Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice

This blog post is a continuation to:

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Substantive Justice as part of Legal Justice has to do with the rules as laws are just or not. Here, what is specifically understood as 'just' is: are 'dues' specified in a just way. In other words - does the law specify who gets rewards and who gets punishment in a just way?

Obviously - this is again very concerning, because that would indicate that we have already as a society and as a humanity accepted that justice is maintained through handing out punishments and rewards. And where does this acceptance and allowance come from? From the time when we were children, where we were treated with this warped concept of 'Justice' by our parents. But why do parents punish and reward their children to, apparently, 'educate' them into becoming 'good people'? Do parents really try to assist the children in being the best and most honorable version of themselves - or are they actually just molding them in order to fit in in society and be able to survive in the current system? The current system where, if one has any actual consideration  for another, it will stand in your way of being successful - because to be successful requires of a person to not care of the consequences of one's actions in the current economic system.

Ultimately - why parents punish and reward is to encourage certain kinds of behavior and discourage other kinds of behavior. When a child throws a tantrum - the parent punishes to make the behavior stop. But does that assist the child? Does the child gain any understanding of the experience that they just went through? Obviously not and the reason why this is not happening is because parents themselves don't understand where they own anger comes from, where there own thoughts come from and how they accumulate energy within themselves until the culmination point reaches the point of no longer being able to suppress it and then it all just comes out. Parents cannot educate their children, because they have not done this research for themselves and have not assisted themselves to work through these experiences. And they never have because no-one ever assisted or educated them to be able to do this. And so the cycle has always continued - where children, generation after generation, are being controlled through manipulation as punishment and reward - learning to suppress what the parents have labelled as 'bad' and trying to present what the parents have labelled as 'good'. But no actual change takes place -the child is the same child, but has just learned how to blend in in order to avoid punishment and attract reward. So - the child is not a more honorable child because it has now been conditioned to act a certain way. Being an honorable person, a person with integrity, is not a consequence of conditioning, it is a consequence of consideration and understanding. So long as those points are not present, then we cannot speak of honor or integrity.

And the same principle is being applied in the Justice system - showing that the justice system still hasn't grasped the concept of Justice. A just society - is that a society in which human beings have been conditioned to tolerate each other to the highest degree possible - or is it a society in which each human has actual and real consideration for each other human? Those are two entirely different societies - so why are we settling for the one where Justice is but a mirage, an illusion, a projection and a farce?

For real justice to take place, any behavior that causes harm in a society should be addressed in the form of having the abuser go through a process of education and self-introspection, assisted by professional psychologists, to trace back the origin of their behaviors and being shown how this behavior can be corrected. I mean - how else are we expecting to change our society if we do not address the origin of the behavior that we see as problematic. Trying to 'keep a lid' on things is part of why outbursts take place - and so, our educational paradigm that forms the basis of our justice system is a very big part of the problem we face today, where crime is soaring, where people can barely tolerate each other, where hate speech runs rampant, where bickering is a daily sport, where wars of all kinds are so common that we've numbed ourselves to the news coverage images.

The very fact that the word 'Substantive' as in 'Substantive Justice' is used to denote the practice of punishing and rewarding as a means of managing and controlling human behavior already shows a contradictio in terminis.  Because nothing substantial is going on within it - in fact, it's all about upholding a make-belief idea of justice - a justice that does not actually care about creating the just society, a society of integrity and honor in each living being towards themselves and every other being - but a justice that protects the interests of the few - those who can afford them being protected.

To substantially change the fabric of society, we require to first pay attention to the substance of ourselves. To continue utilizing 'human nature' for the existence of system of control is unacceptable. We can change our nature, we can change our substance, and so - change our society to one that doesn't require us to use the carrot and the stick approach. We claim to be so great, to have created 'civilization', to push for scientific progress, to place a man on the moon - but when it comes to our own nature -the one thing that we are truly responsible for - we're suddenly incapable of changing it, too limited to put our own affairs in order? How can that be rationalized?

Related articles

• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 389: The Policeman in the Head that Raises our Children
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Dag 113: A Family Tree of Judgments
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued

Related articles

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

Read More

Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

This blog-post is a continuation to
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights

Legal Justice - Procedural

As said in the blog 'Day 118: Justice and Human Rights', Legal Justice entails both procedural justice and substantive justice.

Procedural justice, otherwise known as formal justice, refers to the procedures that are followed when making rules. It has to do with how decisions are made, not what the decisions entail. Substantive justice, as the term indicates, has to do with the substance or content of the decisions.

Procedural justice is underpinned by two important principles:
1. That all members of the population are equal before the law and thus, that no discrimination may occur on any basis. This requires 'impartial judges' who will not allow bias within the decision-making process. We will get back to this subject at a later point in the discussion.
2. That all is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second principle partially shines a light on what society regards as being ' moral justice'. When a situation of harm occurs, what is done in our current legal system, is to pin-point the one party that is guilty for the harm caused. During trials - many factors and participants are often identified as possibly having contributed to the harm - but if there is no proof that this factor/participant is the origin of the harm - then there are no further consequences. This obviously raises concern - because it would mean that accountability and responsibility is a very limited concept in our current understanding - where we believe that we are only accountable and responsible for harm that actually took place as a result of our actions. But the truth is - we are responsible and accountable for any harm that COULD take place as a result of our actions. If during trial, many factors and participants are seen to have possibly contributed to the manifestation of harm - then why are these points not addressed, so that - even if in this particular case these factors/participants were not the cause of the harm - that the possibility of harm manifesting as a consequences of these factors/participants' behavior is ruled out?

Is justice only trying to find blame and claim reparation for damages that were suffered? Or does justice also entail the prevention of possible harm? We can ask if those participants whose behavior was identified to have possibly caused the harm (even though it happened to not be the so in the particular case) are equally responsible and accountable for the harm that took place. Because they equally allowed the possibility of this harm to take place. Is it not problematic that during trial we become aware of all kinds of possibly harmful factors - yet, ignore them, just because there has been no consequence of them yet? Do we need to wait for harm to actually occur before the word 'justice' becomes an issue?

To be continued.

Read More

Day 219: Equality and Human Rights

While Maite will be walking the Justice point as a blog-series, I will be walking the point of Equality at the same time within a series of blog-posts.

We’ll be investigating and walking the various dimensions from which people interpret the word Equality, and practically walk the process of establishing a definition and perspective on Equality which we can practically apply and live by within this world.

Some of the points will be looking at are:

• The ‘natural inequality of human beings’
• Equality as a Moral Ideal
• Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome
• Economic Equality
• Justifications for Inequality
• The ‘Problems of Equality’

Within walking and exploring these points we want to show how our current definition and understanding of Equality is contradictory and inadequate (and sometimes even plain preposterous) – and debunk some of the most common arguments that justify human inequality.

Where does this ‘Natural Inequality’ Story come from?

When we go way back in history, there is account of claims of natural human inequality as far back as the Classical Period. Both Plato and Artistotle stated that humans were naturally unequal, as well as being unequal in the functions or tasks that they perform (which is mostly what the claim of ‘inequality’ is founded on).

Since then, when people reflect on the concept of Equality, it is mostly done from the starting point of what characteristics we as human exhibit, and what functions we perform. From there, a connection is drawn that since we are different, we must be unequal. Note that within such a statement, an implicit assumption is made that equality and sameness is somehow closely related, especially in terms of “empirical” characteristics.

When we look at Equality and the relationship of Humans to the concept of Equality, in terms of what we ‘derive’ our Equality from, we are in essence making a value judgment. Back in the day, it is obvious within how Equality was viewed, that a value judgment was made which regarded one’s characteristics which would define one’s function in society as ‘important’, and used that variable as the baseline from which each one’s Equality was ‘measured’. Philosophers like Plato placed much value into ‘reason’ and ‘wisdom’ which enabled the philosopher to determine what is ‘good’ and ‘virtuous’, and were supposedly the ‘only ones who knew reality’. Within doing so, a distinction was made between ‘the people’ and ‘the philosophers’ which regarded philosophers as ‘more than’ a “normal” person, because their reasoning and insight were inadequate and incomplete. In modern times, this idea still sticks but can be translated into a more capitalistic notion where “those who are smart, ambitious and industrious are ‘more than’ those who aren’t”. Plato’s and Aristotle’s statements on Human Equality were never really questioned, and to this day – the same reasoning is still being applied to justify unequal treatment of Human Beings, and any other Life Form for that matter.


A statement was made that because ‘we exhibit differences, we must be unequal’ – and everyone just went with it.

Within the next blog we’ll be questioning this statement and explore where our Equality comes from, if it does not lie within the capacities we exhibit – then what or where do we derive our Equality from?

Stay tuned!

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 364: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part Two)
• Day 365: Is God a Fundamental Human Right?
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"

Read More

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

Within this Blog I will be exploring different concepts of Justice and investigate what Justice would be in the context of upholding Constitutional Equality as What is Best for All in an Equal Money Capitalistic system. This will probably turn out to be a series rather than one blog-post. So - walk with me.

The word 'Justice' has been applied in different contexts, which can be laid out as follows:

1. Legal Justice
    a. Procedural Justice
    b. Substantive Justice
2. Moral Justice
    a. Distributive/Social Justice
        I. Justice as Entitlement
        II. Justice as Fairness

Legal Justice vs. Moral Justice

Legal justice refers to adherence to the law as a set of rules that determines part of how humans are to behave towards each other and towards the environment. Legal justice, then, as to do with the content of these laws as well as how these rules are established, applied and enforced.

Moral justice has to do with moral values of what is fair, right and correct. Moral justice then has to to with prescribing how humans ought to interact with each other and who ought to get what.

Looking at the relationship between moral justice and legal justice - it is obvious that legal justice attempts to specify moral justice in relation to specific circumstances and situations - where legal justice is the 'concretization' of moral justice. Now, what is fascinating - is that 'moral justice' is often seen as a 'fuzzy' concept, or having to do with 'fuzzy concepts' such as 'rightness' and 'goodness' - where it seems it is hard to define what those words actually entail - and yet, it is those words that serve as the basis for legal justice - where legal justice - where legal justice is the justice that is applied unto a population and is supposed to yield just results - and where it is trusted that this is what the legal system intends to do. But if we are not clear on what moral justice exactly is - then how can we assess that the legal system is in fact just?

We have in all countries and even between countries a complex legal system in place - but when the question is asked: 'but what is morally just?' - then we have to scratch our heads and we refer to the law - saying that 'well, whatever the law says'. So - we're running in circles where we are attempting to establish just and good societies, where we all have an opinion about what rules should be in place, and where each one thinks their proposed rule is the right one - but where no-one has ever stopped to sit and discuss what 'rightness' is - and where the time has not been taken to come to a definition of 'justice' that all can agree on.

Many parts of the legal system are, for instance, determined by customary law - and all that means is that legal status has been given to customs and 'how things are usually done' - this ultimately proving that we cannot trust that the legal system in any way has the purpose of justice at heart - but rather attempts to merely control transactions, interactions and individual behavior.

To be continued.

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money
• 362. Water is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"
• Day 352: Occupy Wall Street and Zeitgeist: Can the 99% Count?
• 325. Public Good in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 292: The Dignity of Suicide vs The Shame of Poverty?
• 360. Humanitarianism and Equal Money
• 327. Collectivism in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 217: Who's Free Riding Who?

In economics you have the 'free-rider' phenomenon, a concept which if often brought forward in favour of capitalism.

The free rider concept refers to instances where someone enjoys the benefits of a product or service, without having paid for that particular good or service.

A classic example that is used in text books is where someone uses a form of public transportation such as a train, without having paid for a ticket, and is thus 'free riding'. The same goes when there is for example a project where there is collective action to reduce emissions as to increase air quality. Some may not want to participate/contribute and keep their emission levels the same while everyone else is lowering theirs, still resulting in better air quality for them, even though they did not contribute.

Now, within the context of economics, capitalism thinks to have the solution for the free rider problem, by trying to capitalize on as much as possible. If everything has a price, then everyone who uses whatever good or service, will pay.

Linked to this is also the whole 'but I worked so hard for this' and 'it's not fair that I have worked for this and that others besides me are benefiting from it, if they want it they should just work for it' mentality. This is the result from believing that our current society and economic system truly provide everyone with 'equal opportunity' -- while this is not the case.

When the Equal Money System is put forward, the 'free rider problem' gets hauled in to show how 'unfair' the system is, because everyone is provided for even though not everyone may be contributing (because they are unable to).

The problem with the free rider concept is that it is only ever brought up in the interest of holding on to one's money where "it's mine! And I worked for it!". Other forms of free riding are never brought up.

If everyone consumed as much as an average American, we would need 5 planet Earths. Put otherwise, it's a situation where 5% of the population consumes 20% of the Earth's resources. Isn't that free riding as well? You are then free riding because other people both now and in the future will bare the consequences of the unsustainable lifestyle someone else enjoys. Free riding doesn't only occur when someone is enjoying the benefits, but when someone is not taking part in resolving the consequences of the actions you are involved in.
People are being deprived of resources which are being directed towards unsustainable lifestyles – and so people are free riding on the lives of others and free riding on borrowed time from generations to come. Dumping waste into the ocean or poor countries with weak environmental regulations is free riding the Earth. The continuous postponement of coming to an actual agreement that is binding for everyone to reduce emissions and use of fossil fuels is free riding. Each time we wait with making crucial decisions which we KNOW will affect future generations is free riding. Just because ‘we won’t be here to face the music’, we don’t care = free riding.

We live in a polarized world of massive inequality – where some have more than they’ll ever need and other barely, and even don’t, get by on a day to day basis. Rich countries positions today are the result of free riding other countries in the past under forms such as colonisation and slavery. Without free riding, capitalism as it exists today would not have been possible.

Instead of moaning about people benefiting from your efforts, it would be better to spend one’s energy towards ensuring that we have a world that is Best for All to make sure that we can all live and live sustainably while ensuring the safety of life for future generations. This is the only form of free riding that is really a problem – as it has actual physical consequences on the life of others, while the free riding problems most people currently care about only hurts one’s self-interest and ego and does not really pose any real problems.

In an Equal Money System, we care about real free riding problems and will act according to the principle of Prevention is the Best Cure to minimize consequence as much as we are able to

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• 338. What is Equal Money Capitalism?
• Day 336: Democracy and Capitalism are the Redistribution of Wealth - (Part Two)
• 361. Food is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 359: Pricing and Labeling in Equal Money Capitalism Profit-Share (Part Two)
• 339. Value in Equal Money

Read More

Day 216: Children Seduced to Spend Real Money on Games

"A schoolboy has unwittingly racked up a £2,000 credit card bill playing an online game on his grandfather’s iPad.

Six-year-old Will Smith was innocently playing the popular children’s video game Tiny Monsters until his grandfather Barry Slatter, 55, was contacted by the fraud squad.

The family was unaware of little Will’s huge spending spree until his grandmother tried to use the credit card at Tesco, only to have it declined."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205555/Schoolboy-massive-credit-card-playing-iPad-Tiny-Monsters-app.html#ixzz2RDDz9inE

"A 12-year-old boy accidentally ran up a £1,500 bill while playing Xbox Live - leaving his cash-strapped dad with no choice but to pick up the tab.

Sam Ghera's son Nik thought he was using up game points every time he 'improved' his characters while playing Call of Duty and Fifa.

However, with each click he was actually purchasing an online currency - which was draining money from his dad's account."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171930/X-Box-Live-Boy-playing-Call-Duty-Fifa-ran-1-150-bill.html#ixzz2RDEEp7N7

More and more children's video games provide the option to buy additional features or short-cuts in the games with real money. Many of these games work with virtual currency as part of the game, but then switch to ask for real money for certain purchases. No need to say that children have a tendency to mix up imagination with reality. The difference between the two is simply not very obvious to them. Especially, when we're looking at Gaming Apps on touchscreen devices - where the characters of the game can actually be touched and moved by their finger. So - to expect a child to understand the difference between virtual money and real money - where real money is nothing more than numbers on a screen in the first place - is quite far-reaching.

So, what is the deal with these games where it is extremely easy for children to make real purchases on their parents' account? Are they trying to trick children to purchases they don't realize they're making - having children give money to a company - money which isn't even theirs? Having children doing the stealing for the company? Or is it about molding children to become the future generation of consumers? Where they learn to spend virtual money in a game and find that it is so easy - but then, as soon as real money comes in the picture, the parents deny them the right to buy what they want with real money. Then the child holds a grudge and they promise themselves that as soon as they have their own money, of which they can decide how they want to spend it - that they will always buy whatever they want to buy - creating the perfectly manipulable consumer. Because then, all that needs to be done is to spark a desire - and there you have it, an eager buyer.

Here is another example:

"Facebook has been accused of creating ‘tomorrow’s generation of problem gamblers’ by rolling out real money casino games.

Under a lucrative deal with online gaming company 888, the social networking giant will offer Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as roulette and blackjack.

The move heralds a major expansion of its gambling sites.

Gamers will be able to place up to £500 on bets using a credit or debit card with promises of jackpots worth tens of thousands of pounds.

These will only be available in the UK, where gaming laws are more relaxed than in the US. Both Facebook and 888 insist they have safeguards to prevent minors from accessing the games.

These include checking the credit card details used against both their Facebook profile and the electoral register.

But there is nothing to stop children logging on to parents’ accounts and using card details already stored on the family computer. Already, Facebook users as young as 13 can use virtual slot machines on the website to win ‘credits’ – which have no monetary value.

But as soon as they turn 18, millions of children who use the social networking site will be bombarded with adverts for real money gambling games.

Facebook has three million UK users aged between 13 and 17. But a further one million are thought to be under 13 and pretending to be older.

Any of these could already be playing the ‘free’ slot and bingo games – which critics say form gambling habits because they simulate the thrill of hitting the jackpot.

More than a million people are already signed up to play 888’s free bingo game Bingo Island – although not all of these are UK based. They have to pay for online credits to play, but cannot win any real money back.
Concern: Critics worry users, including children using parents credit card details, will get hooked on the casino-style games

Yesterday 888 launched its first real money bingo application, with promises to roll out casino games. Critics fear many will be attracted to the new games to try to win money back, after experiencing the unrealistic odds offered on the free versions.

‘You win virtually every time you play one of the free games,’ said Mark Griffiths, professor of gambling studies at Nottingham Trent University.

‘Research has shown again and again that one of the biggest factors in developing problem gambling is playing free games online first. These children and teenagers today are the problem gamblers of tomorrow.’

He warned the deal with 888 could cause ‘the floodgates to open’ as gambling companies dive into the social media frenzy to make money. It is thought Facebook will take a 30 per cent cut of all bets placed.

In August, Facebook launched its first ‘real money’ gambling game with Bingo Friendzy, which offers bingo and slot machines. But the deal, done with Gamesys Group, is relatively small compared with the potential influx of gambling giants who could queue up to join Facebook if the venture proves to be profitable.

Itai Frieberger, chief operating officer of 888, said: ‘Our Facebook play for fun offerings have found a significant audience, and we are very excited by the opportunity real money gaming on Facebook provides.’ He said the company would prevent users who are under 18 on Facebook from even seeing the games.

A spokesman for Facebook said Bingo Friendzy players are subject to ‘strict account acceptance controls verifying their identity, and that they are over 18 and located in the UK.’ Gambling will not be promoted to Facebook members registered as under 18, it added.

Any of these could already be playing the ‘free’ slot and bingo games – which critics say form gambling habits because they simulate the thrill of hitting the jackpot."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247087/Fury-Facebook-online-casinos-Social-network-tempting-young-gamble-new-betting-games.html#ixzz2RDWYaO3H

If capitalism, as it says, is all about the freedom of the individual and about making your own choices - then how come an army of consumer-addicts is being created?

Related articles

• 342.Monetary System in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 282: Is Economics a Dangerous Cult?
• 338. What is Equal Money Capitalism?
• Day 283: The Fear of leaving behind Knowledge and Information
• 354. Self Governance in Equal Money
• Day 298: There is Too-Much Love in this World
• Day 357: Genetically Modified Facial Features for Beauty - the Future of Patents
• 353. The Best Regime is Equal Money
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• 352. The Solutions to Human Nature with Equal Money

Read More