Day 24 - On the value of Life

In Europe we are proud of of our laws prohibiting the death penalty. In our Human Rights Treaties this is called ‘the right to life’ and that is said to be a sign of our so-called ‘humanity’. 

The historical truth is that the death penalty became problematic for governments to uphold, especially in cases where a convicted criminal was afterwards proven to be innocent. In other words, the ‘death penalty’ became a political time-bomb because within putting innocent beings to death the governments were placing themselves at risk of civil disobedience and civil war. 

It was seen as much less ‘risky’ to simply imprison criminals for life as the ‘harshest sentence’ instead of putting them to death. Hence it was not an insight into the intrinsic value of a human life that caused the death penalty to become problematic. It was purely political ‘pragmatism’. 

This is why in todays world governments have no problems putting a gun in the hands of their nationals and sending them to war, even if that means an extreme probability of them being killed or of them killing others, even children. Clearly: life has no value. My conclusion is that schools and mass media are a threat to world-peace because the governments have used the schooling system and the media to continue brainwashing entire generations into accepting nationalism and state-authority as something actually worth dying for, instead of humanity realising our interconnectedness and oneness.

What is the solution? Civil disobedience? Dropping out from school? No, the answer is you take responsibility for yourself so that you may walk this world free of brainwashing and stand as an example of what it means to care for another as yourself. 

Investigate Desteni, investigate self-forgiveness. 

Day 21 - Behind the curtains in Greece

On the 2th of September, 2015, Zoe Konstantopoulou, human rights lawyer and past president of the Greek parliament held a speech at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. During this speech, Zoe made the following statement:

“The government was forced to accept that Parliament legislates on pre-formulated texts of hundreds of pages with no deliberation and at pre-fixed dates with an emergency procedure and with the banks still closed. This extortion was baptized “prerequisites” for an agreement and Parliament was called to abolish laws it had only voted during the previous 4 months and to refrain from any legislative initiative without prior approval by the creditors.

An over 100 page law construed in 1 article was passed on July 15th in less than 24 hours. A 1000 page law construed in 3 articles was passed on July 22nd in less than 24 hours. An almost 400 page law was passed on August 14, in 24 hours.

Parliament legislated 3 times under duress and coercion.

And after this was done, attesting that a large part of the deputies of the major governing party, including the Parliament’s President, refused to vote such legislation, Parliament was inadvertedly dissolved to ensure a “more stable majority” to implement what the people have rejected.”

Following the events in Greece from a variety of media sources, I have come to realize there is a vast discrepancy between what the ‘fast food’ media presents as ‘facts’ about Greece and what is really going on in that country. 

The brutality with which the Greek government was side-stepped and made irrelevant by the ruling forces in Europe, combined with the normalcy with which this was accepted, proves that humanity has never really transcended the Middle Ages. It still only follows and obeys the ‘rights of the strongest’.

Greece is being forced to cut basic life necessities: pension revenue is being brought down to starvation levels and in some cases hospital surgeries have to be performed without any anesthesia because of a lack of funds.

When a country is threatened with bank closures which could lead to massive humanitarian disasters – this is not reform – it is economic warfare. Despite this, ‘the people’ of Europe appear to be accepting of such acts of treason. Are they willing to endure the same intervention in their own countries?

Is it really true that the system is too complex for the individual to make sense of what is really going on? Of course not! This stuff is not complicated. Go study law or economics to begin to pierce through the bullshit and let’s make a stand.

For additional research, visit: http://cadtm.org/Greece-Assessment-of-the-debt-as

Day 18: The Right to Life = The Right To Money

It is common knowledge that our Human Rights include a Right to Life. This Right to Life can be found in several notable international instruments. For example article 3 the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Here it is stated that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. A similar provision can be found in article 2 European Convention on Human Rights and article 6.1 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The definition of the Right to Life according to the European Convention on Human rights place both negative and positive obligations on the state. The negative obligation is simply to not – unless it is absolutely necessary – impose deadly violence on its citizens. The positive obligations include having effective law-enforcement machinery. However, the positive obligations should not be interpreted in a way, which impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. Suffice to say, the current definition of the Right to Life is limited.

If we look at the word Life in the dictionary we find the following definition:

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

As such, the way we have defined Life currently is simply as being the difference between organic and inorganic matter. In using this limited definition of life, it is easy to see that the Right to Life would merely involve not being killed. But, the word Life does hold more potential than merely being an indicator of what is organic and what is not organic. Life, and living life, entails quality, entails being able to live with dignity, and being gifted the opportunities to create your dreams. Because, is life really life if it cannot be lived to its fullest?

Can we say that a person born into poverty has a life? We can conclude that he is organic, he is breathing and his heart is beating – however – is this sufficient for us to call this person a living being? And this brings us to the word survival – because survival and living is not the same thing, yet they can be easily mixed up.

Survival is defined in the dictionary as follows:

The state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances.

What stands out is the word EXISTS – and that is the difference between living and surviving. When you are surviving, being of organic matter, you exist, when you are living, you are able to create and build something from your existence. Your able to make yourself bloom, expand and reach your fullest potential and anything less than cannot be defined as living.

For example, by implication, the Right to Life must include a Right to Money, because without Money, you cannot possibly create a life for yourself in this world. Without money you do not have a voice. Thus it is fascinating to observe that in the discussions regarding the Right to Life, and in the various Human Rights conventions – there has been NO mention of the Right to Money.

Though, when you look at it, it is easy to see that for anyone to actually LIVE – they must have money. With money you buy food and clothes, and you pay for rent. To get a decent education, you must have money. All the basic Human Rights require Money in some way or another to be fulfilled and realized – hence the Right to Money should be obvious.

Some might argue that there should not be such a thing as a Right to Money, because apparently, money is earned. However, the truth is that money is manufactured. Money is created by banks, federal and private, and lent out at an interest – and this is the way money is brought into circulation. The idea that money should be earned is as such a fiction pushed by the ruling classes in order to ensure that the way money is created and distributed in society is not questioned.

The Human Right of The Right to Life cannot only be seen as a Right not to be killed – it is also – by implication – a Right to Create Your Own Life – a Right to have Access To Money. Today, we have the notion that money is a scarce resource – this is a artificial scarcity created by the fact that all money are introduced into society as debt with an interest – causing a constant shortage of money. And this is nothing short of a human rights abuse – when we consider how dependent we all are on money to be in our lives for us to be able to live effectively.

Day 16: Corporations and Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed, and adopted by the United Nations Assembly in 1948. Looking at history of humanity it’s safe to say that these documents really do represent a revolution in human development, and evolution – because this charter do suggest that human beings are to be treated with care, and given a life of fulfillment. Obviously – as can be seen – none of the provisions of the charter have been honored in reality – the words that expressed a care for humanity as a whole has remained nothing but words – nothing but hope, and good natured intentions. It’s fascinating that it’s so hard for the leaders of our world to agree upon setting our differences aside and instead focusing on how to create a world that is best for everyone – yet history have proved over, and over again, that regardless of how many attempts that have been made to corporate, and place the best of humanity before the self-interest of the individual – it has utterly failed.

In this blog I am going to take a closer look at one of the reasons as to why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have become nothing but empty words – standing as a monument of the failure of humanity to come to a equal agreement on how we should care for each other, and our world – our common home.

This is taken from Wikipedia:

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.^[57] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.^{[citation needed]} Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

[T]he growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.

—Jean Ziegler^[58]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.^[59] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.^[60]

Problem

What is the essence of a corporation? In the economic literature it’s given a fascinating definition – it’s called a “nexus of contracts” – meaning that a corporation is in-fact a entity consisting of numerous parties that have joined forces to support their own personal self-interest – and within this they have agreed to follow the forms of a standard-contract – this contract being the corporate law that exist in similar forms in countries all over the world.

The essence of this standard contract as the corporate law is that parties/individuals invest their money into a legal-entity – these people/parties then become the so called shareholders– and they are now in a contractual relationship with each-other – and the clauses of that contract consist of the corporate law.

According to the corporate law – shareholders are not meant to run their company by themselves – but they are to elect a board of directors, and also a chief executive officer (CEO) – these will now become hired by the corporation and be the henchmen, and forefront of the corporation in the world. These henchmen get their specific code of conduct from the contract that is the corporate law – and their main objective is in almost all cases – to ensure that the shareholders will profit on their investment – in other words – they are to make lots of money.

So – here we have to two first parties, and personal self-interests that have been managed through a contract; the management of the company – and then the shareholders of the company. These are the most prominent interests.

Then on top of these basic and fundamental interests of the corporation we have the banks, as the creditor of the corporation – and the interest of the creditor is to make sure that he receives money, and surety for the loan that’s been given; a.k.a. being able to profit on the investment.

More over we have the contractors to the specific corporation – for example – if a corporation has it’s specific field in the construction of new houses – then this corporation must align contractors, and suppliers to it’s business – in order to get the necessary skill, and raw-material in order to be able to build the new houses. The interest, and desire of these contractors, and suppliers is to get paid on the work that they commit to, and also to hopefully be hired again for a new project at a later stage.

What I am trying to show with this walkthrough of the various parts that a corporation consists of – is that it’s a huge spider-web of intermingled, and intertwined interests of various parties – but the one thing that unites them in their movement is that – they all want to have MONEY – they all want to make a profit – and they all benefit when the corporation benefit. Thus – the corporation is in-fact nothing but a faceless, and anonymous mass of people that are hidden behind a legal-entity – that have together formed a contract to together make as much money as is possible. Because remember – that the interests of the corporation can’t be held accountable for the crimes that the corporation commit; they are instead protected behind the mask, and entity of the corporation.

Now – this doesn’t work very well with Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the reason being that profit is never free but always comes at a price – and this price is paid daily by earth, and human beings around the world – that have been abused, and used in order for corporations to be able to make more money. Obviously this is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supposed to stop – but this hasn’t happened – and instead the form of the corporation as a contract between people to make money – allows individual parties to hide, and become anonymous, and differentiate themselves from the complete destruction that the corporation creates – and instead say that “it’s the corporation – it’s not me! I am just a shareholder!” – or “I am just the CEO, I just do my job! It’s in my work description to make money!”

Thus – it’s fascinating – that we’ve created a way in this world for people to come together and without any legal responsibility make money by any means necessary – I mean – why is it that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t recognize that in essence – a corporation is merely a group of human-beings that should be held accountable for their actions – and that this so-called legal entity as the corporation is nothing but smokes, and mirrors that simply hides the real driving force of the corporation as several interests coming together to profit?

This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t function – and will not function in this world – because it’s not about demanding actual accountability – it’s not about demanding human-beings to act with integrity, and respect – it’s about politics – and where politics enter the picture so does the incessant drive to earn more money – greed – and as such it’s obvious that this faceless entity as the corporation has had a say in creating the current definition and understanding of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights – in order to protect all it’s various individual parts interests.

Within looking at this point – it’s also fascinating to see how the corporation is really a baby that has been breed out of so-called normal, and average human-beings pockets – because when we invest in a stock – we invest in a stock from the perspective of wanting to gain profit – and within that we are the anonymous investor that can’ be seen, and can’t be heard – yet still is a silent driving force behind the corporation – that acts as the henchmen of the stockholder – so that there is a return on the investment – so really – we can’t blame the acts of corporations on anything but ourselves – and by ourselves I mean us as the normal, and average high-level living standard human-being – because we’ve invested in and brought this monster to life – and made it our scapegoat, and our cover-up so that we can commit crimes against human rights and get away with it.

Solution

A business attorney called Robert Hinkey has since 10 years back been propagating, and showing that there is a simple solution towards making sure that the corporation starts to care for, and consider human-beings, and human rights – and that is through changing the law of the corporation – to instead of having it’s primary purpose to create profit – to instead having the purpose of creating profit but within the limits that nobody must be harmed.

That is according to me a cool solution as to how to make sure that the faceless entity of the corporation get’s a face that we can see and make sure does not overstep any boundaries. And to enforce this point that chief executive officer, as well as the board of directors can be held accountable if the boundaries are not respected – I mean – this is already currently done but in relation to points that involve wasting the corporations money, or not following the rules of the stock-market effectively – so why not also insist on rules that are created to serve the betterment of humanity?

The simple point to understand is that there is SO MUCH we can do to change what is currently happening on earth – the question we should ask ourselves is WHY DON’T WE? How come that intellectual revolutionaries such as Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges are able to write books that specifically outlines, and shows the corrupt nature of our current world-system – yet still NOTHING happens? I mean – it’s fascinating that so little is happening while the problems are very clearly shown – it’s like humanity as a whole do not have the ability to ACT on words – but merely to write down words, read words, and consider words – but not LIVE WORDS!

And that is the problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – it’s a cool document yes – but – it’s not been lived! It’s remained as a gesture, and a hope for a better world – but not a actual, and directive push to create a world that is best for all in every way possible.

Thus – the first point the must be established by humanity if anything is ever going to happen is to realize the importance of action – and that words that are not taken into living practical application are worthless – they mean nothing – and will merely remain as a vague hope on a paper that nobody really cares about.

So – the solution is to first – active ourselves as humanity – and stand up within ourselves, and our worlds and make the decision to walk a change – and then – the second point is to change the corporate law – to make corporations responsible for their decisions, and to enable holding CEO’s and board of directors liable for their corporations crimes against human rights – thus making sure that the corporation does not function as a veil to hide from responsibility.

Reward

In creating the corporate law – and consequently the corporation – to consider and adhere to human rights – and enable to hold leading key figures in the corporation responsible for any crimes against life, and humanity that the corporation commits – we’re able to utilize the organizational structure of the corporation as a way to product profit for humanity as a whole.

As such we can develop, and experience a life wherein production, and profit-creation is walked within considerations of what is best for humanity, and earth – and thus produce a life for human beings that are fulfilling, and without stress, pressure, and wage-slavery. We will have an employer as the corporation that do care about their employees – and that do care about honoring human rights, and producing the most effective, and effective products possible.

The simple point that must change is the starting point – we must wider our horizons and realize that Life can never be fulfilling when only profit is considered – life – humanity – and earth must always be considered if not it will lead us to certain destruction, and a life of competition, and strives – that is not necessary!

For more information on how to re-form society in a effective, yet simple way in order to produce a populous that do care for human rights – read the following blogs:

Bailouts Are No Solution

Basic Income and Nationalized Resources

Basic Income Can Save Capitalism

Basic Income and Minimum Wage

Basic Income Grant and Nationalization of Banks

Basic Income Grant and Pensions

Basic Income Grant and Oil

Basic Income Grant and Owning Property

Day 416: Prism: The Secret Agent of the Secret Mind
Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
Day 419: “The Lord, My God”
Day 420: Basic Income and Minimum Wage - See more at: http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/p/timeline.html#sthash.inxp5Mn4.dpuf

Related articles

• Day 320 - What are Human Rights?
• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 411: GPS: the Global Paranoia System Reaches Turkey

Day 11 The basis of the Constituion of Life

Human Rights:

Before going into the definition of Humans Rights I would like to share some research that I have done over the definition itself of what is a Right. Because something very interesting within the study of laws, is that there is no real definition of what a Right really is, and apparently "no one has been able to define it", and I want to remark this point, because apparently, when a lawyer tries to describe what a Right is, they tend to give descriptions about the laws but they forget completely the origin of all of them and the reason why, we as humanity have completely forgot how to prevent unnecessary consequences.

And first of all I would like to look at the Roman Empire, because it brings quite some interesting considerations about the structure of our current law system in regards to their codes and studies of Rights and laws; now is not necessary to go into a deep study of all of it to define a right, we will just look at the basics

In the beginning the definition of the Rights was very intertwined with Religion, the reason for this was that, they were trying to define an order over the "RULES OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS"(Fear of Survival, Fear of future loss, Competition, Guilt, Shame, and so on) that is why when one reads the law, is almost equal to read a mind...(so to speak) by this I mean, that if you look at the first relationships that we made in regards to our social order, nothing in regards to the laws was written, it was more something that the entire society must knew as part of their basic education, this is what is called CUSTOMARY LAW which is the basis of the COMMON LAW in the United States.

But something that is necessary to remark within this point is that the Romans had very specialized jurists, these people were not paid to work on laws as it is now with our legislators, they had to have enough income to not depend on others, and I mean, not disregarding that it must be the reason why it was accepted so many abuses in Rome as the fact that slavery was seen as normal, that is not very different from today, they knew the people and were known by the people, and they committed their entire life's to the study and creation of laws, and everything that these men said would be considered by decree as the "law". And what is fascinating is the following, as you have read above, the relationship of laws was very intertwined with religion, and the only ones who could knew about the laws, were the pontiffs, look at the entire construct of religion today in regards to the act of “confession” for instance, who could knew better the people that those guys, who were aware of the secrets and “sins” of the people?

Now, one can now understand why their "arguments" for the creation of laws, were so specific and precise, that the compilation that was done of all the laws of Rome and principally the arguments done by the jurists almost at the end of the period of the Roman Monarchy, would be used again after the modern age, to restore the basis of the legal system, beginning with the German system, which was the "BGB". this may seem irrelevant, but only consider the fact that, the studies done of the social order by this jurists, was actually so specific, that their arguments had really just too little changes (in matter of opinion) obviously because after several wars and scientific discoveries, we changed a lot of values in consequence of the ideologies and things that got and lose importance and value over the ages, it’s not the same to make a war with swords and arrows than a war with nuclear bombs, (but that is for another topic).

One of the definitions that is still used for the definition of the study of laws and rights has been that: "It is the art of that which is good and equitable", and now it has been modified to several definitions but the most used is this one: Set of rules, bilateral external heteronomous and enforceable generally aimed at regulating human behavior in its "subjective" interference.

And this was something very interesting to look at, because there are several types of categories within the rules, and a rule is considered to be "more perfect" when "the legal act has no effect in reality", but proceeding more from the perspective of that it "prevents" that certain consequences that are not desired take place, because it implies the lose of contracts and money and you know...all of the things that maintain the order of the system for the specific areas that are required to keep the balance and so on.

Something that supported me to understand another staring point that we can use as a new definition for a Right was that:

I Imagine "the case" in which one gets a terrible disease, like marrow cancer, I mean you are going to die and go through extreme suffering, and there is this point about the Euthanasia, let’s say that you are the jurist that is able to determine "if it is approved or not the application of the Euthanasia", I mean, it is a decision that is not only going to affect you, it is going to affect all of humanity, only YOUR ARGUMENT will be enough to change the course of the life of millions upon millions of beings, ¿What consequences would you create far beyond of those that you want for yourself?, and I mean, I one can look at oneself and only consider how much one tend to believe that one is too small and too inferior to disregard completely the consequences of every single word, action, comment and argument that one use, because, something amazing is that by making that question to myself, I begun to think in all the arguments that I heard on that topic (Euthanasia), that is exactly what I didn't did before, I never placed myself in the shoes of that person that is going to die and that is suffering so much, that is almost something that one cannot even imagine.

From this point I was able to see something: The laws are important, but not because they regulate a behavior in the people, but because the arguments in which they are founded should solve in the direction that is best for all, by preventing unnecessary consequences to manifest.

If one goes into the books that study the criminal laws, in the first pages, you will certainly find that it is recognized that we are not able to control the manifestation of the events, and that implies that is already recognized that we are not capable of controlling the behavior of the humans, but what has been done is that we act only over the consequences and then it is pretended to control the outflows of the events by placing more and more restrictions to more specific things to find "the cornerstone of the whole point of the situation" to then only place forms of control over that point, and creating consequences and fear onto the people of that consequences to keep them as far as possible from that point.

The problem is not the state trying to manipulate us, because it is impossible, I mean, in that search for control, they are controlling themselves with the illusion that “they have power over the people” when that is not so, and is also the people that has believed that they have not power at all, when actually, every single law and consideration that the legislator made, is founded over the consequences of the actions and words of the society.

From that what one then is able to see is that a right is that which one would do unto others as one would like to be done unto him/she, to be considered and consider what is best for all, a Right is something that is voted by the people and for the people.

Nevertheless, there is a situation here, which is that, the laws have been defined as the liberty to create dependencies over the consideration of our self interests, therefore a primary resource that I am now exploring is the point of education, because it is part of the civil liability of the parents towards their children over the legal basis that is called "food", but the "food" also implies clothes and shelter and education and you know. Therefore what I was looking at is that if one takes Mexico for instance, we have 80% of a population that is ignorant, therefore it has been violated the individual guarantees of the children, and I think that this is a point in which we should look at how we are able to establish psychosexual evaluations to assess whether the father is responsible enough to have children or not.

Another observation, the laws are founded over the observation of multiple scenarios, and from them it is created which is called "a case", and if you look in the laws they are written as "in the case of", this means, that the argument of the law is founded over the assumption or supposing that an event of certain "characteristic" (persona, acting from a certain personality, and from that derives the criminalistic studies and so on) takes place, or must be applied, this law, which is the resolution or the consequence that "will be the best" (apparently)

Another point that is very interesting to look at, is that in the text of study of laws, one of the first things that you see is a separation between the "natural rules and human rules", and what is fascinating is that the consequences in nature manifest instantaneously, or at least, it accumulates the events until the consequences manifest, and in the case of the human laws, the effectiveness of the laws is quite dependent of various conditions, beginning for the states of corruption that most of the times obstruct the procedures

I am very interested into studying the "laws of life"

HUMAN RIGHTS: Beginning with IUS NATURALISM

These is the introduction in regards to the natural law, which is the basis of Human Rights, is necessary to look at it because the sources are the basic fundamentals that enable a coherent argument with which to respond within a corrective principle of the current legislation

These are the basics:

Returning to the Roman Empire, we have already looked at the definition of the Rights, now for this theme, it is necessary to look at the definition of Justice

Justice - Definition from the Romans: The constant and perpetual will to give to each on his right.

One point that is constant and continuous within the statements of the ideology of the ius naturalists, is that over the assumption that the people possess things, there is a "right by attribution" of the owner which must be protected at all cost, and the effectiveness of the owner to be able to possess and enjoy that which he possess depends of "the society", now here is where the law enters, because it is possible that another possesses that which "belongs to another by right" is so, that the law can exist, where there is no abuse, there is no law or right. (very interesting)

And this is the statement: The things "must go to the owner", and get into the hands of the individual to whom they are attributed, because this NEED is the primary effect of things to be of someone, so that you can say "are yours".

(Check how the word Need is used to describe an apparent "sense of meaning" to the existence itself of the human, as fear of loss)

And within this what is being said is: Giving each his own is a social need, now this is quite interesting from the perspective that the Capitalistic system focus all its attention into the need of fulfillment of desires, wants and needs, but nothing of this constitutes a practical requirement of the human physical body, or life itself.

Second statement: give each his own, requires, first to want to give it, if someone doesn't want to give to another his right, is obvious that he will not, in any case, if he doesn't want to give it, it will be applied pressure to make him to give it, and then he will give it, or by the social force, it will be snatch from him; but in this case, he didn't gave it, it's not enough that someone wants to give to another his possession, is not less important to know to who pertains the possession, or that it is fairly of the other, because, without knowing it, or he will not give it to its rightful owner, or he will not decide to give it, this knowing corresponds to the practical reason, which consist of knowing what to give, who to give it, when to give it, how to give it and where to give it.

If one analyze this, it is true that is actually not a matter of want to give, to give, but this is using an starting point based on survival, so, in recognition of what is best for all, the principle here could be very easily changed to a matter of just giving what the other need and requires because you don't need to survive cause you have been already provided with all your basic needs, therefore, what could you want or need or desire?

Now, it is necessary to point it out, (because it is going to step out anyway, lol), that the principle of authority here, functions as an act that is completely separated from the person doing it, because justice is considered the virtue of him who behaves and acts in a certain way, in this case those who are educated to be authorities. What is fascinating is that, if the principle itself, existed within the recognition of life as all as one as equals, I mean, the right then becomes something which is part of the life itself, and within this, the principle of authority becomes the same as the directive principle of self, where everyone knows what is best for all, and act in the benefit of all life, then, one can really say that justice exist.

The current starting point: The things are spread, and attributed to different people, that is why we speak of what is mine, yours and yours. And it is pointed out, within the version of several ius (jurists) naturalists, that the justice does not give or attribute things, it follows the principle that these are already distributed, so it limits itself to only maintain a certain order within the system, and we must also consider during this research that, the way in which the law proceeds is that: there cannot be an act of justice, where there is not a title over one thing. because as we have already seen, a right is consider that which is taken as a value placed on wants, needs and desires, from the capitalism perspective.

But, there is also one point that is in our favor, the very existence of justice, depends in itself of the existence of the society, because without anybody existing in survival, then there cannot be laws and so on and so on, then, if one really consider our current situation, the only way in which Justice is able to exist, is to get sure get sure that everyone is provided with that which is essential for a dignified living, so that nobody steals, and everyone is able to enjoy their "goods".

The titles of property must then be redefine in its very structure, because is like when you buy food on the market, and you get your buying ticket, which is the title attributing you as the owner of the food that you buy (I will walk the figure of contracts on other post)

The concept of source comes from the words (in Latin) fons and fundo, which means: "the place from which something emanates to the outward", our acts are consequence of our decisions and choices, and for this the point of self honesty, in the case where a man steals food to feed the family, the man is self honest, I will take the statement that jack makes over one video, can life choose to not be life?, the man is only acting as a consequence of survival, then if certain conditions must be fulfilled for life to exist, and if we have become so dependent of the properties, then this must be considered a natural right (human right), which will then allow us to demand a shelter for each person.

So when it is spoken from the starting point of: give each his own, we can redefine this to: (tatarara) Justice is the principle of equal distribution.

And already to get to the end of this blog, is necessary to look within the point of human rights, and that is the polarity point, which is enslavement.

In the first stages of the Roman empire, slavery already existed, and long before Rome; however, what is interesting to note here is the legal figure that the Romans had in relation to slavery, from the perspective of "how it became something accepted" seeing, that slavery was legislated as a right that people had, by this I mean, they had the right to have slaves.

Now, the recognition that this was against the natural rights came along with some jurists on the latter stages of the Roman Empire, but as everyone has already noticed, this is still existing in this world, and the human rights have only created a facade defined as "liberty" to give the illusion of freedom.

The slave (servus) is subject to the power (potestas) of a lord, a master (dominus), this power is known as dominica potestas and on the first stages it was unrestricted in its form.

There was several forms in which one could become a slave. By birth, by Captivity (this specifically being utilized in relation to war prisoners), by a penalty, and there is one within all of them, that is able to give a better sight of all of this, which is the enslavement by "a debt", and this works as follows:

"Nexum" is the definition of "obligation" and this means: the legal bond between a creditor (Credit) and a debtor (debt), this was also: to attach something in guarantee, where what is left in guarantee is actually you, if one doesn´t fulfill the debt, which is actually quite funny if you see that this entire world doesn´t have money any longer, all our money is debt… (in the first stages of the roman empire, they didn't had something as contracts, everything was solved through the faith in the word of the other).

The obligational relationship exists between a creditor (credit) that can claim to a debtor (debt), who must pay the debt (the word, pay, comes from the Latin (pacare), which means appeasing, this means: give something to someone to calm him down and preserve the peace, by fulfilling the debt), and when the debtor didn't paid, he would become a slave of the creditor, is not coincidence that the basis of our economy is the debt.

With the passage of time, the relation of the "dominica potestas" gets reduced, sometimes by "humanity", others by fear to the rebellion of the slaves, some families had more of 500 slaves, (those with more money) And this brings an interesting point within the entire point of enslavement, which is that, the master can "set them free", but the problem within this, is essentially that, if they were released free, it could become a problem for the slaves that had no right to make agreements of purchase and sale, because the roman empire was really big in its territory, and if they weren't able to get food, is equal to what one can see today if one don't have money on the actual system, maybe you are free, but you will die of starvation.

And that is why the slave “preferred” to be slave of a master than a "free man", there was a lot of cases in which they got their freedom and they had rights to buy food and so on, but they will never be able to leave Rome, now, it is interesting that we preserve this relationships, by only looking at how much things we use and buy in this world, like our gadgets, shoes, clothes, and so on; we are actually depending of a lot of slaves to do the things for us; we are paying for this things and most of the times we do it through institutions of credit that creates debt, the debt is what keeps the entire economy going, because one has to work to pay the debt, but then one goes and buys more stuff which keep the entire construct of enslavement between the countries, that one understood as the competence between potencies, the country with more weapons and more money, is able to buy more stuff to more countries, which makes other countries to become dependent of the economic policies of the first world countries, and that is what allows us (citizens) benefits, or "RIGHTS", that is where our rights (privileges) come from. The best example of this is that: the people with less money, is not able to have access to their basic/fundamental rights, like water, food, education, and so on.

And if one looks at the figure of charity, it is entirely dependent of someone having this nice feeling of sorry for another, which is equal to a feeling of superiority which creates within the person this sense of specialness (dominus) because they gave to charity, and now, this is quite deceptive, because if you look at the relation of credit, as long as there is someone giving to charity, there will always be enslavement, because there will always be dependency from the slave towards his master, which is the people giving to charity, the solution that will be part of the proposal in relation to human rights, will be that any form of enslavement on this world will not be accepted and for that, everyone must have all their basic needs covered, and this will guarantee the freedom of the people.

The theme is more extensive than just this, I will go into detail within it, as I proceed with the research this is all for the moment.

(If someone can bring more points/perspectives or points of correction, it would be quite cool)

Day 7 Security of Law

Yesterday I was interrogated while coming back into Canada from the United States of America. I was driving my car. I was required to to drive my car over to the Canadian Boarder Security Office Headquarter for an extensive vehicle search. I decided I would video record the ordeal since I had a video camera on my phone and I thought it was ridiculous that the boarder police were going through all my stuff and examining and searching my vehicle with meticulous attention to detail. The boarder officer asked me if I was video recording and I told him I was and he asked me if I knew why they were searching my vehicle and I said, "ya it's for security purposes".

In looking at the word 'security', I see that there is many meanings. Initially I just associated security with protection and safety....however with further consideration of financial terms, security is money.

Lets look at the legal definition of 'security':

Protection; assurance; indemnification.

The term security is usually applied to a deposit, lien, or mortgage voluntarily given by a debtor to a creditor to guarantee payment of a debt. Security furnishes the creditor with a resource to be sold or possessed in case of the debtor's failure to meet his or her financial obligation. In addition, a person who becomes a surety for another is sometimes referred to as a "security."

Source: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved

 

After the boarder interrogation I was asking myself about the legitmacy of boarder security.

 

In looking into boarder security and questioning the legitimacy of boarder security, I noticed that any product that was deemed to be an issue at the boarder crossing is able to be purchased within my counrty. I noticed that the boarder security was all about money....protecting money interests....controlling money interests and regulations. I noticed that cocaine for example is not produced in canada....yet there is a shit ton of it here and that it is in fact big business....and for a shit ton of it to be here, it is not making it's way here in itsy bitsy little amounts....no, it's being brought through boarders in huuuuuge amounts. Why and how does cocaine make it's way through the boarder in huuuuge amounts? ? ? MONEY. Money moves products.

 

I was looking at the word  'country' and 'countries' after my experience in travelling to and from a country. I noticed the words 'count' and 'try'....or 'count and tries'. I associated count with accounting and money as like coutning the value...and I connected the word try and tries to the fact that every country is playing the same game of trying to accumulate value and worth...and is always counting the money as like strengthening security because the wealth of a nation is dependent upon it's security protections...because when security protections are in place a country can operate in all sorts of crazy ways to uphold security protections at the expsense of individual privacy rights and protections because the security of a country is worth more than the security of one individual...and an individual citizen of a country is an essential product of the country that contributes to the total value of the country.

 

Also, I noticed and remembered that war is about money, oil and security protections. Is there any real difference besides the spelling in the words; money, oil, and security?

 

Also, I looked at wartime propoganda slogans along the likes of, "we must fight to protect the security of our country."

 

I looked at boarder security as a means of terrorism security protections...as like preventing the participation of terrorist activity. I then looked at the point that I didn't forsee a real issue with terrorism if we had a sound economic system as like Equal Money Capitalism. See http://equalmoney.org I examined the fact that our entire world system is rooted in terrorist activity.

 

I experienced a little bit of anxiety within myself throughout the boarder interrogation experience even though I had nothing to hide....I feared the potential loss that could happen from the incident...even though it didn't seem rational for me to be charged with some bogus crime and be imprisoned.  Then again our legal system isn't based on common sense rationality. Experiencing anxiety was hell. Our shared reality reflects a prison planet and the prison planet reflects our mind imprisonment.

 

Lets change the nature of our minds to that which is best for all Life here. http://desteniiprocess.com

 

Lets bring forth a world where All Life is of the highest value and All Life is secured in the greatest ways possible. 

 

 

Day 6 - When Social Rights become Meaningless

Why is there such a big difference between what we declare in our constitutions and international agreements and the actual world we are creating?  

In this blog we will look at social ground rights. This is a specific form of constitutional rights, and we will look specifically at the situation in the Netherlands. Ground rights are a type of rights in a constitution that in theory express ‘the human dignity’ and ‘respect for the individual’, such as the right to privacy, the right to free speech and the right to non-discrimination, etc.

In Dutch law there is a difference between classical ground rights and social ground rights. Classical ground rights will be those rights that are supposed to protect the citizen against abusive tendencies from the government (such as the right to individual freedom and privacy). Here the government stands accountable and the citizen can take the government to court for infringing on his classical ground rights.

With social ground rights, on the other hand, the government is giving itself social responsibilities in relation to the welfare of the population, however this is done without there being any form of accountability.

An example would be the goal to provide “sufficient employment” (Art 19. of the Dutch Constitution: “Improvement of sufficient employment is an object of concern of the government”. See also Art 20: “The subsistence of the population and the spreading of the wealth is an object of concern of the government.”). One could ask what is “sufficient employment”? Hence it is never possible for a citizen to make the government or any institution accountable for not being able to provide “sufficient employment” – because “sufficient employment” conveniently means nothing.

Social ground rights often sound good, but when having a closer look, we see in the very wording of those rights that they stand as empty promises without any form of accountability.

In Equal Money Capitalism for instance the objective is to create 100% employment. That is a clear commitment that cannot be misunderstood. It means that any person who is not able to get employment has the legal right to a job – which must then also be provided, as jobs are that which generates income, which is how the right to a rich and equally abundant life for all is ensured. Obviously Equal Money Capitalism is based on the premise that there is always more than enough work to do – because the journey to perfect and improve life on earth equally for everyone is certainly never complete – and therefore jobs will always be available.

In the current form of capitalism we have become used to the idea that Human and social rights don’t really mean anything, - and hence to the idea that life has inherently no value - and that it is okay for half the world to exist in poverty combined with skyrocketing figures of unemployment, because “hey, we are doing our best.”

This will certainly no longer be acceptable in Equal Money Capitalism. The fulfilling of its social commitments will be the primary way in which the effectiveness of the new system can be measured. The social rights in Equal Money Capitalism will thus be actual commitments that can be measured so that the written words and the lived reality become Equal and One.

For more information, read: economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com