Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6

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
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5

In the previous blog we discussed the problems that ensue when a word has not been clearly defined, and how one ought to agree upon a singular definition and thus use a particular word consistently with its agreed upon meaning, to be able to have a meaningful discussion (which so far hasn’t happened in the history of the concept of Equality).

We also saw that the ‘Great Divide’ on the subject of Equality has mostly been of an illusionary nature, exactly because of the lack of agreement on a definition of Equality. How can we say that there is a disagreement on a singular issue, when both parties mean completely different things with ‘the one issue’?

All of this came forth as we were looking at one of the arguments/justifications (Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother) as to why we should not enforce/promote Equality within society, as we had to investigate in which sense ‘equal’ and ‘unequal’ was used in the sentence.

Within this blog we will be looking at ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ within using the definition of Equality as Life – where Humans are Equal by virtue of being Alive and being Animated by the same Life Force.

So, we have ‘Life’ as our starting point, as within this rests our Equality. Yet this this Life is not self-sustaining and particular conditions require to be in place for Life to thrive. We can then say, that any situation/circumstance which hampers the ability of Life to thrive, is one that is unequal or is a situation/circumstance within which inequality exists.

When we look at the statement ‘Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother ‘ from this perspective, we can clearly see that it does not make any sense, because having Life as one’s starting point cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome/end. And promoting Life as a value/principle cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome. So when statements are made about ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ – we have to investigate/look at each point terms of measuring its relation to Life: does it enhance or does it reduce Life?

When we look at Equality and Unequal/Inequality from this perspective – a lot of the statements/justifications as to why Equality should not be pursued ‘fall away’, as the logic behind the statement becomes inconsistent. Here we can for instance look at the statement that to ‘be equal’ means to ‘genetically disable the able’. Such actions obviously do not enhance Life and thus does not promote Equality among human beings as each one enjoying an Equal Life Experience. When we speak of Equality and Inequality, we are thus bound to keep ourselves to subjects and topics which directly affect human beings’ Living Standard and Quality of Life. This does not mean ‘Equal Treatment’ in the sense of the distorted definition of ‘giving each one the Same Treatment’ – but to treat one Another Equally as to support and assist another to the utmost of our ability so that one can enjoy the Best Quality of Life Possible. Here we have to be clear that ‘the same’ and ‘equal’ – are two different, separate concepts. Different people have different needs – and thus depending on how much support and assistance one requires to reach a Standard of Living that is Optimal – one will receive ‘less’ or ‘more’ to attain this Level – but yet the Outcome is Equal – as Life is each time respected and supported to the greatest extent possible. When one is born with a particular disadvantage which leads a particular individual to experiencing their Life as being obstructed – then the necessary steps require to be taken to remedy this point to the utmost of our ability, to ensure that this person despite their ‘born disadvantage’ may still experience a Life of Quality, as the Life we would have wanted for ourselves would we have been in the same position. Failure to address such impediments to a Thriving Life, would be termed an ‘Inequality’ and would thus be a Problem which requires to be Corrected.

Within the next blog we will look at some more points/statements anti-egalitarians come up with in an attempt to refute the promotion of Equality within society – and how these arguments lose all validity once the factors and variables are intricately linked and connected to Life and the support thereof, as how we explained it in this blog.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• 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 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care

Read More

Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?

This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our Previous blogs:
Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

The idea of equal contribution, equal share, equal this and equal that is probably doomed to failure form the beginning because it will require consent as to what an equal contribution really is. This is impossible to determine and thus causes conflict. Victor Schauberger develops a different viewpoint based on his observations of nature. Nature always produces abundantly so there is always enough for all. This idea is always adopted in the Venus Project. Taking these considerations into account, I believe it is possible to set up an "economic" system where all is indeed free and freely shared by all. - Axel

With regards to your comment I would like to draw your attention to the following Response which has been made to a similar comment on the Equal Money Goals on the Equal Money website Homepage :


The comment:
I do not like this Goal and Suggest Rather the Following…
"Who determines the "Best Possible Life for all on Earth"?" December 03, 2012 16:25


Our Response:
We live in a physical reality which works through particular laws of nature. 'What is Best' is thus never determined from someone's personal view or opinion - but derived from how things practically function and operate within this world.



Therefore, meaning of 'Best Possible Life for All on Earth' will be determined by each one through democratic means, where input must be backed up by scientific evidence and must take place within the framework of Constitutional Equality.

The same principle applies when looking at ‘what is equal’. When we say ‘providing for all equally’, we do not mean ‘providing for everyone the same’. On an individual level everyone still has different requirements in terms of tending to one’s needs – and thus the support one require will vary from person to person to reach an equal level of living standard. Within this, some will get more, other’s will receive less – depending on one’s individual situation – but the outcome remains the same in terms of having one’s basic needs taken care of and having everything in place to live a dignified Life. Determining what is required for each one to live at this level will require investigation and individual assessment which will take time and effort – but is not impossible.

Taking this into consideration, equality is not doomed to fail. In terms of ‘consent’ – all that is required to be agreed upon is that all are of equal value as Life within this world, and that one agrees that all ought to receive the support necessary to live a dignified life. In terms of determining the ‘necessary means’ for each, this will be mostly a scientific undertaking and not based on personal opinions. Conflict can then only arise when there is a point where someone does not understand why another or self receives or gives in a particular way and perceives a point of injustice/inequality to be existent. Herein, the scientific procedures/evidence would be put forward to indicate the extent to which someone receives/gives. Unless one can provide scientific evidence/proof that shows otherwise – one would have to re-align oneself according to the information put forward or go through a correctional process as insistence that something is ‘not fair’ while the evidence shows that it is equal, would indicate a form of mental disharmony within the person which requires addressing. 

Related articles

• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 192: Demand and Flexibility in Equal Money Capitalism

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 56: Measuring the Performance of the Economy – Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value objectives within macroeconomics in terms of evaluating the performance of the economy – which is no way are related to the wellbeing of Life on Earth, but only concerned with the self-preservation of the current economic system

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where Life on Earth is placed in the service of the Economic Machine of Greed and Unsustainability – instead of a world economic system which serves Life on Earth

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have completely missed the point of economics – where I accepted and allowed myself to believe in - and support a system of Hope where few win and the majority lose, where Hope is the only thing keeping the system standing as the majority hope to one day be in a position of the few – while obviously this is not mathematically possible, as the lifestyle of the few is only possible if they remain few – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to have created and economic system which actually looks at all the points in the world which require support within sustenance and then unconditionally direct the flow of resources towards all points which require sustenance/support without any form of discrimination which is in fact what the Equal Money System is designed to do

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value ‘economic growth’ as a macroeconomic objective, and where this objective is valued above all other objectives as the Holy Grail of Success – without seeing and realising that the desire for economic growth is just another way of saying ‘more..More.. MORE, I WANT MORE!!!’, as a spoilt child throwing a tantrum for not getting what it wants – while in the meantime half the world perishes in poverty and starvation and get to be ignored while we economists stare at economic growth like a moth being attracted to a flame - ever hypnotised, never considering the consequences of one’s actions

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value “how much more stuff has been produced” as the primary marcoeconomic objective

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the news today which I can see/hear/read about daily – clearly indicate that there are much more important objectives to consider as the suffering and madness is undeniable, yet I will value ‘producing stuff’ more over ‘making sure everyone’s living a comfortable life’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have mindfucked myself into believing that ‘producing stuff’ equals ‘making a better world’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to justify within myself my evil actions of limited self-interest with the thought that ‘eventually all the stuff/wealth will trickle down to the poor and then they will also be better off!’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to be honest with myself as I know that ‘it will trickle down to the less fortunate’ is a big fat lie – but as long as there are enough of us portraying it to be the truth and teaching it to our children, we can maintain the lie and keep avoiding self-responsibility – and if we put it into pretty sophisticated words in textbooks then it almost sounds true too!

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where there can never be full employment – and then at the same time create the system in such a way that everyone is dependent on employment to earn their living, and so not everyone can live

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we can just as easily create a system where people don’t have to depend on employment to be able to sustain themselves and where we scale down our industries of entertainment which are only here to benefit the minority – so that there are less jobs to be done and so not everyone has to work all the time for the sake of profit and economic growth – and so we will have more time available to actually live and enjoy ourselves

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value only those things which relate to the preservation of the current economic system – and so there are no real goals , as all we are doing is timelooping on the same point, which is our current economic system which is Not Best for All

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to place ‘equitable distribution of income’ as one of the objectives of marcoeconomics, but it is really just to appease people, where we pretend that we are giving inequality attention – while we don’t, and then justify our non-consideration on the base that it is a ‘normative’/’subjective’ issue – and that it is not the economist’s place to say anything about this issue, as they are not politicians or sociologists – which is a real easy way out of not taking responsibility – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that our very economic system as what it currently exists as, is ONLY based on the subjectiveness and normativity – as it is a VALUE SYSTEM which currently only values the HAPPINESS OF A FEW – and so when economists say that they rather do not comment on such a ‘controversial issue’ as ‘unequal income distribution’ – it’s really just the same as saying I LIKE THIS INEQUALITY JUST THE WAY IT IS

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that it is not about being a ‘politician’ or a ‘sociologist’ or whatever other qualification – as the only thing you require to comment on the current status of inequality within the world is YOU as a HUMAN BEING and the realisation that OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, which are JUST LIKE YOU, are mostly in positions which you would NOT WANT to be in – and within that you either decide to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or NOT – and as we have seen, the mainstream economists have decided to NOT do ANYTHING about it as they value their own Life as more valuable than others

Read More