism

Related articles

• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 143: The Neo-Apartheid Era

In the past, Apartheid meant the segregation between people according to the colour of their skin.
Currently, many may still mistake the current inequalities in the world as being the result of an 'Apartheid' mentality - but the truth is that we are currently dealing with a whole new form of Apartheid: Neo-Apartheid.

Neo-Apartheid, is the division of people -- not based on skin colour or race -- but based on what you have or do not have as: MONEY.

In South Africa, many claim 'Apartheid' is still roaming, and that the major inequalities present are the result of division based on race. It's really a division based on money: you have those with money, and you have those without money (or very little). It just happens to coincide, that many black people are poor and thus disadvantages -- but the colour of one's skin is not the foundational point, money is, and this is what the Neo-Apartheid is all about.

In the past, for building you had two doors: Whites and Non-Whites -- and based on your skin colour you would have a particular access to resources. Now, we work with a different system of segregation: Money. You want food? This is the price-tag: You have money = you have food. You don't have money = you don't get food. Our current Money System, does not care about the colour of your skin, your gender, your age, where you're from -- all it wants to know is: do you have money?

The peculiar thing with Neo-Apartheid as the Money Division Scam -- is that no-one seems to notice that it exists. We don't seem to think that it is strange, that we go to the shop and see a homeless person in a shaggy box, begging for food or money. We don't ask: "How come that I am able to go into this shop, and get myself food, because I have a card with digital money on it -- and this person who does not have a card with digital money on it, or paper with numbers on -- for some reason does not get to go inside and buy food? Why is that?".

No instead, we try not to look the person in the eye, shush the children that are with us shopping, telling them not to look or interact with the person -- like he has some freaking disease -- and just walk into the shop stone-cold. And then once you're in the shop with all the bright lights and sparkly colours you can relax, you're safe -- that person cannot come through the sliding doors, he does not belong here.

I mean: what the fuck.

If money is our ticket to basically everything in this world, then how come some have it and others don't? And how come some have A LOT of it, while others don't?

This Neo-Apartheid phenomenon, is not an isolated incident that is typical for only a few countries -- this is a World Wide phenomenon taking place!

Let’s have a look at the Lorenz curve of the world – but first, let me explain what a Lorenz curve is:

The Lorenz curve is a graphical method of depicting inequality within a particular area and thus concerning a particular group of people.
You have your vertical and horizontal axis, where the vertical axis represents cumulative income in percentage, and the horizontal axis represents cumulative percentage of people/households, like this:

Then, there is a straight diagonal line in the graph – which represents the point of ‘perfect equality’: the first 10% of the people receive 10% of all income, the first 20% receive 20% of all income and so forth. This line is our point of reference and is always included in the graph:

Then, another curve is drawn, and the ‘deeper’ the other curve is compared to the straight line = the more inequality, as income is more disproportionally distributed. The closer the second curve is to the straight line – the closer it is to being equal.

Here’s a few curves to get an idea of what I’m talking about:

So here you can see the curves become more curved – indicating more inequality.

Now let’s look at the Lorenz curve of the WORLD


Woooaaaah!! That is like practically bordering on the point of Perfect Inequality (and there is no curve more unequal than this one for any part of the world -- this is it) ! That means, that currently, in our Neo-Apartheid Era --- the majority of the people have to do with very little, while a few hog all the wealth. So, we can see that the most prominent inequality currently, is not a race thing, it’s a money thing – and right now, money is distributed disproportionally over the whole of the population and no-one seems to think that this is a strange thing. It’s almost like this must be the graph for some really bad, poor country, where criminals run everything and are so corrupt that nothing is left for the people… This can’t be the graph for the WORLD??

But it is, which means, the world IS run by criminals and we are in a pretty messy situation right now where so many people are living a life of misery because we as humanity have lost all common sense reasoning capability and have surrendered ourselves to fear, where we will never question authority, and never do anything that is ‘out of line’ – just nodding our heads while we’re being robbed blind.

It’s time to wake up to reality, and see that what we have created is so disturbing that it just cannot get more disturbing than what we’re at now. Wake up, the world does not have to be this way, we don’t have to live in fear – check out www.EqualMoney.org -- let’s stop Neo-Apartheid.

Read More