Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1

One of the ways in which we limit our ability to address problems and steer ourselves towards solutions without entering into an endless debate, is through our acceptance of false dilemmas at face value.

What is a false dilemma?

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

•    Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.
•    If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
•    America: Love it or leave it.
•    The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.”

(Normand Baillargeon, A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense. Seven Stories Press, 2008)

It seems easy enough to spot false dilemmas and yet, they seem to dominate the discussions about some of the most important issues we require solutions for. Have a look:

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

Do you start seeing to what extent false dilemma’s – the ‘either/or’ presentation of options – is thoroughly ingrained in media, in politics, in every day life discussions?

On the one hand false dilemmas are used to manipulate those presented with the false dilemma to choose the option that the presenter of the dilemma wishes – but on the other hand – it also encourages stagnation and paralysis. Because what happens, is: you have groups who have an interest within the one option, or who support the one option – and you have groups who have an interest within the second option, or who support the second option. And now there is a back-and-forth quibbling, to put it plainly, about which option to choose, about which group ‘loses’ and which group ‘wins’. Of course, no one wants to lose, or be the one to sacrifice their interests for the other group’s or the other goal – so everyone is fighting, but in the meantime, you maintain the status quo, because there is no movement, there is no common solution – there is just a debate, a discussion, an argument, when what is really needed is direction and action.

We tend to so blindly accept information the way it is presented to us – without critically thinking for ourselves and seeing if there are no alternatives. No, instead we immediately position ourselves on one or the other side of the dilemma and feel good about ourselves for ‘taking in a position’. But what does it matter to take in a position, if that position is not going to lead to a solution, but simply perpetuates a back-and-forth dynamic that can only lead to losing? Either ‘our group’ wins over the other, then the others lose out, or the other group wins and then ‘our group’ loses out – or no solution is reached and everyone keeps quibbling, then everyone loses out, because nothing gets directed – or both groups go into a ‘compromise’ and don’t really take on either issue, but just do ‘ a little bit’ on both fronts to please everyone – which seems like a ‘win-win’ solution – but it actually isn’t – because everyone is compromising.

The first thing to do is to take a step back and allow yourself to see the bigger picture. Because – what is presented with a false dilemma? You’re presented with a zoomed-in picture that shows two doors, two options. Now, instead of trying to break your brains over figuring out which of the doors represents the lesser of two evils – take a step back – zoom out the picture and suddenly more becomes visible within the frame – there might be a third door that had not been mentioned or there might be a pathway going around the wall that the doors are in, making every door entirely irrelevant.

In my next post, I’ll go over each of the examples and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Day 41: What is Economics – Part 2

See Day 40: What is Economics? For context

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘economics’ is synonymous with ‘capitalism’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economics has got to do with three basic question: what should be produced, how should it be produced and who gets to consume what is produced – and thus any system answering these questions can be considered as being ‘economics’ – and thus economics is not only limited to capitalism as the current world system which is in place

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed and agreed upon the definition of economics as that which deals with how limited resources are used to satisfy human wants and the choices/sacrifices we have to make in order to attain this goal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to ever question the definition of economics – where the main goal is to satisfy human wants, which are assumed to be unlimited – with the use of limited resource – and which is thus in essence impossible, yet we will allow this to be the basis of our economic system, and thus it is no surprise that we currently live in an unbalanced world where every day we move one step closer to our own self-destruction

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to question the implied value judgment involved when being faced with economics, as the definition of economics --- where the focus lies on human wants, instead of human needs and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise the self-interested nature of this definition within only looking at what humans want/need – and not consider everything and everyone on this Physical Plane as the Earth, the Animal and the Plant Kingdom

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that the only reason that there is a trade-off for everything within economics – is because we are dealing with unlimited wants vs limited available resources – which can never be achieved in a balanced manner – and thus choices as sacrifices need to be made in order to make the system work – while we could have avoided all this unnecessary trouble if we’d only value Life as Sustenance and thus Limited Basic Needs over Unlimited Wants and Desires

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system based on the current definition of economics as ‘unlimited wants vs. limited resources – what choices do we make?’ – is doomed to fail, as it is faulty by design. And within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only way we are going to make any economic system work, is through redefining economics itself and eradicate this inherent flaw – and bring about an Economic System which is balanced and sustainable within its very definition and starting point

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all the suffering in the world which is brought about as a result of our current economic system is in fact deliberate – within having agreed upon the definition of economics where we value Human Wants over Human Needs – and thus we have manifested a World of Greed where sacrifices/choices need to be made every day to keep the wheel of money running – and where this sacrifice has resulted in half the population of Earth living in poverty, the extinction and suffering of animals and disregard for the Plant world, where we hack and burn at will -- for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Unlimited Wants of a Few – and all this done deliberately and with permission through never ever having questioned the very definition of economics and through not having questioned the Nature and Character of Humanity within having made such decisions within drawing up such definitions – as if anyone would have done this, it would have been clear: We are Evil – which is the only way and reason an Economic System of Evil would exist within this World

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only Real Value on Earth is Life – and within that, tending to basic needs is what is valuable, as this is tending to the Physical which is Always here – while tending to Wants and Desires is a waste of time, as they come and go and inevitably End at Death

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to protect and defend the current economic system in the face of poverty and starvation by only pointing out to one part the definition of economics – as the scarcity of resources – where we’ll say “But there’s simply not enough!” – while conveniently leaving out that there is not enough and will never be enough in terms of satisfying our Wants an Desires – while there is plenty to satisfy everyone’s Basic Needs! And within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to Lie about the reality of the World within protecting and valuing my own Wants and Desires over the Needs of Others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be a Criminal within the Face of Life

Day 40: What is Economics?

Economics is about how a society decides to answer particular questions in relation to resource distribution – which can be brought down to the follow three:

1)    What should be produced by a society?
2)    How should it be produced?
3)    Who gets to consume what is produced?

Many hold the believe that economics is a ‘one way street’, where for instance ‘Capitalism’ is treated synonymous to ‘economics’, as the ‘only way’ that economics can ever be – while this is only one way of answering the above basic economic questions, and where the Equal Money System is another way of answering these three questions.

The above three questions are the basis of economics, and any form of economic system has to answer to these three questions. So whether you have an economic system based on complete government control or an economic system based on total individual control – the same questions are being dealt with, but in different ways.

Currently within the world there are several different types of economic systems, which economists like to present within a spectrum which runs from the one polarity of absolute government control to total individual control – where most of the economic systems currently lay in-between these two polarities.

Total Individual Control	What is produced, How and Who gets it is decided by individuals
Stage 2	Government deals with basics only such as police protection, enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, national defense
Stage 3	Includes Stage 2 + additional services such as education, science, roads, fire protection
Stage 4	Stage 3 + additional programs such as health care and retirement
Stage 5	Stage 4 + state industries (steel, cars, agriculture), distribution of basic consumer goods (food, housing)
Stage 6	Stage 5 + government in charge of employment, housing, food, production, prices
Total Government Control	What is produces, How and Who gets decided by Government

However, as capitalism is the main overall system implemented within the world – students are mostly taught within the context of capitalism only – and since this is the system we are currently living in and as – this will be the system that we’ll walk through within these blogs.

So keep in mind that all the vocabulary points, concepts, views etc. which will be explained in this blog are specific to the current system in play, and may not necessarily be relevant to an Equal Money System. Yet we will still discuss these points as they form part of the current system, and the thought pattern of economists -- and thus form part in completing your understanding of how economics currently works and what requires to be corrected – both in how things are viewed and how things are structurally manifested according to these views.

Let’s have a look at some definitions which have been given to the term ‘Economics’, so we can establish the starting point of our current economic system.

“Economics is the study of how our scarce productive resources are used to satisfy human wants.” – George Leland Bach

“Economics is the study of how people allocate their limited resources to provide for their wants.” – Jack Harvey

“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources to study unlimited human wants.” – Richard Lipsey

Within each one of these quotes we can derive the following components:

•    Scarcity of Resources
•    Human Wants
•    Choices

The current Economic Paradigm assumes an inherent conflict between “Scarcity of Resources” and “Human Wants” – which are often referred to as ‘unlimited’. Since we have only so many resources available – but unlimited wants to satisfy: we have to make certain choices – and something or someone will always have to be sacrificed (this is another re-occurring trend found within ‘trade-offs’ and ‘opportunity cost’).

So what’s fascinating to be observed from the statements of various people about “what is economics” – is that various value judgments* are implied, but which are never questioned or explained.

The component of ‘Human Wants’
This trend returns over and over again throughout current economic theory where precedence is being given to ‘human wants’ over ‘needs’.

The Anthropocentric View**
Another value judgment is implied, since the definitions of economics as the framework which encompasses the distribution of resources, only takes into consideration humans: what about the animals? plants? Earth itself?

Sacrifices Have to be Made
Since the definition of economics was agreed to be ‘unlimited wants vs limited resources’ – there is a value judgment implied, which we pointed out earlier as ‘wants over needs’ – and where this choice/preference inevitably leads to having to sacrifice since the definition as a mathematical equation is not balanced – which in itself reveals another value judgment, which is that sacrifices are acceptable – within the decision/agreement that wants ought to be placed over needs. Because if you have look at it, if the definition of economics had been around the lines of ‘the management of limited resources towards limited needs’ – then the point of conflict with which we are currently faced with as ‘unlimted’ vs ‘limited’ resulting in sacrifice – would not have existed!!

The starting point of current economic thought is completely self-contradictory:

Unlimited Wants + Limited Resources = Wants can never be satisfied

I mean, it’s simple math that this is an unsustainable goal – so why pursue it at all? It just doesn’t make any sense! So – the amount of suffering and destruction currently taking place on Earth, is really no surprise if one just consider this one statement, as the definition of economics – which is not only completely beside the point (in terms of wants over needs – humans over everything), but mathematically impossible to be sustained. Yet, this is what we’ve accepted and allowed to be lived within the World – and within this chase of obtaining and achieving the impossible (satisfying all our desires), we are driving millions into their grave, as the sacrifice we willingly give – as pointed out above. And for what? For wants and desires which are apparently worth more than basic needs?

This is completely unacceptable.

Yet no-one seems to question this point – thus economic thought is really just a reflection of our own thought as living beings, as our character as Human Beings, where we all collectively decided within ourselves that our personal desires and wants are to be prioritized over the tending of everyone’s basic needs with what we have, as available resources on Earth.

Isn’t that just plain…..evil?

* Value judgment:
a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad) to something

** Anthropocentric:
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences