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

Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?

For context, read the full discussion of this communication on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Equal-Money-System-1/What-is-the-Equal-Money-System/answer/Marlen-Vargas-Del-Razo?__ac__=1#comment1799680

So you would deny free movement of labor? In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them. If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return? Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?

Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?

This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?

“So you would deny free movement of labor? “

There will still be a free movement of labor in terms that individuals are able to choose what career/direction they wish to commit themselves to. So no, we do not deny free movement of labour - in fact the movement of labour will be greatly enhanced as there will be less barriers in place that keep people from pursuing what they want to engage themselves in life.

“In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them.”

The Government will only intervene when the Market requires assistance in creating employment and ensuring that basic goods and services are produced for everyone. As such there is no 'central planning' -- the Government will only intervene when required.

“If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return?”

The assumption that technological advances rely on capital, risk and profit returns is an incorrect one. We can see this even in the simple things like Open Source Software -- look at for instance Linux and Ubuntu, many Operating Systems today are based on this technology which was not profit driven. When the profit motive is removed and funding is provided, technological advancement is dependent on people's passion and motivation. Within this consider also that funding will not be tied to profit and thus there will be larger space for technological innovation which has previously been ignored 'because there's no money in it'.
You can read more on this point here:
Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

“ Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?”

One would engage themselves in their job from a starting point of self-enjoyment and integrity. Many people today to not engage or commit themselves because the job they do is merely done from a starting point of survival and having limited options available. One will have to motivate oneself and assume one's responsibility to the betterment of society as a whole. Within having a real choice for the first time people will choose the jobs that truly interest and stimulate them which in itself will aid in the engagement, commitment and quality of the task done. It’s time to realise that we can move beyond being puppets who only move when our strings (=money) get pulled and realise that we can live and contribute simply from a point of self-respect and dignity – both for ourselves and others.

“Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?”

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money Capitalism -- we're merely replacing the variables that drive supply and demand to support Life instead of profit. On this topic you can read the following blogs:

Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

“This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?"

The implementation of an Equal Money Capitalism system already implies a shift in values -- away from profit and consumerism to Life and responsibility. This implementation requires to go through the normal political processes and thus would be implemented through consent --  which means there would be consent on the basic principles and values.

Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. You will receive everything you need to live a comfortable Life -- anything more would compromise others for the sake of one's own desires and is unacceptable. As such there will be no 'for profit companies' in the sense of pursuing indefinite growth in the name of greed -- it will thus not be an option to be considered. In terms of 'wanting more money' you can read the following blog:

Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Linux absolutely does not prove that profit motive does not provide the best return. You are taking an exception to the rule, and trying to draw a new conclusion. Open-sourcing does not require large amounts of capital or risk, so it is a poor comparison. For every "Linux" you show, I can point towards the airline industry, the automotive industry, the computing industry, the biotech industry, the healthcare industry, etc; all industries that would not exist if there was no capital and return/risk economic calculation for investors.

Of course you'll be able to, for every Linux, point at a huge amount of companies/industries that grew within the profit-motive principle - because we live in a capitalistic system. At the moment, people are being motivated through profit, so that is how the point moves at the moment. However - the assumption is always made that it is impossible to do without the profit motive - and to refute such assumptions, it is sufficient to have one example that proves that it can be done otherwise. From there, it is a matter of identifying the conditions of the environment within which growth and innovation would be best supported.

"Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. "

Ah, this tells me all I need to know about this "equal money capitalism".

You have to understand that the current capitalistic system has been designed to 'manage', 'manipulate' and 'control' the self-interested nature of the human being. So, capitalism recognises that human nature at the moment is faulty. However, instead of actually supporting individuals to move beyond such self-interested attitudes and behaviors, capitalism takes advantage of it by pushing people's buttons so that most slave away and some can live a God's life. So - EMC recognises the same problems within human behavior and attitudes - however, instead of manipulating people and trying to control them, we suggest to actually address those issues, resolving them and thus empowering each one. Now tell me - which of these approaches would you say is mind control?

Related articles

• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• 301. The Rules to Play the Game
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 191: Entertainment and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 174: Loyalty to Life in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 190: Fairness in the Work Place and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 180: Is Instagram Big Brother?
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 144: Airport Tender Sham Under the Auspices of NeoApartheid

The Msunduzi Municipality has the responsibility of handling the tender for the management of the Pietermaritzburg Airport. In 2010, the municipality advertised a contract for the management of the airport, for which there were 6 bidders. The contract was awarded to Joint Venture. Another bidder, Indiza logged an objection based on faulty scoring procedures. The chairman of the objection hearing ruled in Indiza's favor and said the tender had to go back to the bid evaluation and adjudication committees for correction. The Bid Evaluation Committee, subsequently, recommended that Indiza get the contract.

However, the acting municipal manager decided to cancel the contract with Indiza without giving proper reasons - only stating they had to cancel the contract due to 'unforseen circumstances'. The real reason is probably that they wanted to get pay-back for Indiza's logging of the objection. It's like a child saying: "You rat me out to the teacher - I hate you now!"

This story yet again reeks of political corruption - where those placed in power by democratic means have no other intention than to further the interest of the elite classes of society and completely ignore and sabotage the democratic processes that have been put in place to protect the citizens from the government abusing its power. Political decisions are made through mutual agreements between politicians and corporations that both wish to enhance their own self-interested agendas with no regard for the good of the community. And who ends up drawing the short end of the stick? The people - who have to deal with an economic environment to which they have less and less access and in which they have less and less opportunity to live a dignified life. While the elites as politicians and their corporatist friends create their own little utopia by means of the sweat and suffering of their citizens and clients.

NeoApartheid has got us by the balls - and this time it's not limited to South Africa - it's happening all over the world - read the newspapers, do your research - we live in a NeoApartheid world where some hold all the cards and others have nothing - no rights, no freedoms, no power - even if they don't know it yet.

The ANC which led the struggle for liberation from Apartheid in South Africa has become blinded by the bling of money - where they themselves are now the ones upholding NeoAprtheid through economic and political corruption - claiming all the rights and all the freedoms for the price of everyone else's. They keep on trying to manipulate public opinion through emotional reference to their role in the struggle for liberation and by continuously trying to link themselves with Nelson Mandela, who, himself, declared that the ANC is no longer what he created it to be.

It's time we design a new world based on True Equality and Right to Life - join us on the Equal Money Forum to discuss the creation of an Economic and Political system in which people rule for themselves, by themselves and where no position within the system can ever lead to a path of corruption and NeoApartheid. This is your world - take responsibility. Educate yourself and join those who are dedicated to create Real Solutions that work according to the Principle of what is Best for All!

Related articles

• Battle for spoils tearing ANC apart - Zille
• "The ANC today is no longer the party I joined in prison during 1980″ - Zackie Achmat
• Day 143: The Neo-Apartheid Era
• Dag 126: Turning a Blind Eye to Corruption
• Day 109: Politics as a Double-Faced Game

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

Day 136: We're Free, but We're Wussies in the Face of Authority

I'm sure you've probably heard about the psychological test that was conducted 50 years ago in relation to human morality. The test-subjects were told that they were participating in a test on educational techniques and whether individuals learn better if they receive punishment after getting an answer wrong. At the beginning, the test-subject meets with the person playing the professor and the person playing another test-subject. There is a rigged draw to decide who will be the learner and who will be the teacher. The actor playing the other test-subject is always the learner and the actual test-subject is the teacher. The test-subject sees the fake test-subject being strapped to a chair and hooked up on the one end of a machine that administers electric shocks. The 'teacher' hears the 'learner' say to the 'professor' that he has heart problems, upon which the 'professor' replies that the shocks might be painful, but not harmful.

The 'teacher' is then brought to another room, where the side of the machine is where the shocks are being administered. The learner has to answer questions and every time he gets the answer wrong, the teacher has to give an electric shock through the machine. The first time it starts at 15V, and every time it keeps going up. The first few times, the teacher doesn't hear any response. After a while, he hears the recorded voice of the learner making sounds indicating pain - which increase in intensity as the voltage goes up - after a while even intense screams. At 120V, the teacher hears the learner saying he wants to stop the test, because his heart is acting up, and he's had enough. This is when many of the teachers start hesitating or ask the 'professor' if they shouldn't stop because the 'learner' wants to quit. Dependent on how fervently the 'teacher' objects to continuing, the 'professor' says: 'Please continue'; 'It is essential that you complete the experiment'; 'You don't have a choice'. 50 years ago, about 60% of the people actually continued with the test, even after the 'learner' begged to stop.

In the TV-show 'Curiosity' the question was raised if people were evil and the same test was conducted again. It was conducted on a far smaller scale, and not for the purpose of generating scientific results - but the same conditions were applied as 50 years ago. And guess what - 77% of the people continued administering shocks after 150V, after the 'learner' indicated he couldn't go anymore.

When asking the people why they did - most said that 'well, the professor said I had to' - lol.

We believe ourselves be such moral beings - where we even see the terms 'humane' and 'inhumane' to reflect our moral virtues - but when it comes down to it - we're ready to throw all of it out the window if someone else, a person in position of apparent authority, says we should. Remember - the test-subjects were under the impression that they could have been the one on the other end of the machine, and that it was just luck that placed them in the 'teacher' position - so they were willing to do unto another what they wouldn't want anyone to have done unto them.

As long as we're willing to bow down to a form of authority in the name of fear - we cannot claim to be free. As long as we're afraid of any form of perceived authority - we're their puppets and slaves - and that's exactly what's happening in the world right now. We're being scammed by economists, politicians, media, advertisement - left, right and centre. And then we ask: But why is the world in such a bad condition? Why are all these horrible things happening? Well - it's simple: Because you're a wussie - we're all wussies. But we don't have to be. If we can agree that hurting other people in ways we wouldn't want to be hurt is insane - and if it's fear that would drive us to commit such acts - then we can agree that fear is a sign of insanity. We're not sane when we're fearful - because when we're fearful we just throw our common sense out the door. Now - wouldn't you say then that the first step at Freedom - a value everyone seems to hold so dear - would be to free yourself from your own insanity - from your fear?

Suggest checking out Desteni Lite - it's a free course that will give you the tools on how to free yourself from your own insanity. If you see that there's problems in this world and something needs to be done - then start there. There's no point in making bold statements of change if we won't have the guts to actually implement them. And if any excuses and justifications are coming up as apparent reasons for why you shouldn't go check it out - know that you're just protecting your own insanity and you ARE the evil in this world. I mean, really - what have you got to lose?

Related articles

• Day 111: Is Crying a Sign of Weakness?
• Day 107: Showing my True Colours
• Day 69: Preparing for Armageddon
• Day 69: Fear of Sharing - Part 2
• Day 105: Identity Crisis: What's the Use?

Read More

Day 105: Human Liberties

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that the right to be free is a right that is more important than any other right and must be protected at any and all cost.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to entertain myself with an idea of absolute freedom that doesn't really exist in real life, because simply within the consideration that we live in a physical time-space reality implies limitations and thus not absolute freedom, where we cannot choose our form, we cannot choose to be able to fly, we cannot choose not to die and so on.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that if society were to be reorganised in a way so as to improve the well-being of the group as a whole, that this would mean an unacceptable infringement on my personal freedom, where I would have to give up various freedoms that I would be able to pursue in an individual-based society.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to ask myself the question what there is in life that I can actually choose - where I have apparent freedom, but just blindly accept that this freedom exists as though it is a given and as though I 'enjoy' and 'experience' this freedom.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that most of a human being's life is already structured before-hand by mandatory schooling and the necessity to work for money to be able to survive.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we 'choose' to study is not in the realm of freedom as what someone studies is determined by intelligence, by money available by the parents or support structure and by the prospect of how much money one can make with the jobs that could be available after completion of the studies.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that our profession is not really part of the realm of freedom because what job we end up doing is dependent on whether there are any vacancies available and if you can 'compete' with other people for the same position.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that the choice of who we spend our life with is often not part of the realm of freedom as it is often determined by the need for financial security, where the secret reason for marriages is money and not 'love'.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we wear is not a free choice, because what we can wear is firstly determined by the size and shape of our bodies, by what clothes are available in the stories, by what we can afford, by what is seen as acceptable in our social group of friends and by explicit rules and regulations that determine what is 'appropriate' and what is not.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that we are not free in what choices we make in shops in terms of what brands we buy, because this is again determined by what we can afford, by what is seen as appropriate by our social environment and, not to forget, by advertisement that brainwashes people into believing that their brand is the best brand and that you really need to buy stuff of that particular brand.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we do in our 'free' time is not to do with freedom either, because what activities we can partake in is again determined and limited by the money we have available for these activities, as well as by our particular talents and capabilities.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise taht it's not because we can choose our next holiday destination that we are free, because we're here talking about where we're going to spend the one or the two weeks in a year where we are actually able to leave our house for an extended period of time, whereas for the rest of the year we're homebound due to our job - so how can choosing a holiday-destination have anything to do with freedom.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that participating in democracy as it exists today does not proof freedom, because we can only vote once every so many years after which we again have no say in decision-making.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if those things are, however, what constitutes 'freedom' - then reorganising a society in a way that benefits the group will in no way diminish these freedoms, but only expand them, as the Equal Money proposal shows.

I commit myself to relinquish any and all delusions of freedom we apparently have - because in terms of anything relevant, our ability to choose about it is really extremely limited.

I commit myself to educate people in the simple common sense that what aids the whole, aids the individual, as each individual is a part of the whole - and thus, the best way of expanding our freedom and range of self-determination, is through reorganising society in a way that focuses on the group first and from there, implicitly, empowers the individual.

I commit myself to educate people in how an Equal Money System will not diminish any 'freedoms' we have now, but will only expand them since our choices will no longer be determined by money-concerns and thus, we will actually be able to ask ourselves what we enjoy doing without ulterior motives.

Read More

Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!

The following paragraph is taken from the blog-post 'Day 102: Liberalism':

"Within liberalism it is believed that the individual can only “realise their potential” within being ‘free’. All individuals ought to enjoy equal freedom and within this is implied that people are only free to the extent that their freedom does not infringe that of others. Liberalism also likes to emphasizes freedom in the light of private matters and freedom as the absence of state interference. State intervention is often interpreted as undermining the individual’s liberty, which is why liberals are pro capitalism and proponents of free market economies."

The principle of individual freedom is used time and time again to prevent a way of organising society in a way that places the group above the individual.

So - we take a moment here to look at the question: what are these individual freedoms that are so important to be defended?

Apparently we are all immensely free and any proposition to focus our efforts towards the common good instead of individual pursuits of happiness would infringe on these freedoms. So, I took a moment to look at a human being's life and started wondering what all these freedoms are that people keep talking about.

Looking at a human being's life today, there really isn't that much people can 'choose' for themselves. You cannot choose to go to school, this is usually mandatory, you cannot choose to go to work, you have to go to work to make money. So - in terms of the basic structure of your life-path, it has already been laid out before us and there's nothing much you can do to change that at all.

So, what we can do is 'fill in the colours' - we can choose what we study. However, this choice is not exactly 'free' in the absolute extent, because what we study is often determined by intelligence, by money available by the parents or support structure and by the prospect of how much money you'll be able to make with a job once you've completed these studies.

We can also not exactly choose what job we want to do, because it depends on whether there are any vacancies available and if you can 'compete' with other people out for the same position.

So, what is left then? We can choose who we spend our life with, but even this is often determined by the need for financial security, where marriages often happen for money and not for 'love'.

Then, what does choice come down to?

To what we wear? Come on! What you wear is firstly determined by the size and shape of your body, by what is available in the stores, by what you can afford, by what is seen as acceptable in your social group of friends. And that's not even considering the limitations imposed by regulations that would deem certain ways of clothing to be offensive or 'too provoking'.

What brands we buy, maybe that's where our freedom lies. But what brands we buy is again influenced by our social environment and most of all by advertisements - where companies continuously brainwash us to think and believe that their brand is the best and buying their brand would make us happy. When we act on this brainwashing, is this the freedom that is spoken about?

Maybe our freedom is in what we do with our 'free time', like what hobbies and activities we partake in. But what we can do with our free time is again determined by the money we have available, what are talents and skills are.

Freedom could be picking out the next holiday-destination - but then again, can you really speak about freedom when you're talking about one or two weeks in a year where you are able to leave your home while the rest of the year you're forced to work?

Or maybe you mean that freedom is the ability to go vote once every so many years to choose the people to represent you in politics - but I mean, really - you only vote once every so many years and beyond that, you have no say.

I'm just trying to figure this out, you know - what everyone keeps talking about.

Let's take an Equal Money System as an example. You'll still be going through education and herein have a say in what you enjoy studying. You'll still work, although will only require to work for about 4 years and after that, it's up to you if you want to contribute or not. Your clothing will still be determined by what is available, except you'll have time to play with making your own clothes and be creative within it. You'll have a massive amount of free time where you can really dedicate time to what you enjoy doing, to developing skills and interests. You'll be able to decide who you live with and this time money won't even be a constricting factor. In terms of politics, you'll be involved in all decision-making, not just once every so many years. So - looking at all the freedoms we're so afraid of losing - you won't lose any in an economic system that is focused on the well-being of the group - you'll only gain more.

So, someone please explain to me what these important freedoms are we apparently stand to lose, because I'm just not seeing it!

Related articles

• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 143: Free Stuff! And True Activism
• Day 137: FREE Choice and True Activism
• Day 142: Money and True Activism
• Day 122: TRUE ACTIVIST COLLEGE EDUCATION

Read More

Day 102: Liberalism

Within Day 98: The Unholy Trinity we mentioned that the IMF, World Bank and WTO hold a neo-liberal ideology.
Within this blog we are going to have a look at what ‘Liberalism’ (and neo-liberalism) exactly entails.
There are a few components which have been identified as being typical to Liberalism as an ideology, namely:
- Individualism
- Freedom
- Reason
- Equality
- Tolerance
- Authority and Government

Individualism

At the center of Liberalism lies the value of freedom/liberty of the individual. Within Liberalism, the individual is considered to be prior to society, within the reasoning that society is but a collection of individuals.
“The liberal goal is therefore to construct a society within which individuals can flourish and develop, each pursuing, ‘the good’ as he or she defines it, to the best of his or her abilities” [Andrew Heywoods in his book ‘Politics’].

Freedom

Within liberalism it is believed that the individual can only “realise their potential” within being ‘free’. All individuals ought to enjoy equal freedom and within this is implied that people are only free to the extent that their freedom does not infringe that of others. Liberalism also likes to emphasizes freedom in the light of private matters and freedom as the absence of state interference. State intervention is often interpreted as undermining the individual’s liberty, which is why liberals are pro capitalism and proponents of free market economies.

Reason

Just as in current economic thought, within liberalism the individual is seen as seen as a rational being, who can make rational, ‘wise’ decisions for themselves and are able to by themselves settle any disputes and problems

Equality

Apparently, ‘Equality’ is also a very important component of Liberalism, where “each individual is held as being of equal value”. Liberalism however, works with a special kind of equality, namely ‘Abstract Equality’. This means that inside one’s mind, people are ‘regarded as being equal’ – but in practical physical, material terms: this is no longer applicable. This ‘abstract equality’ is justified on the ground that individuals are at variance in the aspects of intelligence, talent, dedication and “the desire to work hard”. Liberalism likes to reward talent and dedication as ‘hard work’. But since we’ve just seen that ‘not everyone is equally talented’ and yet ‘talent merits reward’ – we know that not everyone is going to get rewarded = not everyone is being held as being of equal value. And from hereon, inequality is justified on the grounds that it is simply an outflow of natural differences and that people conduct their lives in different ways ( read = they don’t work as hard).

Which is interesting, because whenever the point of materialistic inequality gets questioned, liberals all the often like to put forth that people are poor ‘because of their own doing, if only they work harder they can be well off too’. Yet, in its basis, liberalism admits that A) not everyone has equal talent, and B) everyone should have equal opportunity, and where it is clearly stated that talent is favoured/rewarded – which in its very essence is unequal treatment.

Very peculiar this ‘Abstract Equality’ – I guess Abstract is just another way of saying it’s not really there since it’s just some principle they like to mention but not apply.

Tolerance

Here tolerance is viewed within the context that since everyone is allowed to do whatever they please, that each one should respect what another wants to do whether they agree with it or not, which somehow leads to individual liberty and social enrichment.
This is more like a comprise where you make a deal of “you don’t question me and I won’t question you” – where each party can do whatever they want whether it’s destructive or not just because each one wants to have that option available to them (to be destructive).

Authority and Government

According to liberals authority should always be exercised through consent and is therefore pro elections and representation (where the authority comes ‘from below’ as the people

and where the government is thus regarded as legitimate). The government is seen as an ‘intrusive power’ against which individuals need protection which is why many liberals are proponents of constitutionalism as a means to limit the power of the government.

People are assumed to have particular rights (life, freedom, property,… -- [I wonder if these are ‘abstract’ too]) and the only purpose of the state should be to protect these and further not meddle itself with the business of individuals.

Liberalism later diffused into two differing schools of thought, namely classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Within classical liberalism the emphasis continues to lay on the liberty of the individual and the state is seen as a necessary evil where it’s only purpose is to safeguard the rights of individuals.

Modern liberalism goes a bit softer on the state since it recognizes that injustice may arise between ‘conflicting freedoms’  and that the state should step in when necessary, this also refers to for instance government intervention in the economy (like bailouts). For a while the welfare role of the government was accepted more within this school of thought, but it was then believed that the state could not handle this (not being able to meet all the demands of everyone) and since then the role/scope of the government has been tried to be ‘rolled back’. This last development in modern liberalism is often referred to as neo-liberalism or contemporary classical liberalism. It is this ideology which the WTO, IMF and World Bank have adapted and promote through their various “aid” programs.

Read More