Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights – Part 4

Continuing from:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3

In the previous blog we looked at opposing views in relation to Equality of Opportunity.

The one view was ‘merit’ based – promoting the idea that equality of opportunity consists of each one’s success/achievement being dependent on skill, talent and effort which is determined by one’s genetic endowment. The other view was based more on a moral point of view, where within considering the natural and unnatural differences that exist between human beings, we have a duty to make all resources available to make sure that everyone has the same level of access to achieve their goals.

We mostly focused on the arguments coming from the liberal side that justified why we should not intervene in ensuring that everyone has the same level of access through providing adequate material conditions and supplies:

1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother
2. People are not a product of their environment
3. One’s genetic endowment as determining one’s position in society is beyond morality/justice

[Quoted from: Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3] 
 
Within the following blogs, we will be putting these statements ‘under the microscope’ and dissect where these statements come from, their meanings, and implications.

Let us start with the first statement:

Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother

The problem with this statement rests within one’s use of various definitions for ‘equality’ and ‘inequality’. The first thing you learn when approaching the concept of Equality is that it is an ‘ambiguous’ and ‘fuzzy’ concept, and the subject of ‘much debate’.

From the get-go, there is no clear, precise, specific, comprehensive definition of Equality that everyone uses and has agreed upon. Consequently, there are different authors using different definitions of equality, and even singular authors assigning different meanings to equality and inequality within a single piece of text. The lack of consensus on what is meant when we refer to ‘Human Equality’ causes a lot of confusion and headaches when studying the subject matter.

Those who come from a more liberal point of view, tend to use the word Equality and Inequality, synonymously with ‘the same’ and ‘different’ respectively. Thus, whenever something is different – the argument is made that it is ‘unequal’. When something is ‘exactly the same’ – it is supposedly equal (Which explains where ludicrous statements such as ‘if you want to make people equal you will have to genetically disable the more able’ come from).

This leaves us on the one hand, with a very ‘black and white’ view on Equality -- Where two beings or more are equal only, if and when they are the same in every respect – and on the other hand a very broad view on that which is Unequal, where any two or more beings are ‘unequal’ the moment any form of ‘difference’ is exhibited. As we all know, there are many things that can be ‘different’ and thus it is easy to argue that something is ‘unequal’ when one places one’s definition of ‘Unequal’ equivalent to ‘Different’.

Those who are seen as more ‘egalitarian’, have a completely different view on the concept of Equality, where this is more closely tied to living standards different people enjoy – and does not pay attention to ‘the sameness’ of people as what ‘characteristics’ they display and how much these ‘are the same’.

When one initially starts studying/investigating the notion of Equality, one is faced with a ‘two-camp’ debate – where the one camp is ‘Pro-Equality’ and the other camp is ‘Anti-Equality’. This gives the impression that there is much disagreement on the topic of Equality in terms of whether we should pursue Equality as a value or not within society. This is a very deceptive in appearance, as there is not actually a conflict/debate on whether or not we should promote Equality or ‘leave things to be’ – as the only thing the ‘Anti-Egalitarians’ are saying is that they do not wish to be exactly the same. This view or wish that one does not want to be ‘the same’ in every respect, is actually quite compatible with the notion of Equality most people have that are Pro-Equality. The only reason why there is a fight/debate – is because each time someone says that they’d like to see ‘more equality’, is that the other side interprets this as ‘this person wants me to become more uniform’ – while this is not the case at all. All the other person is saying, is that it would be cool if we could get everyone to enjoy more or less the same standard of living. The same happens when the more liberal side makes a statement saying that they ‘do not wish to see more equality’, where the egalitarian side reacts to this in a negative manner, because they are merely responding from their definition of equality.

The impression that there is a definitive division among people with regards to the notion of Equality, is for the most part fictional. It only creates the appearance of conflict and division because there is no actual agreement on a singular definition of what Equality exactly entails and stands for. On the Equal Money platform, we often get remarks and comments of strong disagreement with particular in relation to particular statements, and once these comments have been ‘talked-out’ and clarified – we see that people mostly disagree and react to the Equal Money Statement simply because there are various ways to interpreting the concept of Equality, and thus the meaning of statements can vary greatly depending on who is reading it. This does not mean that they ‘really disagree’, but merely that they are disagreeing with the statement within using their particular definition of Equality.

So thanks to a long history of non-consensus on the word Equality – we have a tiny single point, a mere word-definition, being the reason why people are fighting and arguing for and against Equality and not coming to Solutions to the Benefit of Humanity. The fact that this single point of disagreement on the word definition of Equality as being the source of Division has never been pointed out or attempted to be cleared up – indicates that the maintenance of the Idea that there is Division on the subject is in fact an act of Disinformation. Keeping the Illusion alive that there is much conflict and debate on Equality, biases and manipulates people into believing that they have to ‘pick sides’ and ‘make up their mind’ on the subject of Equality. This is a False Dilemma.

Within the next blog we will resolve the statement ‘1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother’ within applying the approach of Equality as laid out at the end of Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2 .

Related articles

• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"

Read More

Day 41: What is Economics – Part 2

See Day 40: What is Economics? For context

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘economics’ is synonymous with ‘capitalism’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economics has got to do with three basic question: what should be produced, how should it be produced and who gets to consume what is produced – and thus any system answering these questions can be considered as being ‘economics’ – and thus economics is not only limited to capitalism as the current world system which is in place

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed and agreed upon the definition of economics as that which deals with how limited resources are used to satisfy human wants and the choices/sacrifices we have to make in order to attain this goal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to ever question the definition of economics – where the main goal is to satisfy human wants, which are assumed to be unlimited – with the use of limited resource – and which is thus in essence impossible, yet we will allow this to be the basis of our economic system, and thus it is no surprise that we currently live in an unbalanced world where every day we move one step closer to our own self-destruction

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to question the implied value judgment involved when being faced with economics, as the definition of economics --- where the focus lies on human wants, instead of human needs and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise the self-interested nature of this definition within only looking at what humans want/need – and not consider everything and everyone on this Physical Plane as the Earth, the Animal and the Plant Kingdom

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that the only reason that there is a trade-off for everything within economics – is because we are dealing with unlimited wants vs limited available resources – which can never be achieved in a balanced manner – and thus choices as sacrifices need to be made in order to make the system work – while we could have avoided all this unnecessary trouble if we’d only value Life as Sustenance and thus Limited Basic Needs over Unlimited Wants and Desires

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system based on the current definition of economics as ‘unlimited wants vs. limited resources – what choices do we make?’ – is doomed to fail, as it is faulty by design. And within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only way we are going to make any economic system work, is through redefining economics itself and eradicate this inherent flaw – and bring about an Economic System which is balanced and sustainable within its very definition and starting point

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all the suffering in the world which is brought about as a result of our current economic system is in fact deliberate – within having agreed upon the definition of economics where we value Human Wants over Human Needs – and thus we have manifested a World of Greed where sacrifices/choices need to be made every day to keep the wheel of money running – and where this sacrifice has resulted in half the population of Earth living in poverty, the extinction and suffering of animals and disregard for the Plant world, where we hack and burn at will -- for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Unlimited Wants of a Few – and all this done deliberately and with permission through never ever having questioned the very definition of economics and through not having questioned the Nature and Character of Humanity within having made such decisions within drawing up such definitions – as if anyone would have done this, it would have been clear: We are Evil – which is the only way and reason an Economic System of Evil would exist within this World

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only Real Value on Earth is Life – and within that, tending to basic needs is what is valuable, as this is tending to the Physical which is Always here – while tending to Wants and Desires is a waste of time, as they come and go and inevitably End at Death

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to protect and defend the current economic system in the face of poverty and starvation by only pointing out to one part the definition of economics – as the scarcity of resources – where we’ll say “But there’s simply not enough!” – while conveniently leaving out that there is not enough and will never be enough in terms of satisfying our Wants an Desires – while there is plenty to satisfy everyone’s Basic Needs! And within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to Lie about the reality of the World within protecting and valuing my own Wants and Desires over the Needs of Others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be a Criminal within the Face of Life

Read More

Day 40: What is Economics?

Economics is about how a society decides to answer particular questions in relation to resource distribution – which can be brought down to the follow three:

1)    What should be produced by a society?
2)    How should it be produced?
3)    Who gets to consume what is produced?

Many hold the believe that economics is a ‘one way street’, where for instance ‘Capitalism’ is treated synonymous to ‘economics’, as the ‘only way’ that economics can ever be – while this is only one way of answering the above basic economic questions, and where the Equal Money System is another way of answering these three questions.

The above three questions are the basis of economics, and any form of economic system has to answer to these three questions. So whether you have an economic system based on complete government control or an economic system based on total individual control – the same questions are being dealt with, but in different ways.

Currently within the world there are several different types of economic systems, which economists like to present within a spectrum which runs from the one polarity of absolute government control to total individual control – where most of the economic systems currently lay in-between these two polarities.

Total Individual Control	What is produced, How and Who gets it is decided by individuals
Stage 2	Government deals with basics only such as police protection, enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, national defense
Stage 3	Includes Stage 2 + additional services such as education, science, roads, fire protection
Stage 4	Stage 3 + additional programs such as health care and retirement
Stage 5	Stage 4 + state industries (steel, cars, agriculture), distribution of basic consumer goods (food, housing)
Stage 6	Stage 5 + government in charge of employment, housing, food, production, prices
Total Government Control	What is produces, How and Who gets decided by Government

However, as capitalism is the main overall system implemented within the world – students are mostly taught within the context of capitalism only – and since this is the system we are currently living in and as – this will be the system that we’ll walk through within these blogs.

So keep in mind that all the vocabulary points, concepts, views etc. which will be explained in this blog are specific to the current system in play, and may not necessarily be relevant to an Equal Money System. Yet we will still discuss these points as they form part of the current system, and the thought pattern of economists -- and thus form part in completing your understanding of how economics currently works and what requires to be corrected – both in how things are viewed and how things are structurally manifested according to these views.

Let’s have a look at some definitions which have been given to the term ‘Economics’, so we can establish the starting point of our current economic system.

“Economics is the study of how our scarce productive resources are used to satisfy human wants.” – George Leland Bach

“Economics is the study of how people allocate their limited resources to provide for their wants.” – Jack Harvey

“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources to study unlimited human wants.” – Richard Lipsey

Within each one of these quotes we can derive the following components:

•    Scarcity of Resources
•    Human Wants
•    Choices

The current Economic Paradigm assumes an inherent conflict between “Scarcity of Resources” and “Human Wants” – which are often referred to as ‘unlimited’. Since we have only so many resources available – but unlimited wants to satisfy: we have to make certain choices – and something or someone will always have to be sacrificed (this is another re-occurring trend found within ‘trade-offs’ and ‘opportunity cost’).

So what’s fascinating to be observed from the statements of various people about “what is economics” – is that various value judgments* are implied, but which are never questioned or explained.

The component of ‘Human Wants’
This trend returns over and over again throughout current economic theory where precedence is being given to ‘human wants’ over ‘needs’.

The Anthropocentric View**
Another value judgment is implied, since the definitions of economics as the framework which encompasses the distribution of resources, only takes into consideration humans: what about the animals? plants? Earth itself?

Sacrifices Have to be Made
Since the definition of economics was agreed to be ‘unlimited wants vs limited resources’ – there is a value judgment implied, which we pointed out earlier as ‘wants over needs’ – and where this choice/preference inevitably leads to having to sacrifice since the definition as a mathematical equation is not balanced – which in itself reveals another value judgment, which is that sacrifices are acceptable – within the decision/agreement that wants ought to be placed over needs. Because if you have look at it, if the definition of economics had been around the lines of ‘the management of limited resources towards limited needs’ – then the point of conflict with which we are currently faced with as ‘unlimted’ vs ‘limited’ resulting in sacrifice – would not have existed!!

The starting point of current economic thought is completely self-contradictory:

Unlimited Wants + Limited Resources = Wants can never be satisfied

I mean, it’s simple math that this is an unsustainable goal – so why pursue it at all? It just doesn’t make any sense! So – the amount of suffering and destruction currently taking place on Earth, is really no surprise if one just consider this one statement, as the definition of economics – which is not only completely beside the point (in terms of wants over needs – humans over everything), but mathematically impossible to be sustained. Yet, this is what we’ve accepted and allowed to be lived within the World – and within this chase of obtaining and achieving the impossible (satisfying all our desires), we are driving millions into their grave, as the sacrifice we willingly give – as pointed out above. And for what? For wants and desires which are apparently worth more than basic needs?

This is completely unacceptable.

Yet no-one seems to question this point – thus economic thought is really just a reflection of our own thought as living beings, as our character as Human Beings, where we all collectively decided within ourselves that our personal desires and wants are to be prioritized over the tending of everyone’s basic needs with what we have, as available resources on Earth.

Isn’t that just plain…..evil?

* Value judgment:
a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad) to something

** Anthropocentric:
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

Read More