Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 4 – Abundance of choice vs Sustainability

This post is a continuation to the blog-posts:

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 – Sustainability vs Full Employment
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 3 – Tools of Intervention

Please read them first for context.

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

We all like to have options and choices – being able to ‘choose for ourselves’ which product we buy – the one that suits our needs just a little better, the one that has the specific features we are looking for. When we are not satisfied with a particular service, we like knowing that there are alternative providers of the same service and that we are not stuck with the only service provider.

Choices and options give u a sense of freedom, a sense of self-determination. So, it would seem that the more options we have available to choose from, the more freedom we have, the happier we are. And so, it would also seem that with the amount of choices we enjoy in our western consumerist lifestyle, we must have reached a state of absolute freedom. But have we?

Barry Schwartz did an excellent TED Talk presentation about this very topic and I will quote some of the key points he brought up as a quick summary – for the full presentation, click here.

“The official dogma runs like this: if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom. The reason for this is both that freedom is in and of itself good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human. And because if people have freedom, then each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare, and no one has to decide on our behalf. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice. The more choice people have, the more freedom they have, and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have. This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it.”

“We all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it. All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people.”

“One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis, rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all.”

“The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is that with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one, and it's not perfect […] it's easy to imagine that you could have made a different choice that would have been better. And what happens is this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision. The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.

Second, what economists call "opportunity costs." Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning of talking about how much the way in which we value things depends on what we compare them to. Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider, it is easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject, that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen.”

“Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction we get out of what we choose, even when what we choose is terrific. And the more options there are to consider, the more attractive features of these options are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.”

“Third: escalation of expectations. This hit me when I went to replace my jeans. I wear jeans almost all the time. And there was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap, and they were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK. So I went to replace my jeans after years and years of wearing these old ones, and I said, you know, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size." And the shopkeeper said, "Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed? Do you want them distressed? You want boot cut, you want tapered, blah blah blah ..." On and on he went. My jaw dropped, and after I recovered, I said, "I want the kind that used to be the only kind.
He had no idea what that was, so I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store -- truth! -- with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had. I did better. All this choice made it possible for me to do better. But I felt worse. Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself.  The reason I felt worse is that, with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up. I had very low -- I had no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor. When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect. And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect. And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected. Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be. And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results.”

“Finally, one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans when there is only one kind to buy is that when you are dissatisfied, and you ask why, who's responsible, the answer is clear: the world is responsible. What could you do? When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available, and you buy one that is disappointing, and you ask why, who's responsible? It is equally clear that the answer to the question is you. You could have done better. With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display, there is no excuse for failure. And so when people make decisions, and even though the results of the decisions are good, they feel disappointed about them; they blame themselves.
Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world in the last generation. I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor to this explosion of depression, and also suicide, is that people have experiences that are disappointing because their standards are so high, and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves, they think they're at fault.”

As with so many things in life, when we see something as beneficial, we have the tendency of overdoing it and pulling it to the extreme only to realize how that creates other adverse effects and we have to reign ourselves in a again. Sleep is good – it is a vital part of life and required for the body to rejuvenate – but sleep too much and you’re just wasting time. Chocolate is good, it is one of those substances that can give great pleasure – but eat too much of it and your face will be plagued with zits. With all such things – the key is to add the magic words ‘in moderation’: Sleep is good… in moderation. Chocolate is good… in moderation. Having choices is good… in moderation.

So, looking again at the original statement that we have to choose between either freedom through an abundance of choices – and sustainability in refraining from utilizing resources that no one actually needs – we can now clearly see that this is a very ‘black and white’ representation of the story, leaving out important considerations. In understanding that yes, some choice is better than no choice, but too much choice is worse than some choice – we are able to pursue both freedom and sustainability –they are not mutually exclusive.

To this end, we suggest in the Living Income Proposal that before new products and services are produced and made available on the market, it must first be proven that there exists an actual genuine demand for it: that it is something people are asking for – and not merely the same product or service of which there already exists a multitude of options to choose from, only to then create the demand through marketing and advertisement.

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 3 – Tools of Intervention

This post is a continuation to the blog-posts:

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 – Sustainability vs Full Employment

Please read them first for context.




Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Most economists have come to accept that the free market is the ideal way of conducting economic activity – let market forces dictate prices and output and don’t try to control these forces, because they eventually create the best outcome for everyone. Most economists, however, have also come to accept that there are certain situations in which intervention is called for – to correct market failures and inefficiencies. Looking at only the national economy – the ways in which intervention happens, apart from declaring laws that set standards, minimum or maximum requirements, quotas, etc. – fall under the categories of either fiscal policy or monetary policy.

Fiscal policy refers to those policies that have to do with tax collection and government spending. In overly simplistic terms: if the government sees it is needed to increase output and income/employment – it can implement expansionary fiscal policy through reducing taxation and/or increasing government spending.

Monetary policy refers to those policies that have to do with the rate at which money is released into the economy. Here the government has no authority, it is the central bank in each country that influence interest rates to either contract or expand the economy.

Both kinds of policies, when used to achieve a certain goal, always have certain drawbacks in other areas. In other words, the usefulness of their application is always limited by the nature of the free market principles – where their use becomes a careful balancing of adjustments here and there to ‘kind of’ have ‘some’ movement in a certain desirable direction.

Problems such as poverty, deprivation, insufficient incomes and job insecurity, to name but a few, cannot be tackled directly from within this economic paradigm – to do so with the use of fiscal and monetary policies would in most countries require substantial interventions – and create substantial drawbacks, crippling the economy in other areas, and over time, undoing its own efforts. So – what can we do? This is just how it is, right? This is just the nature of economics, right? ‘Sorry for those fellas struggling to survive, but there’s really not that much we can do for you. Sure, in theory you have certain basic human rights, but looks like it’s just not gonna happen.’ In brutal terms, that is the attitude that has been adopted when it comes to our economies and the intertwined question of human rights.

At the Equal Life Foundation, we take the guaranteeing of human rights very seriously – in our view, they are not optional and they should not be seen as variables that are dependent on the grace of market forces that may or may not grant these rights at some points in time. Seeing that the conventional paradigm and available policies lack the capacity to ensure these rights, it became clear that it was necessary to step outside of this paradigm and dare to look for alternative measures that CAN guarantee human rights, yet won’t result in the crippling and destabilizing of the whole of the economy.

Providing a Living Income to those who are unemployed or retired through the profits of companies that are considered human rights companies and national resources companies is exactly such a measure. It’s not a fiscal policy, because it is not funded through taxation and it’s not a monetary policy, because it is not funded through printing more money. Fascinatingly – if a measure is none of those two – and it’s not purely free market… ‘well… well… then… it has to be communistic!’ Lol. Yet, it’s not communistic, because the economy will still operate according to free market principles, there will be no centralization of ownership – there will be decentralization – and the role for government would become smaller than it is now.

For more information about Living Income Guaranteed,
Read our Proposal
Watch our Hangouts
Read our Blogs

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment

In my previous blog, I discussed what false dilemmas are, how they are used in our everyday life, how easily we get swayed by false dilemmas and what the consequences are of their use. I also discussed how one is able to broaden one’s view of a situation, taking a step back so one has a more accurate view of the whole picture when faced with false dilemmas.  I gave 4 examples of false dilemmas dominating discussions on very real problems that require direction and solutions. Within this blog I’ll take each example and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside of these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”

She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.

With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.





http://livingincome.me/ 

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1

One of the ways in which we limit our ability to address problems and steer ourselves towards solutions without entering into an endless debate, is through our acceptance of false dilemmas at face value.

What is a false dilemma?

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

•    Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.
•    If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
•    America: Love it or leave it.
•    The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.”

(Normand Baillargeon, A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense. Seven Stories Press, 2008)

It seems easy enough to spot false dilemmas and yet, they seem to dominate the discussions about some of the most important issues we require solutions for. Have a look:

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

Do you start seeing to what extent false dilemma’s – the ‘either/or’ presentation of options – is thoroughly ingrained in media, in politics, in every day life discussions?

On the one hand false dilemmas are used to manipulate those presented with the false dilemma to choose the option that the presenter of the dilemma wishes – but on the other hand – it also encourages stagnation and paralysis. Because what happens, is: you have groups who have an interest within the one option, or who support the one option – and you have groups who have an interest within the second option, or who support the second option. And now there is a back-and-forth quibbling, to put it plainly, about which option to choose, about which group ‘loses’ and which group ‘wins’. Of course, no one wants to lose, or be the one to sacrifice their interests for the other group’s or the other goal – so everyone is fighting, but in the meantime, you maintain the status quo, because there is no movement, there is no common solution – there is just a debate, a discussion, an argument, when what is really needed is direction and action.

We tend to so blindly accept information the way it is presented to us – without critically thinking for ourselves and seeing if there are no alternatives. No, instead we immediately position ourselves on one or the other side of the dilemma and feel good about ourselves for ‘taking in a position’. But what does it matter to take in a position, if that position is not going to lead to a solution, but simply perpetuates a back-and-forth dynamic that can only lead to losing? Either ‘our group’ wins over the other, then the others lose out, or the other group wins and then ‘our group’ loses out – or no solution is reached and everyone keeps quibbling, then everyone loses out, because nothing gets directed – or both groups go into a ‘compromise’ and don’t really take on either issue, but just do ‘ a little bit’ on both fronts to please everyone – which seems like a ‘win-win’ solution – but it actually isn’t – because everyone is compromising.

The first thing to do is to take a step back and allow yourself to see the bigger picture. Because – what is presented with a false dilemma? You’re presented with a zoomed-in picture that shows two doors, two options. Now, instead of trying to break your brains over figuring out which of the doors represents the lesser of two evils – take a step back – zoom out the picture and suddenly more becomes visible within the frame – there might be a third door that had not been mentioned or there might be a pathway going around the wall that the doors are in, making every door entirely irrelevant.

In my next post, I’ll go over each of the examples and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Read More

Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6

Before we proceed with discussing the Principle of Need as a basis for social justice, as ‘what is a morally right and just way to distribute the goods and services in a society among the members of it?’ – more requires to be said about the Principle of Merit and Desert as the principle upon which we have built our current economic system, and this, simply because the gravity of the situation must be stressed and understood.

For context, also read:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
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


The Divine Power to Decide on Life and Death

When we say that one must deserve the support one requires to fulfill one’s needs in order to live a decent life in this world, we are literally holding people’s lives in our hands and stating that it is possible for us as humans to decide about life or death. Many Gods in various religions throughout time have been attributed this responsibility of power over life and death, but within accepting an economic system where merit determines value, we have come to now attribute this power to ourselves. There is a reason why this power has been linked with Divinity – because it requires an extreme level of insight, integrity, understanding and consideration to make such assessments. These are qualities we as humans don’t possess. We do not even understand our own mind, our own thoughts, our own experiences. We are not yet an Authority in our own Inner Realities, because that would require us to be fully Aware and fully Response-Able in every moment, where we have proven to ourselves moment after moment that we can be Trusted with Life. If this were the case, we wouldn’t have imaginary realms in our mind where we play-out our nastiness against others to prevent us from actually acting them out in this physical reality. We haven’t even understood that the nastiness of our thoughts, our secrets, our desires, our grudges, our spite – are showing us who we are and thus, indicate, that there is a serious problem with ‘human nature’. So long as we have a mind – we know one thing: We cannot be trusted with life. And yet – we’ve assumed the power to judge others, the power to judge their lives, the power to decide whether they should live or die, whether they should suffer or live in abundance.


We are All Accomplices in All Crimes against Life

There is a sense in which we feel that what is described above has nothing to do with daily human life and that we do not actually hold people’s lives in our hands, where we place their hearts on the one side of the scale and a ‘feather of justice’ on the other. We do not feel that this has anything to do with who we are and the life we live, because – obviously, it is not something that we actively and consciously do. And - we have an inherent belief and conviction that if we do not actively do something, then we didn’t do it – or that, if we didn’t have the intention of supporting such actions, then we didn’t. Yet, when we accept and allow a crime against life to take place – then we are part of the crime, we are an accomplice to the crime.

This notion of accomplice is contrary to what is commonly accepted under the term:

“An accomplice may assist or encourage the principal offender with the intent to have the crime committed, the same as the chief actor. An accomplice may or may not be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, no matter how reprehensible his or her inaction.” [1]

Present or not – intention or no intention – when we within ourselves accept and allow the idea that it is ‘just’ and ‘righteous’ to place a condition on an individual’s access to the very things a person requires to survive – in the form of the principle of merit - then we are DIRECTLY responsible for ALL DEATHS resulting from lack. Why? Because, within ourselves, we gave permission for them to die - we gave the go-ahead for mass murder as soon as we thought ‘Yeah, it makes sense to have to earn one’s living’. It seems like such an innocent little thought, right? This is what I mean with: we do not even understand our own minds and we do not understand the consequences of our own thoughts.


Writing and Reading – our Responsibility with Words

When academics write out their convictions and ideologies in terms of what they envision to be the ‘just society’, they do not consider the power and implication of their words. Supporters of the principle of Merit and Desert did not in fact realize or even investigate what they were truly saying. And neither did those who studied their words – which makes it ironic to call it ‘studying’ – because all that happened within the ‘study’ is that either the information was merely copy/pasted into one’s own mind, or it was assessed whether one ‘likes’ the words in terms of the particular energetic experience that came up when reading the words, of which the student wasn’t even aware. That is why we say ‘it sounds good’ – not because the physical sound of the worlds have any particular harmonic qualities, but because when we read them, we ‘feel good’ – the words resonate with our own self-interest and our own hidden agendas – to which, most of us are oblivious.

And as soon as we feel good, we stop asking questions and do not see the implications behind the words, behind the thoughts – which is why we feel puzzled when we are shown what we are truly responsible for and why we do not remember having given these permissions – because we weren’t aware that we were giving them.

That is the reason behind this blog – to reveal the ‘whole story’ and how this story plays out in actual reality, in actual lives – so that we can look beyond our feelings and consider the reality of the situation in having all the information available before making any further decisions on which principles we should build our society and build our economic system on, for them to be just. And so that we can develop the skill of questioning our thoughts and their implications instead of blindly accepting them without consideration for the ramifications.


The Psychological Justification for the Principle of Merit or Desert

We can now further consider why the principle of merit or deserts is a principle that often ‘resonates’ with us as ‘sounding good’ or ‘sounding right’. The underlying psychological element that justifies the principle of merit and deserts is fear of being abused through being taken advantage of.

These fears arise specifically in group-situations where the well-being of the group is dependent upon the efforts and contributions of each individual – and where individuals are not the same in terms of intellectual capacity, creativity, discipline, physical strength, agility and perseverance. Within such a scenario, of course, not every individual contributes in the same way or to the same extent, because abilities differ. The fear of being taken advantage of steps in when one perceives that the level of well-being the group generates does not reflect the efforts and contributions one personally put in – where one perceives that one is not equally receiving according to what one gave. Herein, an experience of ‘unfairness’ will rear its head, because one perceives it to be unfair that those who one perceives ‘contributed less’ are receiving the same standard of well-being as oneself. The tendency is to then blame those that one perceives as ‘having done less’ for one’s own experiences of dissatisfaction. Almost immediately, a feeling of ‘being abused’ follows, because we feel conned by those we perceive has having done less, where we think that they deliberately took advantage of one’s efforts and contributions.

From here – those that perceive they have been abused will call for greater individualization – where the focus now shifts from the well-being of the collective as a result of a group-effort – to the well-being of the individual a as a result of individual-effort. So – it is fascinating that one immediately takes in an anti-group position in reaction to a perceived ‘injustice’ – where blame is placed on others and self-interest overrides any other consideration. (For those who still resonate with this justification in thinking ‘that sounds like the right thing to do’ – remember the above discussion in what the consequences are of reacting in such a way – where from a ‘seemingly reasonable mind-set’ we’ve created an economic system that outcasts millions because their value is not being registered as being ‘sufficient’ – and so they have been condemned to a life of suffering and premature death. Instead of trying to appease one’s conscience, we have the ability of actually fundamentally changing our attitudes in a way that would produce real solutions.)

Now, going back to the group-setting – what would be the alternative to individualization?

There are two possible scenarios in terms of why some individuals contribute less.
Firstly – there are those who, due to differing mental and physical capacities, will be unable to be as productive or as contributing as others. Herein, any reaction of feeling abused by them would be inappropriate, because no harm was deliberately being done. The reality of the matter simply is that each one is doing the best they can, and as such – the level of wellbeing in the group is as high as it can be. Does this mean that individualization is necessary so that those who contributed more receive a ‘higher share’ of the well-being? Obviously not – it is a matter of understanding that those with more ability have a responsibility towards those with less – simply because, if they were the ones in the group with less ability, they would want others to take responsibility for them too. Such attitude is one of caring, of consideration, of respect – all of which we is highly valued in any society. The best one can do is to ensure that each one is indeed contributing in a way that they are most effective, which would require them to be passionate about what they do, because passion implies self-motivation, which implies pursuing self-perfection within one’s particular expression. And so – with each one optimally contributing in their particular capacity and expertise, the group is like an organism that will function most effectively.

So – the critical factor in this scenario is that one places aside one’s fears of abuse, which – if one looks at it is irrational from the perspective that no-one is taking advantage of anyone, but that each one acts in accordance with their responsibility towards themselves and so each other – and that one practices the values that are preached, in order to build a group and an environment that is pleasant, that is supportive, that is cohesive – one that, in the end, everyone would benefit from. Why benefit? Because such an environment does not only ensure that the particular task at hand is being completed, but it also nurtures the social and psychological well-being of each one.

In the second scenario, some are contributing less because they are endeavoring to maximize benefits while minimizing costs – and thus, are purposely ‘parasiting’ off the efforts of those who put in more work. Now, if those who do contribute to the best of their ability would not react in outrage for perceived abuse – what would happen?
It would simply be assessed that there is a problem in the group where there are some that are not equally participating and who are placing their self-interest above the interest of the group and where – as a result – the group is less effective and each one enjoys a standard of living below the potential that would be achieved if each one would have actively participated. The common sense thing to do in this situation is to, as a group, intervene and confront the individuals in question with the consequences of their behavior and show how a change on their part is required for the group to function as a whole. If understanding is not sufficient for change to take place – then other factors must be looked at that may be contributing to a psychological state of apathy, where, for instance, the individual is not performing the task that they would particularly enjoy most, or the individual struggles with the task at hand, where, incessant experiences of inadequacy led one to ‘give up’ - and, in order to deal with experiences of failure in this regard, the person uses the self-manipulation of ‘I don’t care anyways’. It is not actually so that one doesn’t care, but a lie one tells oneself so one isn’t plagued by the same experience of guilt, failure, anxiety and inadequacy over and over again. So – here the apathy is merely a self-protective wall the individual put in place due to not seeing how to move oneself out of this situation. So – such underlying factors must be identified to bring clarity on how the individuals may be assisted and empowered to break through their apathy and allow the group to function most effectively.

In the second scenario the critical factor is to not take the situation personally – where, yes – those individuals were acting in a harmful way towards the group – but it has nothing to do with anyone on an individual level , where one is now ‘under attack’ and one requires to ‘protect oneself’ from the evil that is lurking. If one looks at it – those individuals who deliberately contributed less, within themselves, took on an ‘anti-group’ position. So – to now demand individualization, which is also an anti-group position, is like fighting fire with fire – an effort we can all see will not provide real solutions – because it is the very anti-group position attitude that is the cause of abuse and harm on the part of others within the group. Therefore – to attempt to protect those who perceive themselves to be abused through installing a system of reward based on individual merit – one is in fact attempting to manipulate the ‘flow’ of the abuse – where abuse is in fact accepted, but one directs it in such a way that it befalls on others.
And that is exactly what we see within the current capitalistic system, that it is in fact a system of abuse, where the abusers, which are the ones who live a comfortable life, will justify the abuse based on the fear of being taken advantage of by others. This is how those who fear being abused in fact become the abuser.


False Dilemma – Abuse or Be Abused

Ultimately, then, the psychological justification for a distributive system based on the principle of individual merit – lies within the false dilemma of ‘abuse or be abused’. We have shown above that this is indeed a FALSE dilemma because there are alternatives if only one practices the ability of placing aside one’s fear to be able to consider a common sense solution. The fact that these skills are not being practiced in a school or home environment as part of every child’s education may very well be the fact that the world is in such disarray.

One can argue that the principle of merit and desert is the only possible expression of ‘social justice’ exactly because of how humans are psychologically wired. Yet – if one looks at the very endeavor of implementing or bringing about social justice – it is to distribute goods and services in a way that is morally correct – in order to create a morally correct society. To believe that one can reconcile such a morally upstanding society with human beings that are unable to act in a morally upstanding way – is delusional. To attempt to change society without changing the humans that ARE the society, will never really create any change at all. So – change must happen both within and without, and if social justice is to become a reality, education must play its role within developing the required skills so that individuals are able to uphold a socially just society. There is simply no two ways about it.


[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accomplice

 

Related articles

• Day 209: Correcting instead of Sidestepping
• Day 396: Paranoia: the Home of Human Reason - Part Two
• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• The Starting Point
• Day 297: Redefining A Life of Escaped Negativity
• Day 204: It Can't be That Easy
• DAY 387: Anarchists, Mothers and Brainwashing
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 306: Capitalism is NOT the Best System We Have
• Day 207: Buying Power and the Idea of Freedom

Read More