Day 31 - The Politics of Global Paranoia

 

At the end of the day, the majority of humans on earth at the moment will agree that poverty and starvation and mass suffering are terrible things and that everyone would like for the quality of life for people to be good.

But despite the claims that this is what we would like - the world has only become MORE unequal and MORE abusive.

This is indicating that there is a massive problem within humanity. We are living in this physical world which we must share and find ways to coexist on. We have to work with the same resources and work within the same physical time and space as one another - so it is important that we deal with our reality in a way that is equal for all - so that our interactions are based on what is actually here, which all of us depend on and have a stake in for our survival - but when we make claims about what it is that we would like and what it is that we intend, and yet our actions show something different - this should be a major cause for concern because this exposes the fact that we are NOT operating in alignment to this physical reality - and that we are instead speaking from an internal reality of our own beliefs and conceptualizations ABOUT this world which do not include everyone equally.We are thus existing in a different reality where our value systems are completely separated from the intrinsic values and relationships of this one REAL reality in favor of a paranoid reality we cannot touch but will value more and give priority to - which has led to MASSIVE abuse and suffering with no end in SIGHT - because nobody is actually LOOKING AT REALITY.

When we see clearly that there is a massive problem of inequality and environmental damage as well as species extinction wiping out entire animal populations, and yet we make statements ABOUT what we SHOULD be doing without actually doing it - this exposes the level of delusion and separation we have indulged in.

We have completely forgotten and lost all connection with the ONE REALITY where things are actually real and the consequences are irreversible. This is not just a political, social, economic, ecological, or psychological crisis - this is an EXISTENTIAL crisis where we are living as though we are immune from consequences as long as we are able to pay lip service to and occasionally mention this world and this reality from time to time while we exist in alternate realities of our choosing, where everything is just fine and the issue of poverty and suffering and world collapse are just "unfortunate" things that happen to "other people".

This is again why the Politician's Journey to Life is not just about the politics of political office - it is the politics of our existential stability - and in this we are all EQUAL co-creators that bear the SAME responsibility to ourselves, to each other, and to this world - because the consequences of this earth are the consequences of all.

Tonight I am introducing a mini-series that will touch on the delusions and paranoia that are currently prevent people from breaking through the illusion of separation using a social problem that we should all be VERY familiar with, and we will see how the SOLUTION is exactly the same and the only difference for the people involved is the DELUSIONS that they hold and allow to corrupt and distort their rightful political power.

We will be looking at the problem of "What do I deserve, and why do I deserve it?" in order to identify the delusions involved in this issue, and we will have a look at the following groups -

The Rich - What do they deserve and why do they deserve it?

The Working Class - What do they deserve and why do they deserve it?

The Lower Class - What do they deserve and why do they deserve it?

The Poor - What do they deserve and why do they deserve it?

As the paranoid delusions within each group are revealed we will also show how SIMPLE the solution is once the delusions are identified, and how there IS a legitimatepolitical solution that is RIGHT HERE, and that all we required to do was to understand the nature and extent of our delusions, and again come to an AGREEMENT about our reality, and through this restore our existential sanity and stability.

For those prepared to face these delusions and ready to start investigating the nature of our mass paranoia, I suggest checking out the following blogs from Creation's Journey toLife for context and the proper definition of "paranoia" in terms of what we will be discussing -

Day 395: Paranoia: the Home of Human Reason – Part One

Day 396: Paranoia: the Home of Human Reason – Part Two

In the politics of existence, everyone has an equal responsibility, and everyone shares the consequence.  Buckle up  - because politics is getting REAL. To ease the bumps on the road to come, you may want to prepare yourself and identify where your own paranoia is still influencing and usurping your political power as a REAL Politician. Read the blogs above and check out the Journey to Life project and see REAL LIFE examples of people taking on the paranoia in a way that psychology has never dared.

Day 30 - The Politics of Justice Part 5 - Who Owns You?

This is a continuation of the series "Politics of Justice" which you can follow from day 26 -

Day 26 - The Politics of Justice Part 1 - What IS Social Justice?

Day 27 - The Politics of Justice Part 2 - Alexis de Tocqueville was only HALF right

Day 28 - The Politics of Justice Part 3 - Why Hayek Missed the Point

Day 29 - The Politics of Justice Part 4 - Can Equality be Enforced without Tyranny?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day 30 - The Politics of Justice Part 5 - Who Owns You?

Tonight we are having a closer look at "fairness" and the problems that come up when we as a society need to decide how we are going to make sure that everybody is supported equally and that there is no abuse coming from inequality, while at the same time not becoming slave drivers that need to constantly take and redistribute the goods and resources of society in the name of enforcing "fairness".

One of the arguments of why there should not even be any form of distributive actions by the government when it comes to "fairness" and what people have a right to have is presented by political philosopher Robert Nozick.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen." 

 - Robert Nozick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Nozick on Distributive Justice

In Nozick's view, people should have the right to do whatever they want with whatever they have, as long as they rightfully own whatever it is that they have.

Nozick states that any inequalities that result from people willingly participating in transactions that lead to some people amassing a large fortune are perfectly fine because people willingly gave what was rightfully theirs, and whoever was on the receiving end was entitled to it.

This however does not mean that the person DESERVED it - it only means that a person received whatever was given to him, by people who rightfully possessed the things they gave - which means that by entitlement nobody should step in and say that this person should not get what was given. We will look more closely at the difference between "deserts" and "entitlements" in a later blog.

Nozick makes the case that there are certain things that qualify as something that a person owns and thus has the right to with as they please -

Initial Acquisition - Basically this is the principle of "first come first serve" where it is assumed that initially, all things in the world were "unclaimed" - and as time went on more and more of the world became claimed through acts of acquisition which gave the owner control of whatever is claimed, and also by definition denies anyone else the ability to claim it.

Voluntary Transfer - Once a person claims ownership, they can do whatever they want with what they have claimed, which includes giving it away or renting it out or putting it up for trade, as long as both parties of the exchange accept the terms. As long as people only give what is actually theirs to give, no problems.

Rectification - Of course our world and our history shows that property, land, and resources do NOT get transferred in neat, polite, and organized forms of acquisition where everybody only gives what is rightfully theirs, and everyone accepts and agrees upon the terms, and nobody ever tries to take by force what is denied to them - which is why Nozick compensates for this with the concept of "Rectification", where somebody can become the rightful owner of something if it is given as a way to make up for something that was taken by force, or to make up for damages that were caused to previously owned property or resources.

Now when it comes to things like the government having a hand in how goods and resources are distributed, Nozick is pretty clear that he hates the idea and considers it an intrusion on things that rightfully belong to the people, and therefore should be up to the people to decide what they want to do.

Nozick claims that people have natural talents and abilities that belong to them - and by the rule of "Initial Acquisition" the individual gets "first claim" on their talents and abilities - which means the person owns themselves and whatever skills and abilities they choose to develop or trade for profit - and by this rule, Nozick further expands the idea that since we own our own bodies and our own talents and our own labor, we ALSO own anything that we create and any services we sell.

Nozick's second rule of "Voluntary Transfer" says that if somebody is willing to give us money or goods that they own in exchange for goods or labor that we own, or simply because they WANT to give it to us for whatever reason, then we are entitled to receive whatever they want to give us and nobody should be allowed to interfere with that since nobody else has a "claim" on what is being given other than the direct parties involved.

In Nozick's world, if you are in an unfortunate position and cannot compete or have the same access to work, education, or resources as others, then it's just too bad. Nozick will even admit that this is unfair and that people should work together and address these issues - but still this is NOT, according to Nozick, a matter of justice - and nobody should be forced to help or contribute to anyone or anything they do not agree to and nobody should have their possessions (including income) taken away and redistributed without consent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's Earth is it Anyway?

There are glaring inconsistencies in Nozick's reasoning. There is an assumption that there was a point in time where the entire earth was simply "unclaimed" and through a process of acquisition more and more of it became claimed - and those who claimed it got to have total control over it and had the right to do as they pleased without any other consideration.

What is not considered is that the earth - the resources - and all possible goods that can be created from the raw materials of the earth - were here BEFORE anybody was around to make any claims, and even though somebody might take resources and create goods out of them - those goods remain here in one form or another on the earth after the person dies - so what exactly gives a person "claim", and what good is this claim if it only lasts for the duration of a person's life on earth? Sure, people can transfer their claim to their descendants - but even then the original claim is questionable at best.

It is not considered that this earth and all of its resources and materials were claimed by LIFE itself. Human beings did not fashion this planet and its resources - and by Nozick's rule of "Initial Acquisition" everything of earth and everything that earth creates, belongs rightfully to earth, which expresses itself in multiple forms of creation that we can call LIFE.

This would mean that humans have made false claims on what was "available" and have taken credit and profit for things that were created out of goods and resources that were initially created by earth and is "owned" by earth. Humans therefore commit an "Involuntary Transfer" of goods and resources from the earth because humans take by force and have not considered asking earth - or at least consulting with earth's various representatives called LIFE (animals, plants, ecosystem, bacteria, humans, etc.)

Sure, the concept was meant to apply to humans only - and it is a bit of a stretch to now retroactively apply this in the context of earth itself being an aware entity that has first claim over itself and anything it produces. Certainly this is not what Nozick had in mind when he framed this argument  - but this is the problem when philosophies and social rules are made WITHOUT regarding life first - we find ourselves having made all manner of judgments and decisions that were based only on the human, and only valuing the things that humans value and subsequently hoard and compete for - all the while making no "Rectification" to restore what was taken by force without consent - nor have we made an equal contribution to replace what was removed, or repaired what has been damaged - but we certainly have a good argument when we feel like somebody is wanting something that we feel we own.

When we want to consider the point of "justice" and "fairness" and whether or not we have a right to determine what is an acceptable way to distribute goods and resources and who should have access to those goods and services - we need to consider where these goods and resources INITIALLY came from - and we must realize that as humans, we bear the responsibility of having the greatest influence and directive control on this planet - and it is up to us to decide whether we will behave as though we alone own the bits and pieces of this world to do with as we see fit until we die, or whether we will honor our unending status as equal creations of the earth, and ensure that nothing created by the earth (everything) is ever subject to false claims of ownership.

The justifications as to why there should not be consideration in how things are distributed and whether we must enforce a kind of equality to ensure the dignity of all life simply does not hold up to reality and if we allow ourselves to be influenced by this kind of argument we become accessories and enablers of atrocity because we claim no responsibility yet expect benefit. There are billions of human beings (let alone the animals) right now who are being denied equal status as rightful human beings deserving dignity as an equal creation and expression of LIFE - who have a rightful claim as a representative of earth - but we are saying: 

"Too bad. Tough luck. You should have chosen to be born in a better situation. It is not our responsibility to honor your claim, but we're going to enforce ours."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Road Ahead

Here it is important to realize the problem of human politics and why we must have a serious look at what kind of political philosophies and world views we are accepting without question - because to claim ignorance while demanding ownership is simply not acceptable.

Day 29 - The Politics of Justice Part 4 - Can Equality be Enforced without Tyranny?

This is a continuation of the series "Politics of Justice" which you can follow from day 26 -

Day 26 - The Politics of Justice Part 1 - What IS Social Justice?

Day 27 - The Politics of Justice Part 2 - Alexis de Tocqueville was only HALF right

Day 28 - The Politics of Justice Part 3 - Why Hayek Missed the Point

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Day 29 - The Politics of Justice Part 4  - Can Equality be Enforced without Tyranny?

Can an equal distribution of goods and services be enforced by a government without the government becoming totalitarian and tyrannical, stifling the expression of the population and depriving people of what is "rightfully theirs"?

Can a society find a way to ensure that everyone is equally taken care of and can we ensure that the basic needs of all are equally guaranteed without having to take away value and property from others? 

It seems like this kind of philosophical questioning can have no practical answer and when we look at our history it would seem that we have never been able to really achieve a state in which all people are really taken care of without either the government becoming a totalitarian regime with immense centralized power.

It is understandable why many would balk at the notion of an Equal Money System or any kind of administration being proposed that intends to provide for the needs of everyone - because surely this kind of political mission would require many people be "forced" to give up things that they feel entitled to have - surely we cannot find a way for everyone to agree or take responsibility for this world - surely we cannot trust any government or political agenda that claims to want equality for all... right?

Wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

When are Laws Enforceable by Government without it being Tyranny?

In most countries there are specific laws that say that you cannot kill somebody or commit an act that leads to the death of another. If you violate this law, then the full force and authority of the government and of the various agencies empowered by the government are called upon to ENFORCE the laws of the society upon you - and you would accept this because you want this for everyone. 

 

When there is a clear and specific agreement within society about what it will and will not tolerate - what it will and will not accept within themselves or each other, and a clear understanding of what duties we expect from ourselves and each other - enforcing such agreements through power and authority is not seen as negative when all would agree that the use of proper force to compel a person to cooperate when they have committed a serious crime is acceptable. 

Having explained this, we now come to the core issue that is sure to stir up controversy and conflict - and that is the proposal that the equal distribution of goods and resources be enforced with power and authority. Even the mention of such a concept fires up walls of resistance and calls of "communism" and "socialism". There is a heavy resistance to even considering such a concept - and we as REAL Politicians must understand without judgment what this resistance is - and when I say REAL Politicians remember I am always referring to all of humanity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Inequality is a Crime against Humanity, does Humanity have Permission to Enforce Laws? 

It is no secret in this world that poverty and exploitation of billions of humans is a direct result of the global economic and political system, and that as long as the gap of inequality continues to widen, the more inequality will tend to perpetuate itself.

Each and every human being at some level understands this - and sees that there are major problems in the world that CAN be corrected, but are instead allowed to compound and worsen with each passing month, each passing year, each passing decade - the main reason for this being the excuse that this is just the way things are and there is nothing that an individual can do to stop the world system of money, and money controls everything.

It is also becoming clear that as the inequality worsens and more people fall into poverty while the entire world is trying to manage a debt crisis that effects every single person on earth, things will only get progressively more desperate and unstable unless a solution is found and agreed upon by the majority of people in this world.

The question here is if we as society can agree that murdering somebody or torturing somebody are NOT acceptable and cannot be tolerated - and to allow our government to enforce laws that will FORCE those who break this social agreement into compliance and correction - then why have we as the political majority NOT applied this responsibility to the problem of mass inequality and poverty that has lead to the deaths of countless millions due to economic hardship that could have otherwise been prevented by social intervention?

Global poverty and inequality are not just unfortunate realities that affect some and not others. It COSTS everyone more to maintain systems and infrastructure when half of the human population is disempowered and must survive in poverty and creates a greater strain on global politics, economic inequalities, as well as environmental issues - all of which we cannot resolve unless we address the financial system itself and the massive inequalities currently allowed to exist.

Human beings - fellow political figures of the most powerful political majority on this planet - we have failed to properly classify poverty and economic slavery as a crime against humanity and an infringement on Human Rights deserving and demanding the full force and authority of our governments to ENFORCE a correction. We must STOP expecting for the government to be able to do on our behalf what we are not willing to do ourselves - and we cannot expect for the government to respond correctly to a global issue when we as a global society do not address the issue and demand that our current governments and world systems continue to function "as is".

So long as we do not come to a democratic and political agreement as the majority - that poverty and economic slavery through an abusive, exploitative, and ecologically damaging financial system IS a cruel and unusual torture inflicted upon billions of innocent lives that creates chronic instability, war, and suffering and can be classified properly as a form of MURDER and TORTURE - we will always remain powerless to change it - because the power to change it must come FROM US- not from any government system or political ideology. And so long as we deny this power to the political systems that wish to do something about the problem - they will have to seek the power and authority through other means - namely through FORCE and coercion - and will ultimately fail.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Road Ahead

The truth is - we CAN and MUST agree that our current system is not only criminal, but is guilty of crimes against HUMANITY - and by taking responsibility for our political influence as the majority of this world, we CAN remove and change the one system in this world that has caused so much suffering - the one system that no political organization has ever dared to challenge - the one system that can ONLY be changed through the most powerful union of political figures - and that is the monetary system and the global crisis of debt slavery.

 

We CAN create a system of equalized distribution and opportunity that does NOT punish or stifle or take away from people who have earned their share. We CAN create a system that does not rely on taxation or concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite ruling class. We CAN ensure that every human being born into this world has access to food, shelter, education, and health care of the highest quality possible, and ensure that EVERY HUMAN to be born is born into the maximum potential to live their life to the fullest. We can do this WITHOUT GUNS, WITHOUT BLOODSHED. This is NOT some utopian fantasy - this is the reality that can and should already be here - this is the world that awaits the awakening of the political majority of 7 billion fellow politicians who will rightfully utilize their political power.

We can utilize a method of distributive justice - where the goods and resources available are not abused or wasted, WITHOUT resorting to totalitarian control or confiscation. The groundwork is already set and the research has been well underway for such a world system - but in order to implement it there MUST be political responsibility within the majority - we must wake up and stop pretending we are powerless - because that is an abuse of our power and makes us guilty - makes us accessories to the greatest crime ever committed upon humanity - the crime of a world ruined by inequality in the absence of REAL Politicians - this means YOU. 

We may say that we do not understand enough about the world to take responsibility for it. We may say that we do not agree with the way things are going but we have no power to stop it. We may say that we as individuals cannot change this world - and we would be correct - but this IN NO WAY excuses us from political responsibility - and in NO WAY removes us from the consequences of our absence in the political decisions of the world. Just because we cannot change it all ourselves does not give us the justification to not work together and then blame society or the government for our negligence.