Focus on Life™

How can you set-up a society like ours in case you want to repeat the current model from scratch? The instructions are very simple but do not expect people free willingly to align with your system.

Give people an illusion of control but take away their power. Centralise decision-making power away from local level where it would be most useful, effective, and also transparent. The further away and more consolidated the power the easier it is to make decisions that impact and possibly harm a large amount of people, and at the same time make people feel powerless and not capable of being in control and in charge of their own matters.

Release people from their own responsibility and tell them what they can and cannot do. This can be practiced by the powers and centralisation put in place. Most of the people are just relieved if the can obey rules and have a false sense of security where someone else is thinking and protecting their lives—in essence from themselves and their choices.

Control key resources. One of the most effective ways of control is to secure a permanent and exclusive privilege to be in charge of the means for indirect exchange. This instrument allows to manipulate, allocate, and define the direction of the society. One of the benefits of the monopoly is the right to create claims for resources without contributing anything back to the society. Using as a means of exchange something intangible or practically worthless in other usage enables to fabricate money out of thin air. This is very useful way to reallocate wealth in society.

Remove individuals’ means to protect themselves. Practical way to make people passive is to offer them physical protection and in return they are not allowed to use any other means to protect and seek justice. By monopolising justice it is possible to use the system’s resources against the very people it is supposed to protect. There is no objectivity and equality anymore when the asymmetry has been put in place: a private party against the system that is in practise defining its own rules and using coercion as a final means to execute it.

Make people dependent on your system. Create programs and schemes that distribute resources among the members of the public so that the system is acting as a middleman. Offering goods and services for ‘free’ or based on some arbitrary criteria remove the individual’s incentives to excel and support oneself. Direct employment by the system is the most natural way to tie people and resources as an integral part of the system. The more extensive the distribution of wealth the larger the impact and more integrated the system becomes to the society. One of the most effective ways to create dependence is taxation and other schemes that confiscate the financial resources from individuals. In some cases it is enough to keep intact the ‘ownership’ (or the claim for the resources) but centralise the control of the assets, for example by forced savings to dedicated funds.

Create a closed system that keeps people busy and turns them against each other. Imposed fear and lack are ways to produce an atmosphere of rivalry and controversy. Artificial lack can be fabricated by using a monetary system that has an inherit fault in it: there is never enough money to settle all accounts. This forces people to fight for resources and to protect their existing wealth by producing more economic activity out of scarce and limited resources. In short, perpetual growth is needed to keep the system going. By (re)distribution of resources via the system as stated above emphasises the fear once people are made dependent and passive for the ‘benefits’ given to them. They will turn against each other in order to protect their personal sources of dependency.

Remove personal responsibility and liability. In order to make the system work seamlessly it is beneficial to introduce a double-standard moral code where the system is not accountable for its actions in the same manner as individuals are, would they conduct the same deed. This enables central decision-making by selected members of the society without them being personally liable of the consequences of their actions. The system itself starts to live outside of its own rules and principals but is still run by the members of the society. People can only blame themselves—they have carried out all the actions.

Keep away from the limelight. At the end of the day it is not necessary to be a public figure and still influence the system. There are always people available that are willing to do the dirty work, and they can be replaced. Special privileges can be bought and the system manipulated when you have the financial resources for it. Some members of the society have a greater incentive to seek benefits for themselves and for their own advancement than to protect and cooperate with their fellow citizens. They are more than happy to make the decisions that harm the environment, people, pollute the planet, and destroy the future of the society. And in most of the cases they are not even aware of the consequences and do their acts in good faith or out of ignorance. The urge to tell others what they are supposed to do and save people from themselves appeals to many. And after all—who’s there to blame in a system like this?

Equality means that both parties are in the same level, respected and treated according to the same standards. This is the theory, but in practise we seldom face it in reality. Unfortunately we have created this system ourselves and thus are responsible of the results as well. We are living among double standards.

Some rules and principals are necessary to coordinate and enable voluntary cooperation between people. Predefined terms direct what is tolerated and what is not. If everyone is aware of the rules later no one can get excused of ignorance. But this is only half of the issue. The rest is based on the fact that everybody is treated in a similar manner and according to those predetermined terms. Today our societies are not working this way.

We have created an artificial system that is above the level of individuals. In practise we have made people a sub-class to a system that everybody is forced to subdue. Sadly enough this system is run and abused by the very same people. There is no one to blame but us. Still we feel helpless and little against this monstrous structure. It is inhuman, not responsible to any single individual, and disregards any personal circumstances. We call it the common or public good. It goes over any person or group of people. Public good is more important than the individual members of the society that are supposed to be part of and create this concept called ‘greater good’.

When faced with this ‘public good’ an individual can be considered sacrificial or ‘a liability’ that can be destroyed mentally, financially, or even physically. Collateral damage is a term used in other ‘public good’ missions. Nevertheless they are similar situations were individuals are insignificant in respect to some greater thought-forms or concepts facilitated by some others members of the human family. In our age ideas and ideologies are used as vehicles to rule and manipulate other members of the society.

This conceptual structure we have created is above any individual. In practise it means that an individual is alienated from her rights to self-defence, freedom, and equality among other members of the society. How can you make sure that you are treated fairly if you don’t have any practical means to make sure and follow-up your case as well? A very simple example is taxation laws. Tax authorities are not accountable to people or any individual. They are part of the structure that is above the people. They get their power and force from the very persons that tolerate and maintain the organisation in existence. Still these authorities are not responsible of their actions. There is no objective third party that can assess and mediate the disputes or matters at hand. International and domestic voluntary cooperation sectors have found ways to handle and resolute dispute and argument situations in a fair and objective manner. Chambers of Commerce offer business mediation (arbitration) services that are swift, final, and respected by both parties. And most of all they are selected by the parties themselves and thus trusted as well. None of this is available for individual members of the society. We are forced to subdue to the rules and laws of the stronger party that is not accountable to any single individual or party.

To make matters even worse it is worthwhile to consider the amount of members of our societies that are directly dependent of these arbitrary structures in form of a salary or employment. How objective do you regard the people that are paid by the public sector? Do you think that they are making decisions that are against their own or the organisation’s survival instinct? Seldom you see public organisations admitting their wrongdoings or making exceptions for any individual. They are not countable for their ‘customers’—they do not need to be—they are getting paid by taxes that are collected by force. Only voluntary cooperation is dependent on the other party, otherwise there would be no cooperation. Coercion is one-way communication that is based on violence or a threat of violence. Just think about it—how objective is any party that is using force as the final (or even as the first) argument? And on top of this you don’t have any choice.

Don’t’ get deceived by the looks or even by the words, observe the underlying reality and the deeds. We are not living in freedom—actually we might never have. Only the forms of suppression and abuse have been changing along the centuries, sometimes with a figurehead and more recently only with symbolical representatives.

Oxford American Dictionary defines tyranny as “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control”. The last definition already includes democracy provided that one is considering the issue from an individual’s perspective. Democracy is a system where a certain selection of the population is giving their power to a few elected representatives that use the power of force to apply their rules to the whole population. It is worthwhile to notice that not everybody in the population is even entitled to vote.

The much-embraced democratic process is only a form of tyranny where majority is entitled to enforce the minority under its regime. And what is the smallest minority? An individual. This system assumes a lot. It believes that it has the moral right and the obligation to suppress and use violence or threat of violence to force its decisions to the people under its regime. In other words freedom of expression and diversity are not allowed and individuals are sacrificed for the cause defined by someone else. Everybody is forced to do as they are told to do without any choice. Coercion is not cooperation, it is brutal and arrogant point of view that assumes and regards the right to tell others what they are supposed to do. Democracy tells us how we are allowed to live and carry out our lives. And if we do not fit to the predefined paradigm we are forced to underwrite the values, beliefs, and assumptions decided by the democratic process.

And like any system it is only as good as the people using it. It is fruitful to try to find an area of life into which this coercive process has yet not penetrated in our societies. Our freedom has been narrowed done to a very few choices, sometimes to plain one. Choice belongs to freedom but it also means that the one who makes the decisions is also responsible of one’s actions. Freedom is only valued by those who can appreciate it. It seems that we do not have many representatives of freedom left in this planet. It is easier to do what someone else has thought to be good for us and just follow the pattern no matter whether we speak about education, health, economy, arts, science, or any other area of the society.

Freedom expects a lot from us. Acceptance, tolerance, and the respect for others are among the qualities that are only nurtured under freedom. These are not so much tested when you agree with someone but when you do not. If you see something different from your own perspective, are you trying to suppress, deny and convert it to the traditional point of view or let it have its way provided that it is not violating your own rights to self-expression?

Voluntary cooperation is a friend of freedom. Coercion belongs to the category of violence. All this boils down to a basic question: are individuals trusted to live their lives without someone else’s forced intervention? Apparently still today we are living in a huge kindergarten.

This is a very compact but complete system of ethics. It is very simple, brief, and yet powerful based on the following:

The Guiding Principal

All (human) beings are born equal and remain equal every day of their lives.

The below Principals are only sub-principals for the first one

2) Person is the measure of all accounts.

3) Everyone is free to pursue their own happiness and the results of their pursuit and obliged to respect everyone else’s equal freedom without limiting anyone else’s freedom.

You can find the rest of it here.

This is a very compact but complete system of ethics. It is very simple, brief, and yet powerful based on the following:

The Guiding Principal

All (human) beings are born equal and remain equal every day of their lives.

The below Principals are only sub-principals for the first one

2) Person is the measure of all accounts.

3) Everyone is free to pursue their own happiness and the results of their pursuit and obliged to respect everyone else’s equal freedom without limiting anyone else’s freedom.

Freedom

Freedom is the most powerful concept there is. Unfortunately it has not been properly understood and applied to this day.

Everything starts with a personal freedom and also ends to it. This is clearly stated in the first Guiding Principal: ”All (human) beings are born equal and remain equal every day of their lives.”

When we are born we are all purely naked and have nothing except our being (existence). All the rest is either learned, assumed, assimilated, or gained by some means (voluntary or involuntary). And this latter process can happen only together with other people.

It is not possible to alienate a person from his/her freedom. There are only ways to suppress or give up degrees of personal freedom voluntarily either consciously or by ignorance.

The level of power other people can have for a person is in direct proportion to the level the person has surrendered his/her freedom in any given moment. Like suppression the voluntary surrender needs to be exercised continuously over time. In the first case the person can once again exercise freely his/her freedom when the suppression stops and in the latter case one can do it immediately upon personal decision or when becoming aware of it.

Responsibility

Responsibility is the other side of the coin with freedom. All the actions (including non-actions) and their consequences are born by the person carrying them out. The object(s) of the actions are not relevant in respect to the responsibility.

Full responsibility (and full freedom) means that the person does not even have to be aware of all the implications of his/her actions. Ignorance is merely poor perception and lack of understanding from the actor’s perspective (e.g. bad choice).

The Second Principal states that all the responsibilities can be originated to persons. Like freedom the responsibility cannot be alienated from a person. The person can make voluntary agreements but these agreements cannot remove the final responsibility.

The Third Principal underlines a person’s responsibility first of all towards his/herself but more importantly towards everything else.

Cooperation

Interaction between people can happen either voluntarily or involuntarily. Forms of suppression and acts of violence or threats of actions of violence are not discussed here at all. Humanity has enough evidence of its use already available.

Voluntary cooperation is based on the free will of people to interact with each other. This can happen between two or more people for any period of time. The cooperation is based on trust, and the level of trust defines the ways of cooperation and the means to accomplish the desired actions. A low level of trust between individuals focuses a great amount of effort to secure the parties in the cooperation and thus making the interaction less efficient. This consumes time, effort and energy with increasing complexity the longer the time span of the intended cooperation extends to the future.

High level of trust makes the interaction more organised, forward-orientated, and allows more complex relationship and cooperation forms to emerge. High level of specialisation can only happen when people are trustful among each other and can focus on their specific areas of interest and needs. A highly sophisticated society is dependent on trust among its members.

Agreements

Voluntary cooperation is based on trust, which can be reflected either in tacit or tangible forms of agreements. Agreements can incorporate two or more parties for any period of time. Agreements are ways to stipulate the desired actions (and non-actions) among the voluntary parties of the agreements and also a way to record the stated matters.

Agreements are only the means for carrying out the will of the people incorporated for the action. Therefore the agreements are expressions of freedom between the participants, and full responsibilities of the actions (and non-actions) lay among the parties of the agreements as indicated in the third Guiding Principal.

Society Is Persons

The second Guiding Principal states that “Person is the measure of all accounts.” No person, structure or concept can be above any person living. Human based actions and their consequences are always borne by the persons involved, and these responsibilities cannot be alienated. The Guiding Principals clearly describe the nature of voluntary action of any individual in respect to every other being.

A society or any collective entity or cooperation between persons is always only a mutual expression of each and every individual incorporated for the action(s). No collective or structure can be compared to a living person. They can only act on behalf of the people incorporated with the entity, and thus representing expressions of these people.

Self-Defence

Freedom consists of two things: positive and negative freedom. The positive stipulates that the person can engage to something, and the negative that the person can restrain of engaging to something.

The latter case states that the person cannot be involved in something against his/her permission and thus restrain the person’s freedom (under the third Guiding Principal). Shall this be the case the person needs to have a right to protect his/her freedom in order to be capable of exercising his/her expressions freely.

The self-defence does not remove the responsibility of the actions (and non-actions) carried out. Therefore any action in excess of protecting one’s freedom is a direct breach of the (third) Guiding Principal(s).

This site focuses on life. You will find inspirational, thoughtful, mind-provoking, insightful and sometimes artful writings, ideas, visions, and practical knowledge covering various aspects of life based on freedom and pursuit of happiness.

Where to Start?

• Read the Blog for the latest items
• Check some of the popular articles:
  • Happiness
    
  • Time Management
    
  • Responsibility
  • Peace
  • Money is not the wealth
  • Having vs. Being
• See also Fragments of Reality
• Find out Petri’s recommendations for books, music, and movies.

For many the government is the only option available when one is talking about defence. This does not need to be the case. Get convinced by reading an excerpt from Murray Rothbard’s Power & Market (pdf).

We have assumed that there is only one way to solve disputes: commission a government monopoly over all people in case they might have some issues between each other. However, this assumption is not the only way to live - actually we have real life examples around us every day.

Not convinced yet? Read Market Chosen Law by Edward Stringham.

Our current societies involve a third party called government that is authorised to incur into any violent actions and force in order to protect its citizens. However just by watching the news it’s nothing new to realise that these powers are also used against the very people who give them to its agent, the state.

A life without a state above its people is possible and here’s an excellent excerpt from Murray N. Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty about The Right to Self-defense.

We regard ourselves as civilised but seldom we bother to define what does it really mean. Civilised is often confused with something modern and thus better than previous. But how can it be per default that something is better simply because it comes later?

Human history is a history of serfdom and slavery. A tiny minority rules the majority and the majority is kept under the current rule either by physical fear or imposing ideological and moral means for the same end. The end result has always been the same: some, very few, benefit and the rest pay and suffer the consequences. It does not really matter how the political system is called because actual, de facto, circumstances reveal the reality anyhow. Despotism, communism, democracy, socialism, capitalism, and feudalism are just abstract words with little concrete and commonly accepted meanings. The reality does not change by naming it differently. Also, the previous ideological principals that were the founding forces for something considered as noble at the time usually decay after a few decades or generations, and can revert to its opposite reality in practise.

Thanks to our history we have never experienced freedom. Therefore we are not accustomed to it either. It is difficult to claim something that is almost beyond practical comprehension. Liberty is one of the key things we have never realised in our societies. The Founding Fathers of the United States were probably the closest in our modern history to grasp the concept by stating in the Declaration of Independence the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.”

The statement holds some very strong fundamental concepts and moral ideas upon which all the rest is based on. It starts by stating that everybody is born equal and this self-evident fact cannot be changed during the course of anyone’s life nor can it be taken away from any person by any means whatsoever. Just to state this once again: everybody is equal and no one is above or below anyone else. This means that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own independence and freedom, and since everybody is equal nobody has the right to violate anyone else’s independence and freedom (i.e.Rights) either. Especially the negative right is very important – a right to decline and refuse.
It continues by opening up some of these inseparable Rights by naming them: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. By saying that everybody has the inseparable right for his or her own life this means that everyone’s life is equally valuable and no one shall interfere with other’s life (or separate one from it). Liberty states the inseparable right for one’s own actions and their consequences (as long as they do not violate anyone else’s Rights). This means that one is free to choose his own moral choices but also to bear the consequences.
The Pursuit of Happiness declares that everyone has an equal opportunity to seek and discover his or her own happiness by one’s own means and choices. It does not state that one is entitled to happiness (i.e. one has a right for happiness). It does not define happiness since it is everyone’s own quest to define and materialise it in one’s life. Thus it is part of the liberty and freedom that everyone has. One is free to seek for his or her way of happiness and practise it as well without anyone’s interference.

Altogether, we are born free and equal and continue to be so along the courses of our lives. We are free to act and use our lives as we wish without anyone’s interference provided that we are not denying anyone else’s similar rights either. A mutually respective way of living based on everyone’s own actions and free will to exist independently.

The final sentence defines the role of Governments only as the means for the protection of the stated Rights, and nothing else. It does not define for governments any role per se and thus they only raison d’être is to make sure that every person is equal and their inseparable rights are not violated by anyone (not even by the government itself).

The above statement is very strong and the humanity has not been ready for it, as of yet that is. Why? Because it is made for grown-ups that are expected to appreciate their own and other’s life above anything else, and respect this principal by not violating anyone else’s rights by force (i.e. involuntarily). It requires that everyone is responsible of one’s own life including one’s own actions and their consequences. This means that one appreciates oneself and lives by one’s own standards, values and moral choices without imposing them to anyone else involuntarily neither directly nor indirectly (i.e. by third parties or entities such as government). It also means that we are free to pursue our own course of life and enjoy from it as well. Especially the last points have been very difficult and basically non-existing in the modern Western societies.

Coming back to our legacy we have always been under someone’s rule either physically, mentally or spiritually and therefore it is very natural for us to expect something or someone to look after us and tell us what to do. This parenting concept is so evident that we don’t even realise it. We expect someone else to take responsibility of our own lives and let us follow the lead. Naturally there has been and always will be people who are ready to take the lead and define the rules how the rest of the population should behave, think, act, work and most of all live their lives. By allowing this to happen we give away our own liberty but more importantly we force others under someone else’s rule and judgement and thus deny their very Right for independent existence. Imposed liberty is no liberty at all. So far liberty has been too precious to be left for everyone to seek for and purse themselves.