Corruption – Broken at the Core – Pt2

This post is a continuation to

Corruption - Broken at the Core

I ended off the previous post with:

“So if we want to understand how ‘those guys’ can be corrupt and how to change it – all we really need to do is ask ourselves: why am I corrupt? What makes me choose self-interest over what is best for everyone? What do you think? What do you see?”

You will probably be able to relate to a sort of ‘instinct’ within you to protect ‘me’ from ‘everyone else’. We tend to place our self-interest before the interest of all because we assume that another will take part of our share, will take what belongs to us or even chip away parts of us for their own purpose. If you have a look, that which stands at the center of this instinct is our relationship with giving and receiving. We don’t trust that we will receive what we need, so we won’t give to others what they need, rather hoard it all, because otherwise we may find ourselves lacking.

In a world where there is actually enough food for everyone, enough resources to support everyone – why does every single human being experience the threat of imminent lack, so much so that in almost every decision and action the principle of self-interest will override the principle of the common good? If there is enough for everyone, then why do we feel there isn’t or may not be somewhere in the near or distant future? Because our access to the resources that are here, is defined by the most godless (or shall I say ‘the most human’) of creations we have ever seen: an unfair money system. It doesn’t matter if there is enough if your access to it is not guaranteed.

The very foundation of our relationship with giving and receiving has been compromised through our acceptance of a system where money is not guaranteed and so access to what each one needs is not guaranteed. I mean – think about it: the very resources that each one needs to survive are not accessible to everyone. And this is something everyone grows up with – our very lives are dependent on whether there is money or not. Our very lives are dependent on whether we receive a big enough share of the resources. When we are never really certain that we will continue to receive our basic human necessities, is it surprising that self-preservation has become our primary drive? Not only when it comes to money and getting food on the table – but in every single aspect of our lives. Because EVERYTHING in life in some way involves the need to give and receive. When our relationship with those two words is tainted, twisted and compromised, we’re truly broken at our core – inhibited to live life to the fullest, unable to rise to our fullest potential as humanity.

The proposal of a Living Income Guaranteed is then about a lot more than simply making sure everyone has enough money. It’s about rehabilitating our understanding of what it means to give and receive, it’s about laying down the chains we have imposed on ourselves, that have driven us to a version of human life that is scarcely worth remembering. If ever the human race is erased and a new species comes to inhabit the Earth and finds records of human society – they would describe us as the most despicable race that has ever lived, not even able to share and live in peace with each other, let alone with the other beings that dwell on this planet – because that is the only legacy we have ever created and perpetuated. The Living Guaranteed Proposal is a second chance, a shot at redemption – we’ve only ever proven what it means to live in fear and self-interest. Why not prove what it means to live with care, compassion, consideration and respect for each other? It starts with a living income guaranteed.

Read More

Corruption - Broken at the Core

In hearing the word ‘corruption’ we almost automatically think of politicians, business owner, corporations and MONEY – more specifically: putting money where it’s not supposed to go and using power in ways it’s not supposed to be used. We think of all those people ‘out there’ doing it and how angry it makes us, because with THEM being corrupt, it leaves less for the rest of us ‘poor victims’. ‘If only there would be no corruption’ – ‘everything would be so much better’ – ‘how could they’ – well, I assume you know your own thoughts on the matter… Of course if we wanted to just keep reproducing the same thought patterns, there would be no need for writing blogs, sooo… have you considered the following:

What is it about corruption that makes it corruption? What is the essence or the nature of corruption? It really boils down to: acting in self-interest when you should be acting in the interest of the whole. When corruption happens on a ‘big scale’ – eg: when there is a lot of money involved, this really pisses us off, I mean: how dare they!? But when corruption happens on a small scale – then, it’s just ‘life’, ‘human nature’ or ‘only normal’. Just ask yourself and answer honestly: how much of your time do you act in the interest of all and how much of your time do you act purely in your own self-interest? You’ll find that most of the time you’re not even considering how your actions and words might affect other people. Does corruption only apply when it is done by people who are explicitly within positions of so-called responsibility? Aren’t we all always in a position of responsibility simply by virtue of us being here and the fact that we don’t exist in isolation of other people, of nature and of the animal kingdom – even if that’s how we have split things up and categorized them neatly in our minds?

So if we want to understand how ‘those guys’ can be corrupt and how to change it – all we really need to do is ask ourselves: why am I corrupt? What makes me choose self-interest over what is best for everyone? What do you think? What do you see?

Let's continue this discussion in the next post – in the meantime: ponder over these questions and leave your answers in a comment.

Read More

Day 253: Living Income Guaranteed and Means Testing

Q: What information will be gathered to determine whether a person can receive a Living Income Guaranteed?


A: This question pertains to another question, which is: who will receive a Living Income?

The purpose of LIG in its most basic form is to provide a Living Income to those individuals who are unemployed or retired. Similarly to how the system works in most countries today – if you are unemployed and want unemployment benefits you require to register yourself as unemployed. Therefore, those who are registered as unemployed will receive a LIG. Those who retire and wish ‘retirement benefits’ would also make it known that they are retiring – hence with LIG – those registered as retired will receive a Living Income.

If within a country it is seen that it is viable to extend LIG to a wider range of recipients, additional criteria can be specified, for instance: anyone who is a student, or even every child (where the funds would first be available to the parents and only at a certain age become available to the child) in order to replace child support grants. Within such a system, additional information will have to be available – and thus, a greater degree of information integration should be in place. In some countries information integration is already quite extensive and if the resources are available, it would be a viable option. Other countries will first require to grow their economy and information infrastructure in order to expand LIG to a wider range of recipients.

Another way of expanding LIG is to tailor the Living Income to individual needs. For instance, an unemployed person with a chronic medical condition that requires continuous treatment will have higher monthly expenses than a healthy unemployed person. Where possible, the Living Income received by those two individuals could be different in order to provide each one with a more equal living standard. Such individual tailoring will require even more information access as it requires a detailed overview of every person’s expenses. Whether such expansion of LIG takes place will depend on the will of the people: a more equitable distribution of LIG is possible, but it would require individuals to allow a greater degree of information transparency. In many countries the tax return system is already so detailed that such information sharing would not be seen as an issue. Of course – in order to not make LIG too expensive, it would again require a certain level of automatization and integration of information, interlinking the information that is available by various institutions through for instance an electronic identity card, a card with a chip that can be linked to bank accounts, etc. This would allow the LIG allocation system to run the relevant calculations and equations according to the information attached to each person’s ID. Instead of going through the tiring and costly process of completing forms, each one would for instance have an ID card reader at home, place the ID card into it and upload the information to the LIG allocation system. Again, where such technology is not yet being deployed, an online system that ties all the information of an individual together by ID number can be used.

One must remember that information sharing is generally resisted by individuals when it comes to income tax collection. The tendency exists to hide information in order to not be charged a higher tax rate. With LIG, we suggest no personal income tax be charged and information sharing would be done from the perspective of receiving benefits in the form of Living Income. As such, we don’t foresee great resistance towards this point. Also to remember that eligible citizens would have a RIGHT to a Living Income but not an obligation to claim this right. Hence, if a person declines the right to a Living Income, one would not share one’s information and this person will not be taken into account by the LIG allocation system.

Recipients of LIG are not required to show that they are actively looking for employment and there is no limit to the period of time that one is supported by LIG.

The question also involves a second question: How can it be verified that a person truly deserves a Living Income?

What would happen in a scenario where a person registers as unemployed in order to claim a Living Income when the person is in fact still employed and receiving an income at least double the Living Income? This pertains to information integrity and would be the responsibility of the institution that registers a person as unemployed. Measures can be taken to contact the previous employer in order to verify the person is indeed no longer employed and bank account transactions can be monitored. Another scenario is where a person is registered as unemployed and works ‘under the table’, where the combined income of LIG and the wage received enable a person to live a luxurious lifestyle. Such points will only effectively be eradicated once money is entirely digitized and no transactions can take place without there being a record of it in the system – which is a point that any country that implements LIG should work towards in order to minimize abuse of the system. One must remember however that employment in informal commerce is often motivated by the need to survive. With LIG, such motivations would fall away as one can live a dignified life through receiving a Living Income.


For more information on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal - please read this Document and visit http://livingincome.me.

Read More

Day 138: USA - Land of Liberty and Democracy?

Although the USA is often seen as the land of liberty and democracy, its federal election procedure is completely incompetent:

"The United States is an exceptional nation, but it is not always exceptional for good. The American voting system too is an exception: It is the most error-prone, the most susceptible to fraud, the most vulnerable to unfairness and one of the least technologically sophisticated on earth."

An ideal democratic election procedure looks as follows:
- You know the results as soon as the polls close
- Votes are counted electronically
- Every district and state has the same rules and the same organised procedure for voting
- The voting procedure is managed by an independent electoral agency

How does the USA perform on these parameters?

State and local laws cause big distinctions in terms of how elections are held in each region, making national standards impossible. In some states you don't even have to present your ID when you vote. Other nations use completely outdated technology and equipment. An example here were the 200 elections in St. Louis, Missouri. Because no investment was done to improve outdated equipment, creating long delays on voting day. At poll-closing time, people were still cuing to cast their vote all over the city. Because many inhabitants of St. Louis are democratic, Al Gore asked a judge to extend voting time with three hours in St. Louis. The judge granted this request. The Republicans however, appealed and the decision was revoked.

Yes - that's right -there is no independent election body that supervises the elections and politicians are able to interfere by asking possibly partisan local judges to make exceptions on their behalf. But parties' interference does not stop there. Politicians often schedule voting in a way that is in their advantage and in the disadvantage of the opponent. Voting places are moved around for the same reason. Elections themselves are just an extension of parties' campaigns.

So - the US scores badly on all four of the above-mentioned parameters. Now add to this that voting day always falls on a Tuesday, a working day, making it hard for many to actually cast their vote - and: international election observers present to make sure that the elections are conducted in a democratic way - were banned from nine nations - of which some threatened with arrest.

Democracy means that the country is run by the people and for the people. Considering the ridiculousness of the facts that people only get to cast their vote once every four years, that election campaigns are all about who's got the most money to run the best campaign and who has the best poker-face in making promises they never intend to keep and then the scandalously inadequate voting procedures - just how are the American population governing themselves?

Sources:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/americas-election-process-an-international-embarrassment/?iref=allsearch
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/05/opinion/frum-election-chaos/index.html

Related articles

• Day 108: Virtual Democracies
• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy
• Day 105: Human Liberties
• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!

Read More

Dag 126: Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption

Corruption is one of the major problems in South Africa. Because the market economy is unable to meet the demands for basic needs - the government has a big role in making sure everyone is provided for. One of the means of financing these services, as we have seen in previous blogs, is the raising of taxes.

The money that is raised by the government is meant to be redistributed to the people of South Africa to combat inequality and dire living conditions. However, many municipalities keep on 'losing their money' where it seems to just disappear into thin air. Public officials working on district or regional levels use their access to these resources to enrich themselves, instead of putting the money where it's supposed to go.

When reading through South African newspapers, you'll constantly find stories of how this or that person has misused their position and thereby inflicted costs on communities in need of help.

To gain more understanding on corruption - here's a few words you may have heard about in the news - with their explanations (Guwa-Ngamlana 2009):

"a) Bribery: bribery involves the promise, offering or giving of a benefit that improperly affects the actions or decisions of a public official. This benefit may accrue to the public official, another person or entity. A variation of this manifestation occurs where a political party or government is offered, promised or given a benefit that improperly affects the actions or decisions of the political party or government.

b) Fraud: this involves actions or behaviour by a public official, other person or entity that fool others into providing a benefit that would not normally accrue to the public official, other persons or entity.

c) Embezzlement: involves theft of resources by persons entrusted with the authority and control of such resources.

d) Extortion: involves coercing a person or entity to provide a benefit to a public official, another person or entity in exchange for acting (or failing to act) in a particular manner.

e) Abuse of power: involves a public official using his/her vested authority to improperly benefit another public official, person or entity (or using the vested authority to improperly discriminate against another person, official or entity).

f) Conflict of interest: involves a public official acting or failing to act on a matter where the public official has an interest or another person or entity that stands in a relationship with the public official, i.e. a public official considers tenders for a contract and awards the tender to a company of which his/her partner is the director.

g) Favouritism: involves the provision of services or resources according to personal affiliations of a public official. An example would be a Mayor ensuring that only persons from his/her political organisation are successful in tenders or in employment.

h) Nepotism: involves a public official ensuring that family members are appointed to public service positions or that family members receive contracts."

One of the major arguments for free market economy is that the government cannot be trusted with the allocation of resources, because politicians and public officials will invariably pursue their personal interests in spite of the costs they inflict on society.

Within an Equal Money System this problem will be circumvented through not giving people the responsibility to allocate resources. Resources allocation will be a highly-automated system with many safety-measures, ensuring that no-one is able to manipulate the flow of resources so that they end up in their own pockets!

Source
Guwa-Ngamlana, N. 2009. http://www.afesis.org.za/Local-Governance-Articles/corruption-at-the-local-government-level-time-to-crack-the-whip, Consulted 29 October 2012.

Related articles

• Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?
• Day 87: Competition and Efficiency
• Day 89: There ain't no Such thing as a Free Lunch
• Day 137: FREE Choice and True Activism
• Day 115: Like Father, Like Son

Read More

Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?

This blog-post is a continuation to: Day 82: Government Failure, Day 83: Nationalisation and Privatisation and Day 86: Who Really Pays the Taxes?

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that politicians actually represent the population that elected them, without considering that the population only has a say when they cast their votes, and afterwards don't require - and thus, don't - consult with the population on matters of public policy - and thus, any representative democracy is really a fraud as voting is just done to make people feel like they are part of the decision-making - when, in the end, it is those with power and money who get to decide.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that bureaucrats are in quite powerful positions, able to influence the situation to suit their own needs, while they are not held accountable to/by the population in any way whatsoever.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that in a country/society where some have more money than others, it will always be those with the most money who actually run the country, despite elections, executive governments, parliaments and judiciary systems - because each official in government can be seduced and influenced by greed and thus, act in a way that benefits the few in spite of the many.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that, unless our monetary system is based within and operates according to the principle of equality, the public nor the private sector is suited to distribute goods and services - because, in the end, the distribution of resources is handled by individuals, who due to inequality, feel they have the right to abuse their position to distribute resoruces in a way that suits their personal desires.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that a monetary system of inequality and competition is directly responsible for the creation of crime - as all crime is an act of inequality, which is justified in the mind of the criminal by the acceptance and allowance of inequality by society as a whole.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that, unless all individuals are taken care of with the resources required to live a life of excellence in an equal way - no one can be trusted with the task of distributing resources - neither the government, nor private companies - because within inquality, the human is corrupted and acts accordingly in corrupt ways - therefore, only an equal money system can ensure efficient and equitable distribution of resources.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that taxes are not an effective way to redistribute resources among the population - by 'taking from the rich' and 'giving to the poor' - because the government is only able to specify who hands over the tax, but does not specify where it gets the money to be able to pay the tax - and thus, it is often customers who bear the real tax burden and not the owners or shareholders of the company, as companies, faced with having to pay higher taxes, simply raise their prices and, thus collect the money to pay their taxes from the customers who still require/want the goods or services they provide.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that any attempt to 'correct' market failure in terms of unequal distribution of resources will be negated by the market itself, as the whole economic system moves according to the principal of inequality, and thus ways will always be found to manifest unequal results that benefit some at the expense of others.

Read More