Have you Ever been Swept Off Your Feet?

In both cases – whether the bubble was inflated with positive or negative energy – the participants in the bubble are being swept away further and further away from actual physical reality and start to see everything either ‘extremely negatively’ or ‘extremely positively’ – neither experience is grounded in reality – because the physical is neither positive or negative – it just is what it is.

And Then You Crash – Meconomics

In this little series, we’ve been investigating the phenomenon of inflation, how we in our daily lives participate in ‘inflating our reality’ and so, how we are on a personal level participating in the same principles/dynamics that we see playing out on a bigger scale when it comes to inflation, speculative bubbles and financial market crashes.

Welcoming New Life with Living Income Guaranteed

Comfort, security and nurturing are all things we wish are present when a baby comes into this world. Yet, these conditions are not a reality for many babies, as parents themselves like these things in their lives. In Pietermaritzburg, the capital of KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa, 3 to 5 babies are…

Humanity Washed Ashore

This was an excerpt of just one of the stories about the boy. Over the last few days, dozens have been written and published on various major news sites. What is more striking than the content of the posts, is the comments that are left on these articles. What is humanity’s response to such images, to such news?

Voting Fun – What does it Feel Like to Have a Say?

Now – before such increased direct political participation is a reality – let’s do a little test to see what it feels like. So – here are some mock-questions where you’re asked to give your input. Imagine that this relates to your direct reality (eg. your town) – and your answer has a weight that influences the outcome of the decision. Of course, in reality…

Showing posts with label ems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ems. Show all posts

31 May 2013

Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6


Continuing from:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5


In the previous blog we discussed the problems that ensue when a word has not been clearly defined, and how one ought to agree upon a singular definition and thus use a particular word consistently with its agreed upon meaning, to be able to have a meaningful discussion (which so far hasn’t happened in the history of the concept of Equality).

We also saw that the ‘Great Divide’ on the subject of Equality has mostly been of an illusionary nature, exactly because of the lack of agreement on a definition of Equality. How can we say that there is a disagreement on a singular issue, when both parties mean completely different things with ‘the one issue’?

All of this came forth as we were looking at one of the arguments/justifications (Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother) as to why we should not enforce/promote Equality within society, as we had to investigate in which sense ‘equal’ and ‘unequal’ was used in the sentence.

Within this blog we will be looking at ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ within using the definition of Equality as Life – where Humans are Equal by virtue of being Alive and being Animated by the same Life Force.

So, we have ‘Life’ as our starting point, as within this rests our Equality. Yet this this Life is not self-sustaining and particular conditions require to be in place for Life to thrive. We can then say, that any situation/circumstance which hampers the ability of Life to thrive, is one that is unequal or is a situation/circumstance within which inequality exists.

When we look at the statement ‘Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother ‘ from this perspective, we can clearly see that it does not make any sense, because having Life as one’s starting point cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome/end. And promoting Life as a value/principle cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome. So when statements are made about ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ – we have to investigate/look at each point terms of measuring its relation to Life: does it enhance or does it reduce Life?

When we look at Equality and Unequal/Inequality from this perspective – a lot of the statements/justifications as to why Equality should not be pursued ‘fall away’, as the logic behind the statement becomes inconsistent. Here we can for instance look at the statement that to ‘be equal’ means to ‘genetically disable the able’. Such actions obviously do not enhance Life and thus does not promote Equality among human beings as each one enjoying an Equal Life Experience. When we speak of Equality and Inequality, we are thus bound to keep ourselves to subjects and topics which directly affect human beings’ Living Standard and Quality of Life. This does not mean ‘Equal Treatment’ in the sense of the distorted definition of ‘giving each one the Same Treatment’ – but to treat one Another Equally as to support and assist another to the utmost of our ability so that one can enjoy the Best Quality of Life Possible. Here we have to be clear that ‘the same’ and ‘equal’ – are two different, separate concepts. Different people have different needs – and thus depending on how much support and assistance one requires to reach a Standard of Living that is Optimal – one will receive ‘less’ or ‘more’ to attain this Level – but yet the Outcome is Equal – as Life is each time respected and supported to the greatest extent possible. When one is born with a particular disadvantage which leads a particular individual to experiencing their Life as being obstructed – then the necessary steps require to be taken to remedy this point to the utmost of our ability, to ensure that this person despite their ‘born disadvantage’ may still experience a Life of Quality, as the Life we would have wanted for ourselves would we have been in the same position. Failure to address such impediments to a Thriving Life, would be termed an ‘Inequality’ and would thus be a Problem which requires to be Corrected.

Within the next blog we will look at some more points/statements anti-egalitarians come up with in an attempt to refute the promotion of Equality within society – and how these arguments lose all validity once the factors and variables are intricately linked and connected to Life and the support thereof, as how we explained it in this blog.

Enhanced by Zemanta

14 April 2013

Day 214: Guns, Nuclear Weapons and Human Stupidity - Win-Win Solutions with Equal Money

It seems that the more technological advances we make, the more stupid we become. How many of us do our mathematical calculations on paper, or in our heads like we were taught in school? Barely anyone, most have lost the skill since there's calculators doing it for us. But apart from this obvious example, we can observe the devolution of the human intellect in the development of nuclear weapons. And not only the first development of them - but the continued development of nuclear weapons after they have already been used twice - both times showing the absolute devastation these weapons cause, not only for those hit at the specific place and time - but also for generations to come and for the environment - and thus, seeing that we all live in one big eco-system that is the planet Earth - for everyone.

The use of nuclear weapons is an absolute lose-lose situation. It's the most stupid thing we could ever do. Nuclear warfare is the fast-track road to ending life on Earth. How is it that we have the intellectual capacity to design such things as nuclear weapons - but are unable to see that designing something you can't use is a complete waste of resources. And the justification is always that the weapons are there to deter another from using them. Really? A weapon that exists with the sole purpose of making sure it never gets used?

The same logic applies to owning guns. Apparently gun-owners all claim to be peaceful, non-violent beings, never intending on using their guns - but it's THE OTHER that might use THEIR GUN and so we need to be able to protect ourselves from THEM.

Both are examples of the prisoner's dilemma. The best way of avoiding nuclear warfare or gunfights - would obviously be to make it so that no nuclear weapons or guns are available to have such violence take place. In that - everyone would have to cooperate and agree to no longer produce such weapons or make them available. As soon as such weapons exist - distrust enters the picture - where, instead of cooperating with each other, each one will turn to fend for themselves. In that case - everyone will want to make sure they have the weapons to be able to protect themselves in case someone else wants to use theirs.

After so many centuries - and after so much apparent evolution we still haven't figured out that the win-win solution is to ban weapons altogether and to stick to the agreement to not have objects that are designed with no other purpose than to destroy Life. Or maybe we still haven't grasped the meaning of win-win solutions - where everyone comes out with the best possible result. Or maybe we believe that there is no way we can win if there isn't a loser involved as well - where we think we can only measure our own success or well-being against another's failures or misfortunes. 

How many more people and family members need to be lost in gun fights and wars before we realize the simplest truth: that as long as there are killing machines, someone will end up using them and others will get killed by them. If not because of an actual threat, then because of a perceived one. Take Pritorius as an example - who shot his own girlfriend because he was so terrified of someone breaking in.

We suggest that with the implementation of Equal Money - weapons and any object with the sole purpose of harming Life - are banned. Trust cannot be developed as long as each one is distrustful of others and only trying to fend for themselves - trust can only be developed when you first take a leap of faith, a leap of fearlessness. We think that if we are distrustful, that it protects us from fear - but distrustfulness in itself IS FEAR. So - we need to take a leap of fearlessness to create a platform of trust - and not accept or allow fear campaigns to influence us into thinking and believing that we are in imminent danger. Please - use common sense. Fear will get us nowhere - cooperation will.
Enhanced by Zemanta

24 March 2013

Day 208: Is Equal Money a Fascist Regime?

Continuing from yesterday's blog - Day 207: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia? - we're here going to have a look at the common accusation that Equal Money Capitalism or the Equal Money System will be a Fascist regime - where some even claim there will be some form of concentration camps where people will be brainwashed...

It is never really clear what the context is in which Equal Money supporters will apparently go and do this brainwashing, so I will walk through the different contexts that I see could be referred to.

The first one is the idea that the Equal Money supporters will attempt to utilize mind-technology to try to persuade anyone who does not agree with the Equal Money proposal. In terms of this point - there's really nothing to worry about. We've stated several times that Equal Money will only be implemented through Political means. This means that: if a vote is held to determine whether an EMS system would be implemented and the vote determines that the majority is not in favor of Equal Money - then it will simply not be implemented. There's not more to it, no-one will go and harass anyone that did not vote for Equal Money. That's completely non-democratic.

If the vote determining that the majority votes for implementation of Equal Money and you're then asking: what about the minority that does not agree with Equal Money? That is a point that is established by the democratic rules today. When the majority votes and the vote is binding, the minority has to adjust to the binding vote. That is how democracy operates at the moment. Once Equal Money is then implemented, the democratic system would change. Direct democracy will be instated in such a way that voting is no longer about implementing the policies and decisions that the majority wants, but will stand in relation to agreeing whether the proposed policy is indeed what is best for all. So, if one votes for the policy, one agrees that the policy is best for all. If one disagrees with the policy, one must provide proof that there is inequality in the equation and that it will cause harm that can be prevented - and then one can suggest adjustments to the proposed policy or suggest alternatives.

From this point onwards - if individuals continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and the policies that are established through such democratic means - three things can happen.

Scenario 1 - one takes some time to adjust and after a while sees that the fears one had about Equal Money had no real foundation, and in seeing how society operates according to the principles of Equality and What is Best for All - that it actually works out.

Or - scenario number 2: you continue to be in disagreement with Equal Money and express this disagreement through democratic means. Each one will have their online LifeProfile where they will stand in direct contact with the government administrators. When such input is received, you will be asked to supply specific information in terms of how you see yourself being harmed within the current system. If the information you provide indicates that you are indeed being harmed unnecessarily - solutions will be implemented to correct the disharmony in the design of the system. If it is found from the information your provided that the cause of your discontent is not within the system as the system is sound within the principles of harmony, equality and what is best for all - then support will be provided in terms of explaining how alternatives of the current system would cause greater harm. These points would have been scientifically determined through the policy-making process. If these explanations are rejected by the being without other reason than 'I just don't agree', then this may indicate that there may be some psychological imbalance where the person is not sufficiently capable of considering another as equal to themselves. In these cases, then, psychological support will be offered, where professionals will be available to assist you in correcting your own psychological disharmonies. This will not be compulsory. Forcing a person to change will not result in actual self-responsibility and self-correction - one can only correct oneself - therefore, assistance can be offered, but it cannot be forced upon the person. If assistance is refused, one will have to live with one's own discontent as the refusal to change will be one's own responsibility.

In the 3rd scenario - the disagreement with Equal Money will be expressed through spiteful behavior in deliberately acting in a way that is in disagreement with the laws and rules that have been established through democratic means under the Constitutional principle of what is best for all. In such cases, one has decided to deliberately cause harm and disharmony. Again - firstly, it will be investigated whether your discontent flows from a disharmony within the system that would cause you to 'act out'. If this is the case, steps will be taken to correct the problem. If this is not the case, then one requires to face the consequences of one's spitefulness. When a being is deliberate within causing harm and disharmony when one lives in a system that supports each one equally and provides the best results for everyone - there will be no more choice involved. One will be placed in a facility for self-correction. One has at this point forsaken one's rights to be a part of the society as one is willing to harm others within the society, and has created oneself to be a threat to others. Within the self-correction facilities, again - one will be assisted and supported to correct one's own abusive patterns. No one will attempt to change you - because one can only change oneself if the change is to stand within actual realization, understanding and integrity. This the only valid change. Therefore, professionals will continue to support you, but if one does not support oneself towards actual self-correction, one cannot expect to return to society, considering the risk one poses to others.

Herein - consider that these self-correction facilities are not concentration camps and the procedure is very similar to the correctional system that is in place currently. However, currently - when individuals break the agreements of society, they are branded as 'criminals' and are removed from society where they are placed in a cell as punishment, and from that, supposedly they 'learn a lesson'. We have seen that this approach is not effective. Firstly, because many of the 'criminal behavior' is a direct outflow and consequence of a system that does not support each one effectively, causing individuals to resort to crime to support themselves. When crime can be prevented in the way we structure our society, it should be done - but this is not sufficiently considered within our current system. Secondly - most people coming out of prison do not learn any lesson. Instead, they feel alienated and often fall back in their previous patterns. Those imprisoned are not sufficiently supported in understanding their own psychological and behavioral patterns and are not sufficiently guided in terms of how they are able to correct these patterns. Therefore - self-correction facilities will be the correction of what we currently know to be prisons - where individuals are no longer abandoned or punished - but unconditionally supported to as effectively as possible be re-integrated into society.

Enhanced by Zemanta

09 January 2013

Day 170: Companies and Industries in EMC

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago or so. 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.

The Pharmaceutical Industry

Q: What about the pharmaceutical industry, will it disappear?

A: The pharmaceutical industry will still exist - but will be aligned according to what's Best for All and not according to profit for the rich.

Monopolies

Q: Will we only have a few companies doing the same thing? And will the work be divided up? Like, will a company have a certain part of the world to look after?

A: With EMC, we are moving away from monopolies, where a select amount of big corporations has control over particular products. Companies will be far more regional and community based as companies will exist from a point of responsibility towards their particular community. Within EMC, providing goods and services is not an opportunity to ‘hit it big’ in the world – it is how one contributes to society to make Life on Earth a worthwhile experience for everyone. When companies are locally based and operational, transport costs will of course also be cut down, which will reduce pressure on the environment.

Which Laws Will Regulate Companies?

Q: Which law will companies belong to? Will the companies answer to local laws or will there be global laws.

A: The EMC will probably develop country by country – so the laws will firstly be national and as more countries join - international agreements will be drafted, which will eventually become law. On a national level – laws will be specifically tailored according to the specific region/environment.

Air Travel

Q: What about air travel as each plane that takes off puts 16,000 pounds of pollution in the air?

A: Air travel companies will have to find ways to either mitigate the effects of the pollution or develop different technologies so they don't have to react to the problem - prevention is always the best cure. When problems like this are serious - quotas will be used to limit the amount of pollution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

15 December 2012

Day 158: Prevention is the Best Cure - Equal Money System

Prevention is the Best Cure

Decision-making within an Equal Money System will adhere to the Constitutional Principle of ‘Prevention is the Best Cure’. This implies that with every decision made, all possible ramifications, consequences and outflows must be considered in order to design the policies and regulations in a way that do not cause unnecessary harm to the current or future generations of plants, animals and humans.

The moment disharmony exists, it indicates that the point of disharmony was not adequately prevented. Becoming aware of such a point of disharmony places us in a reactive mode. A reactive mode always takes place after the harm as a result of disharmony that has already occurred, and thus, it is in essence ‘too late’ as the harm cannot be undone. To design a regulatory political system based on reactive measures is therefore unacceptable, as it implies that we wait for harm to take place before action is taken. Currently, policy and regulations are mostly based on the interest of select groups. This causes harm to manifest on other levels that were not included in the equation, causing us to continuously be in a reactive mode as we attempt to correct the mistakes of our past. This is why it is so important to always design policies and regulations according to the Principle of What is Best for All, as it will enable us to prevent disharmony before it occurs.

Obviously, taking action before harm takes place also reduces the amount of resources that go into correcting mistakes and dealing with the consequences of carelessness. A simple example is nutrition. There are countless ills that are currently caused through inadequate nutrition, among which are diabetes, heart conditions, cancer, impaired cognitive functions such as memory capacity, and so on. Treatment for such ills requires a whole range of resources and is time-intensive. If the source is corrected, which is the diet, the ills are prevented as well as the need to use up resources for their treatment.

Initially, policy making will still largely involve correcting the mistakes of our past, as there were many, and thus many consequences. However, as we progress as a global society within the ability to prevent disharmony and to direct all matters in a harmonious way, we will be able to bring children in the world knowing that we’ve taken all preventative measures to allow them to live a life without harm. And thus, the principle of fear as it is now part of society will have been addressed and will no longer form part of our co-existence.

Enhanced by Zemanta