Day 108: Virtual Democracies

This Blog is a continuation to:
Day 106: Structural Adjustment

In the above-mentioned blog-post the main types of economical reforms that are demanded by the IMF and the World Bank from developing countries have been laid out. Though, the IMF/World Bank don't keep to only demanding economic reforms. They also demand political reforms. Specifically, authoritarian regimes are asked to install liberal democracies in their countries - and if they don't, they won't receive further aid.

Once this demand for political reforms was declared, many, if not most, African countries started holding elections, started allowing opposition parties, started allowing independent media and freedom of speech, etc. On the surface, it seemed like the whole of Africa had converted to liberal values and principles - however, how substantial were the democracies and to what extent were they just an image, a projection, to keep the rich nations happy and willing to continue providing aid?

The holding of elections in African nations has often being applauded as a sign of successful democratic transition. However, most elections were problematic and the validity of their outcomes sincerely doubtful. Incumbents regimes (incumbent means 'currently in power') in many cases manipulated the electoral process in any way they could to be able to remain in power. They handpicked partisans to serve on so-called 'independent' electoral commissions, they denied opposition parties access to state-owned media, they used state resources to fund their electoral campaigns, invented new electoral rules and qualifications to exclude critical segments of the opposition and used the police and other security agencies to intimidate and harass opposition candidates. This frustrating of the electoral process often led to the boycotting of elections and the rejection of election results.

One of the consequences is that because the incumbent regime was now apparently re-elected by the people, the authoritarian rulers were given a form of legitimacy, further anchoring themselves into their power-seats.

In terms of opposition parties - as has already been shown - they often did not have a real chance at winning the elections. One of the problems was self-inflicted, where every disgruntled elite and aspirant president formed their own opposition party. At some point in Zaire there were over 200 opposition parties. The opposition parties did not really have a clear agenda or standpoint, except that they were 'against' the current rulers - and thus they didn't provide any desirable alternatives. Also, any 'loss of votes' on the part of the incumbent regime were distributed amongst all of these different opposition parties, not allowing any of them to gather sufficient votes to stand as a real 'threat' to the incumbent regime.

The upholding and protecting of human rights is seen as an important part of democracy - yet, in the 'newly converted' nations, human rights have continued to be breached - where the rights of outspoken critics, members of the opposition and independent media to free speech, association and fair hearings were regularly denied - where they were even harassed and detained without charge or trial for extended periods of time.

Accountability to the population is what democracy is all about - yet this is often completely absent in the African 'democracies'. They are generally entirely insensitive of the demands and welfare of their citizens, corruption, clientelism and violations of the rule of law are the general way of doing things. Furthermore, to what extent can national governments be accountable to their population if their loyalties lie with international donors and agencies upon which they depend for money?

We really only mentioned a few points in this blog - but this alone should clarify how the newly reformed African 'democracies' are in fact still the same old authoritarian governments, dressed up in a democratic costume. On the surface they will play the game of elections and opposition parties, but when it comes down to it, any method is used to remain in power and do whatever benefits themselves.

Such hypocrisy is, of course, to be expected if change is imposed from the outside. I don't know what the international community was thinking in forcing others to adopt democratic 'forms' of government. Yes, the form has changed, but the content is still the same. Change must be sincere and driven from within to be valid and long-lasting. To say: become democratic or you are cut off is not going to give birth to true democracy - anyone can see that...

Source:
Osaghae, E. 1999. Democratisation in sub-Saharan Africa: faltering prospects, new hopes.  Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 17(1): 5-28. Reprinted with permission from Dalro.

Related articles

• Day 99: Money Votes
• 106: Structural Adjustment
• Day 120: True Activist Politics
• Day 82: Government Failure
• Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?

Read More

Day 107: Getting Reality to Conform to an Illusion

This Blog is a continuation to:
Day 98: The Unholy Trinity
Day 99: Money Votes
Day 102: Liberalism
Day 103: Abstract Equality
Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedoms
Day 105: Human Liberties
Day 106: Structural Adjustment
 

 I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an opinion as an ideology where apparently ‘freedom’ stands central and where ‘equality’ is valued – yet this ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ is nowhere to be found/seen – as my opinion/ideology only values particular resources such as money, skills and talent – where these are not equally distributed among the population and so this result in inequality and lack of freedom as one can only do so much in this world when one is limited by money

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that this ideology is only an opinion I have created in my mind – where my values work for me, where I was lucky to have been born in an environment where money and skill was made available to me through having been born in a family with money and thus having had access to education – and where I have taken this point and made it universal, where if I can do it, anyone can do – and so if one does not make a ‘success’ out of themselves, the reason for this must lie in the character of the person as them being ‘lazy’ – without ever stopping for a moment and seeing/realising that not everyone is born into an environment where money and education is available – and so what works for me might not (and most of the time, will not) work for others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have taken my opinion which I did not practically test out / challenge in physical reality and turned it into a grand-scale opinion as ideology – and then used money as a way to enforce this ideology on others – where if others want to have money to help themselves they must comply to my ideology and so they go and comply to my ideology which has no relationship to how things actually physically, practically work in this world – but since they see no other way of getting money, they will place themselves in this precarious situation as no choice is left

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that if my ideology/opinion works for me – it should work for everyone – without actually investigating whether it is so – where I then go and impose my opinion which is a made-up illusion, unto reality and try to get reality which is real to conform to my opinion which is an illusion – which then obviously only results in the abuse of reality in the attempt to change/mould it into something which it cannot be – where millions of people pay the consequence, since my opinion as ideology is being imposed on entire countries and their population

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that my opinion/ideology only works if you have money –and thus if one goes and impose this opinion on an environment which lacks money: the consequences are disastrous


I commit myself to show that our current economic system as values is merely based on ideology as opinion and is not rooted in actual physical practicality

I commit myself to show that traditional economists are not interested in providing actual solutions which work for everyone but are only interested in preserving their opinion as illusion and trying to impose this on reality and try to get reality to conform to an illusion which is practically impossible

I commit myself to show the importance of dealing and sorting out one’s opinions as when these opinions turn into ideologies which get enforced/imposed on a massive scale the results/consequences are disastrous and completely unnecessary

I commit myself to show that our current economic system is based on opinion and does not consider what it actually means to support Life on Earth and so I commit myself to the abolishment of our current economic system so we can make way for a New Economic System rooted in Physical Reality instead of opinion so we may finally have an Economic System of support in place

I commit myself to show that if opinions are left unchallenged, the consequences can be deadly

I commit myself to show that unless the human as human nature change – we will remain in fucked-upness – as the nature/reality of opinion on a personal scale has not yet been properly investigated/challenged but instead been protected and defended in the name of “freedom” – and where this unchallenged point manifests in a bigger scale as an ideology which is left unquestioned and has disastrous consequence but yet no-one will speak up in the name of “freedumb”

Related articles

• Day 103: Abstract Equality
• Day 139: The Rapture and True Activism
• Day 137: FREE Choice and True Activism
• Day 96: Individual Above Group?
• Day 146: Synchronicity and Natural Selection

Read More

Day 106: Structural Adjustment

Next we will be looking at some of the main conditions that are called for by the World Bank and IMF, These conditions have been placed in order to ‘assist’ the borrowing country in economic growth so that it will be able to pay off its debts. In many cases though, the actual results from structural adjustment report that the borrowing country is worse off after having accepted a loan from the IMF/World Bank – while the rich countries are reap the benefits.

Government Reduction

The main reason the IMF and World Bank think that a country is unable to pay its foreign debt, is the assumption that the Free Market is being obstructed by government activity. Their rationale is that if the government gets downsized, markets will function more effectively, which in turn will stimulate economic growth.

In the case of government reduction policies the government requires to abandon certain functions so that the private sector can take these functions over and optimize them. In the areas or functions that the government still retains (because it is either impossible for the private sector to do it better or those functions that are hard to impossible to capitalise from but are a necessity for society) – cutbacks in spending and staff are demanded.

In most countries (both rich and poor), the government is the largest employer. In poor countries where a strong private sector has not yet been developed, the government is most often the dominant force in the country’s economy. Sudden and extensive cuts in government spending can leave hundreds of thousands of people jobless and contribute to a massive surge in unemployment. In addition to that, because the private sector is not as developed as in other countries, frequently the functions and services the government stopped providing, do not get continued by the private sector – because there is simply no-one to take it over!

Privatization

Government reduction goes hand in hand with privatization plans. Governments agree to lay off thousands of workers to prepare the way for corporations to privatize.
This however does not leave the private sector untouched by the IMF and World Bank. Privatization is often also affected by downsizing, as well as private employer assaults on unions and demands for wage reduction.

Labour Flexibility

IMF and World Bank often demand higher labour flexibility. This concept refers to the transformation of labour to a mere commodity. This policy promotes and enables companies to hire and fire workers, and change the terms and conditions of work with only minimal regulatory restriction.

The IMF/World Bank reason that if labour is treated like a commodity, the free market system will function more efficiently and effectively, which in turn will stimulate economic growth.

The theory however does not match up with reality. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist shared with ‘Multinational Monitor’: “The evidence in Latin America is not supportive of those conclusions. Wage flexibility has not been associated with lower unemployment. Nor has there been more job creation in general.” Where “labor market flexibility was designed to move people from low productivity jobs to high productivity jobs, too often it moved people from low productivity jobs to unemployment, which is even lower productivity.”

Wage Decompression

Wage decompression refers to the increasing of the ratio of highest to lowest paid worker. This concept is most commonly applied within the public sector where the government has the authority to regulate wages, and is done in order to “reduce government expenditure”. However, this concept is not applied to managers where the belief is held that higher pay is needed to attract high quality employees and to provide an incentive for hard work.

Sometimes the World Bank and IMF also apply wage freezes, wage cuts and wage rollbacks in the private sector (where the minimum wage is frozen or reduced). These various policies of wage adjustment are often referred to “wage flexibility”.

Pension Reforms

Pension reforms come down to the implementation of lower benefits, provided at a later age – along with the privatization of social security

Related articles

• Day 98: The Unholy Trinity
• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 99: Money Votes
• Day 83: Nationalisation and Privatisation
• Day 52: Government Intervention
• Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!

Read More

Day 105: Human Liberties

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that the right to be free is a right that is more important than any other right and must be protected at any and all cost.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to entertain myself with an idea of absolute freedom that doesn't really exist in real life, because simply within the consideration that we live in a physical time-space reality implies limitations and thus not absolute freedom, where we cannot choose our form, we cannot choose to be able to fly, we cannot choose not to die and so on.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe that if society were to be reorganised in a way so as to improve the well-being of the group as a whole, that this would mean an unacceptable infringement on my personal freedom, where I would have to give up various freedoms that I would be able to pursue in an individual-based society.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to ask myself the question what there is in life that I can actually choose - where I have apparent freedom, but just blindly accept that this freedom exists as though it is a given and as though I 'enjoy' and 'experience' this freedom.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that most of a human being's life is already structured before-hand by mandatory schooling and the necessity to work for money to be able to survive.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we 'choose' to study is not in the realm of freedom as what someone studies is determined by intelligence, by money available by the parents or support structure and by the prospect of how much money one can make with the jobs that could be available after completion of the studies.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that our profession is not really part of the realm of freedom because what job we end up doing is dependent on whether there are any vacancies available and if you can 'compete' with other people for the same position.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that the choice of who we spend our life with is often not part of the realm of freedom as it is often determined by the need for financial security, where the secret reason for marriages is money and not 'love'.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we wear is not a free choice, because what we can wear is firstly determined by the size and shape of our bodies, by what clothes are available in the stories, by what we can afford, by what is seen as acceptable in our social group of friends and by explicit rules and regulations that determine what is 'appropriate' and what is not.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that we are not free in what choices we make in shops in terms of what brands we buy, because this is again determined by what we can afford, by what is seen as appropriate by our social environment and, not to forget, by advertisement that brainwashes people into believing that their brand is the best brand and that you really need to buy stuff of that particular brand.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that what we do in our 'free' time is not to do with freedom either, because what activities we can partake in is again determined and limited by the money we have available for these activities, as well as by our particular talents and capabilities.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise taht it's not because we can choose our next holiday destination that we are free, because we're here talking about where we're going to spend the one or the two weeks in a year where we are actually able to leave our house for an extended period of time, whereas for the rest of the year we're homebound due to our job - so how can choosing a holiday-destination have anything to do with freedom.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that participating in democracy as it exists today does not proof freedom, because we can only vote once every so many years after which we again have no say in decision-making.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if those things are, however, what constitutes 'freedom' - then reorganising a society in a way that benefits the group will in no way diminish these freedoms, but only expand them, as the Equal Money proposal shows.

I commit myself to relinquish any and all delusions of freedom we apparently have - because in terms of anything relevant, our ability to choose about it is really extremely limited.

I commit myself to educate people in the simple common sense that what aids the whole, aids the individual, as each individual is a part of the whole - and thus, the best way of expanding our freedom and range of self-determination, is through reorganising society in a way that focuses on the group first and from there, implicitly, empowers the individual.

I commit myself to educate people in how an Equal Money System will not diminish any 'freedoms' we have now, but will only expand them since our choices will no longer be determined by money-concerns and thus, we will actually be able to ask ourselves what we enjoy doing without ulterior motives.

Read More

Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!

The following paragraph is taken from the blog-post 'Day 102: Liberalism':

"Within liberalism it is believed that the individual can only “realise their potential” within being ‘free’. All individuals ought to enjoy equal freedom and within this is implied that people are only free to the extent that their freedom does not infringe that of others. Liberalism also likes to emphasizes freedom in the light of private matters and freedom as the absence of state interference. State intervention is often interpreted as undermining the individual’s liberty, which is why liberals are pro capitalism and proponents of free market economies."

The principle of individual freedom is used time and time again to prevent a way of organising society in a way that places the group above the individual.

So - we take a moment here to look at the question: what are these individual freedoms that are so important to be defended?

Apparently we are all immensely free and any proposition to focus our efforts towards the common good instead of individual pursuits of happiness would infringe on these freedoms. So, I took a moment to look at a human being's life and started wondering what all these freedoms are that people keep talking about.

Looking at a human being's life today, there really isn't that much people can 'choose' for themselves. You cannot choose to go to school, this is usually mandatory, you cannot choose to go to work, you have to go to work to make money. So - in terms of the basic structure of your life-path, it has already been laid out before us and there's nothing much you can do to change that at all.

So, what we can do is 'fill in the colours' - we can choose what we study. However, this choice is not exactly 'free' in the absolute extent, because what we study is often determined by intelligence, by money available by the parents or support structure and by the prospect of how much money you'll be able to make with a job once you've completed these studies.

We can also not exactly choose what job we want to do, because it depends on whether there are any vacancies available and if you can 'compete' with other people out for the same position.

So, what is left then? We can choose who we spend our life with, but even this is often determined by the need for financial security, where marriages often happen for money and not for 'love'.

Then, what does choice come down to?

To what we wear? Come on! What you wear is firstly determined by the size and shape of your body, by what is available in the stores, by what you can afford, by what is seen as acceptable in your social group of friends. And that's not even considering the limitations imposed by regulations that would deem certain ways of clothing to be offensive or 'too provoking'.

What brands we buy, maybe that's where our freedom lies. But what brands we buy is again influenced by our social environment and most of all by advertisements - where companies continuously brainwash us to think and believe that their brand is the best and buying their brand would make us happy. When we act on this brainwashing, is this the freedom that is spoken about?

Maybe our freedom is in what we do with our 'free time', like what hobbies and activities we partake in. But what we can do with our free time is again determined by the money we have available, what are talents and skills are.

Freedom could be picking out the next holiday-destination - but then again, can you really speak about freedom when you're talking about one or two weeks in a year where you are able to leave your home while the rest of the year you're forced to work?

Or maybe you mean that freedom is the ability to go vote once every so many years to choose the people to represent you in politics - but I mean, really - you only vote once every so many years and beyond that, you have no say.

I'm just trying to figure this out, you know - what everyone keeps talking about.

Let's take an Equal Money System as an example. You'll still be going through education and herein have a say in what you enjoy studying. You'll still work, although will only require to work for about 4 years and after that, it's up to you if you want to contribute or not. Your clothing will still be determined by what is available, except you'll have time to play with making your own clothes and be creative within it. You'll have a massive amount of free time where you can really dedicate time to what you enjoy doing, to developing skills and interests. You'll be able to decide who you live with and this time money won't even be a constricting factor. In terms of politics, you'll be involved in all decision-making, not just once every so many years. So - looking at all the freedoms we're so afraid of losing - you won't lose any in an economic system that is focused on the well-being of the group - you'll only gain more.

So, someone please explain to me what these important freedoms are we apparently stand to lose, because I'm just not seeing it!

Related articles

• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 143: Free Stuff! And True Activism
• Day 137: FREE Choice and True Activism
• Day 142: Money and True Activism
• Day 122: TRUE ACTIVIST COLLEGE EDUCATION

Read More

Day 103: Abstract Equality

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system that values Equality only in thought

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system that promotes Equality to gain a sense of acceptance and promote an image of goodwill – while at the same time only upholding this principle in one’s mind within stating that everyone is equal but yet at the same time removing self from taking any practical steps to move this ‘Abstract Equality’ to ‘Concrete Equality’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system of manipulation that tricks people into believing that Equality is important and that everyone is considered Equal – simply for the sake of having the word ‘Equality’ attached to one’s specific ideology as it promotes a positive energy and is good PR for one’s ideology campaign

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see the manipulation within the current system as being two-faced – where the system promotes equality and inequality at the same time – where equality is upheld and valued in only an abstract sense and inequality is upheld and valued in the concrete sense which can clearly be seen in the inequality in resource access people have today

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created the perfect trap where one can have each hand in a different cookie jar – where the one hand is in the inequality cookie jar and the other in the equality cookie jar – where one states that equality is important and at the same time state that not everyone is equal in terms of talents, skills, education, drive – and then use this as a justification as to why inequality is inevitable – without ever for a moment stopping and looking at how we can adjust reality so that even though people are not equal we can still treat and create a system of support that will assist and support all to become the best version of themselves

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system where Equality is apparently valued within saying that this Equality is only abstract, meaning that it is something we value but will not act upon which is really just another way of saying that it is not valued – otherwise the necessary steps would have been taken to practically manifest abstract equality into concreteness

I commit myself to show that we have been sold a lie where all those promoting ‘Equality’ are only interested in equality as ‘thought’ where one can ‘think’ inside oneself that another is equal yet not act upon it / make it a physical reality and so we have all been conned to believe that people actually care about Equality while all the while all that’s been cared about is creating a false image to justify inequality

I commit myself to show that Equality has been abused within only been taken into consideration in an ‘abstract’ form which only exists/resides in the realm of the mind and has no actual practical, physical implication – where equality has been reduced to a mere thought, a prayer that has lost all meaning in this world

I commit myself to show that the way inequality has been justified is unacceptable since we accepted and allowed ourselves to recognize inequality yet failed to do anything about it, and rather abuse/exploit this opportunity to make the best out of it for ourselves only while those who are clearly disadvantages – and most by chance only – are left to fend for themselves and we tell ourselves at night that “it’s just inevitable ” to be able to sleep and not stay awake from guilt and shame

I commit myself to show that the only “ideology” which truly values Equality is the Equal Money System which actually cares to move Abstract Equality into Concrete Equality and to no more allow ridiculous excuses/justifications as why we allow inequality in this world

 Related articles

• Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?
• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 145: Labor and Slavery
• Day 127: TRUE ACTIVIST Greed of Happiness
• Day 149: ACCUMULATION SECRETS of WEALTH
• Day 103: Passion for Economics

Read More

Day 102: Liberalism

Within Day 98: The Unholy Trinity we mentioned that the IMF, World Bank and WTO hold a neo-liberal ideology.
Within this blog we are going to have a look at what ‘Liberalism’ (and neo-liberalism) exactly entails.
There are a few components which have been identified as being typical to Liberalism as an ideology, namely:
- Individualism
- Freedom
- Reason
- Equality
- Tolerance
- Authority and Government

Individualism

At the center of Liberalism lies the value of freedom/liberty of the individual. Within Liberalism, the individual is considered to be prior to society, within the reasoning that society is but a collection of individuals.
“The liberal goal is therefore to construct a society within which individuals can flourish and develop, each pursuing, ‘the good’ as he or she defines it, to the best of his or her abilities” [Andrew Heywoods in his book ‘Politics’].

Freedom

Within liberalism it is believed that the individual can only “realise their potential” within being ‘free’. All individuals ought to enjoy equal freedom and within this is implied that people are only free to the extent that their freedom does not infringe that of others. Liberalism also likes to emphasizes freedom in the light of private matters and freedom as the absence of state interference. State intervention is often interpreted as undermining the individual’s liberty, which is why liberals are pro capitalism and proponents of free market economies.

Reason

Just as in current economic thought, within liberalism the individual is seen as seen as a rational being, who can make rational, ‘wise’ decisions for themselves and are able to by themselves settle any disputes and problems

Equality

Apparently, ‘Equality’ is also a very important component of Liberalism, where “each individual is held as being of equal value”. Liberalism however, works with a special kind of equality, namely ‘Abstract Equality’. This means that inside one’s mind, people are ‘regarded as being equal’ – but in practical physical, material terms: this is no longer applicable. This ‘abstract equality’ is justified on the ground that individuals are at variance in the aspects of intelligence, talent, dedication and “the desire to work hard”. Liberalism likes to reward talent and dedication as ‘hard work’. But since we’ve just seen that ‘not everyone is equally talented’ and yet ‘talent merits reward’ – we know that not everyone is going to get rewarded = not everyone is being held as being of equal value. And from hereon, inequality is justified on the grounds that it is simply an outflow of natural differences and that people conduct their lives in different ways ( read = they don’t work as hard).

Which is interesting, because whenever the point of materialistic inequality gets questioned, liberals all the often like to put forth that people are poor ‘because of their own doing, if only they work harder they can be well off too’. Yet, in its basis, liberalism admits that A) not everyone has equal talent, and B) everyone should have equal opportunity, and where it is clearly stated that talent is favoured/rewarded – which in its very essence is unequal treatment.

Very peculiar this ‘Abstract Equality’ – I guess Abstract is just another way of saying it’s not really there since it’s just some principle they like to mention but not apply.

Tolerance

Here tolerance is viewed within the context that since everyone is allowed to do whatever they please, that each one should respect what another wants to do whether they agree with it or not, which somehow leads to individual liberty and social enrichment.
This is more like a comprise where you make a deal of “you don’t question me and I won’t question you” – where each party can do whatever they want whether it’s destructive or not just because each one wants to have that option available to them (to be destructive).

Authority and Government

According to liberals authority should always be exercised through consent and is therefore pro elections and representation (where the authority comes ‘from below’ as the people

and where the government is thus regarded as legitimate). The government is seen as an ‘intrusive power’ against which individuals need protection which is why many liberals are proponents of constitutionalism as a means to limit the power of the government.

People are assumed to have particular rights (life, freedom, property,… -- [I wonder if these are ‘abstract’ too]) and the only purpose of the state should be to protect these and further not meddle itself with the business of individuals.

Liberalism later diffused into two differing schools of thought, namely classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

Within classical liberalism the emphasis continues to lay on the liberty of the individual and the state is seen as a necessary evil where it’s only purpose is to safeguard the rights of individuals.

Modern liberalism goes a bit softer on the state since it recognizes that injustice may arise between ‘conflicting freedoms’  and that the state should step in when necessary, this also refers to for instance government intervention in the economy (like bailouts). For a while the welfare role of the government was accepted more within this school of thought, but it was then believed that the state could not handle this (not being able to meet all the demands of everyone) and since then the role/scope of the government has been tried to be ‘rolled back’. This last development in modern liberalism is often referred to as neo-liberalism or contemporary classical liberalism. It is this ideology which the WTO, IMF and World Bank have adapted and promote through their various “aid” programs.

Read More

Day 101: True Care Knows no Compromise

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to take it for granted that doctors' handwriting is illegible.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to think it's normal and acceptable that doctors' handwriting is illegible, even on medical prescriptions, thinking that doctors 'can't help but write in an illegible manner'.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that that there can be serious consequences if doctors do not clearly state/write what the patient requires as medication and how/how often the medication should be administered - and thus, that it is of great importance that the doctor writes the prescriptions in a clear and legible manner - as important as the diagnosis itself.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to question why doctors never do an effort to change their handwriting and what it implies about who they are within being a doctor; that they do not actually care about life or their patients, but that they only care about their egos and other people seeing them as 'more'/'superior' to them, so that they can feel real good about themselves.

I forgive msyelf for accepting and allowing myself to believe, as a doctor, that I have the right to a crappy/illegible handwriting, because I have studied for over 7 years in order to do a great service to humanity by becoming a medic - and therefore, I am allowed to have an illegible handwriting as a reminder to everyone how I have sacrificed so much of my time and money to benefit others.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe, as a doctor, that I deserve the praise of my fellow human beings for my 'selflessness' in becoming a doctor, instead of being honest with myself and admitting that I really just wanted to have a good-paying job and wanted to be a respected citizen - and not because of selflessness - because if the doctor really wanted to do a service to his fellow human beings, he would make sure his handwriting is legible so as to provide the best possible care to his patients and mimise possible harm.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to be 'content' with a doctor who simply has a lot of knowledge, instead of realising that a real caretaker would perform every part of this duty with care - including the writing out of the prescription.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to question an economic system wherein people become doctors not because they really care about people, but just because they wish to get recognition and a lot of money - where we place our trust, our health and our lives in the hands of people who really only care about themselves, their wealth and their reputation.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that any economic system wherein someone's job is a means towards an end (money/income) - will always produce professionals who perform below standard, because they are more concerned with the end that with the means - whereas, in an Equal Money System, the job is the end in itself, as someone will have a certain profession as a means of self-realisation and self-fulfilment and not because of any other ulterior motives.

I commit myself to expose the superficiality of the elite in that they really worry about what people think of them, just like everybody else.

I commit myself to expose how the seemingly selfless individuals in society merely act according to their own self-interest and within that, cause harm to others - all perpetuated by our economic system that assumes of human beings that they cannot be anything else/anything more than egoistical creatures who eventually only care about themselves - instead of acknowledging that human beings have limited themselves to believe that all we can be is self-serving creatures, when we are able to change and transform ourselves to serve life.

And thus, I commit myself to designing, establishing and promoting an Equal Money System that supports human beings to realise their full potential without harming others in the process.

I commit myself to discover and in turn educate people on what it means to care and that there are no compromises within this, where we cannot pretend to care based on these and these facts if we are still allowing acts of inconsideration and harm out of self-interest.

Related articles

• Day 100: Will a Doctor's Handwriting be Legible in an Equal Money System?
• Day 96: Individual Above Group?
• Day 93: Grey Populations and Hopes for Peace in Old Age going Dark
• Day 47: The Economic Problem - Part 2
• Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?

Read More