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 23 - Planned Obsolescence is of the Past

In an article in Le Monde Diplomatique, a solution was suggested for the problem of overconsumption. Overconsumption is a relevant problem to study, because it gives us an overal indicator of the time that the human species has left on earth. All creaturs on earth 'consume' in some form or shape - but what sets humans apart is that we have started to 'overconsume'. We use more things than ever before but we also throw away more things than ever before. Our consumption is overall generating an imbalance in our world. Some research suggests that the rate of consumption per individual in the industrialised world, is the determining factor behind the environmental crisis (global warming, deforestation, pollution of the oceans, pollution of the air, extinction of the majority of animal species, etc.).

The solution in said article tacles one issue in particular: planned obsolescence.

What would it take to go from a throw-away society to a society that honours it's environment and it's recources? Stopping planned obsolescence seems an obvious place to start. If we start producing and building items that are made to actually last - then we remove one of the causes of our widescale pollution. This in itself would undermine many of the current frameworks on which the world economy is based - yet, this is a decision that will one day have to be made.

A shift in this direction would allmost automatically uplift local economies as production, repair and maintenance of products, will result in more localised models of production. Herewith replacing 'globalised' models of production (where products are produced and shipped from lowcost countries overseas.) The article points out that in Europe for instance a minimum 2 year warranty exists on products, as per EU legislation. The article then suggests that warranties should be used to create an incentive for stronger and better products. Consequently the minimum warranty on products should be at least 10 years by law. 

From my perspective this idea has a lot of potential and should be explored and discussed.

Who would you be if you bought items that last you for 10 or 20 years because you know you can always find services that repair your broken items and replace broken parts? Is life really about buying new stuff - or is there some other meaning to it all which you have not yet discovered? 

Note to the reader: this blog was written several years ago, but never published because I was uncertain of myself. The blog remained saved as a draft and I had forgotten that I even wrote it. Amazing how that works... Today I post it, without having altered a single word of the draft. It's a good blog, no need to doubt myself.  

Day 22 - Reflections on the Cashless Society

In order to properly understand the concept of the ‘cashless society’ it is important to grasp something else: what is currently understood to be money in more than 90% of the cases, is not actually money.

More than 90 % of all the cash amounts that are called ‘money’ in today’s economy, are simply digits on a computer. You may think that this is a very banal statement. Yet, the law is very precise when it comes to the definition of what is money. Money, is the Legal Tender which is printed by a (supposedly) government owned Bank. Thus, legal tender in the sense of the law does not include digits on a computer.

Now, you may say that this has little relevance since the digits on a computer are de facto being accepted as money.

To some extent, yes. However, not in every way.

The majority of people believe that the digits in their current or savings account with the bank, are a reflection of the amount of ‘money’ they own. This is not true.

When you open an account with the bank, you become an Account Holder. Please note that the word Holder is very precise and indicates that you do not own the account. You are merely Holding it. In other words, the account belongs to the bank. But how can this be? And what about ‘your money’?

There is actually no money on your bank account. The numbers that you see, represent the amount of the DEBT that the bank has towards you. And this debt needs to be paid out in Legal Tender, in other words, in official money, such as EUROS or DOLLARS or YENS, depending on the country where you are in. When you withdraw cash from a teller, you are actually requesting the bank to REPAY you some of the MONEY that THEY OWE YOU. This is why it comes out of the machine in the form of Legal Tender and not in any other form. Through paying you that amount in Legal Tender, the amount of the debt which the bank owes you, equally decreases. This is why when you withdraw (‘take back’) 100 EUR from the teller, the number in ‘your account’ will go down with 100 EUR.

Now that you hold the cash money ‘in your hand’ you can say that it is ‘your money’ in the sense of the law.

I will continue on this topic in a next blog. Thanks for reading.

Day 15: How to obtain your right...?

In this blog I want to make a “critic”, if you want, to the perspectives that have been brought on the “Basic Income Studies”:

http://www.usbig.net/index.php

Quote: “Rights are about advancing and defending human freedom. They are universal and they are inalienable. I cannot give away my right without degrading my humanity. To be meaningful, a right is an aspiration, a goal to which we march.”

If one aligns and fosters the circumstances, then one aligns the consequences that we are searching…yet, there is a question that should be asked: Is that point going to be able to sustain itself? Our current system was implemented in the same way isn´t it? One creates a controlled environment, through the repetition of circumstances aligned in a determined pattern of morals, ethics, rules and suddenly you have an environment, a system operating accordingly within the alignment that has been superimposed with the “initial starting point of the creation of this system” which was (apparently) to create the best society possible based on the “common good”, yet, “the goods were never available to everyone”, they were never common to everyone, implying that those that were not aligned with the “best civilization”, the best civilization being by definition that which is more advanced on culture, and therefore that which is supposed to teach everyone else how to live, are not worthy of been considering as “advanced enough to take part in the important decisions and so on”, which is also what happens on the structure of our educational system, those that are not “properly educated” you know, they are there, they are criminals, they are ignorants of what it means to be in a society, that is why they deserve to be poor, and so on and so on; that is why the modern societies are apparently able to sell you their law of attraction and their secrets to success and essentially their education models, yet, none of them were capable to consider a structure that can actually functions for each and every human being? Those that didn´t align themselves with the rules were not able to be part of this great dream, “The American dream” because you have to be sleep (or brainwashed enough) to believe it. 

Have a look at our model of consumerism, our society is divided into classes according to the amount of money available, is your position in the system, implying access to education, food, clothes, house, etc.; Hasn´t been said that our human rights are paid through money when they should be by definition, that which is given to everyone unconditionally? And the point remains the same, If Human Rights were real, they would not require to be defended or protected, one shouldn’t have to compete for them, to struggle for them, to have to get money to pay for them.

The question is: Is it possible to propitiate the circumstances without any understanding or education available for everyone in the same direction of consequences which also implies the constitution and manifestation itself of a right? Obviously not

Right to labor! So…we need to propitiate the circumstances to develop our right to develop, create and work? This is fascinating statement, because, it’s like saying that you need to propitiate the circumstances to bring that which is actually inherent to the Human, which is the development itself of work, yet, of course not disregarding that each and every form of human activity have consequences, which actually brings forms of development, creation and work (because everything requires a certain input), nevertheless, what we are developing, creating, working on, is really abusive stuff, weapons, drugs, unhealthy foods, vicious cycles of greed, jealousy, anger, violence, you name it. Maybe the question is: what is it that we are creating through our labor? How is it that we are going to direct the development of humanity to bring the change that we are looking for? What are we going to produce? More unnecessary stuff that is going to be pilled on mountains of garbage in the outskirts of our cities? 

Another interesting question arises independently, yet, connected and intertwined with all of these…What is the purpose of our work? To sustain ourselves and our survival? Our partner? …or…the future generations?

See, the ultimate goal of marriage is reproduction; it was defined in this way in the antiquity, and so this is lived today, but I want you to see the mental relationship that we have created in regards to our human interactions; it would seem that when we "learn" to form relationships…I say learn because they are established on moral and ethical basis and regulations for you to be able to define and maintain these relationships “within and without”. But what would be our interactions without these defined structures? If you think that it would be chaos, I strongly suggest you to first you see the interaction in your physical body, the body is made up of trillions of living molecules that are aware in your body, each one of them with the capacity to experience pain that is actually expressed and manifested through the rest of the cells thanks to the nerve connections that link it with the rest of their companions, each one expresses their individuality, yet they are also  collectively manifesting themselves in a body, and that is, the interaction itself that manifests from the smallest point as this molecule individually, to all of the other molecules with which it interacts, and that is what makes possible, for each and every one of these cells, to be sustained with and by each other, starting with itself, and just considers the fact that a cell that is altered in its constitution , showing "a cancerous principle" that can harm the group, it completely removes itself from the equation, giving the opportunity to others to keep the interaction with the welfare of the body; it is only when the infection is too much that it is inevitable that the cancerous manifestation continue generating discomfort on that principle throughout the physical body, it is something that has to be manifested in the entire group of cells for the cancer to keep its constant growing as this cancer with permission and acceptance of each one, in its induced abuse to continue throughout the physical body, because what affects one, affects all and the same goes amongst the humans, however, What is the principle that is allowing the separation between humans that is this cancer? This is due to and internal and external consequence, a consequence that is manifesting itself as the disregard of what exists in the environment, from our fellow humans, to the environment in which we exist, pollution of the environment that has manifested disease, pain, violence , abuse.

First of all we should look at the relationship we have created towards this world, towards ourselves and our fellow man. See, If the ultimate goal of our interactions, is only to get to the perfect relationship to create a family and “have kids”, which has been abstracted within the concept that the experience that we define as love, is what will sustain it, then it seems that we have not understood what it really mean or interactions and our communication, with ourselves and the physical, is simply not understood, this is the consequence of our consumerist culture and it can be seen in the fact that there is not real understanding of the interaction with our own mind, how it can actually cause consequences that just seem to be "aberrant for humans" as the manifestation of abuse and are considered unmentionable, and that kind of “studies” are reserved for college levels, in which the students are misleaded in their way of understanding how the mind works and operates, because the psychologist are not being prepared for resolving the problems within the mind, they are being trained to make everyone fits in the model of the “society”.

Work is not competition, is not survival, is not gaining money, imagine what would happen if the cells had the kind of separation that we as humanity are accepting and allowing, or even the molecules within this existence, if no one cares about the other maybe this existence never would have existed. What is the manifestation of dead if not the separation of ourselves from the physical body? It is said that when one dies, the body is left behind, yet, do you think the heaven could be a “nice place” knowing that your beloved ones are dying in wars, starving in poverty, suffering due to the survival system? Would you be able to go to such a place leaving everything behind to live in complete bliss? Obviously not, what if that was the ultimate test? It is said that the kingdom of god is within man, the heaven is on earth, yet if we disregard what is here, what heaven could exist if we focus only in what is awaiting for us in the other life searching for our self-interest? The heaven on earth must be created, by man, as simple as that, and for that, we cannot be separated, we must work together, so, it doesn´t matter if you increase the minimum wage to an sufficient amount to cover the basic needs without first have a structure upon which we can re-educate "the culture of humanity" I refer specifically to competition, and survival. Because then we are going to return to the same bullshit, some people are going to be fighting to have the better car, the better house, and are going to fight for more and more and more = greed, why not to guaranty to everyone the best house possible, the best car possible, without the programed obsolescence that comes “added” in your products?

I suggest you to read the following blogs to understand in a more specific way, how this was placed:

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-387-anarchists-mothers-and.html

http://creationsjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/05/day-388-anarchists-mothers-and.html

Look at the Declaration of The Rights of the Children, there is a fascinating thing that we should consider, first of all, this declaration came “after” the Declaration of Human Rights, and I mean, that is strange, because aren´t our children also humans? For practical understanding of what I want to explain here: For you to be able to exercise your rights, the State has to recognize you as a citizen, and that is only acquired after having come of age, why do I say this? Because it’s interesting that if the children were including in the declaration of human rights, maybe they would be actually really consider as the pillar of the entire Humanity, which implies that the principle of prevention of Crime, Poverty, Diseases, etc., would be a total different situation that what can be seen today, and to understand this, I suggest you to read the blog of “Children’s Human Rights | Equal Money” link that you can find here: 

http://marlenvargasdelrazo.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/367-childrens-human-rights-equal-money/

The question is why is it that one has to wait until you are properly indoctrinated, sorry, have come of age, for you to be able to exercise your rights?

“The child is already born into limitation as young as 13 weeks of gestation in the mother’s womb where the parental patterns are integrated as part of the mind that the new born will develop throughout an entire lifetime. This is how no matter how much we would want to apply basic human rights, the conditions that limit the newborn are already integrated by default as the result of who we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become in our  mind that becomes the very genetic information transferred to every newborn.”

Following this quote, just consider the fact that the chromosomes that are transferred during the sexual intercourse, are in fact what? It´s genetic memory; just consider the amount of emotions and feelings that you experience in one day, the patterns and orientation that they have in relation to your thoughts, for this you have to be really self-honest, and see what is it that you accept and allow, within that, just take into consideration the fact that, all of it is going to become part of you genes, as it has become so much a part of yourself that the substances that nurture your genetic material is in fact making and developing the “nature of your genes and of course what would be the nature of your child”; see the children have a predisposition to follow certain ideas and patterns, but it is only as consequence of what is already integrated within them, as them, isn´t that also why when the woman is pregnant, is necessary that she follows certain diet? Because that is part of the components and “materials that are going to mold and shape the physical body”, yet, the memory and “nature” of the genes, will give to the child the mold and shape of the “personality of their parents”.

“This also implies that no matter how great the parents can be, by virtue of existing in one single environment in which we are all existing in, it is virtually impossible to prevent the danger, abuse and insanity of this world to affect your children, because this is the culture that we have created wherein there is little to no support for children to develop the trust and confidence within themselves to walk throughout a lifetime – instead, the schooling process and education at home becomes the survival-training in a world where life is not a given right and where each one is taught to ‘fight for their right to live’ instead of it being given and assured from the cradle to the grave.”

And what the child is going to see around him would be consider as “normal”, why? Because he/she will just follow the “nature reflected by those equal to her/him”, and of course it will be accepted by consequence of that predisposition of following, denying any common sense as that is not “valuable as the logic that you require to survive in this system”.

The point in itself, within the marriage bond, results in the creation of the family, being the superior interest of the Nation, as it is the pillar of the establishment and existence of the Nation itself, however, the manifestation of our interaction and participation within this system, that was supposed to resemble the existing physical interaction within us, is that of separation. Many comments have come from this, from: "That’s how it is human nature" to "is because of the government", because "it reflects what exists within us" however, the constitution of our physical form, the magnitudes of the separation that is manifested in our actions as humans, doesn´t come from our physical body, it comes as a reflection of what exists in our minds. If you have followed the links of the Creation Journey to Life blog, you will see that the coercive control imposed onto the children, didn´t just came out of nothing, it was mold and shaped and reinforced from the genetic code impressed in the child, showing us what we have accepted and allowed within us. That is where the “Basic Income “cannot sustain itself, and I mean, yes! It is a step to develop a new system, yet it’s insufficient.

From the Bill of Rights of the Equal Life Foundation:

16. The Equal Right of future generations to receive a living planet free of pollution, disease, hunger, violence and destruction so that life shall endure and thrive into eternity now and forever.

Participate and this time; let's really work on a world that is best for all

http://Desteni.org/

http://desteniiprocess.com/

http://lite.desteniiprocess.com/

https://eqafe.com/

http://equalmoney.org/

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 8: The Justice of Money

Problem

The law is often portrayed in the symbolism of a woman that is holding a scale in one hand, a sword in the other, and her eyes is covered with a cloth – this symbol is commonly referred to as Lady Justice. The meaning of this symbol – that by the way represents the legal system – is that justice is blind – which would then imply that the law does not place any sort of value unto the person that uses the law to make themselves heard – this person can be of any cultural heritage, rich or poor – this would not matter because apparently the law treats everyone the same.

This idea sounds cool – because I mean – if everyone could use the law in order to make themselves heard – and the law would treat everyone equally – this would mean that people that do not really have any financial muscle could stand up and challenge organizations, corporations, rich people, or governments – when these people find themselves in a weak spot wherein they are abused and not considered as an equally valuable part of society.

But is this how it works? Does the Law treat everyone Equally?

Obviously – the answer is NO – and as such the symbolism of lady Justice is a complete and utter lie – because the law is not about equality – it’s about financial muscle – and it’s about the game of money wherein money is king – and money will buy you the result that you desire.

Consider the following – you’re a poor farmer – and you’ve bought a shit-load of seeds from a big supplier (a big corporation with lot’s of money) – as you plant these you notice that – fuck! – these seeds doesn’t seem to grow at all!

Naturally you as a farmer that is dependent upon your seeds growing up to become vegetables – become quite upset as you see what is unfolding (or rather not unfolding) before your eyes and you accordingly decide to – “sue those fuckers!” – now here the question comes into play – would you as this farmer actually be able to win such a law-suit – and what would be required for you to win a law-suit?

Well – obviously – because you as the farmer are a farmer – and have accordingly spent the majority of your life farming – consequentially you know and care – “nothing about the got-damn laws, and lawyers!” – which in turn means that you must invest in a Lawyer that knows the law – that knows how the justice-system functions – in order for you to have any form of success in a legal process – and this obviously costs – a shit-load of money.

Already at this stage you as a farmer is at a rather precarious position in relation to the corporation – because as you take a big loan to be able to afford a lawyer – the corporation use it’s money that have been specifically put aside to covering the costs of eventual legal processes – in order to hire 15 lawyers – obviously lawyers that are the absolutely best and that are able to persuade even the most resistant and stern judge that a murder should be more seen and defined like a quite upsetting insult.

So – what can be clearly seen in this example is that – the justice-system is NOT equal – the justice-system does not in-fact promote JUSTICE – it promotes what money dictates that it should promote.

In the case of you as the farmer – as you now see this massive array of lawyers amass on your opponents side – suddenly – the chances of your success might feel more distant – and maybe you will at this point begin to think about the consequences of an eventual loss wherein in the court would judge in your disfavor – because this would mean that you would have pay for ALL THOSE superbly expensive lawyers that you’re opponent as the corporation have decided to hire.

So – here we can really question whether there really is any form of chance for you as this farmer to actually be able to win a lawsuit against a big corporation?

And also within this – we should ask ourselves the question – is this how we want our legal system to function? Do we want justice in this world to be measured and defined by the amount of money that you’re able to amass?

Obviously – this is not what we want to have – not any SANE human-being want justice and morality to be in the hands of money – as that is simply psychopathic – because justice and morality are and should be expressions of honoring life – as what is best for all – in actually looking at what is FAIR – what is CORRECT – and what is BEST – and then from there making a decision – which is NOT possible in our current and money-based legal-system – because money isn't FAIR – money is simply money and those that have it are not fair but simply want to have more of it at any cost.

Solution

What is then the solution? How are we able to give everyone a voice to be heard – so that the farmer is able to grow his crops – and he’s able to do his thing – and make money and take care of his family?

Obviously – we require to change how money is allocated in this world – and we have to make sure that no one person or organization has money to control basic necessities – and human rights – because food, water, and a home – that is HUMAN RIGHTS and should be given to everyone – unconditionally.

As such – the solution doesn’t lie in re-creating our justice-system – but the solution lie in re-creating our money system – in making sure that money is given to all equally – and that when disputes arise between human-beings in terms of how to share the resources that are here on earth – that this is sorted out through a democratic process – that is ruled not by considerations of money – but by considerations of what is BEST FOR ALL.

Reward

What would the reward be? Well – no more would anyone have to fear that their very life and existence would be uprooted and turned around – and within this that they wouldn’t have any form of chance or capability to change the turn of events – and instead each one would feel, and experience themselves safe – in knowing that – there is really JUSTICE – FAIRNESS and MORALITY in this world – and that I will not be able to become a victim to a money-driven legal system – and used as a dirty old rag – and thrown away after all my money has been sucked out of me – I would really and in-fact be protected – and I would know that regardless of what happens to me – I will be cared for and treated as an equal.

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