Politics? Fun?? Have you Lost your Mind?!

One of the reasons it is so hard to push for substantial change is that – the way to do that is through politics – and trying to get people engaged and passionate about politics is not an easy feat. Just ask yourself – apart from the sentence I just wrote – when last did you hear the words ‘politics’ and ‘passionate’ in the same sentence together? It seems the two are each others' opposites. I imagine the following is actually how some people have defined politics in their minds’ dictionary:

“Politics: I don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s boring and I want nothing to do with it”

So – for those who ‘get’ that politics is probably quite important, but just can’t get themselves to read the newspapers for fear that you might die of boredom, I have good news. There is a show called ‘Last Week Tonight’ hosted by John Oliver, which may be just what you need. It’s a very funny show – sometimes bordering to, or just plainly grotesque, so breathe through those parts if it’s not your style. As with everything, you have to use your own common sense in relation to what is being presented. Yet, overall it’s really entertaining and while you’re being entertained, you’ll simultaneously be introduced to various different topics and problems on the world’s political agenda. You might actually learn more from watching this show than from reading the newspaper…

Seriously, watch it.



And if you have any suggestions for funny educational shows - share it with us in a comment!

Read More

Who is more Fiscally Responsible – Citizens or Elected Politicians?

In the blog-series ‘Democratization – Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG’ I briefly discussed an argument against direct democracy (placing authority directly in the hands of citizens rather than elected politicians) that dates from the time of Plato – the argument being that citizens would make ‘bad decisions’ and don’t possess the necessary intelligence, knowledge and skills required in political decision-making.

I came across the following information when browsing through the comments on a blog regarding the implementation of a Basic Income in Switzerland:

"Switzerland is an interesting laboratory for direct democracy.

I dimly recall a very interesting study by (I believe) University of Zurich (maybe 20 years old).

They analyzed for each of the 26 Swiss cantons (=states): (1) influence of direct democracy on canton politics (which varies by canton. Some cantons don’t have all that much direct democracy. Others such as Appenzell-Innerrhoden don’t even have a parliament because EVERY single law is passed directly by the people). (2) fiscal situation of the state.

The highly fascinating result was this:

the stronger the people can directly influence public spending and taxes, the healthier the canton’s budgets (!!). The people tended NOT to spend more than they had. Rather, the professional politicians (or the canton’s that gave elected officials greater power) tended to be more fiscally irresponsible."

Naturally, my interest was peaked and I went to search for studies about this topic. And, yes, you guessed it – I found the material supporting these claims. I think we can all agree that when states spend beyond their means – we have a case of bad political decision-making. According to the logic of the argument that it would be dangerous to have citizens directly participate in politics, we would expect citizens’ involvement within budgeting decisions to exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility. And yet – here we have an example that not only shows that citizens wouldn’t make matters worse – but that citizens would do better than elected politicians when it comes to balancing the budget.

If at any point it is relevant to ask the citizens for their direct input on a particular topic to increase democratic practices, it would be: how should we spend public funds? Voting a person into office is one thing – but it is the budget that really determines political policy for the coming year. Mandatory budget referendums should be a minimum requirement for any regime to qualify as a democracy, really. When the extent of your political participation is to vote someone into office – then all you have is ‘hope’ that the people in power will use public funds responsibly and for the purposes that you expect them to. Mandatory budget referendums would create a point of direct accountability towards the citizenry that once politicians are in power, they are indeed acting out their mandate on behalf of the people. It would immediately reduce corruption and prevent budgetary deficiencies down the line, where one is suddenly told that the retirement age has to increase and austerity measures are being implemented because there are insufficient public funds and one only then starts wondering ‘well, where did all the money go?’. 

The fiscal problems most countries are experiencing today could have been prevented. It is now a time of walking through consequence that has already been created and yes, it is worthwhile looking for solutions to address current problems head-on – but it is most important to prevent the same scenario from taking place again. In Dutch there is a saying ‘a donkey doesn’t bump his head on the same rock twice’ – seems like humanity can learn a thing or two from donkeys since we have this tendency of not even looking at what it is we bumped our heads on and why – but simply try to put some ice on the wound. However much we may be upset with governments and politicians – we are the ones who gave them the power to do what they did. The consequence that is here is as much ours as theirs – and rightfully so. If anything – let us at least learn from our mistakes – otherwise all the troubles we’re going through will really be for naught. Let us at least enshrine solutions within the constitution and develop new political practices that we can pass on to the next generations, because surely, part of the consequence we are experiencing is due to continuing traditions from previous generations, but that doesn't prevent us from rising to the occasion and creating new traditions to shape a better future.

Read More

Day 242: The EFF and Land Redistribution in South Africa

The EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) in South Africa, under the leadership of Julius Malema, are placing some very cool points on their political manifesto. One of them is to nationalise resources, including financial intermediaries and the South African Reserve Bank. Reserve Banks being the institution that steers monetary policy in an economy should by principle be in the hands of the people and not an independent point where so-called experts apparently have the right to do what they think is best. Such points are too important to exclude from public decision-making.

Another point they insist on is the redistribution of land as land is so extremely skewly owned in SA at the moment as an outcome of colonisation and apartheid. To pretend that such huge disadvantage will simply 'fix itself' is delirious. Herein, the EFF wants a full audit to find out how much land is available and what it is being used for - where, land that is wasting away would be re-appropriated and put to proper use. Having this information mapped out would obviously be able to significantly speed up the process of equitable land distribution.

The problem comes in with the call to start occupying land as a statement of 'taking what's ours'.

"The position is that we are expropriating without compensation. We want that to be an act [of law], and before it becomes an act, our people should begin the process of occupying the land.”

Encouraging and enticing people to take the law in one's own hands will inevitably lead the country into disorder, chaos and conflict. Taking such route to increase the popularity vote without consideration for the repercussions is only a sign of immaturity and a lack of understanding of what true leadership entails. Within the international community no-one would take such leadership seriously as it undermines the very political and legal system that it is supposed to derive its legitimacy from.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/State-must-own-SA-Reserve-Bank-EFF-20130720

Related articles

• Day 340: The Common Law is Feudalism in Drags
• Day 232: Capitalism Caste System - Better than the Indian One?

Read More

Day 168: The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism

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

Money in EMC

Q: What will money be backed by? will anything give it its value...or is that not necessary?

A: Life value will back money -- Labour backs money - which is your capital - that is why the money supply will increase and decrease according to population as each one requires to have an income that recognises their life value and that allows them to live a life worth living.

Q: In terms of printing money and the paper and money that costs, rather turning everything digital ?

A: Yes - digital - let's not kill trees for no reason.

Politics in EMC

Q: Who will sit in governmental positions? no more elections?

A: Politics will largely remain the same as within the EMS proposal - so, yes - there will still be elections. To read up on this point, please read: http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

Q: will we vote on every decision directly through internet? Or still elect once every 5 years and they can do whatever they want after elected?

A: This will be organised in the same was as presented in the Equal Money System wiki: direct democracy - everyone is directly involved in policy making

What about those who provide services instead of goods?

Q: How do people earn an income from jobs that don't produce a product that is purchased, or will everyone need to do a job that produces something to be bought? Or does compensation also happen as paid from the government not just consumers purchasing products?
A: Any value that is added, whether through providing goods or services, will be compensated. So – the same principle applies to employees in companies that produce goods and employees of companies that provide services – the price of the good or the service is determined in such a way that all participants receive a fair share of the profit so that all end up with an equal income. In terms of those working for the government or providing government services – they will also receive an equal income – this is the purpose of taxation.

How to Ensure Full Employment?

Q: How do we make sure everyone is employed; will we have to create meaningless jobs like in the army – dig a hole, cover a hole? 

A: There are many jobs that require to be done that aren't being done at the moment - the Earth is barely taken care of. Remember that a company’s responsibility will extent further than merely the production of goods and services. Each company will have a Compassion and an Environmental Department.

Compassion Departments are a social function. Such departments will assist, for instance, with giving care to the elderly, organising and providing daycare, assisting victims of natural disasters and so on. Individuals whose jobs within the production process are replaced by technology, will instead be employed within the Compassion Department of the company and continue to receive their income.

Environmental Departments of a company fulfil the function of giving as one would like to receive. Companies will use resources from the Earth and will likely create pollutants that affect the environment. The Environmental Departments are in charge of giving back to the Earth in terms of assisting the environment to renew the resources that were taken, for instance, through tree-planting, creating dams, etc. Furthermore, it will assist within mitigating or stopping the negative effects of pollutants, such as, for instance, water or air purification.

Once everyone is employed and all meaningful jobs are being done - we decrease working hours. For instance, if a job requirement is 8 hours, 2 people can do 4 hours each. Also - people don't have to work for 60 years of their lives - we can go on retirement when we are 30-40.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness

Read More

Day 157: Growing your Own Food and Equal Money

"You can't tell people they can't do something because that will motivate them further. So my hypothetical situation is this. You plans are in full swing and the majority of the planet is behind you but thousands of people don't like the system of ordering food at the touch of a button or swipe of a card and they gather in their city square and protest outside your building then more and more people join until there are endless seas of angry people outside your building that no longer want to be dependent on your system and instead would like to grow food themselves but in your fields that your system has acquired do you let them grow their own food or do you call the riot police to sweep these complainers off your front door. In addition to this I would say I don't want to be dependent on nothing but the earth for it has enough to provide for all without your idea of regulating it we need abundance in all reaches of the globe so we need only ourselves and our generosity. "

Any points of discontent with the organization of society, can be reported by each individual through their online Life Profile (see Politics Wiki page). Riots, marches, demonstrations and massive protests are only applicable in a system where the people are not being heard and where the system stands in opposition to the well-being of the population. Within an Equal Money System, each point of discontent will be addressed on an individual level - where you don't require thousands of people to stand together to make themselves heard. When addressing a point of discontent, which indicates a point of disharmony, it will be assessed whether the disharmony is a result of the organizational structure of society or whether there is a point of disharmony within the person, such as for instance a lack of understanding regarding particular policies and the research these policies are based upon.

Within your example of growing one's own food, there are several points to be considered. Firstly, any point that is made available to one person, must be made available to all people equally. Therefore, to allow one person to cultivate land for food production, implies allowing everyone to do the same. Within this, it must be considered whether it is Best for All to convert such massive amounts of land for agricultural process when this is not part of the Earth's natural expression and can have ramifications in terms of the harmonious balance that is required for the Earth's Life Support System to function effectively. Secondly, the desire for growing one's own food must be investigated. Meaning: does it stem from a lack of quality from the food that you are receiving? In this case, for each one to grow their own food is not necessarily the required solution - but instead one would require to upgrade and better the already existent food production processes. If the desire to grow one's own food stems from simply wanting to participate in such activities as growing food, then each one can on a voluntary basis participate in the already existent food production processes.

Currently, many resort to growing their own food as a coping mechanism because the profit motive compromises the quality of the available food. Without the ability to influence those processes directly, such a reaction is understandable, because there is no alternative. In a system of Equality wherein the well-being of each individual is safeguarded by the Constitution, one would not need to resort to coping mechanisms for the purpose of bettering the lives of only a few. Instead - each one will engage to find solutions that better the life of All. 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Read More

Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Jury of One’s Peers?

A system of justice from the perspective of having to evaluate and assess what must happen when a person is in a mental disorder, and therefore disrupting society, through a Jury of One’s Peers, is not an effective procedure. The effectiveness of peer-review lies within the expertise and level of skill of those reviewing. A procedure through a Jury of One’s Peers based on a selection of citizens from a broad spectrum of backgrounds (race, nationality, gender, education) in no way whatsoever ensures the effective evaluation and assessment of a person’s disorder and decision of specific correctional facilitation. The only point such a jury of peers serves, is to provide a broad spectrum of bias through which a person’s behaviour resulting from mental disorder is assessed.

The assessment of a person’s behaviour ought to be based on a very simple pattern: is the pattern that one is living that which is Best for All Life or is it Not? As such, the legal system won’t be as much a system that is governing or regulating according to the laws that exist – as most of the laws will cease to exist in an Equal Money Justice System. The justice system will operate very simplistically. You will have your primary constitutional law and you will have your management regulations – which together form your guidelines according to how man co-exists in harmony.

At any time when behaviour deviates from the principles and guidelines to sustain harmony in society, one will go through a process of origin identification and correctional facilitation by experts.

The Less Laws, the Less Crime

“The more laws are written, the more criminals are produced” – Lao Tzu

The focus of Justice within an Equal Money System will not be that of criminalization, it will be a matter of harmony or disharmony. A harmonious society cannot create criminals, because crime as such does not exist, and can only be the result of the laws in place creating it. Laws dictate what is legal and what is illegal. In a society where regulations are formulated according to the principle of what is Best for All, there will be no reason to step ‘outside’ of the law. If ‘illegal’ behaviour does take place, it is not sufficient to merely label the behaviour as ‘criminal’ and attempt to ‘force’ the individual to comply with the law, or simply remove them from society. Instead, it requires to be re-assessed whether the regulations in place are indeed Best for All. If the disharmony is not a result of the existent regulations, the disharmony requires to be corrected on an individual level.

Therefore, there will be no criminals – criminals only exist as the result of a disharmonious society, where instead of looking at what is in the Best interest of All and assessing people’s behaviour within the principles of harmony or disharmony , laws are designed to protect certain interest groups and thus by implication excluding others

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

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Justice

www.equalmoney.org 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

Read More

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

News and Media in an Equal Money System

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

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

Policy Education

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

Watchdog

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

Law in an Equal Money System

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

Accessibility of Information & Privacy

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

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

Related articles

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

Read More

Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System

 Also, would everyone be required to vote?

Voting in an Equal Money System is not a matter of requirement, but a matter of responsibility. For society to function in a way that is Best for All, participation, contribution and understanding on an individual level are essential. Each one's participation or non-participation affects everyone else - and as such, everyone is equally responsible for the results of the participation and non-participation.

Understand that, in terms of the points of apathy, not caring about or simply not wanting to vote (which are currently very common) - these attitudes are results from, and reactions towards the current economic and political system of inequality. Non-participation has become a way of expressing that one does not care about the current economic and political system, because this very system does not care about us either. However, in a system of harmony and equality, there is no valid reason for a person to not do their part in participating in the process of life on Earth. Unless it can be shown very clearly through mathematical and scientific evidence that the relationships within the system are producing disharmony - which causes a person to refuse to participate - non-participation is deliberate and a form of spite. As such, it will raise a 'red flag' to indicate that the person requires assistance as they are in disharmony with themselves and with society. And such disharmony, if left unaddressed will, in turn, cause some form of harm or disharmony to occur on other levels. Therefore, the person will receive the appropriate psychological assistance to correct the disharmony.

Finally, there are currently many areas of the world with very, let's call it "tight-knit" communities where people are all of the same religion or background or maybe just a small, isolated community that has lived together for a long time and does things in a very specific way. For such communities, I forsee resistance to joining the larger Equal Money System.

To what extent will these communities be accomodated? If they made it clear that they wanted no part in the overall system but wished to remain non-violently separate continuing on in their own way, how would that work?

We live in such a large and complex world, I can understand how people would see the Equal Money System as this nice idea but when it comes down to the practical implications of implementing it- they're lost.

Groups have developed various kinds of coping mechanisms in order to survive in a world of inequality. Tight-knit communities that like to somewhat isolate themselves from other communities are an example of such a coping mechanism in reaction to the current system of Inequality. Since inequality is the cause of these types of group behaviours and dynamics, they will be addressed through the introduction of a system of Equality - as this will remove the cause of the reactive mode. Of course, this will not be an easy process as there will be resistance to change in the same way that everyone resists change on some level. Though, resistance to change will also occur from the perspective that - since they are in a coping mechanism and believe that they are managing 'just fine' on their own, the perception exists that no other help is needed. Tight-knit communities will not be looking for a solution, because, from their point of view - they have the solution. Though, what is not considered within that is that we live in a world where everything is interconnected and that each one's actions have a consequence on everything and everyone else. Therefore, remaining isolated from each other will never bring about true solutions that are Best for All.

So - education will become an important factor, as education will bring about the realization that there are different ways to handle things, that provide more viable and substantial solutions. This education process will take time as one of the points that is required to be proven is that humans can in fact change. This is why an Equal Money System will not be a resolution or a solution within the next 2, 3, 4 years. It will take a process of 10 to 20 years of massive education, before we can get to a point where we can introduce, consider and vote on a new system. Through education, we'll make sure that individuals and groups are not sabotaged by their own ignorance. And thus, reversing the statement that 'ignorance is bliss' - in bringing about the realization that bliss is actually the action of living together in a way that is Best for All – ensuring each other’s harmony and one's own harmony.

Will those promoting an Equal Money System work on developing more details as time goes on?

Yes, definitely. In fact, comments and questions (like yours) assist us greatly in fine-tuning, adjusting and expanding on the Equal Money proposal. And thus, thank you for your participation, please do continue!

Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System
• Day 132: Namibia is Unto Something

Read More

Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

This blog is a continuation within replying to a comment made in relation to 'Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System'. 

The point of resources allocation will further be clarified within the next blog.

Credits within an Equal Money System is only a 'word' and only serves to facilitate the allocation and movement of goods -- credits will not hold any other intrinsic value as money or credit do currently (where money is used as a 'store of value'), but only have a mathematical and accounting function. The credits within the Equal Money System will indicate the available resources, what is available for each one and accordingly credits will be allocated and then get distributed.

The amount of credits and types of credits each on receive, will be based on a formula as set out within the Constitution, that we all have agreed on.

When you view your Life Profile where your available credits are displayed, you then either would indicate "Yes, this particular allocation I am going to use" or "No, I am not going to use this particular allocation". If you’re not going to use it, it remains in your main available resource ‘bank’ so to speak. Which is where your credits are ‘stored’. Note that you won't ‘own’ the credits, it’s purely available resources on Earth.

What I'm getting at: how would it work for local issues like where should a new water pipe be constructed in a certain specific small area if that change doesn't drastically effect everything else in the overall system?

Both global and federal/local levels will function within the same framework in terms of laws and policies. Implementation of policy will be region-specific which is where local administration comes in.

Implementation at a local level will be carried out by a local council, elected by the locals, which must regularly be substituted by new members. The point would be to make the local council an opportunity for each one to take a moment of responsibility within the system and to do their ‘civic duty’ so to speak. Therefore, each member will only serve one term. And within that one hopes to eventually have each person during a lifetime serving a term on the council, so that each one can experience what it means to work with a group of people.

Within this, education again plays a part. A person will not just be able to become a council member without first going through preparation, where one requires to go through a process of training and understanding in terms of what is involved – so that there is a smooth transitioning process within changing from council to council.

To apply for such a position, one would submit their availability and apply for a position. Once their term has ended, it is time for the next person. Unless there is no alternative, a person will not be allowed a second term; each one only gets a single term. This way, each one can get the opportunity of experiencing what it means to be a leader within a point of responsibility and within a point of distribution.

In terms of any form of abuse that may occur, anyone will be able to address and direct the point of abuse directly to the federal administration in reporting that there is a problem in this particular local council, where authority is being abused. If a person makes such an assertion and this assertion is based on some form of mental disorder, it will be addressed accordingly. If the abuse of authority is based on some mental disorder, it will be addressed and supported accordingly. The fact that a person goes into a mental disorder does not make them completely dysfunctional, and thus does not completely exclude them from participation. They are addressed, corrected and then receive a chance of forgiveness to correct their point. One will thus not be ‘branded’ as mental disordered – because it is simply part of the human condition at this stage. Currently, not enough is yet understood about how this all functions, and therefore, there is going to be some difficulties, where we need to address the mental disorder.

Once a person has proven their effectiveness within administrative responsibilities on a local level, they are eligible to submit their application for a position on a (more) global level.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Goods 

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics 

 Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System

Read More

Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System

Many people ask the question whether 'What's Best for All' and 'Democracy' from the starting point of 'the majority rules' are not contradictory or incompatible.

What is being looked at within such questions is a scenario where a majority wants to enforce a particular policy -- but this policy is not best for all – what then?

Many democracies existent today are constitutional democracies. A constitution contains a set of fundamental principles and guidelines according to which the particular state will be governed. It is thus a 'framework' within which all decisions, policy and legislation are made. Whenever a new policy is being developed or when policies are reviewed -- it has to be checked whether it adheres to the base principles, as outlined within the Constitution. If they are not -- they are considered to be 'unconstitutional' and can hence be disregarded. This also implies, that even in democracies today -- one cannot vote on policies which are in essence unconstitutional, and there is thus a 'limit' on what is acceptable and allowed. So, what we are introducing within and Equal Money System, where Equality and What is Best for All are the base principles of the Equal Money Constitution: is nothing New.

Within this, it is thus implied that achieving and enforcing what is Best for All is not contradictory to democracy per se -- as the available options to be voted on, will always be within the framework of what is Best for All. As such -- voting will not exist from the perspective that one is presented with a policy and either 'likes' or 'dislikes' it based on an opinion one has and would vote accordingly. Instead, one will be presented with policies which have been designed by various agents from various backgrounds/expertise who have volunteered to contribute their time to design policies as frameworks and guidelines in terms of how particular points are to be managed -- and these are always designed within the starting point and context of Equality and what is Best for All. The end result coming from this process, will then be peer reviewed to cross-reference the proposal and make sure that all points are aligned within what is Best for All and that no points have been left unconsidered.

All of these processes, will occur in a transparent, publicly available manner -- where at any moment, anyone can check the movement of information -- leaving no space for 'hidden agendas'.

Upon completion of the peer review, the particular proposal or policy will be presented to the public for voting -- which is then in essence the final stage of review/cross-referencing. Within the voting process one is then in fact indicating that one agrees that what is proposed is indeed Best for All -- and if one disagrees, one would have to back up this disagreement with the necessary proof and evidence -- upon which the policy/proposal can be revised/re-evaluated (simply having an 'opinion', is thus not acceptable).

Within this structure Education will play a major role, within ensuring effective education to all children in order to provide them with the necessary mathematical, scientific and common sense skills and insights, to be able to evaluate and participate within policy formulation or policy-review effectively.

The focus is thus on the Participation of the Majority within directly taking part in the policy creation process.

Within this, the approach of 'Prevention is the Best Cure' also plays a vital role -- where we want to ensure that all policies and decision-making are done in order to prevent consequences resulting from inequality. When consequences have already manifested, this would indicate a major problem in the effective application processes where a point within the foundation is unsound and 'cracked' so to speak, which results in having to 'go back' and fix things -- which is unnecessary and could have been prevented, and these points would as such require urgent attention. We thus want to ensure at all all points are taken into consideration at all times, so that a sound foundation can be in place which will prevent unnecessary harm and abuse from taking place. This is in contrast to our current system, which only acts after problems and consequences have already taken place and only then devise solutions -- which is in essence, doing everything 'backwards'.

Related articles

• Day 137: Greece: The Birth and Death of Democracy
• Day 111: Evilution - Neocolonialism - Part 2
• Day 128: What We've Failed to Consider about Policy and Voting
• Day 141: Even the Rain: Water Politics - Catastroika
• Day 140: Congo - Children Torn from Families as we Speak to Fight as Soldiers in Civil War
• Day 142: Presidents under Fire

Read More