Showing posts with label social agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social agreement. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Day 35 – The Politics of the Self




Fellow politicians of planet earth – we have been sorely remiss in our duties and responsibilities to be good stewards to the resources of our planet and good caretakers of the well being and dignity of our fellow living beings – of which the animal and plant kingdoms are equally considered.

To avoid any miscommunication or room for misinterpretation – in this blog when I say “politicians” or “fellow politicians” I do not speak of people elected into governmental offces or people who have career or institutional positions in the various manifestations of “government” in our world. When I say “politicians” and “fellow politicians” I refer to YOU, who are reading this document and I refer as well to myself who is currently composing this document. 

There are many “truths” in our world that are not easy to take in or accept – and here it is necessary for one particular truth to be made abundantly clear if the purpose and intent of this blog are to be practically understood: 

We, the human beings of planet earth are fully responsible not only for the conduct of our governments and our world systems – but of our very own thoughts and our accepted natures. We are at all times responsible for the degree to which we participate in our own living and our own thinking – and in innumerable moments throughout our days we are in fact making decisions that will have a consequence for not only our own lives, but the lives of all around us. 

We, the human beings of planet earth are fully capable and equipped to make of this planet a place of honor and dignity and expression for all life – if we would but dare to consider that there is more to life and living than our personal desires and preferences. We do not stop or allow ourselves the courage to really consider where our personal desires and preferences are coming from and whether or not they actually serve our best interest or reflect our greatest potential if we continue to profess that we want a better world and that we want what is best for all when our actual personal words, thoughts, and deeds paint a picture that is contradictory and often in direct conflict with what we profess to “want” in our world. 

It is remarkably easy to profess and “support” the idea of a better world – a world of unity – a world of peace – a world in which we can truly walk as equals and all have their most important human needs attended to not out of obligation but out of common sense and genuine consideration. It is remarkably easy to say that this is the world we want to live in and this is the world we are willing to fight for and stand up for – that we are apparently “ready” for such a world to come into being just as soon as the government realizes how abusive it is, or just as soon as our global financial systems have a “change of heart” and start valuing things based on actual human values instead of exotic equations meant to seek only profit at all costs, or just as soon as every major corporation begins to take responsibility for the social, psychological, and environmental impact of their businesses – so long as we do not have to take the first step or have to hold ourselves accountable or have to be the very example of what we want in this world – then yes we are prepared to “support” and “be ready for” and “agree with” everything that everyone ELSE should do in order to make our world the place we profess it should be.

It is time to get clear with our starting point and face the actual responsibility that we, the human beings of planet earth have in this particular moment in time and to realize that our fears are not felt alone – that we are in fact equal in our responsibility and equal in our absence thus far.
It is time for us to develop AGREEMENTS with the understanding that who we are and what we have allowed through our own personal interests has lead us to a world of consequences – and that we must find within ourselves the courage to not judge or hold ourselves back due to fear of our own past or fear of what others may think or fear of what may happen if the actual truth of ourselves ever becomes exposed – and in this we must, within our agreement as fellow politicians of planet earth – to never sit in judgment or separation from one another – that we have had as much spitefulness and self interest as anyone else and that if we truly seek to restore our integrity, we must recognize that the same right within all others – to forgive as we would like to be forgiven.

The hard truth of this world is not as simple as a single group of elites who mastermind the world to their own benefit – but that a great and vast majority has allowed this to happen because we have not stood up for each other as equals, but sought only after our personal survival and our personal interest at the expense of all others – which is the ‘mark’ that one can begin to see in all aspects of our world – from our personal relationships, our communities, our corporations, our governments, and the behaviors of our nations.

We as the politicians of planet earth – we human beings – have trapped each other in self-interest and competition as we hold each other to our judgments and our past and in this we divide each other instead of being one united house, one united family that understands that we have had issues and personal conflicts but that such things do not have to define who we are and that through agreements we can actually learn how to give and support each other – that our desires and wants do not have to be fought for through competition when we AGREE that we are better standing together than standing apart – and that we are better stewards and guardians of this world and it’s various forms of life when we face ourselves without judgment, forgive ourselves of that which does not serve us or our ability to stand as a house united, and we SHOW by example that we can take responsibility for ourselves completely and insist that others in our world do the same – and stand here in unconditional support as a reminder that we can let go of our past and our fears and our separation – and whatever ugliness and darkness we must face and expose, we do not allow it to be personal – we do not allow it to anymore define who we are or who we now decide to be – and this we do in honor and integrity one by one starting with ourselves. 

This is the REAL politics of the world and in every waking second our decisions are being ‘counted’ whether we decide to be aware or not. Do NOT allow your actions and decisions to be made for you by self interests that corrupt your political integrity. The world is in danger – and the real politicians of the world are the only ones with the power and leverage to change it. Thus I invite you humbly to walk and investigate the Politics of Self and get to know yourself as your own political body – to assess what decisions and what policies you are making and whether that is making you an effective global politician and an example of life, or whether you have special interests that have lobbied your political interests against your principles – and to ensure that the face you see in the mirror reflects a political body that can be trusted and counted on to do not what is popular or feels good – but what is in fact best for all.


Friday, May 31, 2013

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 -


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.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

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 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.