Day 231: Will Equality Destroy Society? |Equality and Human Rights – Part 8

Also in this Series:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5
Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6
Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7




Within this blog and the next one we will be looking at two statements with regards to the perception of the necessity of inequality within society and the world:

Statement 01:

Some inequalities are surely also necessary for the maintenance and functioning of a social order. For example, complex, modern, industrialised societies are characterized by a division of labour, many different functions and roles and a range of differing skills, which are necessary for the existence of such societies.

Statement 02:

Equality would have to be imposed again by government by redistributing income from the productive to the less productive. If this strategy continued, the productive would eventually lose the incentive to produce more than they required for their immediate needs, and ultimately there would be nothing to redistribute. All would eventually be equal in poverty.

Here we are looking at economic justifications for the existence of inequality, where it is no longer a matter of whether we should promote equality or not – but where inequality requires to be protected as an important drive force in society which ‘holds everything together’. Equality is no more a moral ideal, but a threat which requires to be fended off at all cost.

Within this blog, we will work with Statement 01.

Here the author expresses the belief that inequality is necessary for the functioning of a social order, especially in the case of modern, industrialized societies which are characterized by features such as the division of labour, distinction in functions and roles, etc. Most, if not all societies are now marked by these type of ‘order’, even a global level where some countries are subordinate/superior to others in their position due to the nature of their relationships among one another.

Obviously, when you have a society which in its very essence and fabric is based on the notion of inequality – which permeates every element within the structure of society as the ruling principle by which society lives – then OBVIOUSLY the elimination of Inequality and pursuit of Equality will demolish the order and functioning of the day, when that very order is the representation of Inequality. All that means, is that we have to come up with a new order, a new structure – and this time base it on the principle of Equality, where the principle of Equality determines the structure of society and permeates every element in every possible way. Society will still exist, people will still exist – all we are changing and re-defining are the Relationships within Society to take on a New Form. Thus, the destruction of that particular order is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ which we should all fear. It is simply a matter of breaking down a dysfunctional system and rebuilding a system based on Equality as the Respect for all Life.

This also doesn’t mean that we have to go through/walk through an Apocalyptic / End of Days type of scenario where everything is literally being destroyed to ground zero as the infrastructures that are already here before we can ‘rebuild’ society. That would just be a waste of energy, time and resources. When we speak of the destruction and resurrection of society, we are not talking about tearing down buildings and looting towns and whatever other images may come to mind when ‘the destruction of society’ is mentioned. The actual physical structures are not the problems and are in fact very useful for future usage and their physical destruction would only be to everyone’s detriment. 

The point which requires to be addressed is the order and the relationships we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to live. This will not happen overnight and will have to be a gradual implementation/transformation we all have to walk and adjust to. We thus do not promote any kind of Revolution or other means if implementing change which is physically destructive and violent. The Equal Money System / Equal Money Capitalism will follow the Political Route to be voted into power as a collective decision and agreement.

For more on this subject, please consult the following material:

343. How are We Going to Change the System to Equal Money? 
 How on Earth will an Equal Money System be Implemented?  
How can we practically go about implementing an Equal Money System?
  How do we Transition to an Equal Money System? 
 Day 351: Desteni, Equal Money, Zeitgeist and Occupy Wall Street  
How to implement Equal Money? The starting point of community.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Read More

Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7

Within the next blogs to follow within the Equality and Human Rights Series, we will be working our way through some selected quotes/statements with regards to Equality and Inequality.

These statements are either direct quotes or summarizations of lengthy statements which have been summarized for the sake of brevity from the book ‘Political Ideas’ compiled by S.L. Kant.

Within this blog we will be looking at the following statement, which mostly consists of a quote by Robert Nozick, who was an American political philosopher and strong proponent of the minimal-state:

There are two ways of providing equality of opportunity, namely “by directly worsening the situations of those more favored with opportunity, or by improving the situation of those less well-favored. The latter requires the use of resources, and so it too involves worsening the situation of some: those from whom holdings are taken in order to improve the situation of others”

The first point which requires to be clarified, is that in political and philosophical discourse a distinction is made between various ‘kinds’ or ‘types’ of equality.
Examples of this are:


- Legal Equality
- Political Equality
- Social Equality
- Equality of Opportunity
- Economic Equality

Within the context of Equal Money and the Equal Life Foundation, we only focus on one ‘kind’ of Equality, which is Equality as Life:

The First Fundamental Human Right that the Equal Life Foundation Promotes and Underwrites is that: Every Individual, Every Human Being has an Equal Life Right. That means: the Life You Have is Equal in Each One at the Point of Birth. That which Separates Man from Man is What Happens After-Birth once your Education starts for instance or your Environment Influences you, your Parents Influence you or the System Influences you - then You Start becoming a Separate Individual and are Taught Not to Respect the First Point that Makes your Existence Possible, which is Life. Life - that is the One Thing that is the Same. You cannot say: “One Person Has More Life than Another Person” – that Life, as a Life Force, is the Same in Each One and thus is the First Fundamental Right.

Day 362: Human Rights and the Equal Life Foundation

The Equal Life Foundation recognizes the Equal Right to Life as the first Inherent and Inalienable Right of Every Human Being endowed with the Breath of Life and Herewith Declares that an Equal Life Right Shall Include for all Living Men, Women and Children

The Equal Life Foundation – Bill of Rights

The point that every human shares, the point that all Living Beings share – is that they are alive. We are all Equally, living, breathing, beings – Here – on this Planet. So whether you are a person with the characteristics to make a philosopher or a person with the characteristics to make a baker – the fact still stands that you are a human and you are alive. This stands indeterminate of the variety of characteristics we share among ourselves that make us ‘different’. So even though we are ‘different’, we can, and are still, equal: in Life – and should treat each other accordingly.

Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

Thus, as we have seen in the previous blog Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6, the only Equality which is relevant is that which is directly linked and connect to the support of Life, and the Inequalities which are relevant are those that hamper/diminish Life.

We will thus ignored the first part of the statement in terms of the statement referring to ‘Equality of Opportunity’ and we will take this as Equality in general.

So, within this statement a distinction is made between two particular groups, the ‘more favoured of opportunity’(Group A) and ‘those less favoured’ (Group B). The assumption is made that, in order to come to Equality, we have two options available:

1. Group A needs to be disadvantaged in order to be ‘level’ with Group B
2. Group B requires advancement in order to be ‘level’ with Group A

The writer states that, no matter which course we take – we end up ‘abusing’ Group A, because we either directly ‘disadvantage them’ or indirectly disadvantage them by ‘taking resource from them’ to provide support for Group B.

There are several points which require to be addressed with regards to the implications of this statement:

1. Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness
2. False/Irrelevant Dilemma
3. Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness

This issue has been discussed in Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights – Part 4, where it was said that:

Those who come from a more liberal point of view, tend to use the word Equality and Inequality, synonymously with ‘the same’ and ‘different’ respectively. Thus, whenever something is different – the argument is made that it is ‘unequal’. When something is ‘exactly the same’ – it is supposedly equal (Which explains where ludicrous statements such as ‘if you want to make people equal you will have to genetically disable the more able’ come from).

This leaves us on the one hand, with a very ‘black and white’ view on Equality -- Where two beings or more are equal only, if and when they are the same in every respect – and on the other hand a very broad view on that which is Unequal, where any two or more beings are ‘unequal’ the moment any form of ‘difference’ is exhibited. As we all know, there are many things that can be ‘different’ and thus it is easy to argue that something is ‘unequal’ when one places one’s definition of ‘Unequal’ equivalent to ‘Different’.

This is applicable to the particular statement we are discussing today, as the writer takes on a very limited view on Equality as Sameness where apparently to be ‘Equal’, those who are ‘more favoured’ require to be ‘unfavoured’ in some way or another to be just as ‘disadvantaged’ as everyone else. So if you would broadly split up humanity into for instance people who have complete physical functioning and those who were either born or through events ended up with some form of physical dysfunction or handicap – we would have to disable all those who are physically completely functional so that everyone can be dysfunctional / handicapped and thus ‘be the same’. In terms of Equality as Life, this is of course complete nonsense because this ‘Equality as Sameness’ as ‘Everyone being just as Dysfunctional/Disabled’ has got nothing to do with Supporting and Honouring Life and is thus not Real Equality. In fact, from an Equality as Life Perspective, this would constitute a Human Rights Violation because we are unnecessarily limiting Life for the sake of a Perverted Idea of Equality as Sameness.

False/Irrelevant Dilemma

The writer puts forward a False Dilemma within giving us an ‘either/or’ option to be able to achieve Equality. This Dilemma falls away instantaneously when we recalibrate our definition of Equality to that of Equality as Life. This is because the Dilemma stems from the narrow definition of Equality within looking and analyzing the situation from a purely homogenous perspective, where the writer’s conception of Equality as Sameness can only be achieved by either adding or extracting the variable which makes us heterogeneous/different, and as such this ‘dilemma’ is not Relevant to Equality as Life as these additions or extractions are not in function of the support of Life on Earth, and does have nothing to do with Actual Equality.

Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

This point relates to the author’s perception of outcome within intervening within the current allocation and distributive system of resources. Since physical resources are relevant to the support of Life on Earth, their allocation and distribution is relevant to the discussion of Equality. Within our current world system and established ‘way of life’ – resources are distributed through a system of merit and discrimination, where one needs to ‘pay up’ and ‘deserve’ resources before one’s Life is secured. Life Security is not a given, and made a variable/function of one’s ‘favorability’ -- to use the writer’s words – which can broadly be interpreted as one’s productive capacity (skills, talents, education) and productive background (social and economic).

Not all Life is nurtured and supported, where some beings are being allocated resources excessive of their actual physical needs and requirements – and where others are being allocated resources deficient of their physical needs and requirements, inhibiting their ability to sustain themselves as Life.

The writer is concerned that the distribution of resources in order to achieve Equality will result in a form of ‘diminishment’ and ‘worsening’ of one’s situation – which is often what is meant within saying that ‘Equality can only be achieved through Inequality’ – where the ‘taking of resources’ which are or could have been ‘someone else’s’, is a form of violation of a person’s integrity and value which is seen as an unacceptable sacrifice. In terms of the ‘concern’ factor as a ‘fear of abuse’, it is suggested to read the following Justice and Human Rights Series blog: Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6, which explains how the fear aspect can easily be eliminated once we understand how we are able to work together and yet eliminate abuse.

Again, because the writer is coming from a view on Equality as Sameness, any change/alteration made to be an ‘inequality’, and thus by virtue of it being an ‘act of inequality’, would invalidate the very end of Equality (meaning, it is unacceptable to achieve Equality if it has to be done through Inequality).

Here, we simply again recalibrate our definition of Inequality to that of Inequality in Respect to Life, where Inequalities are only relevant/matter in so far that they hamper and reduce one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality. As such, any movement and distribution of resources towards the insurance and security of a Life of Quality for All on Earth, cannot possibly be deemed to be an act of ‘inequality’ as one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality is not being diminished in any way whatsoever, but merely being extended to everyone else on the Planet as well. Any movement of resources which would result in a lack or diminishment in one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality would be in violation of one’s Right to Life and would have to be immediately rectified.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5

This blog-post is a continuation to:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

In the Previous blog-post we discussed the Principle of Merits and Deserts as a basis for just distribution of resources. It became clear that to distribute goods and services based on 'who deserves them' is a more complicated matter than it may initially seem to be. There are different definitions to the word 'merit' or different conditions under which it could be applicable and it is not clear which is preferrable. As such, there is also no way of measuring merit in an objective way.

Furthermore, the implications of distributing goods and services based on merit must be understood. Distributing goods and services is not a matter of distributing 'prizes' after a match. Everything a person requires to live in this world is either a good or a service. Therefore, can we really make such things as whether or not a person has a lifeline, dependent on a game of 'see who's better than who'? Do we need to deserve to stay alive? Currently this is implied in our economic system. I know we've all been taken in by the 'Survival of the Fittest' Theory and regardless of the debate on its validity - do we really want this to be who we are? That we let people die because apparently in some way it has been 'assessed' that they weren't worthy of life, that they didn't deserve to live?

We were all born onto this planet, we are all alive - where does it state that we now also have to deserve to be alive? Because - that is what we literally do by participating in this economic system and going to work: trying to 'earn our living'. Isn't that an absurd idea?

We grow up as a child, some of us in the illusion of being able to play all day and have fun, still ignorant about the 'complicated stuff' of the 'grown-up world' - where we still believe in magic, because we don't see how it's a problem that something just pops up out of nothing and that there must be a trick behind it - where we trust what others tell us because we don't see a reason why we wouldn't - to then some day wake up in a world of competition and struggle, where you're now told: This world is a scary place! You better prepare yourself because otherwise you won't make it! You can't pay the rent, get out! You can't afford that, put it back! Didn't anyone ever teach you that in this world it's every man for himself! Toughen up!

Obviously - if you hear these words by the time you're a teenager, you're lucky, you still had a pretty good life - there are children out there who are exposed to the cruelties of the world from as early as they can remember.  What do we say to them? Sorry, you just don't deserve any better? What apparent superpower decided that the world has to be this way that we now apparently all have to continue living our life in service of it?

In the next part of this series we discuss the Principle of Need as a basis for distribution.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More

Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

When Aristotle discussed the concept of Justice - he spoke of remedial or corrective justice, which specified how to punish offenders of the law, but he also spoke of distributive justice, where he asked how much each one should get of what, or: how should resources be justly distributed? Aristotle's concept of distributive justice is what is currently known under the term 'social justice'. It is thus not a 'new' concept, but one that has been occupying the minds of people since the ancient period.

We'll have a look at three principles that are often put forward as a basis for 'just' distribution of resources:
1. The principle of merit and desert
2. The principle of need
3. The principle of equality

The principle of merit and desert states that people should be treated according to what they deserve. Material rewards should only be handed out to the deserving. When someone receives something they didn't deserve or when someone doesn't receive something they DO deserve, an injustice occurred in this view.

The question that arises here, of course is: What constitutes a merit?

Is the fact that someone is more talented a basis on which to provide them with more material wealth? Does the person deserve this or is a person's talent merely a matter of luck or chance, and so - not part of one's merit? But then, what about those people who have a talent that they developed themselves through hard work, something they did not have a natural disposition towards, but a skill they developed until they became talented in it? And then - how to distinguish between natural endowments and merits?

Or does merit have to do not so much with how much one contributes by virtue of one's talents, but based on how much effort a person puts in. Here - two people who are equally productive may not be rewarded the same way, because for one it was a struggle while for the other it was a breeze. So - then, the reward-system of distribution based on deserts would create incentive for individuals to place themselvs in positions of struggle just so they could 'earn more'. But is that the kind of life you would encourage for individuals? And - if each one acts accordingly, by choosing a profession or a task they struggle at most - will this really produce the best results for society as a whole?

According to liberalists, the free market is the best system to evaluate merit and desert, where prices and wages determine what a person's contribution is worth to others in society. Yet - herein is not considered that most successful businessmen or businesswomen are not so because of 'merit' or 'desert', but because of privileged backgrounds, because of heritage, because of luck and because of socio-economic access to opportunities. And a classic example I like to use is: who deserves the highest pay: the mineworker who physically works every day or the CEO of the mining company whose most strenuous effort is to place a signature here and there? What is often argued is that the CEO has an investment to lose, and therefore is putting more on the line - but then the counterargument is of course: is the mineworker not putting his life on the line and is the CEO's investment worth as much as his own life?

Liberalists like to pretend that the free market models are perfect for assessing the merit of individuals in how much they contribute to society, but they are actually merely using these models to justify why such huge inequality exists - where they can say: 'Well, you're worse off because that's what you deserve'. And then difficult-sounding jargon is used and graphs are presented that apparently prove their point - but the truth of the matter is: the free market system is not based within merit - it is merely based within competition - and herein, the system does not consider who works harder or who deserves more - it does not make such value judgments - it simply balances opposing forces and then ends up somewhere in between.

Others of a more socialist orientation propose a planned economy, where a person's merit is directly measured by a public institution, such as a government. However, the problem still remains in objectively stipulating the conditions under which we are now speaking of merit and whether such merit-based system will provide the most favorable resutlts.

Psychologically speaking, deserts are linked to a person's expectations. If a person expects to receive high material rewards and then does not receive them, a perception of unjust deprivation will arise, whereas - if a person has adjusted its expectations to previous patterns and as such, does not expect much, may not feel as though they are being deprived of what they deserve - simply because the expectation pattern is different. However, does that mean that the one person is really being deprived and the other not? Is there an objective way of establishing just reward versus unjust deprivation or are these concepts too much influenced through relative perception?

Related articles

• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

This Blog is a continuation to: Day 219: Equality and Human Rights – it is suggested to read the previous post for context.

In the last blog we ended with Plato’s assessment that humans were essentially unequal within being ‘different’. It’s interesting that the concept of Equality was not investigated further – if Equality did not lie within one’s characteristics which would define one’s position and function in society, then why are we not looking further? Could our Equality be somewhere else?

The point that every human shares, the point that all Living Beings share – is that they are alive. We are all Equally, living, breathing, beings – Here – on this Planet. So whether you are a person with the characteristics to make a philosopher or a person with the characteristics to make a baker – the fact still stands that you are a human and you are alive. This stands indeterminate of the variety of characteristics we share among ourselves that make us ‘different’. So even though we are ‘different’, we can, and are still, equal: in Life – and should treat each other accordingly.

Instead, we’ve taken the premise “We are different, and thus we are unequal” and have used this to justify why we do not value and respect one another equally, and used this as the foundation to create separation among ourselves – and in essence, alienate ourselves from one another, where we end up believing that just because we have certain capabilities that allow us to ‘climb to the top’ in society – that this means that we are ‘better’ and that those who do not share these capabilities are ‘less’ and should be treated accordingly. From this, we have created a system of ‘fairness’, a system of ‘merit’ – where you are treated ‘as you deserve’. We look at what a person can do and want to distribute resources according to what one has done with their abilities, skills and talents. Within this, we do not realise that one’s abilities, skills and talents – are completely arbitrary.

They are arbitrary in two ways:
In the first place they are arbitrary because one just happened to be born with a natural ‘knack’ or ‘gift’ for a particular point in reality. You may have been born with a ‘feel for music’, but you may as well have been born having a gift for building things or putting things together. This feel for music could have given you the possibility of becoming a wealthy music produce, while having your building skills may have led you to being a carpenter who barely gets by. So, given that we may naturally be good at things which differ from person to person – placing all one’s value into this limited point leads to two human beings living and experiencing a great difference in Living Standards, as the direct result of how we value different people due to their skillset, more over others.

Secondly they are arbitrary, because our skills, abilities and talents are closely linked to our environment. If you are born in a wealthy family, you have the resources available to develop, practice and perfect your skills. Very likely, you will be given a head start in society through your connections that place you in a profitable position. You could have been born with the exact same skillset, abilities and talents in a whole different environment. You could have been born in a family where resources were scarce – so scarce in fact, that your mother is unable to feed you adequately, stunting your growth and limiting your ability to live. So scarce, that by the age of six – your mother is crying over your lifeless body.

The same way, with the necessary resources available, everyone can be taught to be effective human beings – but this unfortunately, this is not happening because resources are currently not made available for everyone – only for those who can ‘afford’ it, those who apparently ‘deserve’ it.

So you see, measuring one’s Equality and within that measuring one’s Value based on a human’s skillset and abilities – is completely irrational and does not make any sense at all. The only common sensical thing to do – is to treat and value each one Equally on the premise of Life – within the realisation that I could have easily been you, and you could have easily been me. This means that if I want to able to live a dignified life, that you should be able to do this to – because after all, I could have been living my life in your shoes.

To be continued

Related articles

• 359. Equal Life Rights
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 358.Human Rights and Equal Money
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• 363. Housing is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 360. Humanitarianism and Equal Money

Read More