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

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

For context, also read:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5


The Divine Power to Decide on Life and Death

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


We are All Accomplices in All Crimes against Life

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

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

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

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


Writing and Reading – our Responsibility with Words

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

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

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


The Psychological Justification for the Principle of Merit or Desert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


False Dilemma – Abuse or Be Abused

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

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


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

 

Related articles

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

Read More

Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights – Part 4

Continuing from:
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

In the previous blog we looked at opposing views in relation to Equality of Opportunity.

The one view was ‘merit’ based – promoting the idea that equality of opportunity consists of each one’s success/achievement being dependent on skill, talent and effort which is determined by one’s genetic endowment. The other view was based more on a moral point of view, where within considering the natural and unnatural differences that exist between human beings, we have a duty to make all resources available to make sure that everyone has the same level of access to achieve their goals.

We mostly focused on the arguments coming from the liberal side that justified why we should not intervene in ensuring that everyone has the same level of access through providing adequate material conditions and supplies:

1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother
2. People are not a product of their environment
3. One’s genetic endowment as determining one’s position in society is beyond morality/justice

[Quoted from: Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3] 
 
Within the following blogs, we will be putting these statements ‘under the microscope’ and dissect where these statements come from, their meanings, and implications.

Let us start with the first statement:

Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother

The problem with this statement rests within one’s use of various definitions for ‘equality’ and ‘inequality’. The first thing you learn when approaching the concept of Equality is that it is an ‘ambiguous’ and ‘fuzzy’ concept, and the subject of ‘much debate’.

From the get-go, there is no clear, precise, specific, comprehensive definition of Equality that everyone uses and has agreed upon. Consequently, there are different authors using different definitions of equality, and even singular authors assigning different meanings to equality and inequality within a single piece of text. The lack of consensus on what is meant when we refer to ‘Human Equality’ causes a lot of confusion and headaches when studying the subject matter.

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’.

Those who are seen as more ‘egalitarian’, have a completely different view on the concept of Equality, where this is more closely tied to living standards different people enjoy – and does not pay attention to ‘the sameness’ of people as what ‘characteristics’ they display and how much these ‘are the same’.

When one initially starts studying/investigating the notion of Equality, one is faced with a ‘two-camp’ debate – where the one camp is ‘Pro-Equality’ and the other camp is ‘Anti-Equality’. This gives the impression that there is much disagreement on the topic of Equality in terms of whether we should pursue Equality as a value or not within society. This is a very deceptive in appearance, as there is not actually a conflict/debate on whether or not we should promote Equality or ‘leave things to be’ – as the only thing the ‘Anti-Egalitarians’ are saying is that they do not wish to be exactly the same. This view or wish that one does not want to be ‘the same’ in every respect, is actually quite compatible with the notion of Equality most people have that are Pro-Equality. The only reason why there is a fight/debate – is because each time someone says that they’d like to see ‘more equality’, is that the other side interprets this as ‘this person wants me to become more uniform’ – while this is not the case at all. All the other person is saying, is that it would be cool if we could get everyone to enjoy more or less the same standard of living. The same happens when the more liberal side makes a statement saying that they ‘do not wish to see more equality’, where the egalitarian side reacts to this in a negative manner, because they are merely responding from their definition of equality.

The impression that there is a definitive division among people with regards to the notion of Equality, is for the most part fictional. It only creates the appearance of conflict and division because there is no actual agreement on a singular definition of what Equality exactly entails and stands for. On the Equal Money platform, we often get remarks and comments of strong disagreement with particular in relation to particular statements, and once these comments have been ‘talked-out’ and clarified – we see that people mostly disagree and react to the Equal Money Statement simply because there are various ways to interpreting the concept of Equality, and thus the meaning of statements can vary greatly depending on who is reading it. This does not mean that they ‘really disagree’, but merely that they are disagreeing with the statement within using their particular definition of Equality.

So thanks to a long history of non-consensus on the word Equality – we have a tiny single point, a mere word-definition, being the reason why people are fighting and arguing for and against Equality and not coming to Solutions to the Benefit of Humanity. The fact that this single point of disagreement on the word definition of Equality as being the source of Division has never been pointed out or attempted to be cleared up – indicates that the maintenance of the Idea that there is Division on the subject is in fact an act of Disinformation. Keeping the Illusion alive that there is much conflict and debate on Equality, biases and manipulates people into believing that they have to ‘pick sides’ and ‘make up their mind’ on the subject of Equality. This is a False Dilemma.

Within the next blog we will resolve the statement ‘1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother’ within applying the approach of Equality as laid out at the end of Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2 .

Related articles

• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"

Read More

Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?

This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our Previous blogs:
Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

The idea of equal contribution, equal share, equal this and equal that is probably doomed to failure form the beginning because it will require consent as to what an equal contribution really is. This is impossible to determine and thus causes conflict. Victor Schauberger develops a different viewpoint based on his observations of nature. Nature always produces abundantly so there is always enough for all. This idea is always adopted in the Venus Project. Taking these considerations into account, I believe it is possible to set up an "economic" system where all is indeed free and freely shared by all. - Axel

With regards to your comment I would like to draw your attention to the following Response which has been made to a similar comment on the Equal Money Goals on the Equal Money website Homepage :


The comment:
I do not like this Goal and Suggest Rather the Following…
"Who determines the "Best Possible Life for all on Earth"?" December 03, 2012 16:25


Our Response:
We live in a physical reality which works through particular laws of nature. 'What is Best' is thus never determined from someone's personal view or opinion - but derived from how things practically function and operate within this world.



Therefore, meaning of 'Best Possible Life for All on Earth' will be determined by each one through democratic means, where input must be backed up by scientific evidence and must take place within the framework of Constitutional Equality.

The same principle applies when looking at ‘what is equal’. When we say ‘providing for all equally’, we do not mean ‘providing for everyone the same’. On an individual level everyone still has different requirements in terms of tending to one’s needs – and thus the support one require will vary from person to person to reach an equal level of living standard. Within this, some will get more, other’s will receive less – depending on one’s individual situation – but the outcome remains the same in terms of having one’s basic needs taken care of and having everything in place to live a dignified Life. Determining what is required for each one to live at this level will require investigation and individual assessment which will take time and effort – but is not impossible.

Taking this into consideration, equality is not doomed to fail. In terms of ‘consent’ – all that is required to be agreed upon is that all are of equal value as Life within this world, and that one agrees that all ought to receive the support necessary to live a dignified life. In terms of determining the ‘necessary means’ for each, this will be mostly a scientific undertaking and not based on personal opinions. Conflict can then only arise when there is a point where someone does not understand why another or self receives or gives in a particular way and perceives a point of injustice/inequality to be existent. Herein, the scientific procedures/evidence would be put forward to indicate the extent to which someone receives/gives. Unless one can provide scientific evidence/proof that shows otherwise – one would have to re-align oneself according to the information put forward or go through a correctional process as insistence that something is ‘not fair’ while the evidence shows that it is equal, would indicate a form of mental disharmony within the person which requires addressing. 

Related articles

• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 192: Demand and Flexibility in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More