- “Basic Income Economics.” http://en.minguo.info/book/panoramics/basic_income_economics_parts_1_and_2.
Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.
Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)? Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)
Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types. Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.
They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality. In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth. Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society. Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty. However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society. Thus, her relative rank goes up.
And it’s not just about wealth either. In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.
Nobody’s perfect. I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.) I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.
Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering. Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace. However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.
So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities. Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.
The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all. Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)
Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?
Everybody is always naturally taking themselves into account without even thinking about it at the deepest level. We unconsciously assess what will allow us to survive.
However, some people help others to help themselves (though they are not consciously thinking about it that way, which is normal.) Others are programmed on the deepest level to hurt others to help themselves or to pretend to be altruistic when they are not. This latter form of selfishness which seeks to hurt others to get ahead is the one we pretend is actually a good thing that will benefit humanity when, by definition, it cannot.
The type of selfishness that hurts others to get ahead is (inherently) never a good thing and will always be considered evil. Even in competition, there must be rules of fair play. Immoral selfishness seeks to break the rules of fair play and then brainwashes humans into thinking that it’s a good thing to break such rules.
Capitalism requires fair competition to work properly. It’s best if customers know which retailer is selling a product for the cheapest price right away. Would the government ever invest in a website that lists the lowest prices so customers can get the best product for the lowest cost, forcing less efficient businesses to change?
Of course not • because that would encourage fair competition and fair play and very sinister pathologies do not like that. They want an unfair environment that only benefits those who argue for the necessity of unfairness under the guise that it will benefit humanity in the long run when (by definition) it will not.
Altruism: E.g. I help a feeble, elderly man walk to a destination.
In the long, long run, I do benefit from this kind deed but not always on an easily or immediately detectable level. (I don’t need to consciously think about it this way either, but it doesn’t hurt. The true mechanism granting benefit is so advanced, Buddhists refer to it as receiving benefit for good karma.)
Fair competition: E.g. A race to the finish line.
This is the type of competition that would ideally drive a properly functioning capitalist society.
Sinister selfishness: E.g. Taking a crowbar to somebody’s knee before a competition or giving myself a head start while pretending people who didn’t beat me just didn’t work hard enough.
This is the type of selfishness that people argue will still be beneficial. It won’t. It messes everything up and only results in elitism and a nobility willing to maintain such sinister backward logic.
The only capitalism I favour is High-Efficiency Capitalism where nobody is poor, inequality is always capped, and people compete for RELATIVE rather than absolute wealth.
And, NO, feeling good about doing good for others does NOT negate an altruistic act. That positive feeling is what maintains altruism in many cases. There are deeper levels of sacrifice that are more painful, but on a deeper level, even these acts are rewarded (though on that level, very few consciously think about it that way because reward may only be granted in an unforeseeably distant future.)
I’ve never heard of anything dumber than anarcho-capitalism which opposes democracy and the current state system, but thinks all property/wealth gained under the current, unethical system should be preserved even after it is abolished. Many use the terms “voluntaryism” or “anarcho-libertarianism” to mask a system solely revolving around rich people unfairly owning everything and the majority having no ability to reclaim the earth as free, voluntary association.
In their minds, the rich have the right to defend unfairly acquired wealth using machine guns and personal armies, but the majority using democracy to reclaim property they never consented to conceding in the first place is categorized as “theft.”
I was completely wrong when I said there was a split in the left. These phoney-leftists opposing democracy have one basic argument: “As long as you leave rich people’s stuff alone and don’t use democracy to take back what rightfully belongs to the public, you are free to do whatever you want.”
In school, students learn about New Lanark as an experiment in utopianism. But that’s stupid because it implies that the only utopianism that can possibly exist must be under the hand of a “benevolent dictator” who chooses to be kind to his subjects.
I don’t consider socialism to be a mere redistribution of wealth. For me, that’s just welfare. I think socialism goes deeper than that to the point where the workers of a mill collectively decide how it operates or something along those lines.
True communism is probably similar to the Hakka communes where people engage in collective decision-making within a common self-sustained environment.
Today’s servant of power is:
One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.
Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote? She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society. Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.
Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being? I, personally, think she is. Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light. Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.
Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.
In my opinion, Branson is a huge phoney. He does all the fake-liberal humanitarian PR-activities of those who pretend to care about humanity, but who then give tacit support to atrocities such as genocide in Gaza.
Lately, many activists have been elucidating the fact that the highest-efficiency economy would be one where machines and technology replace all human labour. However, this results in the obvious problem that everybody is poor/unemployed despite exponential increases in output as well as the fact only those owning the means of production truly benefit, shattering the notion that extreme wealth inequality will result in more for everybody.
In response to such growing awareness, Branson posted an article stating that entrepreneurs work hundreds of hours more than the regular person, implying they deserve to have what they have. However, because he is such a nice guy, he’s willing to advocate for shorter work weeks and hours for his employees—as long as he is still in control of them, of course.
Furthermore, despite caring so much about the public, on continuing British membership in the EU, despite supporting the notion, Branson opposed having a referendum on the issue, lest the public actually get a taste of true democracy.