{ Login logot } Join! (free) FAQ Memberlist Search peace on earth.myfreeforum.org Forum Index<a href=http://my.calendars.net/peaceonearth>

peace on earth.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Eco-Justice -> XO's Work in Progress - draft of chapter 2
Post new topic  Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic 
Posted:
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.
 


XO's Work in Progress - draft of chapter 2
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:58 am Reply with quote
Xavier Onassis
Moderator
 
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 115



In a world as suffering as ours is suffering from ever more extreme crisis, corruption, danger, violence, want, insecurity, inequality, and injustice, one thing has to be certain: we have to be making the error of thinking some particular things are good when they are actually bad. For thousands of years, people have been making a simple mistake which has caused war and weaponry to grow to the present state of our being able to kill the planet.

All our errors consist in seeing the small and sometimes mythical upside of certain things, and not seeing the thing also has a colossal and killing downside that comes attached – as inseparably attached as the flip side of the coin is attached to the face side.

For instance, private inheritance. People have thought, understandably, private inheritance, that sounds good. A bit of money may come my way. That can't be bad, so let private inheritance exist, and people get angry at anyone who says otherwise. People have failed to see the big picture, that private inheritance has prevented public inheritance. With public inheritance, people will receive a share of ALL deceased estates. Private inheritance prevents us receiving our rightful share of all deceased estates. Private inheritance causes money to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Which is why the founding fathers of the American dream of freedom from tyranny took steps to prevent unjust concentration of wealth by inheritance. Their efforts failed, but we can have another and better go, and save every human being from the global catastrophe, the vast unnecessary danger and suffering, that human society has become.

Public inheritance will be sufficient to prevent the endless unjust concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands, causing ever-increasing assassination, tyranny, war, crime, warmongering, cannonfoddering, chaos, anarchy, violence, danger, etc, etc. People have seen the advantage of private inheritance, which is easy to see, and failed to see the enormously greater disadvantages, which are a little harder to see. Public inheritance will mean that all the fortunes will come showering down on humanity generally, and this will not only make 99% people richer financially, it will also save the world from the endless escalation of universal misery to the point where the tension and anger and madness are enough to use enough of the bombs to kill all planet life. It will make 100% of people 100 times happier.

The founding fathers of the American dream of freedom from tyranny saw clearly that wealth concentration would destroy freedom and democracy, would raise the immense misery and danger of tyranny, with its ever-escalating warmongering and cannonfoddering of the people. But they saw it insufficiently clearly, in too small numbers, to prevent the regrowth of tyranny in the land of the free. Not all the founding fathers were free from myopic ideas of their self-interest, and even the most free from such myopic, incorrect ideas were not perfectly free. The steps they took to prevent unjust wealth concentration, theft of the nation's wealth and existence, were insufficient to prevent the American people reproducing the basic mistake, and allowing wealth to concentrate, and consequently for tyranny, extreme range of political power, to regrow.

The French revolution also took steps to break up unjust concentrations of overpay. And those steps were also unsuccessful.

By allowing private inheritance, all people of all nations have allowed the endless accumulation of ever-greater fortunes, the endless march of ever-greater wealth and poverty, with its endless growth of violence, war and weaponry. It has allowed overpay and injustice and tyranny to accumulate endlessly.

Everyone benefits from public inheritance. With public inheritance, everyone receives an equal share of all deceased estates. With private inheritance, wealth naturally automatically concentrates, money makes money, the rich get ever-richer, the poor get ever-poorer, and anger, conflict and weaponry ever-grows.

Public inheritance provides an effective counter to this ever-more-horrible situation. At present, the overpaid are constantly being torn down from the heights of wealth and power, the underpaid are constantly exploited, and driven to conflict as the only way to try to get back their earnings. Plutocracies grow up, become more and more intolerable, and the people tear them down. Although money is power, the people have a greater power, and they have never failed through all history to bring an extreme plutocracy down. So plutocracy is disastrous for the overpaid. The super-overpaid are dancing on the edge of a volcano, as the saying goes.

Overpay is disastrous for the overpaid individual, because the overpay attracts people, rich and poor, who try to take it in many ways. Plutocracies are disastrous for the overpaid as a group in the long run, when the worm at last turns, and the people steal justice back with all the pent-up anger of centuries of oppression, suffering and slavery. The endless cycle of unjust wealth concentration and revolution to restore fairpay. But after revolutions, the same mistake is repeated. Private inheritance causes wealth concentration again. With public inheritance, everyone will justly be on the receiving end of all deceased estates. There will be a steady flow into everyone's estates of all deceased estates. And the global catastrophe of relentlessly ever-growing violence, in the forms of war, crime, riots, strikes, massacres, genocides, terrorism, etc, climaxing in global annihilation soon, will be avoided.

People instinctively feel that public inheritance would be unfair. People's mistaken sense of justice inhibits the promotion of public inheritance. They feel: But that person earned that money, and they have a right to give it to whom they wish. They think: I don't want a system that doesn't allow me to dispose of my fortune how I wish. They do not think: By supporting this business of private inheritance I am opening the door for myself to have to fund the heirs of the richest. They don’t see the downside loss to themselves is far greater than the upside gain.

Heirs have, generally, done nothing to earn that money, and giving heirs money for nothing forces others to work for no pay. It is everyone who has earned that money. Wealth concentration is unjust, is legal theft.

But, all the time, everyone identifies with the wealthy, and everyone feels very protective of unlimited fortunes, as if the fortunes were their own. 99% of people are sacrificing their real wealth on the altar of their imaginary wealth. And 100% of people are sacrificing their real happiness on the altar of their imaginary happiness.

This is like the story of the golden idol. People felt richer having the golden idol. But they had given up their wealth to make the golden calf. And we are still being this foolish. And then getting angry because we are poor.

In one way, this is a very simple error which a moment's thought can dispel. But in another way it is a very difficult error to rout. Evolution has programmed us to believe very strongly in holding on to whatever we get hold of. And, out of nature, in society, this belief is crucifying us, year after year, century after century, millennium after millennium.

Public inheritance is a correction of a wrong, a very dangerous and ultimately fatal error, which engulfs everyone. People seem to see that the legal owner of the money has earned it. People do not see that everyone has in fact earned it. When they can see this, the global catastrophe of violence, nuclear extinction, and universal colossal destruction of happiness will cease. Will cease as easily as cat fatalities on the road will cease as soon as cats clearly, fully understand traffic. Cats are relying on nature-given attitudes in a non-nature situation. And it is killing them, and they are not changing their behaviour. They are not thinking: Hmmm, something is wrong somewhere. They are writing the losses off as natural losses. And we are still doing the same. We are handicapped by still being 98% identical to chimpanzees, genetically more similar to chimpanzees than zebras are to horses, and porpoises are to dolphins, while we have made a whole new alternative to nature with our technological, toolmaking brains. We are still writing off vastly worse unnatural war as natural war. We haven't yet really seen society's wars as a problem. We think it is nature.

Money is a license to take products of people's work from the social pool of wealth. The only proper thing that entitles people to take out of the social pool of wealth is having put an equal value of goods into the social pool of wealth by their own work.

We have a social pool of the products of work because we specialise in tasks. So we pool the products of work so that everyone can get out the variety of goods they need and desire. Ideally, the money we get paid for work accurately measures the amount of work we put in to the social pool of wealth, and gives us license to take out the same amount of work, in the form of a variety of goods, so that no one takes out more or less than they put in. The proper function of money is to facilitate the remixing of goods that have been separated by job specialisation.

But justice, nontheft, demands an equality in workvalue between what each person puts in and what they take out. That is, the work that has gone into the goods and services they take out has to equal the quantity of work that went into the goods and services they put into the social pool of work and wealth. Otherwise theft has occurred, which causes the endless escalation of anger and violence. Bill Gates puts in an hours' work, and on a very good day, takes out US$10 million. That is, US$10 million of other people's work. In return for one hour of his work. For example, 10 US$1 million dollar houses. Every hour, on a very good day. His lifetime average is only half of a $1 million dollar house every hour of work. Whereas of course Bill Gates, even with all his putative talent, could not design the door handles, nor make one beam, in one hour. So are we wrong or are we right to allow this? Are the arguments for doing this sound, or are they biased by myopic, incorrect ideas of self-interest? Do overpay and underpay exist? We are handicapped by assuming that whatever is, must be right, an assumption that applies in nature, not in society.

Private inheritance breaks this iron rule of justice. The heir has generally done nothing to earn that money. So the heir steals legally from humanity. He takes out where he did not put in, which means others have to put in more than they take out. He steals safety, peace, freedom, democracy, social stability and order, and finally survival, from all others and from himself. Causes every single human to be thrown into a vicious, cruel, sadistic and masochistic, endlessly escalating battle for fairness. Causes every single human being to be thrown into every human-caused suffering in Europe and other lands that people fled to America and other places in the hope of avoiding.

The net effect of private inheritance is to make 99% of people poorer, because they are financing this pay without work. But we look at the upside only, not the whole picture, and yet we think we are seeing reality clearly. There is a reason why some people have hinted that people are often in error.

People have supported and still support and believe in private inheritance because they see only the close-up upside, the chance to inherit something. They do not yet see that, in all the cases where they don't inherit, they are subsidising the overpay, they are subsidising, by work without pay, the licenses of heirs to raid the social pool of wealth. The net effect of all the private inheritance, and all the other legal and successful illegal thefts, is that 1% benefit financially, 99% lose financially, most of them horribly, and 100% of people are embroiled in relentlessly ever-nastier global disasters of millions of kinds, deeply scarring everyone emotionally, spiritually and physically.

Everyone loses, massively. Therefore changing it will make everyone win massively.

If you ever wondered why you are a wageslave, or if you ever wondered why 90% of people get between 10th and 1000th of the world-average hourly payrate, this is why. Seeing the close-up effects and not the longshot effects of private inheritance and other legal thefts. Seeing a part of the picture and assuming from this that we are seeing correctly. 90% of people get between a tenth and a thousandth of the world-average hourly payrate. Pay without work necessarily means work without pay. And that means violence. Any license to take out where they didn't put the same amount in, means others left to put in more than they get to take out.

We would not be happy if the Louvre showed only a tenth of the Mona Lisa. We would feel that we were being denied the view of the picture. And yet when it comes to life, we think we see clearly if we see something, if we see only a part. So we are in contradiction with our own good sense.

For certain reasons, there is little sympathy for the poor. We mostly think that the poor are doing okay, despite the evidence, or that they deserve poverty, which is far more untrue than true. More on this later. But 99% of people are underpaid. 99% of people take out less than they put in. Wealth concentration not only relentlessly ever-widens the range of pay per unit of work, it relentlessly increases the percentage of people underpaid. There are now 99% of us who will net-profit financially by public inheritance replacing private inheritance. And 100% of humans who will benefit 99% in happiness and 100% in survival.

Despite these arguments, people will still find it very difficult to make the transition from custom to reason. And here we are victims of mother nature's mechanisms of survival which do not apply in society. What works in nature doesn't work in society. The herd instinct is a great survival mechanism in nature. But it preserves herd errors just as much as it preserves the self-interest of the herd members.

A cartoon: A herd of lemmings going over a cliff. A thought balloon over the head of one of the lemmings: Should we be thinking about this?

And we are secondly handicapped by mother nature in our tunnel vision. Both hunters and gatherers, men and women, have focused vision, although the gatherers retain more ability to see peripherally, since they might spy something else useful in peripheral vision. But the natural way is to assume that the system is good, that tunnel vision works. There is a fundamental trust of mother nature. This trust is inappropriate in society, which has not been made with the wisdom of mother nature. There is a profound confidence in all animals that fundamentally everything is right. This confidence becomes very dangerous when it is humans, not mother nature, who have built the system. Tunnel vision, limited perspective, is overall good when mother nature has designed things, but not when the design is made by tunnel-vision animals like us. We are predators, with tunnel vision for focusing on prey. This works as long as the predator is not the object of prey. The eagle rarely has creatures attacking it while it is attacking rabbits and mice. And the designers of a system need to have the overview, the clear picture of the whole. Which we seriously lack. We see the preylike upside and not the vastly greater downside that preys on us. Our technological brains have connected the world with trains and boats and planes and satellites, and we are still using the mindset of creatures who do not need to have the overview, who can trust the designer to have the overview. We have made the world a village, we have put the whole world on our shopshelves, we have global transport, global finance, global communication, global weaponry, and we do not yet feel the need for global consciousness, global information, globally informed opinion, global ruling by the people. Nuclear giants and ethical infants. Technological giants and ethical nonstarters. Because ethics, that is, pursuit of happiness, requires big-picture awareness, perspective, non-tunnel vision.

Ethics, which is properly the pursuit of happiness, requires a knowledge and an instinctive sense of the connectedness and the cause-effect relationships among all things relevant to the individual. And we have made the whole world relevant to every individual. Coffee, coconuts and bananas are international items. Most products are international items. It is becoming ever-less true that this is a Japanese car, this is an American car. Obviously everyone should have a hand in decisions, because everyone has their happiness to pursue. This is what equality of human beings means and is based on, that everyone has their happiness to pursue. But this makes appropriate education essential. The necessity of sufficient relevant education follows from equality of human beings. And we are handicapped with minds that think that focusing on what is close and ignoring what is distant, and focusing on a part and not on the whole, are going to be okay for us. This confidence is based on millions of years of survival. In nature. In society, we need to lose this thoughtless confidence. We do not have global democracy. We do not have the people knowing global information.

The suspicion that we need a wider vision is implicit in the timeless story of the hunter tracking the bear who is coming up behind the hunter. We have everyone with little-picture consciousness, no one with big-picture consciousness. We have global reality without any global governance.

Even global information is in its infancy. The word global has become a buzzword, while the data has remained merely international, that is, merely multi-national. Consciousness is stuck with information about many nations, and has not yet become information about the global realities. How many know that world topsoil is being lost at the rate of 1% a year? That is, that world topsoil will be a thing of the past in 100 years. Very few. And fewer grasp its grave importance. If we are childishly to let wiser minds than ours take care of governance, we need at least to be vigilant that the governors do have wiser minds than ours, and are free from corruption away from having the interests of everyone at heart, and that they do know that they need to have global information and consciousness. We have made the global society, and we have no one yet who can drive it. And it is necessary that all know at least broadly how to drive it, lest the unglobal voices of some people prevent global-minded governors from acting properly.

And in the present situation, true governance, with everyone's interests at heart, is usurped by wealth concentration. We are two steps from order. We need to get the true governors in place, and we need to get everyone thinking globally in harmony with the global reality our technological minds have made. It is impossible to get true governors in place while there is a golden carrot of US$70 trillion a year being offered to the richest.

The human cortex has made our tool-making ability explode far, far, far beyond the other animals. But our 1% cortical rationality has had the disadvantage of making us assume that all our thinking is rational, and of making us hate to be wrong. While 99% of our brain and our thinking is driven, promoted and supported by evolutionary instincts inappropriate to our society. We have had enough brain to get into every trouble, without having enough brain to get us out. We are sorcerer's apprentices without a sorcerer for back-up. To get us out of this giant trouble, we will have to quickly acquire global intelligence. To quickly make the 1% cortical intelligence dominate and control the 99% atavistic, instinctive, tunnel-vision, evolutionary 'intelligence' or unthinkingness. Before our technology drives us over the cliff.

Why is there so very little alarm at the future of nuclear winter? Why is there so much facile and inappropriate confidence that it won't happen?

It is partly because of the immature, irresponsible, and badly-named pleasure principle, which is actually the pain principle. The mis-named pleasure principle says: If it isn't pleasant, I don’t want it on my radar - it doesn't exist for me. But the reality principle is the happiness-maker: if you spy the doggie doodoo, you won’t step in it.

It is partly because we have not adapted to the global reality which the toolmaking cortex has made, and so everyone thinks that nuclear winter is someone else's problem, as if global doesn't include your locality. It is partly the utter confidence in mother nature, which is inappropriate in society but which still dominates people's thinking or unthinking. That is, if I just take care of my patch, or some patch, the whole will be okay. I am just one among many, so it can't be my job to be responsible for the whole. Whereas the fact is that, unless everyone, or at least the 10% bellwethers of society, the people of love and intelligence and maturity and awareness, take responsiblity for the whole, there can be no governance.

At the moment we have only the appearance of governance, the error of thinking there is governance. Whereas wealth concentration, which is power concentration, means that the people with political power are the last people to have everyone's interests at heart. Obviously, wealth concentration most attracts those who most want it. It most attracts those who are most impervious to the rational arguments 1. that satisfactions are limited and so overpay suffers rapidly diminishing returns in happiness after all needs, all major desires, and millions of minor desires, are satisfied, which they are by fairpay, and 2. that the danger and insecurity of overpay is proportional to the ratio of overpay and underpay. Astronomical overpay means astronomical danger and insecurity, means slip and fall is far and fast, means life and wealth are devoted to security. The crests on the financial seas always rush to fall.

Examples: The tremendous labour of security Stalin laid on himself by taking all the money and power of all Russia and communism. Ceausescu. Caesar. Hoffa. The French so-called aristocracy, actually plutocracy, guillotined. The short lifespans of many of the Roman Emperors, especially in the later, extreme wealth-poverty, decline and fall, stage of that empire, some emperors lasting only days. The multitudinous kings, presidents, prelates and would-be kings in all times and places killed in battle and by poison and assassination. The Borgias. The boss of the Vatican bank. The top people in business and politics and organised crime who have toppled in just one year would make a long list. But we ignore the fallers, because of the pleasure principle, the unreality principle, the masochism principle, the selfblinding principle.

And any such list of the superrich and superpowerful toppled by rich and poor would be only the tip of the iceberg, since concealment is paramount in these activities.

Obviously the intensity of the battle is proportional to the size of the prize. There are few legal niceties in small estates. The greater the fortune, the shorter the stay. The whole world is tearing at fortunes in every way they can. Beggars fear no thieves. Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown. The greater the overfortunes, the greater, and more numerous, the underfortunes are. The rich are dancing on the edge of a volcano. And other such ignored sayings.

Most people have some instinctive understanding that satisfactions are limited, that life is for a balance of enjoying as well as of getting, and that individual deserts are limited, because individual capacity to contribute is limited. The people at the top are the people who have least instinctive sense of these truths, and are therefore the last people you want governing. In the unlimited-fortunes system, they are unfortunately the first people in power. Hence the limitless cruelties of history to the present time.

The error in thinking on private inheritance is all one with the attitude of gamblers. Las Vegas is built on the biased focus of minds on the upside of gambling. Most get poor and a few get wealthy on gambling, which obvious fact ought to make gambling unpopular. The fevered vision of wealth feeds money and power into the hands of a very few, draws money and power out of the hands of most. It will not stop until the idea that wealth has a net extreme negative effect on happiness is the generally accepted idea. It is true that wealth does have an extremely negative net effect on happiness. All history shouts it. It needs only the domination of the 99% evolutionary, instinctive brain by the 1% rationally thinking brain for people to see where their self-interest lies.

All wisdom has spoken of it, but for some reason, wisdom has never shouted it. And wisdom has been often distracted towards giving false arguments against wealth. Which has no doubt fed the assumption that there are no true arguments against wealth. In this way, the false arguments against wealth have worked to protect the error that unlimited wealth is totally good. We think: Money is good, therefore more money is always better. This is the simplistic, tunnel vision, pleasure principle, argument that universally prevails.

The same error in thinking exists in the attitude to profits. We think: Profits are always good. Don't take away profits. Profit good. Taking away profit very bad. The fact that most people who have wished to take away profits have only wanted the profits for themselves hasn't helped. This attitude is firmly established despite the fact that there is a generally accepted idea that there are excess profits, profiteering, price-gouging, etc. Although the word profiteering seems to have disappeared lately. Sometimes people talk badly of profits.

As a candid businessman said, business is just selling things for more than you paid for them. As the Greeks said a long time ago, the merchant buys cheap and sells dear. The honest purposes of trade are to facilitate exchange in a society where everyone specialises in what they produce, and to get a fairpay for your time spent providing the service of making the products available. We don't know what can of worms we opened when we decided to go for the efficiency of job specialisation. Job specialisation was intended to make everyone 20% happier, producing the same products in 20% less time, but it has resulted in everyone being catastrophically unhappier, everyone being 99%, soon 100%, unhappier than they need be.

The very simple, very dangerous fact which seems to have been overlooked by all economists and thinkers, and which has never entered the common mind of humanity, is that, in every transaction, the two things exchanged cannot be equal in workvalue. There must be more work gone into one thing than the other thing in the exchange. There is no way to determine with absolute precision the exact workvalue of the two things. They must be unequal. The chance of them being of exactly equal value is infinitesimal, and equality of workvalue will occur in almost no transactions. This necessarily means that wealth will pass automatically from one person to another in every transaction. Every transaction will be a fair-exchange-no-robbery, plus a robbery. The two things will be of values x and x + y. The x's will be the fair-exchange-no-robbery, and the y will be the robbery. One person will get out more than he put in, the other will get out less. On top of the fair exchange, in which both work and both reap, one will work and the other will reap. Inevitably. Unavoidably.

Both may think they profited, but if both profited, the mere exchange would have caused an increase in net value of both products, and mere exchange cannot increase value. This obvious truth has not stopped economists from teaching that both do profit. They argue that the exchange is voluntary, and therefore what can be wrong with it? They ignore the involuntary elements in transaction. The one who loses does not know he loses. You can't volunteer to do something without knowing what that something is. There is a measure of coercion in all transactions. For example, the cost in time and money of going to a competitor, of finding out the price in other shops.

And what happens over the trillions of transactions? After many transactions, a few will gain a lot, a few will lose a lot, many will gain or lose a little. Just as, if you toss a coin a million times, sections of ten tosses will often be 5-5 or 6-4, heads to tails and tails to heads, and will, rarely but definitely, be 9-1 and 10-0. A bell-shaped curve of net gain and loss will ever-stretch through time, as transaction continues, and then a realisation of injustice will emerge, and violence, war and weaponry will evergrow. Almost no one will come out of all his transactions neither better off or worse off. Almost no one will come out with neither more or less than he put in. A firm advertises that you'll come out better off. You cannot come out better off than you went in unless the company makes a loss. The ideal is that you come out with as much as you took in, no more or less. The ideal is that you pay for the work that has gone into the products you buy, and that you pay for the service of all the people who provided the goods, the miners, the manufacturers, the drivers, the accountants, the managers, the shop-assistants, the owners. But in fact you cannot help but be robbed or to rob when you shop. For 99% of people it is net being robbed, despite profit, private inheritance, capital gains, and all the other ways of getting money without proportionate working. Because all the money equals, represents and is backed by, all the products of work. Therefore pay without work has to mean work without pay. Means violence. Means misery.

If we understand by profits the money left over after every contributing working person, including the owner-managers, has been fairly paid, then it is necessarily true that profits belong to underpaid workers and overcharged customers.

Profits can mean two things. They can mean the money left over, out of which the owners pay themselves for their service in providing the shop or company. Or they can mean the money left over after everyone, including the owners, have been paid salaries. The first meaning tends to occur in small businesses, the second in large. Provided the owners have been paid fairpay, money left over after this is by definition not deserved by, not earned by, the owners. They have been fully and fairly paid for their contribution and sacrifice of their time. Money is supposed to be for work alone, to compensate sacrifice. Wherever there is pay without proportionate work, there is work without proportionate pay for someone else. But the general error that profits are good means that the overpay is legally snapped up, taken possession of, by the company owners. We will in this book have to go into exactly what is and what isn't fairpay, what is and what isn't sacrifice. The simplistic, myopic love of profit has caused no one to establish exactly what is fair to be paid for, and what is not. The human hunter of money has not seen the bear of violence creeping up behind.

Everyone has said: Profits, whoopee, that's for me, and jumped in grabbing what they can, and then got angry when the net result is super-extreme overpay and underpay, with 99% getting underpaid, with 90% getting out between 10% and 0.1% of what they put in. And have then felt that humans are bad, because of all the fighting going on.

Even if everyone strived to make the two things exchanged as equal in work-input value as they can, they could not prevent half the participants making ever-increasing net gains and half making ever-increasing net losses from the endless stream of transactions. The percentage gaining and losing will stay the same, 50%, but individuals will be constantly changing between the sides. This is the imp in transaction that has caused the ceaseless, automatic stretching of the range of pay per unit of work over all history with its consequent ever-increasingly horrible and dangerous violence.

Add in plunder, conquest, imperialism, slavery, legal thefts, etc, that is, things which ought to be illegal and aren't, add in the vigorous mercantile endeavour to enlarge y at all times in all ways, by reducing wages and pension rights, and puffing product, for instance, add in successful illegal thefts, add in the fact that money is power to rake money, and you only speed up the stretching of the bell-shaped curve of overpay and underpay, of endless growth of violence between the sometimes innocently overpaid and the righteously angry underpaid. Everyone tearing at everyone else all the time with ever-bigger weaponry.

How many more people would be honest if they knew they were robbing others? How many will be willing to honestly, fearlessly, openly look to see if they are robbing others? How many will grasp that it is in their own interest to minimise the automatic legal robbery? Some will be tempted to think that: I am not doing it deliberately, so it is alright. But the violence continues to escalate, penetrating everywhere as efficiently as water into sponge. Theft pays in the short run and in the part-picture, sometimes, but in the long run, it is the cause of the screaming-overrevving nightmare of history.

It is not at all necessary that people care for others. It is only necessary that people care for themselves. Because the erosion of quality of life is universal. Everyone suffers equally from injustice.

But that people care for themselves is by no means a given. It is possible that at bottom people love self-destruction. It is possible that at bottom people only care to go out with a bang. It is possible that at bottom people 'know' they are going to Valhalla if they only die spectacularly. The failure for millennia to correctly analyse the simple source of their disastrous history, the confident failure to read the shouted lesson of all history, and the confidence of the resistance to this somewhat obvious thesis, points to the hypothesis that we are in fact at bottom totally confident of our immortality, totally confident that we are here in bodies for the fun of destruction, for the myriad dramas of the chaos and killing. Looking into a movie shop, anyone might conclude that we love mayhem. But perhaps we love seeing mayhem, to stiffen our nerves for reality. The joke that gruesome nursery tales are to prepare children for the newspapers comes to mind.

How much goodwill and fair-hearing will this thesis get? Is the resistance all just myopia, the force of custom and convention, misplaced confidence in the herd and mother nature, and the aversion to being wrong? Will people prefer to fight than switch? Will people continue to sacrifice their happiness, their all, on the altar of their misplaced confidence in the accepted ideas? Is the deathwish the stronger? Tune in next week.

Can global violence continue to rise and yet never reach the point of using the planet-freezing bombs we have? A helium balloon released in a room will reach the ceiling. Unless we prevent it. Alas, the helium balloon of theft and violence has been released, and, over thousands of years, has risen nearly to the ceiling. Will people care enough about life to bite the bullet of being real? Or will they be as charmingly unrealistic as those pictures of children practicing to get under desks when the atom bomb goes off? Will they strive mightily to drive their 99% reptile-mammal brains to rationality, survival and restoration of normal levels of happiness, or will they say: To hell with this, I don't have to? Is the purpose of life the pursuit of happiness? Or are misery and destruction the happiness of humans?

It is possible that we have been designed to need to be rescued, designed to be unable to save ourselves, so that a saviour can be useful. But I think it is appropriate to our self-esteem, dignity and honour to strive mightily to save ourselves whether we can or not. We cannot assume that we cannot save ourselves, and therefore sit on our hands, without being ignoble.

In review. Unlimited-fortunes society is like a machine that if you embrace it, it gives you an endless series of kicks in the pants. People do not yet connect the kicks with the machine. The unlimited-fortunes machine dispenses too little milk to 99%, and too much to 1%. Far too little to 90% and far too much to 0.1%. But it dispenses kicks in plenty to all. It is probably not good taste to refer to our miseries lightly as kicks in the pants when our miseries include assassination, guillotining, the growing danger of cities, the chronic rise of stress and mental breakdown, the 500,000 deaths every year from pharmaceutical drugs, torture of millions each year, the sexual slavery of one million more girls every year, millions having legs blown off by landmines, 100 million deaths per year by violence and starvation when the family working average hard produces US$200,000 worth of goods per year, half the hospital beds in the world full of victims of bad water when clean water can be provided for $1 a person, the strangulation almost to death of the world economy, the reduction of science and progress to a 50th of what it would be with justly limited fortunes, the going blind of 2 million a year for lack of 4cents worth of vitamin A per year, for millions the failure of completion of brain growth for lack of protein when the per-person production of food is increasing, and a trillion other unnecessary sufferings. In short, the absence of 99% of natural, normal happiness in every human life.

Some will say: Where is all this misery? It isn't here. My house is standing, my car works. I say: Let go the comfort blanket of denial, of the pleasure principle, open up fully to the miseries in your life that you pushed out of your mind so long ago you don't remember that you did, picture yourself in a world where every family working average hard is paid US$200,000 a year, and others working less or more get proportionately less and more, and where you are free from the weight of the oppression of, and danger from, and manipulation by, all those with more, and other-earned, money and power than you, and you are free from the presence of, and the danger from, all those with less money and power than you, when world anger is minimalised, when the whole world is safe to travel, and friendly, when dance and laughter and lightheartedness have bloomed everywhere to an incredible extent, when the miracles of science and technology are 50 times as fast coming, when financial crises are few and comparatively very small, when dog-eat-dog and ratrace and skyjacking and suicide bomber and illegal immigration and job-outsourcing are words no longer understood.

Of course everyone is happy relative to the level of happiness we have got used to.

Will happiness diminish dramatically for all if a government takes 90% of aftertax income permanently off 90% of the population and gives it all, that is, 81% of the national income, to 1%? Will violence increase? Yes. Everyone will readily agree with this. Violence and unhappiness will increase by something like a factor of 100. And violence and unhappiness will decrease by an equal factor when the government stops doing that theft. And after thousands of years of transaction and legal and illegal theft, we have theft levels far higher than this example, which is already so extreme. No government would be mad enough to propose such a scheme. They would be far less likely to propose such a scheme as a plan intended to improve everyone's quality of life. There is no one who would propose such a scheme with the intention of raising the general quality of life. So there is no one on this planet who really believes in the present situation, which is far greater inequality than the hypothetic example above.

In the above example, the pay-injustice, violence, misery, danger, stupidity factor, that is, the ratio of highest to lowest pay, is only 820. The same factor in the present state of this planet is one billion. In the above example 1% take 81%. In the real world, 1% take 90%. The very, very, very good news is that it is by the same factor of one billion that things will improve if we can get sane. I don't see that anyone can refute this argument. I have looked at it for years and I still don't see a crack in it. Do you?

Can 99 people make one person behave? Can 99 win a tug-of-war against one? 0.1% take 70% of money, 99% of happiness and 100% of human future. Can 999 make 1 behave in the interests of 1000? I think: Yes, they can. If the reality can be explained clearly enough to people.

How much devilry is concealed by the unlimited money and power to conceal? How much evil do those above the law, and thus free to do as much evil as they wish, do? How much evil did Nero and Caligula do that we don't, even now, know? Benjamin Disraeli tells us that most history is hidden. The powerful Duke of Wellington, winner of Waterloo, said that if he told the truth he would be torn to pieces. Who are these superpowerful who tear great people to pieces if they try to tell truth, which is the only mother of happiness? And why have we shovelled all power and responsibility to them, who are the least sane, the furthest from justice and moderation and love? How much have they destroyed our good sense when we all think pay justice, nontheft, is a bad thing? When we all passively give our support to near-maximal inequality at the same time that we all believe maximal inequality would be maximally bad?

We who allow unlimited overpay are responsible for all the unlimited evils that the overpaid, above the law, do. Whether we think about it or choose not to, we choose unlimited-fortunes systems or justly-limited-fortunes systems every second.

Another example of happiness we have lost and forgotten: Kindness is strangled by extreme inequality. Since no one feels safe with what they have, since everyone has less than others more powerful, no one feels safe and secure enough in happiness to be kind. The more people have, the worse their security is. The less they have, the worse their security. Everyone is on the slippery slope above yawning awful poverty. The higher the inequality goes, the more poverty gapes wide under everyone. How much of self-esteem is lost by the constraint on kindness? How much less do we think of ourselves because we cannot afford to let our sympathies out? How much joy do we miss out on by being too threatened by life to be free enough to be kind?

Everyone is in an extreme state of insecurity from being under attack from everyone, above them, below them and beside them. Everyone has an abyss of extreme poverty and death yawning below them. And the richer have the greater insecurity of having further to fall, of fighting hard to try to keep the crest up, while the crest is under the most intense attack from the toughest fighters. Everyone's attention is devoted entirely to trying to increase security by trying to scrabble higher, although security is no greater with height, although unlimited overpay, this limitless scrabbling, only makes the poverty yawn wider and deeper. Clearly, we are very unhappy, very poor in happiness, when our anxiety is so great that we have no freedom to stop someone starving to death. Obviously someone being swept away has no leisure and freedom to save anyone else from being swept away. Obviously we all feel we are too close to the edge to give money away.

Increase of happiness is impossible without facing areas of unhappiness. Finding areas of unhappiness is the only way to increase happiness. Facing areas of unhappiness is not all bad. Not finding and facing areas of unhappiness completely blocks the path to increased happiness. In our case, it is completely blocking the path to vastly greater happiness. The purpose of government is justice. So our present governments get an F in government. They get a mark of 1 out of 100, for writing their name. This is an extreme view relative to customary thinking, which is corrupted by self-congratulation, but is it a view right on reality?

In relatively egalitarian societies like Scandinavian countries, there is a plateau of success, which all reach, and are safe on. Consequently, generosity and social concern are at a peak. And capital formation, that is, saving, is highest, too. Because people feel safe and strong standing on a plateau of general success, surrounded by others equally safe and secure. How much more desperate and frightened, cruel and antagonistic, are people in America and the Middle East?

We will never know how much happiness we have lost until we regain it.

How much more secure did people feel when they were merely somewhat powerless against the tiger than we do now, somewhat defenceless against guns and bombs and world wars and atomic bombs?

Can we begin to grasp the amount of happiness we have lost? Can we easily underestimate the happiness we can gain?

Some people will immediately think that being 100 times happier is impossible, the idea ludicrous. People think: We cannot be much happier, unless we meet the love of our life, or some such thing. But how much do you think happiness would decline if some agency took 90% of wealth off 90% of citizens and gave it all to 1%? Let us say that you think happiness would decline by a factor of x times. Then it follows that you already believe that happiness will increase by a greater factor than x, because the world reality is worse than the above example.

Since money satisfies all needs and almost all desires, the theft of 90% from 90% of people is already the loss of 81% of national happiness. And then there is the violence engendered between classes, the ever-increasing war of everyone against everyone, the desperate insecurity of having society riven by everyone having people above and below them. So I think the loss of 99% of happiness is not an extreme figure. Therefore happiness will be 100-fold with the removal of this grand theft of 90% from 90%.

Another little example. How much cheaper would rents be if no buildings had been destroyed in wars?

People say complacently that you'll never stop wars. But the example of a government taking 90% off 90% and giving it to 1% shows that everyone already knows the connection between injustice and violence. That is, everyone already knows that injustice is the cause of war, not human natural bellicosity.

People say you will never stop people being greedy. But 99% of people will get more money with justice. And it will be self-earned money, so it won't cause violence. And 100% of people will get the savings in time, money, lives and labour, the happiness and survival of enormously reduced violence. So isn't it true that the only barrier to this enormous increase in happiness is prejudice against hard, clear, impartial, self-interested thinking?

99% of people have the vice, the cause of misery, that is the opposite of greed. They are shovelling 90% of world money and power to the 1%, or allowing the 1% to shovel 90% of world money and power to themselves, which amounts to the same catastrophic, suicidal thing. And this means shovelling poverty and powerlessness, undemocracy and slavery, violence and cannonfoddering, to themselves. And shovelling extinction to everyone. The difficulty is getting 99% of people to be greedy enough to get all of their own earnings, and thus prevent 1% having power over everyone else, to their own, and everyone else's, destruction.

And the amount of war that is natural to humanity is the amount of war that there is without the presence of extreme inequality. And the amount of war has been rising from natural levels for as long as inequality has been rising, namely, for thousands of years of transaction, with its inbuilt, automatic, injustice side-effect.

So isn't there a little hope?

That with tremendous mental striving and a little work talking to two friends we can reap a great harvest?

Even to pursue a substantial rational hope is already a great happiness.
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:33 am Reply with quote
lupercalio
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 840



Yeah!  

_________________
"And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. . . . Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. . . . [but] genuine peace." -- John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement,  Washington DC, June 10 , 1963
View user's profile Send private message
just another bit of writing the human species will ignore
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2011 3:34 pm Reply with quote
Xavier Onassis
Moderator
 
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 115



THE PLAN
A serious talk

“Megabrilliant … a hefty punch to the brain ... the only serious talk available about the present megacritical human situation … breathtaking guidance in the greatest crisis in human evolution”
-Alan Gates

“The only writing that says what everyone in the world has to hear”
-William Pickering

“If every person between the ages of 10 and 110 were reading some of this writing daily I would feel we have a chance of surviving the atomic bomb and living in peace and happiness” -Edward Joyce

******************************************************

I have a plan for achieving world peace and global happiness, and it goes like this:

We institute a global lottery, to be held once every 10 years, the winning numbers to be drawn live on TV worldwide.

Everyone on Earth must invest all their income and assets in this lottery by buying as many tickets as all the wealth they have will buy.

Every ten years this lottery will, of course, as all lotteries do, cause most of the participants to lose wealth, while a fraction few families and/or individuals win a lot.

In this lottery, 99% of people will come out with less, 1% will come out with more. The top winners will take out a million times as much as they put in. The bottom losers will come out with as little as one one-thousandth what they put in. 80% will come out with less than a 10th of what they put in. 99% will come out with between the same amount they put in and a 1000th of what they put in. 1% will come out of the lottery with between the same as they put in and a million times what they put in.

Now, I ask you, isn’t that a really great new idea for ensuring global peace and happiness?

Don’t you agree? And don’t you just know that everyone else will agree, too, that my lottery idea is a very, very good plan for world peace and global happiness? Aren’t you just sure that everybody is going to be sure that we humans should jump on board with this plan pronto and get it going immediately?

No?

I hear you saying No, you don’t agree? Really? You don’t agree?

You’re all saying...
“What what! is she NUTS? Is she serious? What possible good can come of THAT idea? That is the worst, the stupidest, the most no-go idea anybody ever came up with! It’s the most no-go idea possible! There are NO detectable benefits in that idea! Why, it would be utter chaos to do as she proposes. Think of the distress, the suffering, the hardship and misery of those 80% on between a 10th and a 1000th. To say nothing of the anger, the resistance, the violence of those so deprived. And for what? So that a fraction of 1% can be swimming in more money than they can do anything with? Why, the winner in the lottery will be under perpetual siege from the overworked, the struggling, the poor and starving. The conflict would be absolutely enormous. The violence would just escalate and escalate, as one side tried to hold onto, and the other side tried to get, what the 1% had. Anyone can see that the rich would be few and the poor many, so that the attack on the rich would be all the more concentrated. And the richer they were, the fewer they would be and the more they would stick out as objects of the fury of the deprived. Why, trying to survive on a 1000th would mean 1000s - no – millions! of deaths, unspeakable misery! Why, the 80% on less than a 10th of what they put in would be nothing but slaves. They would be fighting each other for survival. They would be combining where they could to attack the lottery winners. However great the resources for security of the winners, the winners would sooner or later fall to the ceaseless intense efforts of the losers. Which means nobody wins. It’s a crazy idea from start to finish, with nothing to recommend it at all. For the love of wild weinerwurst, what is she thinking? Why, the costs in peacekeeping, in keeping law and order would be horrendous. The costs of all the broken heads would be colossal. What possible good could come of such an idea? None. The woman is mad. What on earth does she think the benefits would be? And what good would it do to have the lottery every 10 years, so that people would go from anywhere in the range of luck to anywhere else in the range of luck, from most extreme winning extremely rarely to most extreme losing 10% of the time and losing to some degree 99% of the time.”

Well? Is THAT what everyone is in agreement on – that my lottery idea is in fact very bad and I must be out of my everloving mind to propose such an extremely bad idea? Is everyone confident that everyone in the world will think much the same thing about the lottery idea? Do you feel pretty certain that people hearing that idea proposed as a plan for world peace and global happiness will resoundingly reject it for being totally bonkers, laughably absurd, a complete timewaste from some utter nutter? "The poor woman! What a supreme idiot!"

At which point it is only necessary to ask:

Then why is the world being run like this lottery?

For I assure you it is run like this.

The world average pay figures out to US$1,000 a fortnight, while actual pay to individuals per fortnight ranges from a million times that figure to a 1000th of it, ranges from one billion US dollars a fortnight to just $1 a fortnight.

How is it that every human is intelligent enough to see that the lottery idea is absurd and almost infinitely disastrous and stupid, and yet every human participates in just exactly that idea every hour every day without the slightest comment?

How is it that every human is intelligent enough to see that the lottery idea is absurd and almost infinitely disastrous and stupid, and yet every human participates in just exactly that idea every hour every day without the slightest comment?

You should think more than twice about that question.

Think of all the things that people think about, care about, strive to achieve …but they don’t strive to change a condition that everyone agrees would be, is, the very height of folly and danger? Is this the supreme case of seeing leaves and not the tree, of seeing the trees and not the forest, seeing a million relatively little things and not seeing the biggest, most glaring thing?

Just see a thing and people will fix it. What won’t people fix! People have tremendous energy. Women don’t have equal rights? A billion people are engaged in efforts doing something about it. Species are endangered? 1000s are taking action and millions are supporting those efforts. Is there crime? Millions are working against it. It’s easy to see that a problem perceived receives enormous energy to fix it. SEE this problem – that our world is being run just like the lottery idea, and it is fixed. Once we realize that we are simply not acting in accord with what everyone already thinks of that disastrous lottery idea, the problem’s solution is at hand and visible. If someone was rocking the boat, how quickly all would unite to stop it. How quick we are when it is a matter of safety and comfort! Just see this problem and see that nothing harms our safety and comfort and happiness more – and it will be fixed.

We understand that things can be too small to be visible, and we have tremendous energy to solve that problem (microscopes etc). Let us also understand that things can be too large to be visible. Our species has tunnel vision. Our eyes are set to focus, to concentrate, to see forward. We have predator eyes, hunter eyes, gatherer eyes. We don’t have 360º vision like pigeons. We don’t have our eyes on the sides of our head so that we can see all around. But we must acquire the mental equivalent of that so we can see this most glaring big problem. Not a difficult problem. Solved as soon as seen. And solving this problem will solve many of our other problems - millions of problems, most or all of our worst problems. As cutting down a poisonous tree kills 1000s of poisonous leaves.

A fortnight’s pay ranges from $1 to $1 billion. Carve that onto your brain. Plant the seed of that fact in your mind. Water it with reflection and good sense. Pay ranges from $1 to $1 billion - make that fact king and queen in your mind. Measure everything in your experience against that fact. There is nothing that can be anywhere near as profitable to you. If you find within yourself an aversion to considering it, ask yourself why. Ask yourself is it wise, is it good sense, have I a good reason to avoid this fact. Maybe this fact is an irritation that makes a pearl, a very valuable pearl. A pearl of vision that can make a world that will make this present state of the world seem like a deep hell, a hell that would drive children to madness.

The true purpose of morality, also known as ethics, is happiness. Happiness is simply a maximization of good things and a minimization of bad things in our life. A minimization of Holocausts, Hiroshimas, horrors, disasters, griefs, genocides, war, crime, violence, anger, danger, stresses, problems, crises etc.

The means of attaining happiness are the virtues, or excellences, of intelligence. And the greatest of these is justice. We have in this world the most egregious extreme injustice, so we have the opportunity to increase our happiness extremely. All reductions in the level of injustice will increase our happiness.

Justice overlaps with love, and love and justice is treating others well so they will treat us well, or, avoiding treating people badly, so that they will not treat us badly. Treating all beings well minimizes the bad treatment we get from others.

We treat others very badly indeed by silently, passively, unconsciously supporting a status quo that overpays and underpays people extremely. Overpays them up to a million times what they earn, so that they become the objects of the attacks of all the world, and underpays them up to a 1000 times so that they must fight like wildcats even to eat.

But if we give more to the underpaid, won’t we have less? The 1% will have less money, but more happiness. The 99% will have more money and more happiness. Happiness is the end and money is sometimes the means. Sometimes less money is the means to happiness. If a bear eats honey, it means happiness. But if the bear takes, or is given and retains, all the honey in the forest, the bear loses happiness; the good stuff in his life is decreased and the bad stuff starts to maximize. He will be besieged by all the other bears forced to grab off him what they must get back to survive. And it is no good in the human world if the bear takes all the honey and kills all the bears. Because in this human situation it is the bears who make the honey. Destroy the other bears and there is no honey being made. If someone had all the money, the money would not buy anything, because there would be no one alive to make anything money buys.

In Rumania, Ceausescu had most of the money and everyone else stood in bread queues all day instead of working, so Ceausescu ruled over a shrinking economy - until he could no longer afford the extreme security he needed to stay alive. And the same is true in Russia and in America and in every country, in some countries more, in some countries less. And it is globally true. The greater the overpay/underpay ratio, the higher the security costs and the poorer most people are to produce the wealth to pay those costs. The rich countries and individuals become poor, forced to erode their over-fortunes paying endlessly for the security required to protect an over-fortune.

So no one country or individual is rich for long. From rags to riches to rags in three or more generations. Today’s overpaid, tomorrow’s underpaid. And today’s underpaid are tomorrow’s overpaid. The more underpaid the underpaid are, the more they fight and work to rise, so the most underpaid rise fastest, fight their way hardest to rise. Thus the Sicilian Mafia conquered USA in a few generations. And generally the toughest survivors of the greatest poverty are continuously rising to the top and falling therefrom. Wealth makes soft and flabby and poverty makes lean and mean and keen. Americans versus the Vietcong, Russia vs. the Afghanis, British Empire against the Colonies, the Roman Empire against the Goths, the first world against the third, American law against the Mafia. Flabbiness against leanness. Third world wealth is rising from 20% to 80% between 1950-2050. Today’s masters, tomorrow’s slaves.

Overpay and underpay is good for precisely no one. Especially as the conflict is escalative and has brought us to the brink of global death. War and weaponry, overpay and underpay have been escalating for thousands of years. We have chosen misery for thousands of years, but the choice is no longer between misery and happiness, the choice is now between happiness and universal death. Well-informed people with seriously gifted minds have been telling it true, but to a human population that has not listened to good sense.

In the blink of an eye mankind has gone from being able to firestorm a city, which is but a dot on the globe, to being able to shroud the whole globe in smoke above the rain wash-out level: death ten different ways for every living thing - vaporisation, burning, injuries, starvation, cold, blindness, darkness, radiation, etc.

Pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Do we pursue happiness? Are we pursuing happiness with any seriousness? We throw away the main and most essential means for happiness. Casually, with little if any thought about doing it. We have very extreme, super-extreme, giga-extreme injustice - and do nothing about it. Or worse; we silence or ignore or marginalize every attempt to put equality and justice front and center on the stage of our human situation. We can be much happier if we dig this means back out of the dustbin and put it to use. The improvement possible in our status quo is as great as our neglect of justice. Pick up this tool and we can go from universal misery and death to global happiness. Everyone benefits. The overpaid are released from their besieged castles, the underpaid from the suffering and the battle, and everyone from the high costs of the chaos.

Do we pursue justice? Are we pursuing justice? How many are saying: I want out of the system as much as I put in, no more no less? Versus how many say: I’d rather have a little more than a little less than the next person?

Consider if you took a group of people and infected them with an unquestioned desire to be just a little higher than the next person. What would happen? Hypnotize a roomful of people to strive to be a little higher than the next person. At first they would be sitting up straighter and taller. Then they’d be climbing on the next person to make sure the other didn’t get higher. In no time at all you have a pile of people standing on anything, even other people, to get to the top of the pile. The person at the top is ceaselessly being pulled down by many hands. The ones trodden on are getting wilder and wilder to get higher. All this crazy-making struggle is the perfectly predictable outcome just from everyone wanting to be just a little higher than the next person.

So, as well as being too big for us to see, the problem is too small for us to see. Wars, Holocausts, horrors culminating in universal death just from wanting to be just a little higher than the Joneses? If every drop in the Pacific Ocean wanted to be just a micron higher than the next drop, where would the Pacific Ocean be? Wetting the moon! If the highest point in the ocean were a million times higher than the average depth of the Ocean, the Ocean would be wetting the moon! If the ocean of pay was as smooth as a millpond, with everyone, including mothers and other homemakers, and students, being paid the same hourly rate, every worker throughout the world would be being paid $US40 an hour. Every family with 2 earners would be on US$200,000 a year (more or less, as they worked more or less than the average).

And, in addition to the increase of wealth coming in, the enormous outgoing costs all families currently pay would be drastically reduced. The routinely unseen, ignored or hidden “knock on” costs, as well as the direct costs of most wars, crimes, diseases and ignorances would be saved, expenditures rendered unnecessary in a world firmly decided to finally spread the wealth as evenly as the work is spread.

All the money is worth all the work. No work, no worth in the money. If everyone worked half as much, the money would be worth all the goods and services etc produced by the work - half as much. So all the annual income divided by all the hours of work done in the year is the fair pay for an hour’s work at world-average hardness of working - and that is $US40.

Gross underpay (getting out of the system less than a 10th of what they contribute by their work) for 80% of people must make everyone poor. Imagine if 80% of the body was on a 10th of the normal blood supply. Imagine 80% of people with a 10th of the education, a 10th of the healthcare, a 10th of the capital, a 10th of the tools, a 10th of the books. And that is a 10th of the world-average amount of education, medicine etc.: the reality is between a 10th and a 1000th of the average, for the 80%.

Suppose that this idea makes good sense to you. If you take 100 copies of this piece of writing and hand them out to friends and family over time and it makes good sense to them too (and remember everyone in the world already agrees with it since everyone is confident that everyone in the world would think the lottery idea is stupid) and they each hand out 100 copies to friends and family over time, everyone in the world will hear of it in just five times the time it takes you to get 100 people to read it and agree they agree (because 100 to the power of 5 is 10 billion, more than all the people on the globe). No organization to join, no money to pay, no leader to follow, no revolution to fight (because everyone agrees).

An extreme increase in happiness, an extreme decrease in troubles and pains for every future generation. It is low cost (just read, ruminate, see and pass on) and very good value (greatly increased happiness for trillions of people present and future).

If you do nothing, how can you justify doing nothing for yourself, your friends, your family, your grandchildren. As miserable as the lottery situation would be – as miserable as it IS - that is how much happier we can be. How can you defend saying nothing against the current lottery juggernaut grinding humanity under its steady wheels?

Certainly many of the overpaid may be unable to see the truth through the mindlessness of their false self-interest (their happiness is their real self-interest, but they may be unable to distance their minds from money, from what they think is always the means), but 99% will be happier and paid more, 80% will be happier and paid 10 to 1000 times more (because they are currently being paid from a 10th to a 1000th of what they contribute to the pool of goods by their work). What 99% can see (not just see that it promises to pay them so much more, but see also, and see clearly, finally, that getting overpaid is very bad for happiness), even some in the 1% can see.

As long as people think overpay is evil, they will tolerate it and pursue it. But if they see it is insanity, is highly dangerous, is self-crucifixion, is throwing yourself off a cliff, they will abandon it. People will applaud anyone who climbs a mountain, including a mountain of money, but not if it means the death of the species.

The violence and disturbance of the world is proportional to the overpay/underpay ratio, which today stands at one billion. It is that ratio that makes all the bombs, all the terrorists, all the corruption, builds all the concentration camps, inflicts the torture, damages the environment, makes the spies and the traitors and the secret police and the police state. It is that ratio that drives the riots and the revolutions, the overthrows and the assassinations. It is that ratio making a constant meal of everyone’s safety and security.

Did you know the American dream was built on control of overpay? It was obvious to the founding fathers, who were able to see Europe from the outside, that extreme overpay was tyranny (money is power, power corrupts). So in designing the land of the free, the first things the founders did were prohibit entail and primogeniture, and fix clergy’s salaries. But the American dream was defeated by the rise of the corporation. Not only Lincoln, at the time of their rise warned against them, but Jefferson, a century before warned against them. Now America is as tyrannous as anything in the Europe they fled. It was too late when the American people failed to prevent the robber barons of the late 19th century. It was too late when a US Senate Committee said that big business was more powerful than the US Government, in the 1950’s, it was too late when Eisenhower warned against the power of the industrial-military complex, it was too late when the Mafia was bigger than the 5 biggest corporations.

Have you been half in love with the superwealthy? Will you watch while overpay and underpay destroys everyone from superoverpaid to superunderpaid? While every further generation is blocked out from the possibility of existence?

What is it that has brought us to this calamity? It is the accumulation over thousands of years of a tiny error, sand falling, one grain at a time, that makes a mountain that buries the world. Buying, selling and swapping. Transactions, or exchanges. With specialisation of work jobs, exchange came into being. We specialise in our work, and then exchange our specialised contribution to the pool of goods and services for all the other goods and services the other specialists produce. I concentrate on designing cameras, someone else concentrates on growing lettuces. Where in this is the grain of sand?

In any exchange, the amounts of work on the two sides of the exchange cannot be equal. One must give more than the other. No one knows exactly what anything is worth. Every exchange leaves one side poorer, the other richer. Every transaction is a fair-exchange-no-robbery plus an unavoidable robbery on top. Multiply this by billions of transactions every day over thousands of years and we must arrive at extreme overpay and underpay. Most people are aiming to give as little, and get as much, as they can. Business is buying cheap and selling dear, business is just selling for more than it costs you. It is the easiest thing in the world for a business to get $11 for something that costs it $10. And no one knows that an involuntary gift has been given.

When a business pays all its costs, including the fair pay of the managers, and finds it has money left over, it says, what a good boy am I. By definition, the leftover money has not been earned. All workers including managers have been paid out of costs. The leftover money belongs to overcharged customers and underpaid workers. But it is now legally owned by non-earners. It is a free lunch for them, paid for by others. It is money for nothing. It is injustice. It is theft. And it has buried the world in war and want. And it is soon, if we don’t face it, to bury the globe in smoke and death.

There is no escape from the logic of this observation about exchange. No two things can be exactly equal in workweight. No two things can be of exactly equal worth. No two things can have exactly the same amount of work in them. And it is admitted that every dealer is trying to pay as little, and be paid as much, as possible. And yet no one seems able to see this. Where there is a will there is a way. The losers do not want to admit losing, the winners do not want to admit profits are freebies. Honour is falsely attached to profits. In a non-profit, non-voluntary organization, everyone gets paid, so what are profits? Surplus, after all contributors to the value of the goods or services have been paid, is by definition earned, not by its legal owners, but by overcharged customers and underpaid workers.

A prisoner in a prisoner-of-war camp starts up a shop and in time builds up a ‘fortune’ in cigarettes. His ‘fortune’ bears no necessary relationship to his labour. Who can say a tin of Red Cross sardines is worth 10 or 20 cigarettes? No one. But as time goes on, it becomes clearer and clearer that the trader’s ‘fortune’ is more or less than his labour. Bill Gates goes from $5m to $10bn in 30 years. That is, multiplies his capital by 10,000 times. That works out to around 40% profit per year. (The 30th root of 10,000 is around 1.40.) That means that 40/140ths or over 25% of the price of Microsoft software goes into Gates’s pocket in return for nothing. (If Gates had to pay that money out for the cost of the software, it couldn’t go in his pocket.) But Gates is only one, the largest, of the profit-takers. There are millions of profit-taking owners of Microsoft. If Gates’s share is 25%, and other’s shares are considerable, what fraction of the price of the software is the cost of the software? Maybe only 10%.

How can price be so much higher than cost? New technology is a monopoly situation. It’s a scarcity situation: demand is high relative to supply while new factories are being built and gearing up. New technology is a pre-competition situation. The first into a market has a head start, can buy out or hamstring competitors. The competitors want to make the big profits too, so have a reason to sell well above costs too. The technology does a job more cheaply, so people are ok with paying well above cost. It is hard for people to assess cost of new technology. They are saving money relative to the old technology, so they don’t see themselves getting poorer, giving away $1000s to a stranger. A person getting $10 million an hour contributes one hour’s work to the social pool of wealth and takes out, with everyone's blessing, a million hour’s work by others. He can buy a $10m house, which has a million person-hours of work in it, every hour.

When no one is infected with the desire to get higher, everyone stands on the floor and all is well. When everyone is so infected, people will try to climb up the tallest heap of humans, which is a dreadful unnecessary burden for those lower, and extremely dangerous and unstable for those higher. A madness, suicidal and genocidal.

A choice. Hell at very high cost, relative heaven at very low cost. You choose one or the other, every second. There is no third alternative. There is no waiting stage. You are either freezing to death in the sea or getting warm and dry on land.

You are either whispering the little mad ‘more’ or saying ‘get what I give, no more, no less’.

We can either continue supporting theft passively or actively and be soon extinct, or make overpay illegal and be happy - and bestow happiness and survival on all. The maximum hours the human body can work is about 100 hours a week, 5000 hours a year, 250,000 hours a working life. At the fair pay of US$40 an hour that means maximum earnings in a lifetime are of the order of US $10 million. Subtract a lifetime’s spending and the maximum fortune is of the order of US$8 million. Could a person working 100 hours a week for 50 years possibly be working harder on average in a unit of time than the world average hardness of work per unit of time?

The foundation principle of an economic philosophy of work is that a person should be paid for what they lose. They shouldn’t be paid for something they don’t lose. What they lose is time spent in their specialized work that they can’t spend on the other specialized work. The specialist overworks in their specialized work (butcher, baker), producing goods for others most of the time. The compensation is to enable the specialists (all of us) to buy the products of the other specialists. Most of what a worker loses is time. Energy also is lost, but the energy loss is a small part of the loss. The energy can be replaced at a small fraction of the pay.

People should not be paid for talents or brains, or brawn, or responsibility, or experience etc., because these things are not gained at cost. They are gifts of nature. Any work done improving talent, or learning, or acquiring experience should be paid, for time is lost in gaining them. In fact people are not paid for responsibility, or brains, or merit, or talents: for there is no science of measuring these things. There is some apparent correlation, but no certain correlation and no high correlation. We assume people are responsible if they are in high paying jobs, but it is probably impossible - at least hopelessly controversial - to define responsibility or even brains. Do we ignore the responsibility of the bus driver who can kill 40 people because bus drivers so rarely do, and highly honour the responsibility of the surgeon because surgeons do kill some? Are CEOs monitored and assessed for responsibility? CEOs after WWII were paid 30 times the average, not 1000 times the average, as now. So which is correct?

To allow egregious overpay is to create tyrants, to sell freedom. To allow egregious overpay is to ask for revenge. To allow limitless fortunes so that there is a chance you can be paid far more than you contribute is to play Russian Roulette with life and liberty, because most lose, horribly, at that game, and all will lose at that game soon. To allow limitless overpay is to invite every scoundrel to use every dirty trick.

To limit fortunes to some multiple of the maximum a person can contribute is to limit theft. Why tempt the weakness of all people by holding out a carrot 10,000 times bigger than the earnings of the hardest worker, the biggest contributor to society? Why allow 500 billionaires to have over a 1000 times what they could have earned? Why bother catching any thieves if you leave the biggest alone?

If the billionaires find themselves under attack for holding on to money earned by others, will one of them reply with reason against reason? Everyone will imagine they will reply with force. And that is correct. That they will reply with force proves that they have no reason, and are bandits who don’t recognize the safety in not having more than their earnings. (Sometimes they use words with no good sense at the bottom of them, and save the expense of force if the words work.)

It is said we never learn the lessons of history. There is one lesson that history teaches unanimously. The State built on injustice will not stand. The greater the range of overpay and underpay, the greater the shaking of the pillars of the state. States with low inequity ratios are strong, even when small, and grow (the early Roman Empire). States with high inequity ratio, even when large, are weak and crumbly (the late Roman Empire).

The purpose of government is justice, so who can say any modern state or country is governed? For nowhere is the growth of inequity checked and limited. Nowhere yet is the goal of education to teach that overpay is misery, evil and shame, stupidity, danger and dishonour. The founding fathers of America could have made that lesson the cornerstone of education and saved America and the world and the future from tyranny. They failed 2 centuries ago. We can succeed. With careful thought.

If you see a fault in my thought, holes in my logic and sense, okay, leave it, as rubbish (but please point me to the error you think is there, first?) But don’t walk away from this if you have no good reason to walk away from it, no good reason to neglect it, to ignore it, to step around it, to bleep it out and continue on your path to extinction. Let there be a bloodless revolution. Let there be a revolution of sanity. There are no human enemies here. We are all in the one boat. We survive together with our courage, kindness and intelligence, or die together in our blindness and madness.

How many have heard me and are now fully alert and awake to the vast opportunity that exists? How many have heard me and may be convinced and clear if I can clear away some doubts you have? Obviously, when everyone - the general human mind - is clear that egregious overpay is fatal to happiness and survival, there is little difficulty in going from there to the practical means. Where there is a will there is a way. Where there are clear and adequate ideas, the construction, the practical manifestation, is automatic, even if there are problems to overcome. Therefore the whole thrust of the sanity revolution, the move to global survival and happiness, is in the insertion of the idea in all minds.

Human society is always the product of the outpouring of mind, of a people’s notions, clear and unclear, and society is constantly changing with changes of understanding. The increase of the overpay/underpay ratio is a constant event, the automatic consequence of transactions. It is therefore only necessary to constantly take some of the most egregious overpay and move it to reduce the most egregious underpay, having the effects of 1/ reducing the overpower of the overpaid, thus increasing universal freedom, 2/ increasing the safety and therefore happiness of the overpaid, 3/ decreasing the misery, anger and (righteous) violence of the underpaid, 4/ increasing the power of the underpaid, increasing freedom, 5/ slowing the escalation of, and diminishing, the global conflict, decreasing the costs of conflict and therein increasing the wealth of the world.

The fate of whatever group is the currently overpaid is hopeless, because the first world is forced to sell arms to the third world in order to try to stay wealthy. The poor man (and even poorer woman) pays for all. The overpaid are totally dependent on the underpaid. The overpaid have no other source of income. In 50 years, when the current third world is the first world, the wisdom, the necessity, of not being overpaid will be just as true.

The only way to enjoy one’s life is to let others enjoy theirs. Although the rich are powerful, they are necessarily, unavoidably in relentless decline. Although the underpaid are weak, they are necessarily, unavoidably, relentlessly strengthening. Crests and troughs are temporary. In the longer view, being on a crest is no happier than being in a trough. Because in time, crests are troughs. Crests or troughs are not opposites, but the same: a rough ride, low quality of life. Knowing this, the Pakistani who said: the landlords oppress the peasants, may I be a landlord - wouldn’t have said it. And this is the change that must be made, thoroughly, in every head.

At the moment, everyone is thinking as the Pakistani said. The universal blind faith in the crest - just more, more than others, a little more – don’t restrict me to getting out only what I put in - kills 100 million people every year: 2% of humanity, or 1 in 50 people. And if one considers the shortening of lifespan as murder (which you would if someone wanted to shorten your life), then it murders 80% of the people who die each year.

I believe and have hope (tell me if I’m wrong) that I have explained the idea clearly. I believe and have hope (only slightly less than the above hope) that I have been convincing. But I am aware that one can never be too powerful. To explain and convince is to leave only a faint mark on mind. What is needed is power of expression. Understanding is such a small part of what governs our choices. The idea has to be put across in glorious cadences, with a rich vibrant thrilling deep voice, in order to penetrate most of the brain. And perhaps this idea has to be danced into the human mind.

People may be confident that no one will ever push a button that will end the world, but the buttons will be pushed by the machines sooner or later - nuclear accident is a statistic certainty, inevitable. Extinction via computer glitch. If a person was living in a building that even might blow up, a response would be made. But to the fact that the world has now got bombs enough to enshroud the planet 60 times over generates no response. Danger to whales, yes. To the globe, not yet.

How can sleepers wake themselves? By every means possible. Cover your walls with the worst pictures of war, holocaust, genocide, starvation, crime etc. Read some of this document daily. Post this document to 100 random addresses every week. Read this document to groups. Parts of your consciousness that were comfortably asleep will respond to the bustle, will wake up and ask what is going on – and discover there’s a bomb under your floorboards.

Put it to yourself like this: I want to live, I am in danger and discomfort, the only way I can get out of life-threatening danger is to help convince the 2 billion adults that we must give up the miseries of egregious overpay/underpay. If everyone who grasps it and wakes up to it passes it on fully to 100 people in one month, 10 billion people will know of it in just 5 months, so it is easy to reach 2 billion people. If one taught just 1 person a month, 10 billion would know it in just 33 months.

WWIII will start accidentally in 20 years, give or take 20 years, so there may be time. The chances of WWIII are high now, and rising with every transaction until effective mechanisms are in place to reduce the inequity ratio, to move earnings back to earners. The situation is desperate but not hopeless.

Being moral or good is pursuing your happiness, taking into account all the significant consequences of all your relations with everybody in the world: the underpaid person who cut from the tree the banana you ate today.

Conscience or consciousness is pursing your happiness with all your heart and mind and soul. Love and holiness are pursuing your happiness with maximal intelligence and devotion. Self-sacrifice is sacrificing those parts of you that interfere with your pursuit of happiness. Duty is pursuing your happiness: What greater benefit can you give your family, country and planet than happiness? Spirituality is pursuing happiness, that is, the maximization of your pleasure, peace, enjoyment, safety, freedom, easiness, lightness of heart, bliss. Real happiness comes by facing reality. Money is good and love of self-earned money is good. It is overpay - love of having the chance to have overpay - that is the root of many or most evils. Money is the token of work, and work produces the things that satisfy our needs and desires. As long as money is owned by its earners, justice, happiness, prosperity, peace and pleasure are abundant.

Instead of an organization with followers and leader, in this plan, whoever accepts this mission becomes a leader. Global democracy exists only if the people, the individuals, have global intelligence and act as rulers. Everyone should think of themselves as global emperor or empress of their own life.

The most painless way to actualize the new world is to continue all the mechanisms of capitalism and remove all of a fortune above earnings when the person dies and give it back to the earners of it – distribute it among the most extremely underpaid - thus at once destroying tyranny and terrorism. Call it harmless capitalism, justice capitalism, fairpay capitalism, limited personal fortunes capitalism.

Japan grew rapidly because MacArthur caused land reforms in Japan after the war (spreading earnings more fairly, thus reducing internal conflict with all its waste) and because America was paying for Japanese defense - again the necessity of the richest country making itself poor buying its defense. But now the overpay/underpay ratio has grown in Japan, slowing growth. China has been reaping the benefits of having lowered the overpay/underpay ratio but is starting to feel the internal conflict effects of a ratio now growing with unbridled capitalism. Sweden and Libya are still reaping the happiness benefits of low ratio, and Bangladesh and the Middle East are suffering the effects of high ratio. Britain is languishing from high ratio.

Humanity made murder illegal a long time ago and continues to reap the benefits. It is time (or, rather, 1000s of years overdue) to make egregious overpay illegal and reap the benefits - survival and much less war, fewer crimes and other unpleasantness.

It is not human nature that tortures and kills so much, but human nature under the gigantic pressures of extreme overpay and underpay - like a nice dog starved and beaten to savagery.

Wealthy people do not make wealth, they rake wealth. What they have didn’t come from nowhere; it came over a counter from people’s pockets. The only thing that makes wealth is work.

Many things you see on TV and read in the papers will confirm the points of this document. Nothing in history past or present will disconfirm these points. As they said in Athens: justice breeds no strife. (It would be good I think to make a law: no-one shall be paid for more than 50 hours a week. This would stop people spending their family on their money.)

I don’t agree it is, but even if it were unjust to prevent anyone being paid more than US$40, what would that injustice be, compared to throwing the world into endless conflict escalating to extinction? How much harder can any person work in an hour than the world-average hardness of working in an hour? Not more than about 10%, I think. How much harder can the hardest-working CEO work in an hour than the CEO working average hard?

Always this struggle between the overpaid and the underpaid. How much violence, chaos and suffering do you want? Be victims of a fatal side-effect of transaction till the world goes black? Or reach up and turn the dial down on injustice? Let the engine scream itself to destruction, or ease off on the accelerator?

Stand up for goodness and sanity, or sit for universal death?

Science, medicine, invention and other progress go ahead at one 10th speed because 90% are not free enough from want to participate in them. Private overpay is universal poverty. When present world income (work) provides enough for US$200,000 for every family.

Shakespeare's Richard III tried to win by complete disregard of the effects of hurting people. How could he win by making enemies of everyone? Do we disregard our own participation in hurting most people on the globe, or is it that, as long as one person gets to fly a $100 million war-toy (the ultimate ego-dream) all the costs (including universal death) are worth it?

There is no more government than people knowing what is vital to do. The only way to enjoy yourself is to make sure all others are enjoying themselves too, as Sweden shows. New Zealand has been relatively peaceful and friendly because it was populated by people neither grossly overpaid or underpaid. This is slowly slipping.

Our horror over extreme overpay should be 100 million times greater than our horror over a person who murders 1 person a year, because egregious overpay kills 100 million a year, as well as stealing half the world and causing the imminence of nuclear winter.

Think of how angry you would be if you were getting between 1 cent and 10 cents an hour your whole life. Multiply by 500 million.

Imagine how aggrieved you would be to be getting between 10 cents and $1 an hour - and multiply by 3.5 billion.

Think how mad you would be to be on between $1 an hour and $10 an hour - and multiply by 1 billion.

That’s some powderkeg!

By doing nothing with this plan, you support the suffering the ratio causes you. Spread the word at grassroots level as widely as possible. Nothing is more powerful than an idea that’s time has come. (Look what happened to the idea of the internal combustion engine, which was once just a new idea in somebody’s head.) Maybe if 100 people see the idea, it will spread to everyone else ‘magically’ (like the 100th monkey phenomenon.) Read from this document nightly.

We ride on a very rough road, with high humps and deep dumps. Put the humps in the dumps; presto, smooth ride.

Inheritance and lottery wins are very welcome freebies in the partial picture. They are desperate remedies for desperate diseases, and unnecessary when all are well-off. Fairpay of US $40 an hour, $200,000 a year for a two-adult family working average hard, meets all needs, satisfies many desires, provides all necessities and many luxuries. So overpay can satisfy only very marginal desires. Do we satisfy very marginal desires of less than 1% people at the expense of survival and happiness for all? Not unless we are very stupid.

Under this plan, every worker, including mothers and other homemakers, and students, can be paid US $40 an hour. The difference between US$40 an hr and your hourly rate is the amount of your work that goes to support overpay - which the overpaid use to buy whips and chains for you and yours. For example if you are paid US$20 an hour, then you work half the time to donate money to the overpaid, your tyrants and slavemasters. People on US$1 an hour are donating US$39 an hour to make a few people overpaid and proportionally insecure. Of course these figures are rounded figures, but they are broadly true.

The more power a person has, the higher the level of cruelty they can inflict without being stopped. Unlimited overpay is unlimited cruelty. Will you continue to support unlimited cruelty?

It is curious that all the opprobrium falls on Hitler and none on the very overpaid captains of industry who backed Hitler to get a subdued workforce and to steal Jewish wealth. If Hitler was a heartless psychopath, his bosses were too. If Hitler hadn’t wanted what they wanted, Hitler would have been soon gone. Hitler was a puppet who performed without pulling his strings.

Confronted with the complete realism of this idea, people engage in evasions, which should be interesting to psychology. Observe in yourself these evasions and ask what causes them - and notice their irrationality. We cannot avoid extinction and misery without conquering these evasions. The problem exists, the solution is simple and easy, but the evasions are efficient. Naming the evasions - denial, head-in-the-sand, ‘forgetting’, small vision, shoot-the-messenger, meteorite-might-fall, big-picture blindness, mummy-take-care-of-me, let-me-sleep, devil-you-know, just-want-to-have-fun, mis-prioritization, fiddling-while-Rome-burns - doesn't answer the question. When I look for a reason for these evasions, I see nothing. Do we have no survival instinct?

If you have a business and work out your hourly rate of pay and it is very satisfactory to you, and the next year your hourly rate of pay is double, to whom does the extra money belong? Out of 2 billion workers worldwide, there are 2000 (1 in a million) who are very close to you in payworthiness (hours of work, hardness of work, seriousness and responsibility etc) - and yet they are being paid right across the range of pay from $1 to $1 billion a fortnight. Can you see the complete lack of good sense and all ethics in this practice?

Einstein said that stupidity is infinite (he was usually nicer). Prove him wrong.

Getting priorities correct is vital: if you are picnicking on a railway line, moving the picnic comes first.

A friend is one who warns you.

Have I warned you as well as I can that you are picnicking on the traintracks?

---

Keep this document with your most valuable papers. Read each sentence in context with the main point. It can take time to wear a new mental path, so read this paper again, with even more care.

Violence pollution kills and injures millions of times more than the other pollutions. There is one hectare of arable land per person now, and agriculture can feed 1000 people per hectare, so overpopulation is a humbug. (Extrapolate the most intensive agriculture over all the arable land. Smaller, diversified farms in China and the Sudan are 30 times more efficient agriculturally than the large, monocrop USA farms.)

Humanity, let us escape the current poverty of our horizons, let us finally realize the solution to a million consequences of having overpayunderpay is not forever discussing the terrible consequences - the solution is in helping rid each other once and for all of the diabolically stupid and geno-sadistic idea to allow overpayunderpay.

Do you find this document Mindblowing? Unsound? Inspiring? Insane? Visionary? Stupid? Hopeful? Frightening? Overwhelming? Too Much? Positive? Sound? Convincing? Dangerous? Incorrect? Thought provoking? Challenging? Confronting? Friendly? Mature? Wise? Muddled? Eye-opening? Callous? Sobering? Vivid? Compelling? Numbing? Too hard? Questionable? Motivating? Profound? Too deep? Shocking? Over your head? Supremely Sensible? Wrong Somewhere? Good? Bad? Merely an opinion? Odd? Curious? Strange? Quixotic? The hope and change everyone has been looking for in all the wrong places until now?
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:25 am Reply with quote
lupercalio
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 840



Quote:
Then why is the world being run like this lottery?


Ya know, I never heard it put quite like that before XO, but that's a great question!  It's really weird how belief systems have conveniently evolved to assure that the rich will keep their ill-gotten gains and keep getting more while the rest of the world meekly puts their neck in the damn noose.  "Private property," "free trade," "free enterprise," "competition," all this Darwinian individualist crap, and of course all the religious ideology  (I'm thinking mainly about post-reformation religions but I suppose they're all guilty) give peeps a few shabby slogans to live their entire sorry lives by, and they do.

Case in point: a person I know casually has a father injured in Iraq and became interested in the big VA hospital in DC, Walter Reed.  She needed to write a research essay so I suggested looking into the scandal that broke a few years back about neglected war-injured vets.  She never really warmed to that but the thing that got me was that when she talked about all the shot-up wounded she basically accepted the situation as "the cost of freedom."   C'est la vie, what's the big deal?  Any delicate attempt to explain what's actually going on was just useless.  The power of dumb slogans is incredible.

_________________
"And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. . . . Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. . . . [but] genuine peace." -- John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement,  Washington DC, June 10 , 1963
View user's profile Send private message
we didn't create ourselves, but we hate to be wrong SO much
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:43 am Reply with quote
Xavier Onassis
Moderator
 
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 115



The basic - essential - foundational - fundamental - economic truth has so few moving parts, it's hard for people to see it.  But if humans don't come to see it, we are certainly going to succumb to the results of having the next and the next wealthpower giants.  Economic inequality drives violence - to extinction if nothing reverses the automatic and ceaseless concentration of wealthpower.

And - Cindy Sheehan seems to be one of the only people who have been able to admit to themselves that their loved-one died in vain.  The more killed and wounded soldiers, the more families who have to tell themselves that usa militarism is good because those others we're after are baddies and thus their family member died a hero.

Smedley Butler just simply isn't allowed into their consciousness.
View user's profile Send private message
Re: we didn't create ourselves, but we hate to be wrong SO m
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:53 am Reply with quote
lupercalio
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 840



Xavier Onassis wrote:
The basic - essential - foundational - fundamental - economic truth has so few moving parts, it's hard for people to see it.  But if humans don't come to see it, we are certainly going to succumb to the results of having the next and the next wealthpower giants.  Economic inequality drives violence - to extinction if nothing reverses the automatic and ceaseless concentration of wealthpower.

And - Cindy Sheehan seems to be one of the only people who have been able to admit to themselves that their loved-one died in vain.  The more killed and wounded soldiers, the more families who have to tell themselves that usa militarism is good because those others we're after are baddies and thus their family member died a hero.

Smedley Butler just simply isn't allowed into their consciousness.


Yep, Cindy Sheehan is one of the few-and-far between truth tellers and boy does she take heat for it.  I still blush to think of the crap she took and probably still takes at DU for pointing out the most obvious and important facts.  And of course the idiot "mod" squad plays along to keep their meaningless anonymous perks.  Damn that place is spooky.

_________________
"And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. . . . Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. . . . [but] genuine peace." -- John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement,  Washington DC, June 10 , 1963
View user's profile Send private message
quotes for Cindy Sheehan - how brave she is!
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 8:17 am Reply with quote
Xavier Onassis
Moderator
 
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
Posts: 115



"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." -H. L. Mencken

"The vested interests - if we explain the situation by their influence - can only get the public to act as they wish by manipulating public opinion, by playing either upon the public's indifference, confusions, prejudices, pugnacities or fears. And the only way in which the power of the interests can be undermined and their maneuvers defeated is by bringing home to the public the danger of its indifference, the absurdity of its prejudices, or the hollowness of its fears; by showing that it is indifferent to danger where real danger exists; frightened by dangers which are nonexistent." -Sir Norman Angell 1872 – 1967

"Man defends himself as much as he can against truth, as a child does against a medicine, as the man of the platonic cave does against the light. He does not willingly follow his path, he has to be dragged along backward. This natural liking for the false has several causes; the inheritance of prejudices, which produces an unconscious habit, a slavery; the predominance of the imagination over the reason, which affects the understanding; the predominance of the passions over the conscience, which depraves the heart; the predominance of the will over the intelligence, which vitiates the character. A lively, disinterested, persistent liking for truth is extraordinarily rare. Action and faith enslave thought, both of them in order not to be troubled or inconvenienced by reflection, criticism and doubt."

"Emancipation from error is the condition of real knowledge.”
-Henri Amiel 1821 - 1881
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 5:54 am Reply with quote
lupercalio
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Posts: 840



Great quotes XO!  Have a great Memorial Day all!      



_________________
"And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. . . . Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. . . . [but] genuine peace." -- John F. Kennedy, American University Commencement,  Washington DC, June 10 , 1963
View user's profile Send private message
XO's Work in Progress - draft of chapter 2
  peace on earth.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Eco-Justice
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 7 Hours  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive

Powered by phpBB  © 2001-2003 phpBB Group Style created by Vjacheslav Trushkin
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum