Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One

  
For context, also read:
Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6
Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

The question of who should get what has been answered by (most prominently) communists and socialists as: In accordance to people’s needs.

What is a Need?

When one researches this topic, it is fascinating to see how much fuss is being made on the concept and definition of ‘need’ – where it is claimed to be a vague and a ‘notoriously difficult to define’ concept. This is most fascinating, since ‘need’ is one of the most straightforward words that exists – and so, making it seem that it is not clear what need is, is merely trying to find fault so that one has an excuse to discard the principle altogether.

So, let’s humor everyone by showing what need is. When one lacks something that is causing harm to one’s well-being – then that something is a need. Herein – well-being is understood from a holistic perspective as including physical, social and psychological well-being. Why such a holistic perspective? Because all three dimensions of well-being influence each other. If one’s diet is inadequate, one will suffer on a physical level, but it will also affect one’s psychological well-being, since our psychological well-being is intertwined with the physical through chemical relationships. When we manifest psychologically imbalanced behavior, our roles and position in relation to others will be influenced, in turn affecting our social well-being.

Traditionally, the word ‘need’ has been approached to only consider the physical dimension – where well-being is not the goal, but survival is – where, as long as one has a basic minimum requirements to sustain oneself – such as clothing, shelter, food and water – one’s needs are met.

More recently the word ‘need’ has been expanded upon through making a distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘non-basic’ needs – where basic needs include the traditional meaning of the word as one’s most essential survival requirements and non-basic needs include things like education and healthcare.

Which definition of the word ‘need’ is valid and appropriate depends on our aspirations as living beings on this planet. Are we here to survive or are we here to live a life worth living? Considering the history of mankind and how much effort was put into researching and devising ways to enhance the quality of human life on Earth – it is safe to say that we as a race do not merely aspire to surviving and making it to the next day – we would all like to enjoy ourselves, fulfill ourselves, and make something of ourselves and our lives. Therefore, to only consider need in relation to survival is inadequate and a holistic perspective of need is appropriate.

To say, then, that the principle of need cannot be a basis for the distribution of goods because the word ‘need’ is not definable, is unacceptable.

The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality

As discussed in Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts, the principles of justice include
- The principle of merit and desert
- The principle of need
- The principle of equality

Each one of these are regarded as different principles. However – in clearly defining what a ‘need’ is – we see that the principle of need and the principle of equality are one and the same. Because – if everyone is provided with all they require to live a life of well-being – then it stands equal to distributing goods in a way to provide each one with an equal quality of life – a life where each one’s well being is effectively looked after.

However, this is not how the principle of need and principle of equality are interpreted in academic thought. Distribution according to the principle of need has been interpreted in two ways.

In communist thought, the principle of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’ is put forward. Herein, what a ‘need’ is can be defined on an individual level – where each one ‘decides’ what one’s needs are.

According to the socialist tradition, some form of authority should define what ‘need’ is at a particular time. Their idea is that – once everyone’s needs are met – further distribution can occur on the principle of merit and desert. This view is in line with the popular ‘Basic Income Grant’ proposals

Both views are problematic.

I decide what my need is

When we rely on each one to decide what their needs are – we open the door for abuse. The temptation becomes too big to define a need beyond a need, entering the arena of pure desires and wants.

We have defined need in terms of anything one requires to live a life of physical, psychological and social well-being. Those are obviously things everyone would want. We can in fact ask the question: “What more could one want?” And it is exactly within this – the ‘more’ – that we are dealing with desires and wants. Desires and wants are things that – if given to one being, would deprive another being of one of their needs, and thus, cause harm. Desires can also typically not be given to all equally. Being famous is a desire, being better off than one’s neighbor is a desire, having power over another is a desire.

Within this scenario we cannot ensure social justice – because if we allow individuals to manipulate the system through including desires and wants in their ‘needs basket’, then harm would take place in respect of others’ psychological, social and physical well-being, and thus – defying the goal of ensuring each one with their needs.

The Basic Income Grant proposal

The basic income proposal is a nice attempt towards eliminating the dangers of the principle of merit and desert as discussed in the previous blog-posts – and so, we can say ‘a step in the right direction’. However – in the long run it is not sustainable. The combination of applying the principle of need and the principle of merit/desert, manifests inequality, where, for some, one’s needs is what one will be provided with, while others will be able to indulge in desires as well. We end up in the same position as when each one decides what their needs are – where the need of some will inevitably be sacrificed, in order to satisfy others with the desires they apparently ‘deserve’.

We continue this discussion in the next blog of this series.

Related articles

• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 366. Health Care is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• The Equal Life Foundation - Bill of Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More

Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

When Aristotle discussed the concept of Justice - he spoke of remedial or corrective justice, which specified how to punish offenders of the law, but he also spoke of distributive justice, where he asked how much each one should get of what, or: how should resources be justly distributed? Aristotle's concept of distributive justice is what is currently known under the term 'social justice'. It is thus not a 'new' concept, but one that has been occupying the minds of people since the ancient period.

We'll have a look at three principles that are often put forward as a basis for 'just' distribution of resources:
1. The principle of merit and desert
2. The principle of need
3. The principle of equality

The principle of merit and desert states that people should be treated according to what they deserve. Material rewards should only be handed out to the deserving. When someone receives something they didn't deserve or when someone doesn't receive something they DO deserve, an injustice occurred in this view.

The question that arises here, of course is: What constitutes a merit?

Is the fact that someone is more talented a basis on which to provide them with more material wealth? Does the person deserve this or is a person's talent merely a matter of luck or chance, and so - not part of one's merit? But then, what about those people who have a talent that they developed themselves through hard work, something they did not have a natural disposition towards, but a skill they developed until they became talented in it? And then - how to distinguish between natural endowments and merits?

Or does merit have to do not so much with how much one contributes by virtue of one's talents, but based on how much effort a person puts in. Here - two people who are equally productive may not be rewarded the same way, because for one it was a struggle while for the other it was a breeze. So - then, the reward-system of distribution based on deserts would create incentive for individuals to place themselvs in positions of struggle just so they could 'earn more'. But is that the kind of life you would encourage for individuals? And - if each one acts accordingly, by choosing a profession or a task they struggle at most - will this really produce the best results for society as a whole?

According to liberalists, the free market is the best system to evaluate merit and desert, where prices and wages determine what a person's contribution is worth to others in society. Yet - herein is not considered that most successful businessmen or businesswomen are not so because of 'merit' or 'desert', but because of privileged backgrounds, because of heritage, because of luck and because of socio-economic access to opportunities. And a classic example I like to use is: who deserves the highest pay: the mineworker who physically works every day or the CEO of the mining company whose most strenuous effort is to place a signature here and there? What is often argued is that the CEO has an investment to lose, and therefore is putting more on the line - but then the counterargument is of course: is the mineworker not putting his life on the line and is the CEO's investment worth as much as his own life?

Liberalists like to pretend that the free market models are perfect for assessing the merit of individuals in how much they contribute to society, but they are actually merely using these models to justify why such huge inequality exists - where they can say: 'Well, you're worse off because that's what you deserve'. And then difficult-sounding jargon is used and graphs are presented that apparently prove their point - but the truth of the matter is: the free market system is not based within merit - it is merely based within competition - and herein, the system does not consider who works harder or who deserves more - it does not make such value judgments - it simply balances opposing forces and then ends up somewhere in between.

Others of a more socialist orientation propose a planned economy, where a person's merit is directly measured by a public institution, such as a government. However, the problem still remains in objectively stipulating the conditions under which we are now speaking of merit and whether such merit-based system will provide the most favorable resutlts.

Psychologically speaking, deserts are linked to a person's expectations. If a person expects to receive high material rewards and then does not receive them, a perception of unjust deprivation will arise, whereas - if a person has adjusted its expectations to previous patterns and as such, does not expect much, may not feel as though they are being deprived of what they deserve - simply because the expectation pattern is different. However, does that mean that the one person is really being deprived and the other not? Is there an objective way of establishing just reward versus unjust deprivation or are these concepts too much influenced through relative perception?

Related articles

• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism

This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our previous blog posts.
We will be focusing on the bold segment from this comment made on: 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.

We are not questioning ours and nature’s ability to produce and provide for everyone. Even now in our world where many do not have access to basic resources to sustain themselves, there IS an abundance present. The problem lies not in the presence of abundance – but how this abundance is directed and distributed. Currently the majority of the resource are being directed and distributed to a select few which is problematic for those who are then denied those resources. Even if one decide to run a ‘resource based economy’


So even if you throw away the concept of money and work with a ‘resource based society’ – you will still require a system of distribution to ensure that everyone receives the resources they require to live a dignified life. Making a jump from a money-based society to a money-less society is a big one. That is why within both Equal Money Capitalism and Equal Money we still use ‘money’ – but where money is reduced to only having a numerical/accounting function to track, monitor, distribute and account for the production and distribution of resources. Money is then not any longer about ‘who wants what’ and ‘who can afford what’ – but a tool to monitor the flow of services and goods to ensure everyone access to the resources they require whilst simultaneously ensuring that resource are being used at a rate that is sustainable. So from this sense ‘money’ won’t be ‘money’ anymore as how we know it today – but will only be used as a tool of measure for practical purposes. We term it ‘money’ because it’s a point that everyone deals with in everyday life, everything revolves around money – simply removing money out of the equation will be too big of an adjustment to adapt to – but in essence, it’s just ‘numbers’.


Also realise that we are not saying that a moneyless society is impossible – but that it is merely impossible at this stage. We first require an interim stage of multiple stages to get to a point where we do not require an additional tool to manage and distribute resources responsibly. That is why we first look at what is here and what people believe has value – as money – and use that as tool to bring about equality through equalizing money. Once everyone realise that it was never about money but the value of Life and we have managed to integrate responsibility and respect for Life in our every day and every way living – then we can decide to remove money from the equation, but in the end whether you have money present as a tool in your system or not = it does not matter, because the outcome will still be the same as Equality for All.

Related articles

• Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism

The Problem

The fundamental question which economics is built upon, is how to deal with limited means in conjunction with unlimited wants. It takes on the starting point that we live in a world of scarcity, of of finite resources – but that we also live in a world where humans have unlimited wants and needs, and thus inevitably not all wants and needs will be satisfied.

This is where the Pricing system within Economics comes from, where the price is determined through the interaction of supply and demand. Prices on products and services, are in the end an ‘elimination’ tool. Because we have only so many resources, and not everyone will be able to get them to satisfy their wants and needs – the pricing system works as a distribution system. If a loaf of bread is sold at $1 each – then this implies that everyone who has $1 and is willing to spend that one dollar on bread can do so. This also means that anyone who doesn’t have $1 dollar to spend on bread but wants and NEEDS bread to be able to survive = won’t be able to get bread.

So it seems that the distribution problem of ‘who gets what’ is solved – but this a more than ineffective solution, and is really unacceptable. 

Firstly, the problem starts already in the formulation of ‘the economic problem’. The problem lies in not making a distinction between wants and needs. It’s one thing to say that wants are unlimited and another to say that needs are unlimited. Sure, we can all make up unlimited wants, like wanting a cruise ship, a place, a few villas and a unicorn – but needs are not unlimited and can be clearly defined, such as say food, security, clothing, housing, medical care, participation, leisure, education, etc.

The second problem arises when we look at our current distribution system within the way things are priced. Everything is price based, so even if things are scarce and finite – if you have the money, you can still get your hands on ‘scarce resources’ even though others can’t. This implies that some can exploit the amount of money they have available to use as many resources as they like, while less and less is available for others, and where others may not even have the financial means to acquire what is left.  Our pricing system is then in fact, a system of blatant discrimination. We are no longer looking at how we can support ourselves living life on this Earth – but playing a game of ruthless and unfair competition causing some to live in abundance while others live on the brink of death.

The Solution

The solution is a simple one, we require to re-evaluate the ‘economic problem’ as we have accepted and allowed ourselves to define it. A distinction needs to be made between needs and wants, where needs come prior to wants at all times, as part of being a Basic Human Right.

Instead of having a distribution system based on discrimination, we require a distribution system of inclusion, and this inclusion is that of Life – where the Real Capital that has actual Real Value is recognized as Life.  This is how the Equal Money Capitalistic System will operate.  It’s a biocentric system, and this is reflected within the pricing of Goods and Services. Pricing will reflect the value that has been added through individuals’ contribution as labour. Within this, each participant, each contributor – will receive an Equal Profit-Share of the sale of the product/service.

From Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit:

WHAT IS PROFIT-SHARE?
Currently profit is the money a company makes after they have covered their costs, including paying out wages. In an EMC - profit comprises of all the added value that is placed on resources - which is your labour. Therefore - within the price, the percentage share must be included of each one that was part of the creation of the product in such a way that each one ends up with an equal share of the company's profits, so - there will be no need for wages - as the profit becomes your wage.

EQUALIZING WAGES – COOPERATION AMONG CORPORATIONS
If a company at any time makes more money than they need to provide each one with their equal share of the profit as well as covering their costs - those monies will go into a fund that is responsible for assisting companies that are not making sufficient to cover their costs and provide each one with their fair share. That way a balancing effect takes place so that all companies are not only cooperatives in how they cooperate internally - but all cooperate with each other as well.

Equal Money Capitalism will ensure a Dignified Life for everyone, as everyone will be in a position to acquire resources to support themselves to Live their Life, where needs are taken care of while still allowing for wants to be explored.

The Reward

Within Equal Money Capitalism, one will be birthed into a world where one’s life is secure. Currently, the main point of focus that pre-occupies people’s lives is that of money, which turns Life to being a strife, becoming about survival. When you have a child in Equal Money Capitalism, you do not have to worry about your child’s future and how you’re going to fund it with while trying to make ends meet. Your life and your child’s – your entire family’s Life = is guaranteed.

It is in essence a Life where Fear as being part of everyday Life is removed, and where one can truly live and explore – to really find out what it means to live here on Earth in an enjoyable, yet responsible way.

Related articles

• Human Sweatshops will END in Equal Money Capitalism - Day 275
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
• Equal Money: We want the Best Life for YOU. Do You?

Read More

Day 161: The Principle of Equality within an Equal Money System

The principle of Equality is directly linked to the principle of Honoring the Right to Life.

Within our current socioeconomic and political system, Life is not valued as a Right, but something each one has to ‘earn’, and within that it has become a privilege. Money has become the medium through which one is able to access those goods and services that ensure one’s subsistence. One’s ‘Right to Life’ is not a given, but restricted to those who have money. This way of doing things within the current world system is reflective of what we value as a society, which indicates that money is valued over Life.

Many religions and ideologies promote the concept of Equality but have so far failed to bring the point of Equality to a level of practical implementation that can be lived by, where the concept of Equality merely remains in the realm of the abstract and ‘theory’.

Within an Equal Money System, the point of having ‘equal money’ is to assist with the psychological harmonization of the human into a harmonious character that no longer lives in fear of his own survival, but lives as Life, gives as Life and receives as Life - equally.

Since we’ve allowed ourselves to invest value into the concept of money, we use money, and more specifically ‘equal money’ as an interim step within the Equality Principle and the Equality Constitutional Development to bring about a psychological re-connection: through distributing money equally, we are “equally distributing value” through what money represents.

This is only a temporary point to rectify the psychological damage that has been done by money and our ideas of money, debt, power, choice, fairness, etc. Once this point of psychological disharmony has been corrected, money as a concept in itself will disappear completely as it will have lost all relevance.

Related articles

• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System
• Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 159: Energy and Equal Money - Blind Spot

Read More

Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

This blog is a continuation within replying to a comment made in relation to 'Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System'. 

The point of resources allocation will further be clarified within the next blog.

Credits within an Equal Money System is only a 'word' and only serves to facilitate the allocation and movement of goods -- credits will not hold any other intrinsic value as money or credit do currently (where money is used as a 'store of value'), but only have a mathematical and accounting function. The credits within the Equal Money System will indicate the available resources, what is available for each one and accordingly credits will be allocated and then get distributed.

The amount of credits and types of credits each on receive, will be based on a formula as set out within the Constitution, that we all have agreed on.

When you view your Life Profile where your available credits are displayed, you then either would indicate "Yes, this particular allocation I am going to use" or "No, I am not going to use this particular allocation". If you’re not going to use it, it remains in your main available resource ‘bank’ so to speak. Which is where your credits are ‘stored’. Note that you won't ‘own’ the credits, it’s purely available resources on Earth.

What I'm getting at: how would it work for local issues like where should a new water pipe be constructed in a certain specific small area if that change doesn't drastically effect everything else in the overall system?

Both global and federal/local levels will function within the same framework in terms of laws and policies. Implementation of policy will be region-specific which is where local administration comes in.

Implementation at a local level will be carried out by a local council, elected by the locals, which must regularly be substituted by new members. The point would be to make the local council an opportunity for each one to take a moment of responsibility within the system and to do their ‘civic duty’ so to speak. Therefore, each member will only serve one term. And within that one hopes to eventually have each person during a lifetime serving a term on the council, so that each one can experience what it means to work with a group of people.

Within this, education again plays a part. A person will not just be able to become a council member without first going through preparation, where one requires to go through a process of training and understanding in terms of what is involved – so that there is a smooth transitioning process within changing from council to council.

To apply for such a position, one would submit their availability and apply for a position. Once their term has ended, it is time for the next person. Unless there is no alternative, a person will not be allowed a second term; each one only gets a single term. This way, each one can get the opportunity of experiencing what it means to be a leader within a point of responsibility and within a point of distribution.

In terms of any form of abuse that may occur, anyone will be able to address and direct the point of abuse directly to the federal administration in reporting that there is a problem in this particular local council, where authority is being abused. If a person makes such an assertion and this assertion is based on some form of mental disorder, it will be addressed accordingly. If the abuse of authority is based on some mental disorder, it will be addressed and supported accordingly. The fact that a person goes into a mental disorder does not make them completely dysfunctional, and thus does not completely exclude them from participation. They are addressed, corrected and then receive a chance of forgiveness to correct their point. One will thus not be ‘branded’ as mental disordered – because it is simply part of the human condition at this stage. Currently, not enough is yet understood about how this all functions, and therefore, there is going to be some difficulties, where we need to address the mental disorder.

Once a person has proven their effectiveness within administrative responsibilities on a local level, they are eligible to submit their application for a position on a (more) global level.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Goods 

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics 

 Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System

Read More