Day 256: Will LIG result in a Centrally Planned Economy with a Coercive Government?

This blog-post is a response to a Facebook Comment made in relation to the Living Income Proposal.

"Government is still government. Centrally coerced power nonetheless."

I suggest reading the blog ‘How Companies will be Nationalized and What does it Mean? LIG’ for more clarity on how we suggest nationalization is to occur – where it is NOT the government that would centrally own/control the resources ‘on behalf of the people’ – it would be the every citizen directly being a shareholder of the nationalized companies. This means that the companies will not be used in favor of the government – but in benefit of the population as a whole. Herein, no changes really have to occur in how the companies are operated today, the only difference is where the profit goes and who takes part in shareholder meetings. 

" "If we define competition as the ability achieve the best living condition in a society " has absolutely NOTHING to do with competition within a free market sense. Such fundamental misrepresentations / rebranding of words is disservice."

Competition for the sake of competing/winning is a disservice to society as a whole. This is what the ‘invisible hand’ doctrine is all about – that self-interested competitive behavior yields result that are favorable to others in society, which was not intended. However, currently this competition has, let’s say, ‘evolved’ to the point where the ‘losers’ in the competition literally lose everything – including those things that are supposed to be guaranteed human rights. This is where LIG intends to make a difference. Competition is useful from the perspective that it creates an environment where participants strive to create the best product and the best service – which in turn enhances the quality of life of the members of society (which is what is referred to in the quote you mentioned) but it shouldn't do so at the expense of an individual’s ability to provide themselves with living necessities.

"None of these terms mean anything. "Activation of the economy"?"

Simply referring to increasing economic activity, employment and productivity.

Who knows what standards they employ for not interfering with the "nationalization of natural resources". How do you qualify "interfere with public services"? Who the hell even determines what is objectively the "highest quality"? This is complete monopoly of resources, enstated through force / coercion / compulsion, with extremely ill-defined definitions of language. This is one step away from having a dictator.

You’re using quite a slippery-slope type of argumentation here – it would be a good example of ‘how not to do it’ in critical reasoning courses. Anyhow – monopoly of resources: no – it would be quite the opposite – resources would be owned by every citizen of a country and would no longer be able to be controlled by a few. Remember – it is not government that owns the resources, it is the citizens directly. Also – it’s not that we are suggesting to have only one company provide for instance electricity and that this company should be nationalized and that this company will now receive funds from the government that other companies don't - No – we encourage healthy competition between firms supplying the same/similar services – whether these are ‘nationalized’ firms (in the sense that is discussed in the Living Income Proposal) or whether they remain in private hands.

 A HUGE issue with this program, besides the mind-blowing idiocy in their understanding of basic economic concepts, is the perversion of price. I guarantee you if you linked a good description on how they intend to replace the price mechanism I'll blow it away in a second. Not even Zeitgeisters' resource-based economy can figure this out.

 You know how monopolies are kept in check in a FREE MARKET? Companies A, B, C, D. A uses profits / loans to buy companies B. Company C raises the price of his business since he knows that company A is trying to corner the market. If Company A tries to buy D he either already used so much of his $$$ or took on so much debt than company D can simply hold on and corner the market himself.

 Self-interest and FREE markets naturally limit these things. It is self-regulating.

How about collusion? A, B, C, and D form a union and agree to raise prices across the board. Guess what? The first company who defects from the pact and drops his prices gets the WHOLE market share. In return the other 3 companies HAVE to lower their prices as well.

Probably have never heard that in your entire life.

Please – I suggest you get your head out of your economy-books and rather do some real-life investigation. How can Nestle, for instance, have 12% of the WOLRD market if the free market is so self-regulating? Theory and practice are not the same thing. The free market is inherently not designed to take into account, for instance, living conditions – as you probably know – equilibrium wages have nothing to do with living wages – yet, how can we allow companies to set prices that adhere to market-principles, when it means they cannot pay their employees a proper wage? With LIG we suggest to make minor adjustments so that at the very least, everyone’s human rights are guaranteed and so that any worker is actually recognized as someone who participates in providing their labor for the benefit of society through producing goods and services, through a wage double the living income.

You require to consider that ‘pure’ free market principles are nothing more than a nicely formulated set of justifications the elite uses to continue abuse in the market. So, I suggest supplementing your studies with independent research, so that you can come to grips with what is really happening and how it doesn't match the economic theories. 

It's a big ol lie that the government "protects" you from monopolies and collusion. They kill the competition and FORM the monopolies. Governments take out the risk of monopoly by taking AWAY the risk. Ever hear of bank bailouts? Privitized profits and socialized losses? They only got that big anyways because of the government. The problem isn't banking. It's the coercive nature of government which traps people (under the point of a gun) to this fraud.

Again – we propose a very limited role for government with Living Income Guaranteed and suggest that as much as possible is done automatically to minimize the possibility of fraud and inefficiency.

Bureau of Standards? I mean the hell, it is not economically efficient of ideal to produce everything to the "highest-standard" possible. Should a lead pencil be made from Brazillian hardwood? Would wooden pallets for shipping all be required to be made from hardwood to withstand maximum weight load? Would we even have the existence of goods such as particle board / press wood / mulch (after all ALL of these were reinventions of waste products which had no productive use before...... but according to this theory we should have not have even cut the lumber before we planned what to do with the chips). You put this policy in place 100's of years ago and we'd have no such thing as cheese or whey protein because damn........ once you make the cheese we'd have to employ 100 researchers to find out what to do with the whey! Guess no cheese until we figure out the "perfect plan" eh?

Here you’ve taken words out of context. With the Bureau of Standards the intention is to go back to good-quality products. Of course, there is no purpose for a pencil to be made from Brazilian hardwood. But there is a purpose for a microwave to last for 50 years instead of 5. So – we’re here looking specifically at equipment/tools that are not actually consumer-goods in the sense of, for instance, food that is consumed – where you buy it, you consume it, now it’s gone and you have to buy more. Equipments/tools were originally designed/meant to last a long time, but as it was realized that if you make something to break – people have to come buy a new one – inferior materials started being used and tools/equipment started becoming consumer products in that you use it only x times/ for an x amount of time and now it’s broke and you have to buy a new one. Such behavior creates consequences not only for the current but for future generations as well, as it perpetuates a wasting of resources. So, the Bureau of Standards is a suggestion to ensure we do not waste resources on inferior products. This is something the free market does not regulate, because it is an external cost. Yet, it is absolutely important that we start pacing our rate of production to the physical if we want to keep living on this planet. It is not, however, a means for central planning. In the same way we have regulations for safe food-production – there should be a Bureau of Standards for quality tools/equipment because it is in everyone’s best interest.

The understanding of the fundamentals are completely whack. Even if you cut past this hogwash it ultimately is just coercive force / violence by the state put into extreme, pretty much Soviet Russia or Communist China. Centrally-planned, coerced ideals through "objective calculations" that seem good on paper but starve millions due to misallocation of resources.

Not really worth any more of my time. All of the 10+ pages from this program have been utterly shameful. If it wasn't for the fact that stupid people can "democratically" vote and enslave the rest of us under this type of tyranny I wouldn't even bother.

I suggest taking a breath – letting go of your fears, and with the perspectives given in this blog – read the proposal again – so that you may see it for what it is, rather than filter it through your mind – as you’re currently making associations and interpretations that are in no way part of the LIG proposal.

For context and more information:

Living Income Guaranteed - the Proposal: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Living Income Guaranteed YouTube Channel - watch the hangouts: https://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch 

Living Income Guaranteed Website: http://livingincome.me

Read More

Day 210: New Sin Tax on Sugar Introduced!

Yes - finally - after years of raising sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol - governments have started seeing that the most harmful substance was still rampantly being consumed, a substance that not only influences and damages the health of adults and teenagers - but of children too. Governments are finally raising a sin tax on any products that contain Sugar - and with Sugar is not meant Sucrose, but fructose specifically - as this is the harmful substance that acts like a poison inside the human body and causes a whole range of diseases.

Finally!!

In making sugar more expensive, we're creating incentive for people to look at what they eat and rather buy sugar-free products. So - that when you go to a fast food restaurant, a salad will not be the most expensive item on the menu, but the cheapest. And so will it be in any other restaurant and in any shop and in any market. This means that so much money will be saved on treating the consequences of excessive sugar consumption - in essence, preventing the disease before it manifests.

Finally...

Yeah...

Wouldn't that be great - to open up your newspaper and see something like this being printed? I suppose sugar and disease are both just too lucrative to be taken on and reigned in. What kind of economic system do we live in if we cannot make these kinds of obvious decisions, just because it would 'cost the economy too much' - what is the use of an economy if the people in it aren't supported by it? Where, now - people are obese and have chronic illnesses such as diabetes just because our diets are determined by what's affordable - and what's affordable is a cheeseburger. And a cheeseburger is full of high fructose corn syrup - and that will slowly kill you.

I suggest all governments implements a sin tax on Fructose to Prove that they Care about the well being of the citizens in the country. And I suggest that if such a sin tax would come at a great cost in terms of industries being hit and jobs being lost - that the economic system in itself is redesigned so that a decision that is made to support life on the one hand does not require a trade off where life is harmed on the other hand. That's just basic common sense. For suggestions on such economic systems, visit www.equalmoney.org and http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/emc.html.

Related articles

• Day 209: Health Care or Disease Care?
• Day 311: The Secret to Self-Realisation
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 321: Image and Likeness of God
• Day 198: Why are Parents feeding their babies Mashed CheeseBurgers?
• Day 183: Anorexia - Lifestyle or Disease?
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 322: The Image and Likeness of Slaves
• Day 333: The Jesus Message is Not a Religious Message
• Day 203: Pupils Need to Instruct a Minister on How to do a Proper Job?

Read More

Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

Income Gap?

Q: There is a gap in production before a product reaches sales, how is that gap covered, meaning before this whole system is in place who is going to pay the living wages to people?

Everyone from birth will have an income allocated through the parent - so until your income from profit share is equal to everyone else's income - this point will remain in place and one will still receive an income within such transition periods.

Company Oversight

Q: Will there be a large bureaucracy to ensure compliance with EMC principles?

A: Within EMC the principle will be that everything is to work in harmony with each other.

Therefore - dependent on at which level a point of disharmony occurs, it will be addressed accordingly.
If there is a worker within a company that is not acting in a way that is best for the company as a whole - this point will be addressed by a tribunal within the company.
If it is an entire company that is behaving in a disharmonious way - it will be addressed by government departments.

Taxation and Banks

Q: Will VAT as being the only tax generate enough income for government to pay for all the infrastructure, sanitation, basic human rights and so on?

A: VAT will be added to each product in a way to make sure there is enough within the common pool of money - which is the tax - to ensure all the basic rights can be provided. Also consider that with all military expenditure falling away - there will actually be quite a substantial amount of money available to governments with which to fund these projects.

Q: Will there be also company tax - where any profits higher than what is necessary to pay employees - go as tax to government?

A: No, surplus profit that successful companies make, will be transferred to a bank.

Banks in an EMC will exist as financial intermediaries, gathering surpluses to cover deficits in other places. So - the banks will be in charge of providing extra funds to companies who are running a deficit. This point will always be temporary and the required funding will lessen as there is an intervention that takes place and action is taken to make the company more effective and able to compete.

When companies with deficits are identified - someone will be sent to intervene, because it might indicate that the company is not effective. Then the problem must be identified and they have to learn from those companies that are successful - so that all may become equally successful and effective within managing resources and distributing goods and services.

Global School Curriculum

Q: Will we have a global school?

A: The principles of the educational curriculum will be the same on a global level, where the goal is to educate humans to become the most happy, the most effective and the most empowered individuals. How this is practically implemented and translated into a curriculum will be specific to each region.

Q: Why specific to each region?

A: Education doesn't require to be the same for every person all over the world - environments differ and so the curriculum must be tailored to ensure effective living within each one’s particular environment and culture

Related articles

• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System

Read More

Day 164: Equal Money Capitalism - Preparing the Road for Change

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started 3 days ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-post. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

CHILDREN

When a child is born, the parents' company/companies will allocate an equal profit share for the child - which will be added to the parent's profit share. Every parent will have a company - because everyone will be employed.

UNEMPLOYMENT / FULL EMPLOYMENT

If unemployment exists - the government must step in to create jobs where possible - because employment is a basic human right.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

The government will still play a role to provide everyone with their basic human rights such as healthcare, education, housing, sanitation, roads, employment etc. So - the government will fund these points through taxes. The only tax that will exist are the value-added tax on products - this will be part of the labelling of products - where it'll show the percentage of the price that goes to tax and for what the tax will be used. There will be no need for an income tax to redistribute income in a fair way - because income will be distributed fairly from the get-go.

WILL VAT GENERATE ENOUGH INCOME TO PAY FOR ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE: SANITATION, CLEAN WATER ETC?

VAT will be added to each product in a way to make sure there is enough within the common pool of money - which is the tax - to ensure all the basic rights can be provided. Also consider that with all military expenditure falling away - there will actually be quite a substantial amount of money available to governments with which to fund these projects.

DEBT

In terms of debt - whether it will be erased at the moment of implementation of EMC: all debt will be forgiven - it was not real to start with in any case.

MENIAL TASKS

All the jobs that no-one will want to do will disappear - the same point to the EMS applies- technology will have to be developed to replace those points - like self-cleaning toilets and stuff like that - it already exists.  All jobs of slavery that one wouldn't do if it weren't for the need to survive will go *poof*.

Initially, some jobs which are not nice will still have to be done, as the specific production processes to create particular technology/machinery has not yet been adjusted during this transition period. So for a moment, those jobs will still have to be done until the transition is complete - this will become part of the compassion department because you are doing it for the betterment of everyone. These type of jobs can be rotational in nature.

ROLE   OF EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM WITHIN EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM

EMC is a transition to EMS - though it can still be seen - once an EMC is in place, whether it is desired/necessary to transition to EMS. In the end - the result is what matters, and this is always Equality and a Life Worth Living.

ABUSE

Abuse is psychological disorders as it harms innocents and we will prevent harm in every way possible, corruption will be very difficult in EMC. Remember the profit share motive is not one that allows boundless profits--it allows equal profits based on a life value.

OVERSIGHT IN EMC

Within EMC the principle will be that everything is to work in harmony with each other. Therefore - dependent on which level a point of disharmony occurs, it will be addressed accordingly. If there is a worker within a company that is not acting in a way that is best for the company as a whole - this point will be addressed by a tribunal within the company. If it is an entire company that is behaving in a disharmonious way - it will be addressed by government departments.

PRICING

Pricing on products will no longer be based on expensive or cheap-- or making profit --but rather sustainable pricing that ensures enough money in circulation to make the system function effectively.

Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage. So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

Read More

Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System

News and Media in an Equal Money System

Within an Equal Money System, the role of News and Media will be specific in terms of World Management rather than entertainment. The principles underlying News and Media will be based on how one can effectively co-exist on Earth.

Accordingly, the role of news and media in an Equal Money System will be twofold:

Policy Education

The implementation of any new law or policy will first go through a process of education to the public, to ensure effective understanding – as any laws and policies will have to be brought into being by everyone collectively. Within this, television will be used as the primary media to present educational information regarding the law/policy to be implemented in the form of documentaries and news broadcasting.

Watchdog

News and Media will also provide a channel for journalism as a form of ‘public policing’ where people can write or report on specific points which are not working effectively, which will then be addressed accordingly.

Law in an Equal Money System

Law within an Equal Money System will be required to be laid out within the utmost specificity. Within adhering to specificity and clarity to the utmost level, no space is left for the interpretation of law or policy. If at any stage it turns out that a door for interpretation was left open, this would indicate that the law or policy is not good enough and will have to be specified to close the gap. As such, there will no longer be a need for lawyers as ‘experts’ on law or courts for the purpose of interpreting the law. Education within the Equal Money System will provide everyone with the necessary reading skills to be able to effectively read and assess laws and policies for one self – at the level that it should be assessed, so all can be on an equal ground of understanding and clarity.

Accessibility of Information & Privacy

The tracking and gathering of individuals' information is a problem currently, as this data is being abused in the name of profit and is an outflow of inequality. Within a system of equality however, tracking of information is an essential component. In order to distribute resources most effectively, one requires to have information as completely as possible – to ensure that the basic needs of everyone are satisfied to the best of our ability. Within a system of harmony, one wants their information available – as a lack of information might result in one not receiving their part of the resources and support relating to one’s specific individual needs and requirements. In such a case, one would be the cause of one’s own disharmony.

Due to the transparent nature of any movement of information within an Equal Money System and its organizational structure – any point of abuse occurring will immediately become visible and will be dealt with accordingly (see the Politics wiki page currently for more information on the point of abuse). 

Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System

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 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

Day 87: Competition and Efficiency

This is a continuation to Day 81: The Role of Government in the Economy

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘competition’ is the key to a well-functioning economy

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘competition’ is the key innovation and creativity

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that within the design of competition there are always losers and winners – where from a group, only ‘one’ can make it and be successful where the remaining others of the group perish and lose everything within the competition race

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that competition is ‘efficient’ – where competition will allow only ‘the best’ to make it, and those are ‘not good enough’ to lose – and so ‘naturally’ allow ‘the best’ to prevail – without seeing and realising that currently within this world competition is an unfair game, as ‘who is the best’ is defined and dependent on how many resources one has available – where those with the most funds will win the game as they will be more able to support themselves in developing well-functioning goods/services – and so it is not a matter of ‘weeding out the competition’ as ‘those who aren’t good enough’ – but merely a selective process of ‘survival of the fittest’ as ‘survival of those with the most money’ – and so, the whole race/game wasn’t really a competition from the beginning, as the outcome was already pre-determined where he who has the most resource will be the Winner – and as such I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that competition within the economy and business environment is actually inefficient – as there can only be one winner (or at least very few), and where the rest spend their time and money investing in the *hope* that they might also win, while it is already pre-determined who will win and lose – and as such, there is not point to get everyone involved in a ‘race for the best’ – as we already know who’s going to win and dominate the market, as the one with the most money – and so there’s no point for all those other people to waste their time and money as they are not going to make it anyway, and as such competition is really just a waste of time and money for many – where we try to create the illusion that ‘everyone has an equal opportunity’ but where ‘only the best will make it’ – while there is no such thing currently as ‘equal opportunity’ as opportunity is linked to money and money is currently not equal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that since the one with the most money will be most effective at creating / producing / innovating – we might as well assign the task of production to a singular firm and provide this firm with the resources/funds to make the best out of it – where people within a firm produce and create goods/services for the sake of perfection, creating the best product possible – and not for the sake of competition of ‘wanting to be the best’ from the starting point of ‘dominating the market’ and reaping massive profits – while others lose everything within the competition game where ‘Winner takes All’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that efficiency and productivity can only take place within a ‘competitive environment’ – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that an environment of cooperation can be way more efficient – where our own human physical bodies are proof of this, as our human physical bodies are the most energy efficient machines in existence and are incomparable to any manmade machine – where our human physical body does not depend on competition, but one close cooperation where each part, each organ, each cell does its part and does this to the best of their ability – and where all cells receive equal amount of resources, if competition and the unequal distribution of resources would take place – our whole body will soon collapse as each part is dependent on each other’s cooperation – which is exactly what is happening to Earth as a Body – where we are not supplying equal amount of resources to all the parts of the body causing poverty, starvation, pollution – where even though the rich may momentarily be “well-off” – once the balance has gone out too far – they too will perish with the rest of us, as there will be no-one left to slave away their lives and supply them with the resources they want/need

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that government and economy should be separated – without seeing and realising that in a world where the government is supposed to represent and serve the people – and where money is the main point controlling people’s lives – that you cannot do one without the other – and so the economy and government within serving to the people from the starting point of What is Best for All should not be separated but be One and cooperate / act as a single entity within ensuring that everyone’s needs are taken care of and where nobody has to be a loser for the illusion of competition as apparent “efficiency"

Read More