Do We Distribute Money Fairly?

7 posts / 0 new

How can we share the abundance of this planet without destroying it and ourselves?

Public discussion tends to focus on the tax end of the wealth distribution equation and very little on the pay end. Why is that? Why aren't people who actually transform ideas into reality (laborers) valued as much as money handlers, dreamers and organizers in society? Why do we insist on inflatiing our value while deflating the value of others when, ultimately, we end up viewing one another with contempt?

By not addressing fair pay and social responsibility issues, aren't we forcing unnecessary growth in government to protect victims from predators. Not only do predators want all the money at the pay end, they want to keep it at the tax end, so it is only natural they use their wealth to influence (bribe) lawmakers into reducinge their tax liability, thus enriching themselves at both ends of the spectrum.

These same individuals (including corporations) loudly complain about "big government " and too much government regulation while, at the same time, they express unfair and predatory behavior. It's the kind of behavior that creates the need for big government. Isn't this living with our eyes wide shut?

In life and business, how many of us ask if what we are doing is good? "Do my (our) actions improve the quality of life or undermine it? Do they increase humanity’s chances for survival or threaten it?"

Active and thoughtful participation in the creation of our reality is the change we are waiting for!

Pete - http://realtalkworld.com

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Worldchangeguy's picture
Worldchangeguy
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

How can we share the abundance of this planet without destroying it and ourselves?

Reduce the human population to a sustainable level of about 2 billion total.

By not addressing fair pay and social responsibility issues, aren't we forcing unnecessary growth in government to protect victims from predators

Fair pay and social responsibility really wouldn't make the situation better as there are simply too many people. the only reason that so many people can exist is that so many do with so little. The problem is that if you wanted to implement fairness, such as equalizing wealth/resource allocation then people in developed nations would have to greatly reduce their take and allow the impoverished to have some, as we would need far more than one earth to provide the impoverished an increase in their take without the developed nations reducing theirs, which is impossible.

We have been altering the earth's systems to the point of collapse growing our population to this point. The only solution is to reduce the human population live more efficiently at a sustainable level for the benefit of all.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:
How can we share the abundance of this planet without destroying it and ourselves?

Reduce the human population to a sustainable level of about 2 billion total.

How would we change if, instead of letting thoughts of fear, separation and competition (creating a world of predators and victims by asking, what’s going to work best for ME?) dominate our thinking, we started asking:

What’s going to work best for ALL of us? This question takes YOU, ME and US (everyone and everything) into consideration.

  • What’s going to work best for ALL of us in personal terms? (What is the best way for me to fulfill my own unique potential in support of the world AND myself?)
  • What’s going to work best for ALL of us in terms of business? (What is the best way for us to maintain the health and well-being of the planet and humanity?)
  • What’s going to work best for ALL of us in terms of education? (What is the best way for us to learn and grow? What are the most important things for us to learn?)
  • What’s going to work best for ALL of us in terms of the environment? (What is the best and most sustainable way for us to relate to nature and the earth?)
  • What’s going to work best for ALL of us in terms of peace? (What is the best way for us to treat ourselves and what is the best way for us to treat each other, as individuals and nations?)
  • Until we ask different questions, we'll get the same answers. Just by asking ourselves the question, what’s going to work best for ALL of us, we begin to create a world based on love, oneness, trust, collaboration and sharing. We accept that we're not only the product of creation (blank slates to write on, empty sponges to fill or computers to program) but creation itself!

    By asking ourselves questions like, what is the best way for us to treat each other and what is the best way for us to treat ourselves, we engage our imaginations as well as our intellects in creating better selves, better lives and a better world. In time, our answers will evolve beyond the simple and self-serving. They will become deep and meaningful when we vet them by all levels of our consciousness. By accepting this response-ability, we will empower ourselves immeasurably!

    Which self, which world? We all have the answers inside. We just need to bring them out by asking good questions and listening for good answers.

    Seek the greatest understanding and serve the highest good.

    Empower yourself and the world around you!. There is no greater show of LOVE than the acknowledgment of power and worth in yourself and others.

    Conversely, there is no greater show of FEAR than the denial of power and worth in yourself and others.

    Pete

    Worldchangeguy's picture
    Worldchangeguy
    Joined:
    Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

    Pete,

    The earth cannot support the number of people that currently exist without its systems collapsing, which they are. "Empowerment" is a wonderful delusion but you have to deal with reality, which is that there are too many people.

    PS:

    What is pathetic is that we consider ourselves moral while at the same time choosing to ignore the harm we cause those we dont' give a shit about, or consider to be our resources, nonhuman animals. So while there is promise for say Africa feeding itself that comes at a very high price for Africa's wildlife.

    Research indicates that we are using more plant material as our population grows and incomes rise, which means, as in Africa, that worldwide wildlife will suffer, as will the poorest and most powerless people. The fact is that this doesn't have to happen as all we need do is to stop pumping out babies. Promoting delusion, such as income equity is a solution to problems caused by overpopulation, results in not only bad policy but is immoral. Reversing human population growth to the negative while acknowledging that as moral beings we have obligations to those we don't value are the prime components to a real solution.

    jeffbiss's picture
    jeffbiss
    Joined:
    Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
    Quote jeffbiss:

    Pete,

    The earth cannot support the number of people that currently exist without its systems collapsing, which they are. "Empowerment" is a wonderful delusion but you have to deal with reality, which is that there are too many people.

    I agree with you about overpopulation, Jeff, but not about empowerment. My wife and I decided back in the late 60s that we only wanted two children. Our children decided they only wanted one-child families. Many of us, in the last 50 years particularly, have made the choice to have smaller families and today, more of us are deciding not to marry or have children. I suspect that the rise in same-sex marriage and relationships is also a response to our growing concern about overpopulation (instead of rejecting this lifestyle choice, maybe we should embrace it?).

    While our outer (ego) selves huff and puff about greed and overpopulation, our inner, wiser selves are actually doing something about it. Not all decisions we make are determined by our outer selves - our inner selves weigh in when necessary as well. If my wife and I did not feel empowered enough to break free from cultural influences and expectation, we would never have considered having less than 3 or more children. After all, our parental examples and the bible told us to "be fruitful and multiply." Without realizing it, we excercised personal power and responsibility in choosing to have only two children instead of thoughtlessly following our parent's example, or fulfilling the bible's edict. Employing intuition and logic, we made this choice for many reasons, including the fearful promise of our cultural belief in competition (eat or be eaten, kill or be killed) and overpopulation.

    In many countries today, people are rising up against religious, military and political oppression. We're doing it here, in the United States. That, is self-empowerment! All of humanity is in the process of waking up and evolving consciousness. Our outer selves are increasingly looking for help from any source, including our own inner selves or consciousness. Under the threat of impending violence and death, we are searching for the knowledge and abilities we need to deal with the imbalances we have thoughtlessly created under t false impression we are the "children" of God, and therefore, not capable of thinking for ourselves (a religious belief). Or, for scientific adherents, the belief that, in large part, we are little more than automatons controlled by our genes, shaped by social influences, and manipulated by the promise of reward and threat of punishment (the carrot and stick trick).

    In many countries today, people are rising up against religious, military and political oppression. We're doing it here, in the United States. That, is self-empowerment!

    All of humanity is in the process of waking up and evolving consciousness. Our outer selves are increasingly looking for help from any source, including our own inner consciousness. Under the threat of impending violence and death, we are desperately searching for the knowledge and abilities we need to deal with the imbalances we have thoughtlessly created under two false impressions. One false impression is that we are the "children" of God, and therefore, not capable of thinking for ourselves (a religious belief). For scientific adherents, the belief is that, in large part, we are little more than automatons controlled by our genes, shaped by social influences, and manipulated by the promise of reward and threat of punishment (the carrot and stick trick).

    While perhaps not as evolved as "God", we have the same creative potential and responsibility to learn from our experiences. We are partners in creation and ever-present circumstances like uncontrolled greed and population growth are reminders to push us into developing our creative abilities whether it is to learn how to walk, talk or change ourselves, and the world, for the better. In other words, we're not here just for the ride, we're here to evolve and grow.

    What can be more exciting, or worth doing, than learning how to change ourselves, and the world, for the better?

    Only when we accept full responsibility for the consequences of our own thoughts and actions will we slow down enough to see how our thoughts create our reality. Only then will we learn how to consciously make balanced, independent, life-enhancing choices. As we think, we create. Change what we think, and we change what we create!

    We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    We create our own reality from what we choose to believe about ourselves, and the world around us.

    If we do not CONSCIOUSLY choose our own beliefs, we UNCONSCIOUSLY absorb them from our surroundings.

    If we are accountable (responsible) for our actions, how can we afford NOT to question our beliefs?

    How you define yourself, and the world around you, forms your intent, which, in turn, forms your reality. – Seth

    Pete

    Worldchangeguy's picture
    Worldchangeguy
    Joined:
    Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

    Pete,

    The earth can't support the number of people that exist right now unless the developed world uses less than 1/5 of the resources it currently does. That won't happen. While I have no kids and you have two most of the world produces an ever increasing number of people. It's a lost cause unless all people accept to reduce a) human population to a sustainable level and (b) that each person reduce the amount of resources used to others, including nonhuman animals.

    jeffbiss's picture
    jeffbiss
    Joined:
    Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

    Relax Jeff, nature will take care of the overpopulation. But the more important point is that it is an issue best solved indirectly rather than in attempts to force limits on family size. As many note, educating women reduces family size very effectively. One child in China was a sociological and psychological disaster.

    The point is not that you are wrong about the overpopulation. We are way out of harmony and balance with nature. Recovering that right relationship will mean reducing our impact on the carrying capacity of the earth; but what we see is an example of hoarding and disregard rather than sharing and caring.

    The individualized and mechanized metaphysics of the Enlightenment rarely give us the sense of dynamic systems at work. You and I criticize that approach to economic design as we see the reduction of human life to an economic bottom line. But how we correct the imbalance and disharmony with nature also needs to be conceived in something more realistic than the flat, linear and literal "realism" of direct logic. Define the problem, propose the solution. But what if the problem needs something else added to the equation to be solved? Interactive systems and complexity in design are more like a quantum world.

    Rather than a legalized approach to population control, or the imposition of tax penalties on larger families, why not help us get over the idea that everyone has to reproduce to keep a stake in the gene pool. It is not true to begin with, but making parenting a vocation for those truly called would help end a lot of abuse from people who find the idea of parenting far better than the experience.

    If we shared our children as a community and made the other significant adults in the lives of children part of their circle of care, parents would have the village needed to raise a child. Adults who did not want to be parents would have real intergenerational encounters of caring and mutuality instead of looking at the children of "breeders" as terrorists. It would be made into a range of choices instead of the obligation to breed.

    Building food security and protecting our water resources will inform the borders of future governing units. Borders will be seams in the garment instead of barriers, but making the focus of governing the geography of stewardship puts the focus on working it out together instead of "competing" against oneself in the system sense. Cooperative solutions instead of competitive have much greater stability. They would also make our security be vested in our neighbors instead of our progeny.

    DRC's picture
    DRC
    Joined:
    Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

    Currently Chatting

    We Need to Listen to the Founders and Stop the Forever War.

    Just a little over a year ago during his speech at the National Defense University here in Washington, D.C., President Obama talked about winding down Bush’s War on Terror. But as American bombers continue to strike against ISIS in Iraq and now Syria, it now looks like the War on Terror will be with us for years to come. And that’s a really dangerous thing for our democracy.

    Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system