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 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

Day 1: You Should Know The Law! (Really?)

In this blog I will discuss the principle – and idea that exists within law that each citizen of a country has a obligation to know it’s laws – and I will show how unreasonable this assertion is, and how we can change the point so that we instead have a law that is practical – useful and best for all.

One thing that I’ve learned while studying law is that it’s extremely complex – it’s a network of do’s and do not’s interwoven in a complete abyssal array, and chaos of non-specific words – and the information as to how to interpret and read the laws is hidden, and spread all over the place.

An example would be that – in order to understand how a particular law functions about using narcotics – you have to go and find a court case from 1950 – where it’s explained how a particular word in the law is supposed to be understood; and I mean – on top of that – the courts insists upon writing in a language that is ancient and accordingly almost completely incomprehensible.

Now – imagine that on top of this chaos of words that not even the most experienced lawyers, and law professors are able to fully navigate themselves within – there exist a requirement on each citizen – that he SHOULD know the law.

So – in Sweden you’ll be able to be convicted – and incarcerated because you did something that you didn’t even know was criminal to begin with – because apparently you’re supposed to know the law – but just how reasonable is this idea that each one should know the law when it’s obvious that even if you’d dedicate several life times just to understand one single nations laws – it would be a project far to large to be accomplished; as such – the conclusion can be made that this idea that we should all know the law – is just rubbish – it’s an IDEA and not a physical – practical possibility.

Now – in relation to this it’s also interesting to ask oneself the question – if someone breaks the law, and doesn’t know about it – can the law then still be motivated with saying that the purpose of law – and punishment – is to uphold some type of moral standard in society? But how can any such standard be upheld when nobody have a clue as to what the standard is because it’s simply to difficult and hard to understand the law?

The fact that there is an entire education dedicated to studying law shows that there is a serious flaw in the justice system – it shows that justice is not about producing a human character that is best for all – but that it’s about politics, it’s about tactics, and it’s about unpractical and imaginary principles – as to how people should behave, and live that aren’t in alignment with what is REALLY here in this world.

Thus – in order for the law to fill any functional purpose it must be SIMPLE and easy to understand – for EVERYONE – and it must have the sole purpose of producing an effect that is best for all. This is how we suggest that the law is to be established in the Equal Money System – then we would never need to hire a lawyer ever again – as each and everyone would be able to read and comprehend the law – and see the common sense within it.