Author: standardsoflife

Congo’s fate is not its destiny

The ongoing war in the east of the Congo has its roots in the corrupt neglect of the “exploiting world” and the failure to adopt realistic social structures, which is not limited to the Congo but is prevalent across the “emerging world”.

The corrupt neglect of peoples, and their governments, in the parts of the world that industrialized first allows and encourages that chaos, because that gives them competitive advantage in access to the resources they need to feed their industrialized production systems. The failure of consuming countries to regulate the abroad activities of commercial concerns based in their territories is an abrogation of their own standards and principles. As laid out in the External Relations section of the Standards of LIFE, societies should adopt standards to govern their trade with other people, using the same principles they apply to themselves. In the Congo situation, this would mean that European companies would be required by their own domestic law to deal only with sanctioned representatives of the people of the Congo that also adhere to the Standards of LIFE.

The emerging world, sometimes called the developing world, is a group of all those people who are emerging from colonial pasts, and yet still subject to the structures of government and international relations that are cast in the old colonial mold. These structures are beneficial to the exploiting world because they provide a single point of corruption through which to access the resources they want. All this is exacerbated by the emerging world attempting to operate within geographies and boundaries that were defined to reflect colonial divisions of authority, not the natural human landscape on the ground.

If the people of the Congo, and its neighbors, were able to adopt the more natural and flexible structures of the Standards of LIFE they would create a more firmly grounded society that, in turn, would be better able to establish the rule of law, which would contain the poisonous leftovers of the Rwandan massacres of yesterday. The twin objectives of protecting people and nourishing their prosperity can be achieved through the adoption of properly representative and principled government in both the exploiting and the emerging worlds.

The Congo’s destiny is to be a propserous and peaceful region, but until the exploiting world takes responsibility for its own actions and the emerging world adopts new political structures that serve them more naturally, the Congo’s fate is the stuff of nightmares.

Labor unions fighting the wrong battles

Since the dawn of the industrial age, the organizations representing the workers have been locked in two battles with the enterprise owners: one for a safe working environment and the other for a share of the wealth created.

The first battle is the one that unions can fight and need to win. The people who know the hazards of their workplace are the workers who work in them and, quite rightly, they have the full support of their fellow citizens in demanding the remediation of any deficiencies. The hollowing out of regulatory agencies that support the workers’ right to a safe workplace has resulted in the aggregious exploitation of unorganized and organized labor alike.

The second battle is unnecessary, and the result of a misunderstanding about the power of democracy. To the extent that there is widespread support for a “living wage”, it reflects a natural inclination in all of us that the contribution of one’s labor should, at least, deliver the bare necessities of a peaceful life. Beyond the satisfaction of basic needs, the support for a principle of sharing the wealth created by some becomes distinctly frayed and disfused. This is also a natural impulse and reflects our personal experiences of achievement and the pursuit of our interests.

When unions demand a share of the wealth created by the organizations they work for they are treading the narrow path between natural fairness and natural enterprise. They have the support of the populace for the former and are fighting against common instincts when they stray into the latter. The answer to this conundrum is to be found in the politics of their society, it is in the hands of the very people they represent. A taxation system that assures everyone of the basic essentials of life is there for the asking when the majority of people are workers living in a democracy.

As proposed in the Standards of LIFE, a simple tax system that dedicates income tax revenues to meeting the basic needs of all, satisfies the fair demand for a fair share of the combined wealth of the society. The battle should be to help the workers see that the ballot box, not the picket line, is the way to achieve their aspirations for a livable life. It is completely unnecessary to fight, against the grain, trying to force enterprise owners to meet the need for basic services.  The owners are focussed on competing and innovating and that means keeping costs as low as possible and their focus on their markets, not the social needs of their workers. Successful enterprises are those that make the most of the knowledge, ingenuity and insights of their workers, but this is not the same as ownership, risk taking and entrepreneurship.

Legislation, that supports safe workplaces, and a taxation system, that meets society’s basic needs, are both the domain of government; and governments are elected by the people. So stop asking corporations for what they are disinclined to provide and start asking yourself why you’re not giving yourself what you need. Unions should mobilize their members, to mobilize the majority, to elect a government, that will deliver the standards of life to all.

Unions might find themselves allied with the owners in an endeavor that delivers fairness while freeing corporations from responsibility for the fabric of their society. Adoption of the principles and policies of the Standards of LIFE has the potential to create just such an alliance, around a common purpose that satisfies different interests, because the Standards of LIFE delivers social justice without blunting the driving force of enterpise.

What’s more, if the workers have their basic needs met then the employers have to work harder to attract employees and that means better and safer workplaces.

What’s marriage got to do with it?

The distinction between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ is only culturally attenuated linguistics.

To the extent that public law has anything to do with the relationship between any two individuals is has to be non-discriminatory – see Standards of LIFE freedom foundation.  So no constitution has any right to try to define a difference between the types of unions between people, or the names used to describe those unions.  People are free to call anything whatever they like, but that has no place in law or the constitution.

Societies might do well to start refraining from giving any legal significance to the relationship between any two people. There would be no tax significance once LIFE taxation is in place. Perhaps individuals could append hospital visitation privileges and living will attorney rights to their healthcare records, and if they had not done that, then in an emergency the doctors could accept the decisions of anyone who shares the same address?

Keeping public law out of private spaces is going to be a process of breaking a lot of old habits! And we all know about old habits…

Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Bolivia et al

These three countries represent a struggle that is playing out in many other places around the world too. It is the struggle to reconcile national, regional and local identities with the long-term and short-term histories of the area.

In all three of these countries the people are struggling  with violence that is the result of the frustration that all sides feel because they cannot see a way forward that reconciles their differences while retaining their dignity.  The current model of national identity, that is a relic of colonial times, was not designed to represent the identity of the people living within the borders, but rather to signify the identity of the controlling authority. The modern age holds out the promise of self-determination and self identification through the espousal of principles such as democracy and individual freedom. Our traditional definitions of geographic boundaries, legal systems and government responsibilities do not provide a mechanism that reflects these modern aspirations.

The Standards of LIFE provides a model for representation, government and legal structures that are aligned with the principles of democracy and individual  freedom. The multilayer structure described in the Standards of LIFE is directly applicable to all three of these difficult, and currently intractable, situations. If adopted by the leaders in these countries, it would provide a practical avenue down which all those concerned could direct their energies without resorting to violence and confident that the result would be an equitable and respectful solution.

The multilayer model for representation in the Standards of LIFE also provides great degree of flexibility in the future definitions of boundaries, this allows for easier and more rapid adoption of solutions to the current situations because all parties are aware that there is the possibility for change built into the structure.

Paired with the principles of variable law  and proportional representation, the government and legal structures described in the Standards of LIFE provide a holistic solution to end the turmoil and the violence in all three of these areas as well as the many others around the world suffering from the same absence of a path forward.

Obama victory shows the potential

Barack Obama’s election victory this week shows us two things, both of which shine light on the potential for even greater change as a realistic goal. The first is organizing and the second is the aspirations of the electorate.

The organization behind Obama’s win was notable for its combination of community mobilization and technology integration. They used the Internet to provide individual supporters with the means to make more than a financial contribution, by making their website a tool to enable anyone who wanted to help to be able to do so in a coordinated manner with others in their community. There is no doubt that without this focus on community organizing the Obama campaign would have won neither the primary nor the general election. This serves as a model for any future movement that aims to succeed with the popular support of ordinary, working people.

Listening to the reasons given by voters in the street for why they voted for Obama, there is a constant refrain that suggests that most people are actually looking for change that is directly aligned with the principles and policies of the Standards of LIFE. People are looking for political leadership that will deliver the most basic and fundamental services to everyone, they want education for their children, health care for their parents and the opportunity to work and contribute. These aspirations are directly addressed in the Standards of LIFE.

In considering the practicality of advancing the Standards of LIFE it is worth noting that Obama’s success suggests that a political campaign in an industrial democracy would likely garner the same support, and would succeed with the same level of organization.

%d bloggers like this: