Focus on Life™

We seem to be very efficient, but unfortunately this does not mean that we are doing the right things. Saving the environment is the next new trend. Everyone wants to get involved and be part of the latest fashion. But below the hood not much have changed after all. The methods are the same and the results may be less than impressive.

For many of us it is not about saving the planet but reducing the guilt. We are bluffing ourselves and trying to be good citizens. However, this does not change the underlying facts and the ongoing destruction of the planet. Still, we are carrying on with our lifestyles and ways of working without changing anything radically. By our actions we are saying that we are concerned and I can do this and that but I don’t want to go any deeper. I’m not willing to do major sacrifices. This is my life—no matter how twisted or destructive its impact might be.

Buying carbon credits is easy. Following your carbon footprint and compensating it may sound like that you’re helping out in a big way. But what is it exactly that you’re trying to do? First you consume (destroy and pollute) and then you feel guilty or concerned about it and compensate by buying some credits that may either be someone ‘rights’ to pollute that have been sold to you or you are planting something back to nature that will take decades if not centuries to heal and compensate the loss you made. How can you be so sure that there is enough time left for future generations and your credits to ‘payback’ before the whole planet has been destroyed? You did not stop the destruction and pollution in the first place. What you said was that you’re continuing to do your mess now and you will fix it later somehow. And who has said that carbon credits or any other single concept is the right solution for the damages we are causing?

Regulators are keen to impose new taxes and restrictions on various items and processes. Energy is ‘bad’ in general and needs to be highly taxed. Some ‘alternative’ energy forms are preferred over others and there are sanctions and incentives for certain activities and actions. In an overall level we are forced to act in a unified and specific manner but in reality we may help out someone’s business interest more than save the planet—we just continue the destruction in another way that is more ‘socially’ accepted. How does it help the environment that governments impose taxes on energy? It certainly helps the government to get more revenues by appealing to our ‘responsibility’ to our living environment. At the same time the very same government is telling us that growing crops and other biomass for fuel are saving the planet and these forms need to be subsidised. What happened to the overall impact and energy input-output efficiency? We are just recycling the money and boosting business, not saving the environment. Guilty revealed and the new fashion trend harvested, mainly supported by coercion.

Money does not buy love. Neither can it buy nature. By looking around us it’s obvious that we have not learned this lesson. No matter how much money you have still you cannot undo the damage for rain forests, polluted water and land, corrupted crops and extinct species. We are good at destroying but very poor at creating. What has taken tremendous amount of time by nature to build we are destroying almost in seconds compared to the overall time perspective. We are irresponsible and ignorant of our support systems. What else can be said when we prefer short term at the cost of our children?

Guilt does not solve the issue, neither paying more. Something more profound is needed. We need to reconsider our priorities and values. We need to reassess our relationship with this planet, with nature. Now we consume. We use, utilise, and throw away. This is a one-way relationship that is not sustainable. We are living in a closed system called the planet Earth. We cannot pile up things forever and expect that our trash and pollution are well hidden and do not come back to us. Who do you think are already eating, drinking, and breathing hazardous waste? So far things have not gotten better. Our current solutions are not working. More regulation, more penalties, more subsidies, more forced ‘one right way policies’ are not the answer. The question is not what you do but why you do it. Everybody can do his or her own share. There is more than one way to live in this planet. Now it is time to explore and experiment other approaches that are based on a more balanced way of existence. What is it that you’re paying for?

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?

“Politics is not about public interest but someone’s special (economic) interest.”

“Life is about giving, and the rest is taken care of.”

“Nothing has any meaning except the one we give to it— everything simply is.”

“Humbleness is all it takes.”

“The impossible happens when the possible is ignored.”

“If you don’t know what to do, meditate.”

“The (future) wealth is in the people, the past is in the tangible assets.”

“Skills, knowledge, and experience build the future.”

“Life is simple—thinking is complicated.”

“Only two things: the ones you think are important, and those that are.”

“Happiness is a continuous flow of life.”

“Nothing to say, everything to realise.”

“You are what you think, say, and do.”

“Your senses know nothing, they merely register movement.”

“Only when you have done enough, you can be.”

“Complexity is easy, simplicity requires mastery.”

“Society is persons.”

“Separate money from politics and you find very little interest on public matters.”

“Poverty is a relative term. Don’t expect it to disappear from the lexicon any time soon. One can be poor or rich—it’s just a matter of definition.”

“Enjoy the moment. That’s all there is.”

“Our legal tender is based on a threat of violence, and nothing else.”

Everybody talks about it and still we don’t seem to get our house in order. How can we make our planet a better place for all of us? Talk is cheap and so far we have been too ignorant to get rid of the whole issue in large scale enough.

How do you deal with a harassing and aggressive person in your neighbourhood? You let the person know that his or her behaviour is not accepted or supported by others. All of us together define the rules and the accepted behaviour in our societies. By our very actions or non-actions we create our surroundings every day. Our ignorance and tolerance for aggressive and hostile intentions enable them to exist and flourish.

There is a very easy way to stop wars. Just follow the money. Who finance the wars? Who makes the final decisions to declare them? A war does not happen if people are not supporting nor allowing it to happen. Passive and ignorant attitude towards aggressive intentions in massive scale make us sheep that are lead to things that individuals in a personal level would not allow to happen. Our political systems are not stable–they are tilted towards reckless and irresponsible behaviour. All this is possible because of so called collective responsibility and financing—very few decide and gain but everybody pays the consequences, and nobody is personally liable. Things just happen—almost automatically. We cannot control them. Or this is how we are made to believe. The truth is that we just hand over our personal power to other people who are willing to use it, even against us. Organisations, political systems, or ideologies do not fight—only people do. Just think about it.

If you study the history you will find that most of the wars are declared by some sort of concepts or entities called nations, governments, or rulers. But only a handful of people cannot make entire societies into brainless killing machines that just destroy themselves beyond belief and any sense. How do you call a leader without followers? A person taking a walk. There are no wars if there are no people who are willing to fight. There are no wars if there are no enabling financing or weapons. Who makes the weapons? We do. Who finance the wars? We do. Who fights the wars? We do.

As long as we believe in some great archetypes of visionary and omnipotent leaders, rulers or administrative bodies that know what is good for us and tell us what to do there will always be people taking the lead and readily telling others what to do. Responsibility seems to be a very difficult lesson to learn. Similarly using one’s own common sense and reasoning are also rare skills. Why it is so hard to see that there is no such a thing as something for nothing or free lunches without paybacks?

Peace is possible only when we appreciate our own personal power and freedom so greatly that we are not willing to give it away or tolerate violent and aggressive behaviour from anyone. How do you declare wars if there are only people? And more importantly who would declare wars if there are only people minding their own business and protecting their personal freedom against any aggressor. Peace is a sign of ultimate strength—not weakness. So far we have only managed to destroy and create havoc. We have not deserved peace yet—we have not appreciated it enough to make it a reality for us. We have been driven by our personal greed, jealousy, and hate. Peace cannot be imposed—you have to live it.

Why is politics often associated with corruption, dishonesty, and shallowness? You may be surprised to notice that there is a common denominator underneath that we have often forgotten or just haven’t bothered to think about at all.

Franz Oppenheimer once described the only two ways to work in a society. The first is based on voluntary cooperation among people where everyone is dependent on the contribution of others for creating a greater wealth in the society. This is called the economic means. You are cooperating with other people and exchanging the products and goods based on your own free will and judgement. Those concepts (i.e. products and services) will be successful that many people individually decide to favour by using them. In other words the society is ever changing and finding new ways to satisfy each individual’s needs and wants. People are trusted with the responsibility to choose for themselves and to let them to decide and know what works for them in increasing their personal happiness. Or actually there is no one to “trust” the people their choice but each individual is aware that everyone is responsible for their own life and they are the only ones who can make the right choices for them. Therefore there is no ‘people’ but only persons that are acting together by free will of choice and are aware of their responsibility for everyone else as well. Society works only when everyone contributes something positive and creative, no matter how little that is—destructive behaviour provides only havoc. If everyone is just taking, soon there is very little to take from.

The only way any society will flourish is that there are people who are producing goods and services that are innovative and demanded by other people. Production enables the wealth and sophistication in any high culture. However, people will not create or produce if they are not able to trust that they are sufficiently compensated for their efforts. In addition they need to be assured that the circumstances in the society are not expected to change in a manner that jeopardized their work that often may require significant amount of resources for extended periods of time, even years, to finish the production. New innovations and creative solutions require free will and a joy of creation. Seldom anyone bothers to go for great lengths of trouble if they are not appreciated or, even worse, if they are brutally being used or stolen of their efforts.

Oppenheimer’s second way is called the political means. This concept cannot work if nothing has been produced. It is relaying and based on other people’s efforts and work. In other words it does not produce anything new and thus increase the wealth of the society but focuses on distributing the existing wealth by arbitrary decisions. And how do those people that are working and creating things that are demanded by other people allow this to happen? They do not—they are forced by violence or a threat of violence to subdue. There is a proper word for this type of behaviour and it is called stealing. In the economic means there is no problem of distribution since people cooperate voluntarily and agree upon the terms how to trade and utilise products and services between themselves. Just visit your local supermarket and buy an apple. You did not force the supermarket to give you the apple nor did they force you to buy it, and even better—there is no third party telling you what to do or not to do. Only thieves have a problem of distribution of confiscated goods. And since the objects are already alienated from their rightful owners there are infinite amount of ways to divide the stolen wealth, and none of them any more rightful than any other and all of them are just arbitrary decisions made by third parties that have no credit for the wealth in the first place. If you approve to take by force in the first place you have very little saying about your noble or great causes for justifying your actions: you steal or you do not—there is no middle ground and a thief is a thief no matter the cause.

And what has all this to do with politics? Everything, the whole discussion in politics is about from whom to steal by force and how and to whom to share the confiscated wealth. A crime is no less crime if you use a middleman to do your dirty job. And ‘legalisation’ of stealing is no less stealing—it’s only legal stealing. The only difference between organised crime and legal stealing is that only the latter is protected by a greater use of power and force in the society. The basic idea of brutal use of force is still the same dating back thousands of years in history; only the tools and the camouflage are different. The modern lexicon is based on terms like taxation, rules and regulations, laws, and executive orders. They all are just different names for forcing people to unilateral transactions that they would not do voluntarily. Only the political means is a zero-sum game since there is only so much of confiscated wealth in any given moment. The economic means is based on freedom of choice where people are cooperating voluntarily. And implicitly it also means that both parties are willing to interact with each other and thus are content with the outcomes as well: you are happy with your fresh apple and the supermarket is happy with the amount of money you exchanged the apple for.

Next time you hear terms like trade tariffs, subsidies, welfare benefits, taxation laws or any other favourite sweet talk of the politicians see the real game underneath and ask yourself: who is forced to act/non-act and who are the ones to gain from this? Nowadays stealing is a fine art and therefore there are many ways to conduct the job. Inflation is one of them but surely not the only game in town. Many of the legislations are based on the principal where someone is restricted of access to some part of the market or to act freely among any other member of the society. For example, governments are masters of creating monopolies or oligopolies for some members of the society and forcing all the rest to interact with those specially selected members only. Often, protectionism is labelled as something beneficial: consumer protection laws, safety and health laws, approval processes and licenses, and so on. Special interest privileges delivered by your favourite politician: someone will gain and someone else will lose. Surely enough there are still those that have needs and are happy to receive more without giving anything back. They vote for politicians to solve their problems. This is the formula of politics—it is based on violence.

Expecting to gain more than one is willing to put on the table is foolhardy. Forcing others to comply with it is stealing. The motives vary from jealousy, low self-esteem, laziness to greediness and everything between. In any case the idea is to get away with the scheme without being exposed. Current politics is based on this principal.

Voluntary cooperation between people does not need regulations and control. They are required to force something in place and to keep something out. Special privileges are based on structures where the gains are separated from the liabilities and the responsibilities—a free ride. The formula often works so that everybody pays (in form of coerced payments) and some selected few reap the benefits. There are also fancier names for all this: tariffs, tolls, trade restrictions, subsidies, protective laws and directives, sales and energy taxes, and so on. They are all too important to be left for the grown-up adults to decide upon themselves and be responsible of their actions and choices.

Our monetary system is based on the same principal. The current legal tender is nothing but a dictum that is backed by the government’s threat of using violence against its citizens. The only difference between you printing your own notes and the government is the amount of force you’re lacking. Currently the money system is based solely on the amount of money in circulation. Its value is dependent on its volume. Otherwise the paper (or digital) nominations are entirely useless. And the best part is that the government having the monopoly decides when and how much more money it will issue. This is stealing as well. Another name for it is inflation. And don’t get fooled by the consumer indexes or any other official measures of inflation. The sole source of inflation is the increase in the monetary base. Period. The rest is only a matter of time for the ripple effect to penetrate the entire economy and to adjust the prices for the new volume of money in form of price changes.

Government does not produce anything. It needs the politicians to steal from you. They can do it either by collecting more taxes or inflating the currency. The latter is easier and less disruptive for the public to accept. The end result is the same. Everybody pays and only a few gains. In the case of inflation those closest to the new money in circulation benefit the most in form of getting services and goods still with old (low) prices and in the reverse those are hurt the most that need to buy things with the new (high) prices but are not able to raise their own prices accordingly. The economy does not need controls and politicians, but your government and the beneficiaries of its special privileges need. Just follow the money.

Free competition is very disturbing for some. It’s ruthless for those that do not serve the society. And how do we know this? The law of the market is very simple. You vote by your free choice—those that serve you the best you favour and support, and the rest need to cope without you. This continuous change forces everyone to serve the interest of their customers with the utmost care. Unfortunately the political control over the markets is so dominating nowadays that basically everything is controlled and regulated by the government.

In addition, ‘public’ services do not need to listen to the customer. They get their money by stealing from you so they could not care less. The prime motive of any organisation is its self-survival no matter whether it is a ‘public’ or private entity. The only difference is that only the free market based organisation needs to be humble in front of the customer. It relies on the voluntary cooperation and interaction among its customers. It cannot survive without the customer in the long run. Organisations (even private) that rely on coercion are in a different position. They get something for nothing. Actually they are the healthier the more they gain stolen goods. No wonder lobbying and politics is the biggest business in town. That’s where the money is made in our ‘modern’ society. Everybody pays, only a few gains, and the overall society goes down the drain. Looting is never a long-term plan—someone needs to produce before it can be stolen. Currently it is more lucrative to steal than to create. How do you see the odds?

For a few centuries we have gotten used to a trend of centralisation in almost all aspects of our life. The centralisation of power, money, influence, businesses, professions, education, health-care, defence, and energy are only a few examples of the current way of the world. Fortunately things do not have to be this way in the future.

Clearly there are some advantages in large units and centralisation of functions. Larger production units are more feasible and can gain economies of scale, but there are also areas in which the accumulation is not based on a voluntary cooperation and freedom of expression. Coercion typically prefers to avoid free competition and transparency. It gets its power from the very subjects that are either by ignorance or by force (or a threat of violence) alienated from their powers (i.e. rights). In all the cases the structures are kept in place by the members of the society only as long as they are tolerated or the veil of ignorance has been lifted from the eyes of the many.

In the past centralisation has been relatively easy. Limited communication capabilities and high transaction costs for different members of the society to directly interact with each other supported this trend. So called middlemen were very lucrative and desirable positions to be. Still today we see many of these operational models around us: banks, traditional media, government monopolies such as post office, healthcare, education, central bank, defence, courts etc. Naturally these are also means to support the agendas of the ones who influence and prefer to have special privileges.

The technology development has changed many of the underlying paradigms in a very rapid pace. Below some examples:

Communications: Mobile phones, email, VOIP (e.g. Skype, Fring), text messages, hotspots, p2p-networks, location and instant messaging enable 24/7 communication that has a capability of reaching millions of people in a matter of seconds worldwide. Typically these means enable cheap multicast type of communication from one person to many that was previously very expensive and available to a few members of the society.

Media: Blogs and social networking, news sites, social bookmarking, multimedia services (e.g. YouTube, Flickr, podcasting, Current TV, Joost), self-publishing, search engines, and long-tail bookstores are among the ways to shape the future of the media and how it is used. New Paul Potts are discovered the minute they appear in to the radar and can gain millions of fans even from different continents. Similarly not so desirable news are brought in to the light that are kept off the main media and freedom of choice enables to pick those items that please and benefit the user.

Banking and finance: ebrokers, internet banks, p2p lending (e.g. Prosper, Zopa), fundraising (e.g. ChipIN, Fundable, GiveMeaning, EcoMiles), microfinancing , PayPal, barter, and egold makes it more cost-efficient and cheaper to obtain loans, select one’s preferred bank, investment or lending partner or even skip the middleman altogether.

Commerce: auction sites, ecommerce platforms, productivity tools, open-source software, and cheap IT solutions enable to reach new marginal customer segments that have not been available without a cost-efficient way of reaching geographically fragmented niches.

Travelling: low-cost airlines and online travel bookings have allowed mass-tourism to take a new form without arranged package-trips.

Information: free online books, databases, websites, ecourses & programmes, wikipedias, and portals have enabled the access for information sources that have previously either been physically isolated or otherwise out of reach for the many.

These were only a few examples how our society transforms and changes every minute. In some areas the changes are more gradual and the adaptation rate is slower but many sectors are realising the inevitable shift in the way people behave and interact with their environment. The choice is always with us.

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 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.

Gary has very clear advice: nada de nada.