Human Nature
What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Part 2
Continuing from the last blog , CSR is more of a global initiative that is being implemented, encouraged, and directed by various organizations as well as the UN to encourage corporate responsibility towards a common ‘good’. One of those organizations is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). From their website:
“The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a leading organization in the sustainability field. GRI promotes the use of sustainability reporting as a way for organizations to become more sustainable and contribute to sustainable development.”
So, we have CSR which is a global initiative of corporate self-governance to encourage corporation to both regulate themselves and report on themselves in regards to changing and implementing business practices for the common good, such as making products that are environmentally friendly, avoiding slave and child labor, giving back to communities, etc. In order to implement the CSR and encourage it worldwide, organizations like GRI have been created. But there are other bodies in addition to GRI, such as the Integrated International Reporting Council.
The IIRC produced a Discussion Paper in 2011 from which the feedback demonstrated overwhelming support for Integrated Reporting and endorsed the development of a global Framework. It also concluded that the primary audience of integrated reports is investors in order to aid their allocation of financial capital.
And then we also have the United Nations Global Impact, from there website:
“The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning with ten universally accepted principles for human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.
The UN Global Compact and GRI signed an agreement in May 2010 to align their work in advancing corporate responsibility and transparency. As part of this agreement, GRI will develop guidance regarding the Global Compact’s ten principles and integrate UNGC issue areas into the next iteration of its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The UNGC will adopt the GRI Guidelines as the recommended reporting framework for the more than 5800 businesses that have joined the world’s largest corporate responsibility platform.”
So, what I am getting at here is establishing the framework of what exactly CSR is, and from what I can see, CSR not a set of global laws, but a set of global initiatives for specifically international corporations to voluntarily adhere to (and arguably for their own good such as increasing market share and profitability due to increased consumer awareness of their ‘ethical and altruistic’ business practices) with the intent to improve living conditions for those living on this planet (a.k.a. the ‘common good’) through encouraging corporate responsibility to those living on this planet, of whom are commonly referred to as the ‘stakeholders.’
The guidelines, encouragement, and implementation for these standards are managed by various organizations, including GRI, UNGC, and IIRC, to name a few. These organizations have created what is commonly referred to as ‘sustainability reports’ with specific guidelines and standards in specific categories such as human resources, environmental concerns, supply chain concerns (i.e. labor), philanthropy, volunteering, etc. wherein corporations are encouraged to report on each category based upon specific standards created by these organization.
But is this ‘global initiative’ of corporate ‘self-regulation’ for the common ‘good’ really effective?
Well, one interesting article from Nov 2012 found on the CSR-reporting website sheds some interesting light on that topic. As a direct quote from the article:
“Let me just repeat that so it’s clear:
Labor Indicators: 86% of companies claim they report and only 11% actually do.
Human Rights Indicators: 62% of companies claim they report and only 20% actually do.”
This research reveals a significant difference between claims made in GRI Sustainability Reporting and what actually gets reported (which was unpublished research as of November 17 2012 that was conducted by the Vienna Team in collaboration with Middlesex University London lead by Dr. Sepideh Parsa and Dr. Ian Roper); wherein we can see that the vast majority of corporations are reporting falsehoods, are reporting inaccurately, or claim to be reporting but are not even reporting at all.
Why so? Well, I would venture that this would be expected for the following: Regardless of the motive, whether it be ultraistic or self-serving, for a corporation to self-regulate and comply with CSR reporting, the bottom line is that those with a controlling interest in these corporations, the shareholders, are looking for maximum returns on their investments which means that the corporations profit comes first, and that the consequences of the corporate actions come second. Thus, if it is more profitable to ‘cheat’ on the CSR reporting then that is what will happen. Furthermore, if complying with CSR initiatives threatens the survival of corporations then that would be reason and justification for corporations to not allow any reporting (tell on itself in essence) that would undermine its ability to survive. Another reason is that the shareholders are not stakeholders usually and thus are not really feeling the consequences of the corporate practices and thus it is easy to turn a blind eye and ignore the inconsistencies in the CSR reporting by the corporations they own.
So, what we are left here with is an interesting dynamic and that is: the corporations are left with finding the right balance between making their CSR reports – which of course is considered to be a competitive advantage – and also keeping profits up as much as possible in order to appease their shareholders and so ensure their survival and continued existence. I mean, this is a real test of self-honesty even on an individual level in that, would you tell on yourself / disclose your secrets to another if that meant that it may imply that you would lose money, profits and make you less competitive? So, that balancing point is where the company can be transparent and honest, yet still keep profits up within a satisfactory zone all at the same time. Thus, this means for most companies that they are going to have fudge the numbers to make this work. This is just plain common sense.
How can we change the system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and make significant changes to their practices that will benefit all / the stakeholders?
Obviously there needs to be a change in the frame-work of the system because with the way the system is set-up now, there will be no true corporate responsibility taken by corporations as it really is not in their best interest, ultimately, as evidenced by the poor participation in reporting and making real changes thus far. Thus, the framework of the economic system needs to be adjusted in a way that the corporations still work within self-interest / making profits but yet that self-interest will lead them to make real changes. The economic system itself must change because the alternative to changing the system and attempting to police or enforce such a code of ethics would literally be impossible on a global scale within the realization that there just is not enough man-power, time, and ways and means to really be able to get inside the corporations and ensure their compliance. Thus, the compliance must be considered essential to corporations, by corporations, for their survival – just as non-compliance is in essence essential to their survival now – and that will only be achieved by making some adjustments to the economic system.
Another point to consider, is that within the current economic structure, how can we even trust that CSR / eco-friendly / socially responsible measures taken by environmental groups and NGO’s are always working in our / the general populace / the stakeholders and the Earth’s best interest?
There is strong evidence, if one spends any time researching this point, that the CSR and Green concepts have been used to corner markets, drive commodity prices up, control resources and markets, and pass oppressive laws or push for potentially oppressive laws such as the ‘carbon tax’ scheme / meme. It can be argued that this CSR movement has been used as a platform to create memes that the populace accepts as accurate and for their good to then lobby for ‘eco-friendly’ government policies that are really more like ‘Trojan Horses’ that when enforced actually play into the hand of those behind the scenes seeking profit and further oppressing the people. There is strong evidence that the very corporations themselves use the environmental movement to control prices, markets, and resources. The oil companies often times fund the very environmental movements that they appear to be in opposition to, as an example.
In sum, CSR and the related green movements are all well and needed, but within the current economic system structure, these initiative and movements are either ineffective or used to manipulate and control markets for the benefits of the shareholders and not the stakeholders.
Back to the question: how can we change our system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and actually make real changes upon themselves within a point of self-regulation? The answer to this question is not simply in the details, yet it is simple within the point of considering how our economic system is currently structured. So, there are a couple of points to consider here:
1. LIG. A Living Income Guaranteed needs to be initiated. So, I ask the question: Who ultimately is in control of the corporations? Answer: Those who buy their products and services, within the point that if corporations lose their customer base, they may cease to exist / go out of business. So, ultimately, who is the corporation appeasing within all of its activities? The customer.
Even within the degree of fraud and manipulation in reporting and green movements today, the customer is ultimately in mind. It’s like an abusive relationship. If one party in relationship can ‘get away’ with it, they will, and they will continue to do, so long as the desired relationship stays intact. However, once that relationship is threatened, the abuser will change his/her behavior in order to save the relationship, if possible. And even if that change of behavior is within self-interest, the change will still be made in a way that will benefit all parties if the abused decides to no longer take the stance as the abused and force the abuser to change within that stance.
Thus, how do we get the people to take that stand?
Right now, we as the people / the ‘stakeholders’, are not taking that stand that says ‘no you don’t. You will not abuse the resources and the people for the sake of your own profit.’ And the primary reason is that most people only have enough money to meet basic survival needs as most people are existing in the bottom level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. However, if people have enough money, they will move beyond survival and then start really looking at how to make themselves and this world a better place.
You see, right now, most people are only able to shop for things based upon price. It may matter in the back of someone’s mind about all the abuses that were required to bring that product to market at that price, but if that is all one is able to afford and that is what one needs – that product will be bought regardless. You see, corporations have us at our knees right now within the principle of ‘beggars cannot be choosers.’ The general populace simply does not have the money to truly vote with their money and thus corporations do not have to really answer to the consumer or the environment because either way, we are still buying from them.
Thus, a LIG will enable the populace to start voting with their money so long as we are able to structure it in a way that the LIG will lift people enough out of poverty to do so. The LIG will create a new pool of money found in the common man zone, instead of only in the upper echelons where the shareholders of corporations primarily are. The shareholders have so much money that they are disconnected with the realities on the ground and the abuses therein. Shareholders are concerned with increasing their wealth. That is why they are shareholders in the first place. Thus, an LIG will equalize that playing field in giving the common man voting rights with their money and thus lifting them up into a form of ‘shareholder’ as well as their existing status of stakeholder.
2. Dare I say Nationalization? Let’s call it: Converting Stakeholders (the common man) to Shareholders. And let’s start with nationalization of essential resources and perhaps the energy sector. Through nationalization, stakeholders will suddenly become shareholders of the resources that corporations use to bring energy, raw materials such as lumber, food, and water to market for consumption. That means that wealthy hidden elite will not be in control behind the scenes in a way to increase their profits at the expense of us all. That also means that people living within the borders of each country will suddenly have the wealth of these resources and thus will be able to sell or trade these natural resources to other countries or corporations.
Once established, we can hold a democratic Internet voting system, in the form of a liquid democracy, accessible to the people / the citizens of certain geographic areas – to vote for how they would like the natural resources to be handled.
If this were to occur, then corporations would have to change their ways to conform to the laws of the land regarding these resources, because the owners of the resources, the people, will demand it; or these corporations would have to go somewhere else where these nationalizations have not occurred, YET. Can anyone give me a good reason why ‘nationalization’ of the resources would be so demonized and how actually benefits from the demonization of the concept of nationalization?
3. Increase Awareness: This is already happening in the CSR / Green movements. This needs to continue and then be streamlined into a unified movement that is brought to everyone’s attention. Thus, when people have the money through LIG and have ownership of the resources through Nationalization: they will make better decisions / votes as to how to manage them.
Within this public awareness that needs to be increased, as well as we need to de-polarize the movement and bring it into a practical point of consideration where we all as one see, realize, and understand the consequences and implications of our actions within the current state of affairs, within a fact-based platform. As compared to where we are now, which has this CSR / ECO / Social awareness movement polarized between left and right / liberal vs. conservative, where the left embraces this movement and anything that comes with this movement, even the manipulated aspects of this movement that are contrived by certain groups to corner markets and drive up prices etc., and the right which rejects this movement in its entirety.
Thus within this polarization, all are consumed with the energy of right verses wrong and not are looking at the practical points that are right here in front of us. I mean, we do have a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean that is the size of the United States, don’t we? Can’t we start discussions on these points without getting all polarized into groups based on right vs. wrong? So, the depolarization of this movement needs to occur so that people can start looking at this practically, and within that we can start really creating solutions that can be implemented through laws or mandates or simply the influence carried out with the populace who now has money through LIG or part ownership of at least the natural resources.
Once this is in place, corporations will have no other choice but to make decisions that are best for all in their practices or else face the prospect of going extinct / out of business. Let’s do this.
Watch the LIG Hangout on
Check Out the Links for More Information on Living Income:
The Demon in Democracy
By Barbara Stängl
Democracy
I’m having a look at Democracy here and how we are living this idea of ‘ruling a people’ according to the meaning of the word, where humanity needs a system platform from which it is possible to find and give direction to the basic decisions that have to be made to organize the essentials of this world, the food, resources for heating, shelter, water, territory, health and education.
Basic decisions require principles which provide directives and criteria, so that a decision makes sense. The platform of Democracy functions on the basis of the principle of capitalism, free market forces and freedom of speech. It is a system that requires money to be able to take part in it, but it does not automatically grant this money to everyone unconditionally. You somehow have to be part of the ruling people, as someone having money, to be able to be heard, have a voice. Having walked the education and career system makes one eligible to be part of the system, as long as you remain competent and competitive. For this, however, you will have needed a ‘good start’ such as wealthy, well-to-do parents and the motivation or at least endurance to take the necessary exams to pass the set standards to survive within this system. Thus the statement can be made that within Democracy one is able to participate when one has education and money, or money as a stand-alone. These principles determine that most are struggling or are excluded from the get-go.
The consequences of history have influenced the way democracy is legally set up and laid down for many countries. The Federal Republic of Germany, for example, strangely has no actual constitution, only a Basic Law that has been decided on, without the vote of the people, which brings forth the question of who / which people is ruling, when it’s supposed to be a democracy? In this case a number of 7 minister presidents have decided on the Basic Laws, which in its fundamentals has been suggested by the allied forces’ war governors that had the sovereignty over what was left of the Weimar Republic after the war. So a democracy and the principles by which it functions aren’t necessarily decided on by the people that are subject to this form of government.
A constitution was to be enacted when the country reunified, a matter laid down under Art. 146 of the Basic Law. This was never followed up on. The Basic Law in Germany acts as a constitution and has entrenched the principles of democracy, republicanism, social responsibility and federalism, which cannot be removed or repealed by the normal amendment process. So it has come to be that the people of Germany has not given its vote in a free, independent, secret election, it hasn’t even been asked. This overshadows the execution of a true democracy from the very beginning when the process of establishing a fundamental framework for a people, which was to be of democratic nature in that it requires their majority vote, has been circumvented. It can be surmised that the minister presidents held the people to be too biased toward a non-acceptance of the Basic Laws and a constitution that would for the time being exclude a major part of the Germany left over from WWII, the whole 4th sector, the GDR – it being under communist rule – a state of affairs that constituted the dividing of Germany into East and West. The suspected bias was understandable as a written document would be based on the acceptance of the forced separation of families, friends and partners on the basis of ideologies inflicted on each side at the liberty of more or less self-proclaimed leaders in a very undemocratic manner. Is democracy in fact a dictatorship?
The Grundgesetz, Basic Law, holds the statute of Democracy as the form of government for the German people, with a majority vote allowing for the formation of a consensus to set the direction of politics in the country supporting the idea one is able to participate in the forming of decisions that influence one’s own life. Reality proves to be different. The German Federal State is constituted of 16 member countries, most of which have their own constitution which upholds the Basic Laws and some kind of allegiance or subjection to the Federal Republic. Thus the representation of a citizen in a country goes along the administrative pathways of the country and the federal state and then through the overhead structure of the European Union for political decisions on that level.
In comparison to a liquid democracy where the individuals’ voices can be heard in a poll, the system of a democracy of a majority ruling with indirect representation waters down the voting power of a citizen and thus no new solutions and perspectives get to the responsible organs of the government. There is also the law of Federal Law breaks State Laws and Union Law breaks Federal Law, where the Union is able to overrule anything.
World politics is about money and who controls money, because those who are in control of money are also in control of everything else. This lies in the hands of very few who through their standing within these vast amounts direct nations on the level of the unions, the United Nations and the European Union, where regional, country and national representatives of the peoples are simply overridden by creating events that seemingly justify measures that lie outside of even the European constitution, let alone that of countries and states. Such events and justifications constitute the designation of an enemy or an imminent danger as for example communism after the second world war through the placing into the public awareness through media the polarity of democracy and communism, the former being the state of freedom, the latter one of totalitarianism; or after the reunification of Germany and the breaking down of the communist block, there were oil and financial crises, the 911 tragedy allowing terrorists to be generated as a general threat, also the Moslem Brotherhood threat – all in turn allowing for vast constitutional breaches and thus Orwellian privacy transgressions and enslavement on all levels.
This goes to show that the true meaning of democracy – of the people ruling – is quite in reverse as everything else in the world. People one doesn’t know and hasn’t voted for determine the policy of the country, the elite, those with the vast money have the power. They make decisions that aren’t based on the principle of best for all people and manufacture a mock choice that is presented in form of two bureaucrats like Schröder and Merkel or Bush and Carey who represent the same ideas, so it is actually not relevant who one votes for, because they actually represent the guys pulling the threads, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations.
Democracy is just a label for one pole of the polarity that is upheld in order to maintain conflicts in this world and has been laid down in the Truman doctrine after WWII where the US makes it constitutional for herself to protect the Democracy as the liberty of a people and wherever a threat to this is manufactured, a conflict/war zone can be created and resources and people exploited and more power usurped.
Solutions
The Solution to this is definitely to get the media out of the hands of those controlling it by supporting free journalists and investigators, sites that are able to see and present the full picture and solutions to this demise, individual presentations of what we are allowing and accepting here. Equally it is to see that there are two fronts to work on – oneself within/as the allowance and acceptances within the polarities that are reflected on the outside in the world events and creations and walking towards establishing a platform for true equality starting with equal opportunity to receive money, food, housing and clean water for everyone and actual education, where this must be completely revised and restructured. This will require bringing awareness of the situation to the people and what can be done by each individual to make it count on a grand scale.
With respect to Human Rights and the right to Life, the establishment of ‘ LIG’, a Living Income Guaranteed, is principal. Considering the implementation of nationalization, the redirection of military budgets and changes toward indirect taxation as a solution to be able to use the profit and savings for the common good, such as providing for one’s direct and basic needs as having dignified housing, clean water, food, health services and education, by way of a provision of an actual ‘living income’ for each eligible citizen as a reasonably sized financial security on an as-needed basis.
As an incentive for those who are able to, guaranteed minimum wages are being suggested of double the living income for people who actually work, produce and create added-value. Doing research on this to see what works and what doesn’t from history, why or why not, to remedy what crystallizes from this and implement what is supportive are essential steps toward a change that serves the principle of best for all equally for a democracy where people/living beings – vs. corporate entities – are at the heart of the system, where their interest and well-being are at the center of focus. A means toward this aim can be a party that promotes the conceptual basis for open source democracy/ liquid democracy and the support of transparency in public affairs.
The benefits are obvious: The allowed separation from one’s own self-responsibility with respect to government and self-government will gradually be worked out and walked within/as self-authority by implementing a method /a system, where one can be heard, because money is not the pre-requisite, as it’s provided unconditionally from the start.
One will be able to have better relationships due to competition not being at the heart of the system as necessary part of survival, where one can stop analyzing what the other has that I haven’t and focus on simply enjoying the presence of the other and be with them and allow creativity to flow into the time and space of togetherness. Thus, peace, freedom and trust is given true potential with this external structure and one will also have more time for the development of self-honesty within self-investigation to undo one’s separation on a more individual level.
The benefits also include actual self-expression or a process thereof, without the fear of disadvantages. Herewith a movement from survival to Life can be initiated. We are able to bring Heaven to Earth, with clean water, luscious and abundant nature, resources for all with a system that represents who we are as self-empowerment and self-responsibility, a Democracy that is based on the living principle of what is best for all equally.
Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal and Join us for discussion.
Photo Credits
‘Power to the People’
‘Hands’
‘Dictatorial Democracy’
‘War is Peace…”
‘Iraqi kids…”
Colonialism: Problems and Solutions
By Barbara Stängl
The Problem with Colonialism
“Colonialism is a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Colonialism is frequently used interchangeably with imperialism. This is not actually correct, even though both involve political and economic control over a dependent territory. In colonialism, population is oftentimes transferred to a new territory as settlers who maintain an allegiance to their home country, whereas imperialism denotes the power and control factor one ruling country has over the other. However, the starting point of increasing profit and expanding power is the same.
The trick was to disguise the profit and power motive, in fact the exploitation that is be executed through colonialism, as development – with an argument known as the mission of bringing civilization to under- and undeveloped peoples, which was used to justify the intrusions and devastation of the land. So, internal decisions of the respective countries were influenced, financial and intellectual support arranged, the money for infrastructure projects lent, where around a fifth of the loan would be the actual money received, ensuing a tie-up of 80 percent in deposits in London, that would enslave the respective third world countries’ population. ‘Call in the loans’ is basically how the word colonialism is lived and manifested today.
Despite the fact that oftentimes the respective countries that had been targeted for ‘development’ fought for and received independence of the capitalist country, this revealed to be deceptive, as the status ultimately amounted to that of an informal colony. Besides, any obligations given up by them had to be taken over by befriended countries that were tied into such agreements by ‘legal’ coercion.
The idea or ideology of colonialism is nurtured by capitalist nations throughout the world with the enforcement of political, cultural and economic control over the weak nations of the world, in order to exploit them for pure self-enrichment – looking for trade, but basically sucking out the wealth of the countries it has pre-ordained for its dealings. So colonialism it is a major part of capitalism for the purpose of securing financial, economical and power interests. To this end, also, billions of slaves have been trafficked to the Americas, for instance, to have cheap human resources as laborers on the plantations that were set up, in its wake raping nature and natives alike of a balanced relationship with the whole as here as pre-established, causing warfare at all levels, resulting in genocide and complete agony for all life.
Colonialism also took on horrific extents in Malaya and Kenya, for example, where whole villages were punished in 1952, the states turned into a police state with a shoot to kill policy, detention camps were established with forced labor and hangings and any attempt to thwart British revenue demands were brutally oppressed. Hereby the UK gained immense military and industrial strength. Again motivated by material, economic and strategic interest, and, promising independence, GB continued following this ideology of colonialism in the Muslim world; the war on Iraq was spurred dividing the area into weak states, creating Iraq for the oil it needed for the Royal Navy – exchanging rulers and gassing and bombing the nation.
Colonialism sees exploitation and inhumane treatment of people with attacks against insurgents by systematic abuse, such as sleep deprivation, hooding, sexual degradation and starvation. Afghanistan is another example that is well-known, also Israel, established as a settler colony as an outpost of European capitalism, fostered in particular by British imperialism along with the creation of other states to ensure their influence. The list goes on.
One can easily see where this is going: the exploitation and devastation of the earth’s resources and enslavement of all but very few, the Elite behind it all, though even they are subservient to their greed and fear of sinking below the obtained standard trying to hold what they have made themselves believe they’re entitled to.
The solution
Since the driving factor is capitalism and within this profit and power and thus the starting point is existent of desire for More, which comes in form of economic control over those nations with rich resources, in the wake of which immense suffering is created for life on all levels, the solution is to limit the control of the corporations. They should not own natural resources and be allowed to mine them for profit of the very few without taking environmental consequences into consideration within responsibility and in regard to sustenance of an overall natural equilibrium. The resources will be handled in a way that is best for all.
It is necessary to take the capitalistic factor out of the equation, namely by implementing a system of equality with each and every living being on earth, where each being is entitled to an income from birth on. Thus each will have enough to stop the struggle for survival and coerced cooperation into a situation of compromise and devastation will be able to be immensely limited. Fear will be taken out of the equation to a great deal and the basis for self-investigation will be established.
The primary steps toward this solution would be to educate people on what equality actually means and what the consequences of implementing such a life principle into and as our practical living would look like to let people eventually see, realize and understand that fearing financial equality is quite ridiculous.
Establishing a party that each can actually vote for is essential as history has proven that acts of revolution give rise to a turnover with the ultimate effect that the same system is implemented only with a different person at the top, not to mention the brutality that is accepted by opting for violent and aggressive measures. The aim of the party would be to reallocate and nationalize resources and redistribute the responsibilities for these and their respective processing to people who are actually competent to handle such a task ecologically with responsibility.
Of course a new financial system will require substantial changes in the administrative structures and tasks and a consequent slimming down of the present extortions of these offices. On the other hand, there will be a need for people to evaluate, forward and implement improvements and suggestions thereof and people will have to be supported and educated to be able to participate with common sense, which will require the directive and clarity of insight of the respective persons to be the peers in this matter, thus after a slimming down there will be stable foundation to be set up and new expansion with regards to various novel fields, for example of science and research, that will need to be supervised will be possible.
Media will have to have a completely reversed focus point namely not to misinform and influence to the disadvantage of the people, but to inform and open up problematic points to impulse some stroke of genius or simply common sense toward solutions that support the common good and forward real growth for humanity.
On the long run the education system has to be totally reorganized and revised, pertaining for one to the contents and basically to the starting point of education as such, where not competition is being fostered to later ultimately cater to the corporate greed – the profit and advantage of the 1% -but but to ‘pick up everyone where he’s at’ and direct toward a re-establishment of common sense and actual know-how as to how things function in this world, what is here and how to create and move toward solutions that are best for all in a team.
The reward, as benefits, is obvious:
No being will have to suffer. Everyone will have food, water, shelter, education – a life. There will be no wars for resources. Fear will be on a personal level as a part of the mind consciousness system to be directed but not reinforced by the economical and financial system and so more easily handled and stopped.
School will be something very interesting without fear of failing in the system later due to bad marks, because competition will not be lived as ‘me against you’ within a superiority/inferiority paradigm, but wanting to excel in and as a team, because one will want to participate with one’s self-expression and not as a matter of surviving in the system.
There will be peace and a possibility of real self-expression without fear.
There will be a great mess to be cleaned up, but there will be a co-operation that establishes itself as everyone has enough for himself and is free to actually work together.
The Living Income Guaranteed integrates these principles in The Proposal, it is in our best interest to end foreign interventions for the sake of profit making purposes and instead, be able to focus on strengthening our own nations economy as well as developing trade within fair terms that benefit both sides.
Living Income Guaranteed and Human Rights
Why are the Human Rights of every person on Earth not protected? If one takes this to the level of a parent, every parent wants for their children the best future in this world. With the current application and the implication of the way that our current system functions, it is more based on luck than on the fact that one has a birth right as a human on Earth to have a decent life with basic needs fulfilled. No one that currently has got these needs fulfilled would like to give it up and live in the conditions of those that do not have Human Rights in this polarized system between haves and have not’s.
With the Living Income Guaranteed – which is in a way positive capitalism – this problem can be resolved and a lot of unnecessary discord and wars on Earth can come to an end because we have a system that works. War has only become an easy way for the few elites to make a lot of money, utilizing people living in poverty through paying them a pittance for their patriotism to go out there and kill people. And all of this just to support an arms industry that is in its very nature of existence a violation of Human Rights in every way.
We suggest that it is important to investigate what Human Rights are for you and then to have a look if you have them. If you are lucky enough to have them, then also investigate if everybody has got them as well and if they don’t: we have the responsibility to ensure that they get them. If we are not willing to live the lives of those in poverty, then why should we keep others refrained from their right to have a dignified living? Currently we’re living in a modern day holocaust wherein capitalism and elitism have become part of our individual ideology in which we haven’t learned to care for anyone else but ourselves and where we use money as a dividing line between having Human Rights and not having Human Rights, accepting it as ‘how the world works.’
Through the correct use of democracy, there is going to be a change in the system and once we all realize that we can use politics to bring about a change, we can use democracy as the majority rule to bring about a change that is best for all. Within this there are also going to be consequences, because the violation of Human Rights will certainly be investigated – even only in a way like what happened in South Africa after the apartheid era, a forgiveness tribunal was established where what really happened was exposed, so that we all can learn from it and prevent it from ever happening again.
We suggest that we all get involved now, let’s realize that there is a change in the awareness of the human being wherein slowly but surely, we are all having the realization that we’ve been taken for a ride through propaganda and through manipulation of the mind, which is a necessary and inevitable step to finally take the veil off our eyes. Rather than waiting until it happens – which will place one squarely in a position where you may be perceived to have been part of the violation of Human Rights – we suggest to act now and take action. It’s going to take a lot of education and it’s going to take a lot of effort to help those that are stuck, which are the people with money – the rest have been stuck because they don’t have money and they have to focus on always getting money to survive day by day – but something is certain: this will not continue the way it exists now.
Ask yourself the BIG question: why is it that everyone on Earth does not have Equal Human Rights? Why is it that Human Rights have become a commodity that can be bought with money?
Equal Life Foundation Research Team
Living Income and the Music Industry
The music industry is one of the industries that has suffered the most under the current format of consumerism and capitalism. We have a peculiar scenario that developed where more than 90% of popular music became popular with some underlying sexual innuendo within the context of the music.
It’s as if music became a form of pornography, and because pornography has become something that up to now has been apparently something protected by free speech, we also created this in our music. Within this we are destroying true creativity within our musical arts, where we end up only with popularized music that is deliberately promoted within the vile of consumerism: where there is nothing that drives it but profit, and obviously entertaining the consumer to remain in a positive mindset of hope looking for the fulfillment of pleasure. This certainly is not music.
We expect that within the Living Income Guaranteed, the musician will have sufficient income on a Living Income Guaranteed to be able to truly develop their music and to explore building an audience that appreciates the music they create. The same will happen with the other arts in terms of painting, films, theater, literature, etc. If one no longer needs to make the music simply for the purposes of survival and you have sufficient support to truly explore your skills, the appreciation of the listener of the music enthusiast will grow substantially and we will develop a culture within our higher appreciations that will bring us a whole new era in music. All of this is facilitated through a simple principle: once each one is taken care of in their basic needs to live a life of decency, their ability is set free to find a higher form of expression. This higher form of expression is truly what everyone claims ‘they’ve been looking for’ but never considered that one requires a Practical Economic Model to set free the creative human potential. It will take time, but inevitably we foresee that we will become much more appreciative of arts and music and much more critical of content, expecting a higher value from our fellow human as we no longer are biased through our need to ‘feel hope for the future’ through some form of positive innuendo that is underlying abuse through our sexual expressions that has come through our generations.
In a society where you have felt like you were not supported in any way and you really have nothing to lose because you’ve already lost everything = the choice to be irresponsible was accentuated. In a more balanced society, one where everyone is taken care of within a Living Income Guaranteed structure will develop self-responsibility and self-respect, because Living Income Guaranteed in itself would be a statement by every human towards their fellow human “I respect you as life” and that statement, that certainty that one is protected and supported: will start changing human nature.
Equal Life Foundation Research
Related Post: Day 235: Living Income and Effective Markets
