Parenting and a Living Income Guaranteed

How does the lack of parental economic support affect our societies? How would Parenting change in a society where our basic needs are guaranteed as a Human Right? What effects will securing the livelihood of mothers and fathers bring to our society at large? What needs to change in society and economics to make parenting a successful and satisfying part of our lives and those of our children?

Join us in our discussion with Equal Life Foundation’s very own Leila Zamora Moreno & Gian Robberts, sharing their perspectives and experiences thus far in relation to parenting and how we can change the ways it is lived to build a world that is best for all.
You are welcome to place comments and questions for Leila & Gian in the comment section of this video.

Hosted by: Marlen Vargas Del Razo

Read More

Welcoming New Life with Living Income Guaranteed

Read More

Day 265: We’ve Got Blood on our Hands

“Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and party chief whip Floyd Shivambu accused Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa during a question and answer session in the National Assembly on Wednesday of killing the 34 mineworkers police shot dead in August 2012 in Marikana, saying he has blood on his hands and calling on him to accept responsibility for the deaths.” (For the full article, see: http://mg.co.za/article/2014-09-17-eff-ramaphosa-has-blood-on-his-hands?utm_source=Mail+%26+Guardian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+newsletter&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fmg.co.za%2Farticle%2F2014-09-17-eff-ramaphosa-has-blood-on-his-hands )

For context on the Marikana shootings:

“The Marikana miners' strike or Lonmin strike was a wildcat strike at a mine owned by Lonmin in the Marikana area, close to Rustenburg, South Africa in 2012. The event garnered international attention following a series of violent incidents between the South African Police Service, Lonmin security, and strikers themselves among who the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) emerged through intimidation, violence and killings that mostly affected the members and leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). The NUM attributed the decline it experienced to the intimidation, violence and killings, and as a result of these, also the displacements of workers from work and their communities. This resulted in the deaths of 44 people, the majority of whom (34) were striking mineworkers killed on 16 August while 10, including 2 police officers and 2 private security guards, were killed between 10 and 11 August. At least 78 additional workers were also injured on 16 August. The total number of injuries during the strike remains unknown. Killings did not stop, but continued up to 2014, mostly affecting NUM members and leaders. In addition to the Lonmin strikers, there has been a wave of wildcat strikes across the South African mining sector.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike_action)

EFF leadership is out on a witch-hunt to find the one responsible for the deaths of the mineworkers during the Marikana strike and bring about justice – more so, they believe they know who is at fault and are demanding Cyril Ramaphosa to take responsibility.

Is it so? Is the Deputy President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, a murderer? Does he have blood on his hands? Is he responsible for the deaths of 34 people?

Of course he is.

But then again, who isn’t?

Who is responsible for the killings during this violent strike? The policemen who did the shooting? The union workers who were striking without the authorization of the union leadership? The ANC as the party in power? The people who voted the ANC into power? The system that created the conditions in which mineworkers felt the need to go strike to demand better wages? Or… all of us? For not preventing conflict where it could have been foreseen, for not preventing harm where it could have been predicted, for not preventing desperation that would obviously lead to compromise?

Let me ask you this: for all those who are leading relatively comfortable lives – enough to sustain yourselves, your family, with means of transportation, a decent house, access to technology for easy communication such as phones, computers, internet, a job that may not be ideal but doesn’t pose a threat to your life – how much would someone need to pay you to take up a job as a mineworker? Is there any amount someone can offer you that would make you say ‘yes, cool, if you pay me that much, I’ll leave my current job and start working in a mine’?

Answering that question for myself: No, there is no amount high enough that would sway me to go and work underground, digging up materials in less than pleasant and potentially dangerous conditions. Of course, I can only make that statement because I have alternatives. If I had no alternatives, no other means to generate an income while perhaps having others depending on me for support – and working in a mine would provide me that income – then ‘hell yeah’, you do what you have to.  But is that acceptable? Is it acceptable that people find themselves in such a position, where it is desperation driving them to accept a job that, if they had other means of income, they would never place their lives and their health on the line?

It is possible of course that some genuinely love mine-working – I cannot say – but then wouldn’t you say that they require a salary worthy of heroes? Because in terms of South Africa’s economy – gold and platinum is what is keeping us going. And it is the mineworkers who herein have the toughest part to play – putting in the actual physical labor so that there is a mining industry that is really the backbone of our economy. Firefighters are considered heroes because they place their life on the line in the attempt to save others’ – which is really exactly the same for mineworkers. Why do they not have the same status in society and why is that not reflected in their wages?

With implementing a Living Income Guaranteed for all those who are unemployed – a living wage sufficient to take care of your living necessities – and placing the minimum wage at double the living income – here we have a first step towards both ensuring no one accepts a job that they wouldn’t do if they had alternatives as well as moving towards proper wages for those who do decide to continue working in a mine – giving them also more bargaining power, because hey, they can quit and receive a Living Income too – you better take care of your heroes.

Read More

Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

I ended off the previous blog with the following:

"Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence"

Let's start with discussing the first problem.

Education

In principle, everyone seems to agree that the people should rule together - there is an undeniable sense of moral rightness within this - society should together lay down the laws by which it will organize itself and together give direction to their shared environment through public policy - simply because - we are all, individually yet together, a part of a certain society and there is no acceptable justification to exclude any free citizen from this process. In practice, however, Plato's argument still holds strong. "The people are too easily swayed by emotion"; "the people cannot see the bigger picture"; "the people don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of politics, economics, ecology, law, you name it". There is of course truth in this argument - however, it is not one that cannot be overcome.

Plato lived in the 4th and 5th century BC - so that's about 25 centuries ago - and still, we have not seriously attempted to overcome this problem in order to uplift our political system to the principle it morally requires to ascribe to. What have we been doing for these 25 centuries? Is it so hard to find a way to empower individuals so that they may be capable of critical thinking that in the last 25 centuries we didn't manage to come up with one? Or is it just that we haven't actually tried and rather gave up before having started because it is more convenient that way, at least for those individuals that currently do have the capacity of influencing decision making.

So - let's create a profile of the 'type' of citizen that would have the intellectual capacity of participating in political life.

We can imagine such a person:
- Having a rich vocabulary that enables him/her to participate in discussions in the political arena; big and difficult words are not seen as big and difficult for this person, they are words with a meaning
- Being relatively emotionally stable in that emotions/feelings do not play a decisive role in this person's decision making process
- Being interested in and informed in terms of current affairs

The points listed above refer to a person having political capital. So - what makes one person have political capital and another person not? How can such capital be developed and how can we facilitate the development of political capital within individuals in order to eradicate the education-problem standing in the way of manifesting a real democracy?

Which is one of the main variables that determines the richness of one's vocabulary?

SES.

'SES' is something you'll often see in sociological and psychological scientific research, because it determines almost Everything about a person's development, and place in society. 'SES' stands for socioeconomic status and formally refers to the income, job and education level of the parents. "Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts. By some measures, 5-year-old children of lower socioeconomic status score more than two years behind on standardized language development tests by the time they enter school."

Now - which is one of the main variables that determines emotional intelligence?

SES!

According to research: "High socioeconomic [students] are found to be more responsible, better able to make intelligent decisions using a healthy balance of emotions and reason, better able to focus on task at hand and pay attention. They have more control over their feelings as compared to low socioeconomic status students."

Starting to see a pattern here...

What makes a person interested in current affairs in such a way that they actually read the news and keep abreast of developments in the region/nation/world?

That question refers back to the first point of vocabulary; one of the main reason why people don't watch the news is because they don't understand the vocabulary involved, which brings us back to SES.
Secondly - many individuals do not understand the importance of watching the news in terms of how it affects them or do not see how them being informed about problems would increase the likelihood for the problem to be solved. This is a cultural point that is largely created through the very representative system of democracy we have today - where individual citizens simply do not see how their voice, how their views would make any difference. It is someone else's responsibility to come up with a solution, so why even bother getting informed? So - this particular problem that is preventing the development of political capital is the very political system in place today and can thus not be seen as a reason or argument for not changing it.

Political capital, like any form of capital, requires investment to grow and develop. Seeing that socioeconomic status is one of the main determining factors of the development of such political capital within individuals - and seeing that this political capital is a necessity to enable people to rule their country in terms of the principle of democracy we all seem to agree is best for everyone - it becomes clear that the 'problem' of education is not insurmountable - it only requires us to do a simple thing: Invest in the people!

And this is exactly what an implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed would do: ensure that each one has a dignified income, in other words - ensuring there are no more individuals with 'low' socioeconomic status in society. In seeing to what extent one's socioeconomic status affects one's abilities, one's opportunities, one's power to affect change, why would we allow anyone to have a 'low' socioeconomic status? We surely wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our own children - instead, we (would) want to give them the best possible nurturing grounds - and so - this courtesy, we should extend to all in society.

Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat but allows a representative system of democracy is a hypocrite, if they do not at the same time support a proposal such as the Living Income Guaranteed that would solve the conundrum of allowing the people to rule directly when currently individuals may not have sufficient political capital to do so. It is not acceptable to make such an assertion and then leave it at that - compromising for centuries on a principle that can be lived for real through a simple correction in how we value Life and substantiate it through real action.

To be continued.



Sources:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1103/017_16199ns1103_114_119.pdf

Read More

Day 258: Will Implementation of LIG put more Stress on the Ecosystem by Creating more Consumers?

Q: "When LIG is implemented and people, who were mostly outcasts, become able to fully participate in the system we can probably expect a huge increase in consumption putting more stress on the already suffering ecosystem of the planet. How can we deal with this effectively"




A: "This is why other structural changes form part of the LIG proposal.

1. That before a product is produced, market research must be done that establishes a genuine demand for such a product as the mentality is followed that when a product is produced, we can create the demand for it through advertising.

2. Advertisement should stand in relation to informing potential consumers about what the product is, how long it will last, what the materials used are, how the price is determined - appealing to a person's rational choice making capabilities, without using manipulation and persuasion tactics that appeal and attempt to influence a person's emotional state of mind.

3. Durable products (eg: something that you use several times, like a vacuum cleaner or a bed, a car, etc) require to be approved by the bureau of standards where they have to be able to show that they have made the product to last for as long as reasonably possible.


The purpose of all these measures is to counter the trend of living beyond our means - where we have been depleting the Earth's resources faster than we can replenish it through producing and selling goods that no one truly needs or wants, but are sold through manipulative means of convincing the consumer that they DO want and need this good, and through producing inferior goods that were made to break. So, LIG intends to align our ECOnomic system to our ECOlogical reality - which is an absolute must if we intend our children to inherit an Earth that is not damaged beyond repair. We are the custodians of Earth - whether this position is rightful or unrightfully claimed is beyond our time - we have placed ourselves as humanity in the position where we are the only ones who can make a change to the health of the planet we inhabit - and thus we have a responsibility to do so."

For more perspective, visit www.livingincome.me !

Read More

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 255: How will Companies be Nationalized and What does it Mean? LIG

How will companies be nationalized and do you foresee any resistance?

Within LIG, nationalized companies would not be owned by the government – they would be owned by each person of the population directly. One of the great down-sides of nationalizing companies as how it has been done in the past, is that the government owns the companies, and thus – the companies are managed in a way to benefit the government, often creating inefficiencies due to corruption and fraud. With LIG – the government would be the vehicle to transfer the company from the private to the public sector – but the company would not be owned by the government, where the government then supposedly runs the companies ‘on behalf of’ and ‘in the interest of’ the people. No – each citizen would become a shareholder of the company and have the ability to perform their shareholder duties. The Liquid Democracy platform would herein be beneficial to allow such large numbers of people to participate in events such as annual shareholder meetings.

In terms of the process of nationalization – herein the laws of a specific country must be consulted. In countries where nationalization occurs through providing compensation to the current business-owners, we suggest this would be the last investment for which personal income taxes would be required. The government would then purchase the companies on behalf of the people, however still with taxpayers’ money – which implies the company belongs directly to the people.


What does it mean in effect that a person owns an equal share in a country's national companies?

We suggest that every citizen becomes shareholder of those companies that are nationalized as part of a nation’s national heritage. In being a shareholder, each citizen owns an equal part of the company and hence:
-    Each citizen has an equal vote in important decisions, such as nominating directors.
-     Management and daily operations are likely to remain as they are.
-    The companies and their management are directly accountable to every citizen.
-    Citizens can submit shareholder resolutions.
-    The companies serve the interest of the shareholders, which means: they serve the population as a whole.
-    Government officials play no privileged role in the management of the nationalized companies – they are citizens and thus their role equals that of every other citizen.

In terms of receiving dividends, every citizen has a right to receive a Living Income Guaranteed, funded by the profits of the nationalized companies, when they have no other means of supporting themselves (as determined by the particular means-test of the country).

So the share-income from National companies does not work as stock dividends do in today's world, if those who have sufficient means to support themselves have their Shares but don't get LIG?

Correct.

Read More

Day 254: Only for the Brave: Living Income Guaranteed and the End of Warfare

Q: Within my studies I touched upon international relations and there is a point I learned about which I see could be a concern regarding the point of the redirection of military budgets.

The point is similar to a point in the animal kingdom where the majority of decisions/disagreement/tension is resolved not through actual violent interaction, but rather through intimidation with large size, vicious displays etc... where one animal simply submits within self-preservation.

The USA has a large capacity for such intimidation which can be seen as preventing attacks from its smaller and less capable 'enemies' due to the fact that the US can annihilate them and they do not have the means to prevent this or retaliate in any substantial way. If the USA redirected the military budget, many could look at this as a form of weakening/weakness placing the USA in a more vulnerable position to be attacked due to its lessened ability to intimidate others or defend itself.

A: The offense-defense game in international political affairs is played by creating a continuous process of intimidation through potential military interventions by the world’s hegemons/ world powers upon nations that represent an obstacle to their expansionist greed. This is how ‘pseudo enemies’ are deliberately created to give continuation to a warfare industry that enables profit to be made upon these constant calls for the necessity to intervene in the name of peace and democracy in other countries or defend themselves from 'potential terrorist attacks' which is mostly a fabrication of such threat to keep the military industry in place.

  This continuous provocation forces the nations ‘under the mire’ to arm themselves as well to have the means for defense. This ever present tension between nations is what creates the belief that each nation should always be ready and prepared to go to war, when in fact wars only represent the interests of a few that benefit from it, since war is always implying death and destruction using the public’s opinion as manufactured consent to support it in the name of fighting against terrorism and national defense; other reasons include fighting certain nations that do not comply to the views of imperialist-powers and so represent  an obstacle to their own imperial position. However throughout history we’ve witnessed how wars are justified consent to commit crimes against humanity including the use of tax payer’s money to fund such destructive enterprises.

 For example, If the USA redirected their military budget to fund a Living Income Guaranteed,  those with common sense would not perceive it as a weakness, not intimidating and invading others  for the sole profit of few corporate elites, realizing that the nation is already having a weak economy due to most of the funds being directed for military purposes for the illegitimate benefit of a few, instead of strengthening the economy at home if such funds would support individual's financial security.

Q: I can see a point of fear wherein citizens might resist this point due to being seen as a militarily weak country vulnerable to being taken over, having resources taken or populations enslaved, much like the US and other countries have perpetrated in weaker countries in the form of such things as colonization in all its dimensions.

How can this fear be addressed?

Do you think that this is a real threat that could actually happen? If so, what do you suggest as a counter measure?
A: The fear of attack from outsiders is a propaganda-point in order to gain public support for wars that only have economic interests for few elites behind them. Instead of going to wars, the US and other power nations could focus on signing International treaties and create a sustainable global economy through implementing LIG in each nation, so that no wars are required to keep a non-sustainable economy at survival state. When the people of imperialist regimes grasp the real agenda behind the militarism and wars and do not participate in invasions and occupations, other countries no longer feel they have to protect themselves from the bullies/power nations of the world, the propensity for war will be significantly reduced.


For context:

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 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed

This image of Harris Rosen has been circulating Facebook. I find it amusing to read the comments made under it. On the one hand society is angered by the rich for appropriating such huge amounts of money for themselves while others are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, when one of these rich people takes responsibility for one neighborhood, he is revered and blessed for doing 'God's work'. This creates quite a conundrum, because on the one side the rich are seen as the problem, as the cause of hardship of the poorer groups in society, but on the other side charity by the rich is seen as a miracle-solution, a divine intervention, that may save the world. The rich are cursed and the rich are blessed.

Truth is that it is indeed unacceptable that some may bathe in glory and riches, the world at their feet, if this disproportionate wealth is enabled by an economic system, which is the same system that can deny others a life of basic dignity. Even the most liberal philosophers tend to agree that liberty cannot be increased at the expense of others' opportunity to improve their well-being - yet due to the interconnectedness of our lives as a result of a shared economic system, it is undeniably what is happening.

At the same time one can see in the example of Harris Rosen that problems such as crime and structural poverty can be remedied through generosity, through giving, through sharing. But can we allow such charity to be dependent on the benevolence of the few rich who give a damn? Perhaps we have no choice, because one needs to have a lot of money to give away a residual amount one doesn't need for personal support. Of course, such a situation is unsustainable and implicitly allows the suffering of many as we submit to the whims of those who have the money to affect change. But is this the whole story?

In fact, each one of us has the power to affect change, because each one has the ability to vote for change. This vote of course does not mean much when the only available proposals are the ones who maintain the status quo. This is where the Living Income Guaranteed proposal intends to offer a solution. With Living Income Guaranteed, the rich can live by the principle of liberty, putting their talents to use to improve their own lifestyle and fulfill their dreams - while at the same time each one is guaranteed of a life of dignity with the opportunity to improve themselves and build themselves up to a similar position. With Living Income Guaranteed, charity would be institutionalized through the provision of a Living Wage to anyone who doesn't have the means to otherwise support themselves. Such a Living Wage can be funded through the profits of companies that form part of the national heritage. This means each citizen is owner of these companies, and in effect, each citizen takes part in charity. As such - we ensure that charity reaches every neighborhood and every family in need of it - and not the lucky few that happen to live in a neighborhood that some rich fellow 'fell in love with'.

The word 'charity' comes from the Latin word 'caritas', which can be translated as 'generous love' - or in other words, charity stands for: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself - and as the word 'generous' shows: requires giving. As a principle - charity should then not be exclusive or temporary, but institutional; as an agreement by the people to do unto each other what we would like to be done unto.

With Living Income Guaranteed we would no longer curse the rich, because their enrichment is not done at the expense of the rest of society and we would no longer bless the rich, because we have empowered ourselves be the source of the greatest charity through enabling a Living Income.

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

Related articles

• What If Every Millionaire Were to Follow Harris Rosen's Lead?
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 350: A Living Income Guaranteed will End Charity - for Real
• Day 228: Sorry I'm not Qualified to Understand That

Read More

Day 249: Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice - what are we REALLY entitled to?

Robert Nozick is best known for his work ‘State, Anarchy and Utopia’ in which he argues against patterned principles of justice and in favour of an entitlement theory of justice (2013:26). We will first consider what the difference is between the two, to then proceed with a critical review of Nozick’s argumentation, herein paying particular attention to the relevance of such a theory in consideration of the present as an outcome of human history.

The difference between patterned theories of justice and unpatterned theories of justice revolves around the means-end question: Is it just (or can it be justified) to use unjust means to attain a just end? For Nozick the answer to this question is ‘No’. In his view, if every step of the process of distribution throughout history is just, then the result is a just distribution (Nozick 1974:151). Herein, the justice of an act of distribution is measured in relation to whether one is entitled to one’s resulting holdings (2013:26). In contrast, patterned theories of justice pertain to ensuring an ideal ‘kind’ of outcome from distribution – where this ‘kind’ is dependent on and determined by the values a particular society holds. If equality is treasured, the outcome of distribution would require being that each one has equal holdings. If the fulfillment of basic rights is valued, then the pattern of distribution would require standing in relation to ensuring each one’s basic needs and rights are met as a minimum condition.

Within his argumentation, Nozick holds two concepts at heart: property and liberty. A problem he sees with patterned theories of justice is that goods are treated as thought they are ‘just here’ and available to be distributed in any way we see fit. He argues that resources cannot merely be allocated according to some patterned principle, because: “The situation is not one of something’s getting made, and there being an open question of who is to get it. Things come into the world already attached to people having entitlements over them” (Nozick 1974:160). Not taking into consideration the source of a good would therefore be a form of stealing. The same logic is used in an attempt to prove that taxation should be included under the category of theft (2013:29).
When it comes to liberty, Nozick argues that if distribution happens in a patterned way, then individuals require sacrificing their freedom to give to charities and gift goods to others, because such acts would upset the particular preferred pattern in question (2013:28).

As noble and logically thought-out his arguments may seem – I simply question the relevance of an entitlement theory of justice. Considering that throughout history, we can see countless examples of ‘unjust initial acquisition’ and ‘unjust transfer’ – where elites were built based on for instance the colonization of an entire people and the appropriation of their resources. The current allocation of resources is still a result of such past events. Therefore, one cannot say that at this point, one can simply go on with making sure that ‘from here-on out’ all distribution is conducted in a just manner – for our starting point is already unjust in itself – leading to unjust advantages and disadvantages. Where Nozick supports the correction of past injustices we must ask how he attempts to do this without a patterned form of distribution – for, it would imply re-constituting history by imagining how distribution would have taken place at each step of the way if no injustice had taken place. As said above, history is filled with unjust transfers and acquisitions, therefore, such a task would involve the creation of an ‘alternate timeline’ of not only a village, a region or a country, but of the world in its entirety. We simply do not have the data or means to construct such an alternate timeline in any accurate way – we cannot ‘predict’ or ‘come to know’ how things ‘would have’ played out if it weren’t for injustice. Therefore, Nozick’s entitlement theory is irrelevant as it is not practically applicable in terms of our current reality. What it does seem to do and seems to have done, is to create a great set of justifications as to why we should not attempt to bring about greater equality or make sure the needy are taken care of – protecting those with significant wealth from any form of accountability with respect to the past and with respect to their fellow human beings.

If one is to constitute an entitlement theory of justice one should utilize human rights as the basis for such a theory, as unless each human being’s rights are provided for, one cannot speak of entitlement, one would instead be protecting an economic system of distribution that does not honor the life of every man, woman and child equally, but places the luxury of some over the bare survival of others. Each one is entitled to a certain level of well-being as it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, each one is entitled to a certain level of education as it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, each one is entitled to adequate housing as it is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Such are true entitlements – and unless an entitlement theory of justice comprises a system of distribution that guarantees the fulfillment and honouring of these entitlements at all times – we know we are in fact dealing with deception – the deception of those using fuzzy logic and fear to protect their own self-interest and to protect the elite of the world – where the theory has in fact no foundational basis in reality as that which actually matters in terms of supporting and enhancing (human) life on Earth.

In conclusion, to proclaim any patterned theory of justice as ‘unjustified’ by default means to ignore the reality of the world and its historical injustices. Nozick’s entitlement theory can only become relevant and applicable once the current distribution has been re-patterned to reflect the values and rights in the constitution.


Bibliography

(Author not specified). 2013. PLS3705: Guide 1. Pretoria: University of South Africa

Nozick, R. 1947. Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.

Related articles

• Rawls' Theory of Justice, Economics 12 and Enlightenment
• Social Justice
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics

Read More

Day 248: Q&A on Living Income Guaranteed

Here follow questions and perspectives about the Living Income Guaranteed proposal - from the Discussion Forum at livingincome.me.

It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.

I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.

What I have understood so far is that the LIG is means-tested, in other words conditioned on not having wealth or savings or a paid job for that matter, but not conditioned on the willingness to take a job (I only know the latter through correspondence, but have found no references). What this seems to imply is that if you are willing to live with few belongings no one can force you to work. This would make the proposal as a whole partly conditioned.

But what happens if you are not working full-time? Will you be entitled to a Living Income supplement? And if so, how would it be calculated considering the minimum wage is twice the amount of the LIG? Is the minimum wage the same for a part-time job for instance?

As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?

From what I can see, LIG is to be paid individually and not to households or families, so that settles, I guess, the question of individuality, but how about universality? It is not entirely clear to me whether every individual, including children, will receive it, and, if so, the full amount. Also, if children are included, will their LIG be dependent on what means the parents have, savings, job or otherwise?

It is stated in several places that LIG is to be high enough to secure a decent standard of living, so that would seem to satisfy the last criteria.

I would prefer having all replies here or with links to texts, not videos. Thanks.

“It would be very helpful if all the essential information on your LIG proposal were to be found in one place, preferably a single page or two, instead of being scattered all over numerous blogs and vlogs. What I mean by essential information is how exactly it is to be financed, who are entitled to it and on what conditions.”

Yes, we’re working on exactly that. The information will soon be found on a page on this website.
“I am aware that your proposal differs from the one laid out by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), but what I would like to know is to what extent LIG comply with the four criteria that are adhered to by most proponents of BIEN. Those criteria are that the Basic Income should be: universal, individual, unconditional and high enough for a decent standard of living.”

The principle of universality in terms of ‘anyone gets a living income regardless of whether one is employed or not’: No – Living Income Guaranteed does not adhere to this principle. It is about making sure that everyone has a Guaranteed Living Income – meaning, an income that secures a dignified life. We suggest the minimum wage to be double a Living Income so that if one is employed – one can afford not only a dignified lifestyle, but one with ‘perks’. In general terms, then, LIG is for those who are unemployed.

In terms of your question on working part-time – labor will be equated at an hourly rate, where the particular rate will also be determined according to one’s skill/educational level. One may thus be able to be employed part-time without requiring a Living Income Guaranteed as one is self-sufficient due to the particular rate one receives as determined by one’s skill / level of education. For those working part time on a minimum wage would mean they would receive the same amount of income as they would being unemployed and receiving LIG. Herein – one can look at setting an absolute minimum of part-time wage at 3/2 of the Living Income Guaranteed in order to create incentive for part-time workers. Alternatively, one can simply accept that those who are currently working part-time to make ends meet, will instead stop working, receive a LIG and from there perhaps have more time to perform the tasks that makes it impossible for them to work full-time in the first place, which are often tasks such as caretaking or studying. Those part-time workers who like to work to keep themselves busy or because they would like to contribute but have no financial reason to do so – can still do this and receive a part-time minimum wage, or can volunteer and receive LIG.

Children – Ideally, yes, children should receive a LIG, which would be available to the parents up until a specified age, after which, the parents are locked out and the LIG is solely accessible by the child. A child’s LIG is not dependent on the parents’ income. However – one would require investigating the financial capabilities of a particular economy at the implementation stage. It is possible that one would require to continue with a basic child grant system until the economy expands sufficiently to allow for a LIG for every child.

Individual – yes – Living Income Guaranteed is not given to families but to individuals.

Unconditional – yes, but only insofar as discussed above. Meaning – anyone receiving a minimum wage is excluded from LIG. However, there are no other specified conditions such as having to actively search for a job.

High enough for a decent standard of living – yes.

“As I understand the proposal, it is to be financed solely from sales tax or value added tax, the idea being that the value of labor is directly reflected in the prices of goods and services. But does this mean that income tax is completely abolished? And have you ever considered a negative income tax system which is a model often used in financing a Basic Income?”

The primary way of financing LIG would be through the nationalization of resources:

Nationalization of Resources and Social Dividends
One of the ways to fund a Living Income Guaranteed is through the Nationalization of Resources within a particular country. Within this, relevant resources are appropriated towards the public good, where those companies dealing with the production and manufacturing process of these resources will be nationalized. The citizenry would then effectively become shareholders of these companies. Economic profits or surplus value generated by publicly owned companies would partially (or wholly if possible) finance the Living Income Guaranteed.
Aside from the obvious funding function of such a step, the nationalization of resources and connected enterprises also provides an opportunity for the management of the country’s resources by the people of that country, and is thus in fact an extension of direct democracy.

On Taxation:

Taxation
Within the Living Income Guaranteed, Direct or Personal Tax methods will be discontinued. Only Indirect Tax methods will be facilitated in the form of inter alia Value Added Tax (VAT), Sales Tax and Import Duties. When a society and system is in place which effectively tends to all points of requirement within a country, one does not require an extensive government structure to tend to those points which the private sphere has not yet covered. As such, there is no longer a need for excessive taxation, as the role and functions the government will be required to execute and fund, will be minimal.
The amount of tax an individual takes on, will then be directly related to one’s activity and participation within a particular system or section of society (eg. Toll roads / Road pricing).

Related articles

• Day 350: A Living Income Guaranteed will End Charity - for Real
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 246: Green Economics - the Newest Fad?

Read More

Day 246: Green Economics – the Newest Fad?

Reading through a magazine, I came across an article on how traditional neoclassical economics is just not up to the task of providing an effective system of distribution for the world – with which I agree. 

At the bottom of the article, was a whole list to numerous websites promoting different forms of ‘alternative economics’. Being interested in exploring what’s out there on the internet in relation to new developments in economics, I copied the list eagerly to go through the various websites.

As I browsed my way through the 10 or so different websites, a communal theme started to make its appearance throughout the websites – they all looked ‘fresh’ and ‘green’ and we’re all about : reduce carbon emissions, shrink your ecological footprint – essentially: ‘save the planet’.

Something was just not right with this picture.

And then it hit me: this is just another fad.

Just as we have Spirituality within the realms of Religion, the Organic / Raw Food movement in terms of Food – we now have ‘Green Economics’ in the realm of Economy.

What all these movements have in common, is that they jump ahead of the issues that are relevant. Without first providing and ensuring dignified living conditions so all can have a life of delight on Earth, Spirituality immediately jumps to saving your ‘Beingness’ and ensuring that your Beingness can transcend to higher planes. But what is the value of such an objective if we can’t even manifest a sense of brotherhood and solidarity on Earth, within our societies and relations to one another? What is the point of ‘attaining our higher selves’ when we obsessively and compulsively wage War and destroy life?

What is the point of pushing and insisting on Organic Food when we have not even established basic Food Security for everyone on the globe?

What is the point of trying to save the planet through changing the way we do economics if we can’t even set our economic system up in a way that saves everyone from economic hardship? How can we expect to fulfill such a great responsibility as ‘saving the planet’ and ‘taking care of the Earth’, when we haven’t even proven our responsibility towards each other, towards one another as human beings? How can we expect people to support ‘Green Economics’ to ‘save the planet’ when every moment of the day is spent towards survival? How can we expect people to start treating the planet with dignity, respect and care when we haven’t shown that we can live these principles towards another?

If we can’t even actively secure Human Rights and treat one another as we would like to be treated – then we can’t engage ourselves towards saving the Planet. Our efforts towards ensuring that every human being on Earth in fact has a living standard that we would all deem acceptable – has been negligible to say the least. To at this stage demand everyone to treat the planet, nature, the Animal Kingdom with respect – would simply be a spit in the face of those who have never received any such kindness. When people are treated with disrespect and disregard, one is tacitly giving permission to those who receive such treatment, to transfer this treatment in kind to others. 

I’m not saying that nutritious food and ecologically balanced methods of producing and distributing goods is not important – as certainly these points would benefit ourselves, the planet and future generations; but the point is to acknowledge our track records, which is looking kind of dismal at the moment, and to not overreach in our objectives. Our race to ‘save the planet’ is currently one ran knee-deep in the mud, we may be spending a lot of energy on it but it’s not getting us far. So let us rather spend our energy towards getting the fundamentals right, towards getting in place the foundation that will ensure an effective campaign towards a harmonious management of our home, the Earth, by first establishing such a relationship towards one another – and then from there it will simply be a walk in the park, to extend this treatment to the Planet.   

The first step towards fostering an attitude and character conducive to the restoration of the Earth to a state of balance, is to first restore faith in humanity and our capacity to care, through implementing a system such as the Living Income Guaranteed by the Equal Life Foundation. This is a practical way to acknowledge our common humanity, our common Right to Life and to truly develop a sense of respect for Life on Earth, and Earth as Life. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore the impact human activity has on the Earth and the Environment. Only through equipping every human being with the necessary resources to sustain a dignified life, and equipping everyone with the tools of education, can we move as One towards caring for our Planet.

About the Living Income Guaranteed – from the LIG website livingincome.me

Why a L.I.G.?

The Living Income Guaranteed (“L.I.G.”) by the Equal Life Foundation is a Proposal geared towards addressing the most immediate Human Rights problems modern societies are faced with today. Current systems and approaches that have been implemented towards prosperity and well-being of the citizens within nations have been able to facilitate economic growth, but though the bounties of this growth have not yet been able to reach everyone.

The Living Income Guaranteed is aimed at assisting and supporting those individuals within society that find themselves in a disadvantaged position as a result from structural ineffectiveness and inadequacies, through providing Equality of Opportunity for all. The Living Income Guaranteed will function as the medium through which a state is able to remediate the most direct negative effects of a capitalistic system, while still being able to maintain some of the perks that such a system represents and embodies. The Living Income Guaranteed will thus aid in balancing Growth with Sustainability whilst effectively securing Human Rights.

What is L.I.G.?

Living Income Guaranteed stands for the provision of a Living Income for each citizen that is unable to sustain themselves financially to live a dignified life. Unlike the Basic Income Grant proposals, the Living Income Guaranteed is not invariably provided but distributed by a means-test. The Living Income Guaranteed is a social security net which everyone can apply to, when it is necessitated. This principle locks in with the Duties of the Government as laid out within most Bill of Rights, where the State is responsible to ensure the livelihood and well-being of its citizens when the citizen is unable to do so for him or herself.

For more information, visit:

http://livingincome.me

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com

Related articles

• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 246: Green Economics - the Newest Fad?
• Day 363: The Delusion of Ownership on Planet Earth
• Disregarding The Declaration of Human Rights - An Artists Journey To Life: Day 492
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics

Read More

Day 243: Living Income Guaranteed and Communism

Whenever a new way of organizing society and our economic system opens up, one of the comments that comes to the surface is :"But isn't that communism?"

Now, communism in itself as a word has become a word of Terror. It is used specifically to instigate fear reactions within people, where you do not want to be linked or involved in anything that may be deemed 'communistic'. But what is communism really? Nobody knows anymore. It's one of those terms -- just like the Inflation concept -- that has taken on a life of its own. In the case of communism, it's become a boogieman story. I mean, when people talk about communism and 'fighting communism' it is done from an assumption that communism is 'one clearly defined thing' and ‘it’s clearly evil’. Truth is, there were many various different concepts that developed that could be deemed 'communistic'. It's the same with Religion, you can talk about for instance 'Christianity' but then within that you have various variations and adaptations of Christianity. Forms of communism were adopted in Spain in the 1930s which were highly effective, yet you don’t hear about it anywhere.

So when you talk to people and ask why they are against anything that could closely be related to communism, they go "oh but just look at Russia, and all those people that died it was a total failure, it’s never going to work". What is not being done is putting communism that took place in Russia (or what actually would be more correct is to say 'the communism that DIDN'T take place in Russia) into context.

What must be understood is that Communism as an idea and Communism as ‘what happened in Russia’ are two different things. You see, people were angry, people then had an idea and then they went into a Revolution to try and implement that idea. The thing is that once they were in power – they had no practical plan or way of implementing their idea in a way that would actually work. They had no knowledge of things like politics and economics and were completely inadequate and incompetent to actually run a country. So, they tried things out, it failed, they went into fear and established a form of authoritarianism and all in all the story did not have a happy ending.

To go back to the Christianity example – the way Communism is treated is the same way the Jesus message and Christianity is being treated today. We have what Jesus said, being one thing – as principles of ‘Love thy neighbour’ and ‘Give as you would like to receive’, which is very much a principle of Equality and Harmonious Living. And then you have Christianity in all its various ways as what is ‘supposedly the Jesus message’ – but when you look at what is actually being lived out, is a message of fear, hate and inequality. So just like ‘what Jesus said’ and what ‘Christianity does’ are two completely different things – you can’t say that ‘Communism as an idea’ and ‘How communism took place’ are the exact same thing.

If you look at what happened in Russia, this is exactly one of the reasons why we never promoted any type of ‘Revolution’ to bring about change within any of our proposals, because they are impulsive and short-sighted. So yes, communism in Russia failed because there was no practical common sense reasoning or research that had gone into what they were doing. And because they failed big time, communism now has forevermore been branded by the mark of the Devil, and we should fight it in any way we can.

So now, each time something comes up that even in the slightest way could disturb the way things currently are and can in the slightest way be interpreted as ‘communistic': fear rises and it gets boxed away. All communism has been reduced to in this day and age is a form of fear induced superstition to keep people from actually thinking for themselves, kind of the same way Parents will tell their children that the boogieman’s gonna come for them if they don’t eat their veggies. Come up with any idea that will bring about a change in the way the current system works and people will come at you with the big C-Word to scare you into shutting up and conforming.

It’s come to a point that anything that doesn’t fit and support the status quo is labelled ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ and anything that does support the current system is called ‘democratic’ and ‘free’. It’s just a word used as one pleases – if you don’t like it, call it communistic – if you do like something, call it ‘democratic and free’. I mean, you can have two countries who both to some extent operate within a form of Nationalization – but depending on how much they threaten the status quo the one will be called Communistic and the other one won’t. It’s just a word of convenience. Take Chile for instance whose economy is based on the nationalization of copper, copper being one of their main exports. They nationalized it and they did it effectively – and yet Chile is not deemed communistic. In fact, the World Bank will tell you that they are very proud of Chile and that Chile is an example for other South American countries in terms of adopting the Free Market System. But if you’re a different country and you nationalize say your oil and you adopt policies that are unfavorable to the United States = now you’re communistic = You are evil, your president is the Devil, you must be stopped.

It should actually become a rule that you can’t use the word ‘Communism’ in any form of argument or way to make a point, because the word has gotten abused so much that it’s just a joke. If you can’t make a point without resorting to terms like Communism as a form of Propaganda to terrorize people, then you just shouldn’t bother.

Related articles

• Day 330: Inflated Egos, Deflate Reality.
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes
• Day 246: Green Economics - the Newest Fad?
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying

Read More