Is a better world possible?

The world of today has been accelerated into neoliberal capitalism by Bush and his friends from high places. His vision of the world is bleak for most of Humanity. This is an alternative version.

I think by now there are millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of people the world over that don't believe in Bush anymore. Slowly his favorable position is rotting away by its own misguided efforts. So is Osama's as he is more and more being viewed as a conspirator for America's aims in foreign policy and not a people's liberator or terrorism mastermind (take your choice). On the other hand, religious fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, or Jewish is rising fast. So are the Right and the Left becoming increasingly polarized. It seems the world over is experiencing an upheaval in primal aggressive behavior.

I think it all has something to do with the very poor state of the economy around the world today, the feeling that the government is not your friend, that big business is more "enronized" than it claims to be, freedom is just a dream and hope a nice memory. At the same time the environment is going down the tubes in most of the planet and global warming is now pretty much a given. In this climate of fear and hopelessness we are turning toward radicalism out of sheer desperation. As we realize that our actions have little effect on the powerful and our risk of injury is very real if we go against the establishment, we end up frustrated and angry. This leads to aggressive behavior in one way or another. We either join the elite in their quest for power and renounce to any sort of moral decency or values, or we go against it head-on risking our future and our freedom. Extreme measures in a world of extreme uncertainty.

How did we arrive at this? The Israelis and Palestinians are asking themselves these same questions. The answer is human nature. Human nature?! Yes, it is our nature: the struggle for power and the fight for independence. Two sides of the same coin. We all want to feel powerful, in charge, we all want things our way and would rather not compromise when we know we can get what we want at little cost -- that's little cost to us, not them. At the same time we all want freedom, liberty, independence from our oppressors or from our opponents, our enemies. It is with these basic instincts along with those of survival and a feeling that we want to belong that we confront the world, alone but more often in a group, attacking the weaker ones in our way while joining those that can either crush us or help us. Our morals are one-sided as we only use them when they are to our benefit. When we commit the sins ourselves we find a way to justify them and walk over them although we never give our enemies the same chance. How could we?

We are, for the most part, hypocrites.

Now, what can be done? Practicality and common sense dictate that we must, first and foremost, protect ourselves and those close to us. It seems selfish but it is a basic natural instinct that we follow almost subconsciously whether we want to or not. If everyone one did this there would be no need to take care of other people or provide a welfare system. The system would take care of itself naturally as Nature intended. Also, Humanity demands that we care for our fellow man and for the world in general and not just ourselves. How do we reconcile these potentially contradictory goals? How can we protect ourselves, seek power and independence, while at the same time not take it from others that want it too? It seems that the obvious answer is to not take more than our share. But what is our share? What is someone else's share? Do we have inalienable rights to keep what we have taken (i.e. the power and independence)? What if we took more than our share? What if someone else took more than their fair share? What is a fair share? If it is to be the same share for everyone, how do we quantify it and keep records? Will some people deserve more or less than others? If so, how do we decide? What about natural selection, the "survival of the fittest" and competition and motivation? If cooperation is the answer, how do we compensate those that work harder or smarter? If we don't we run the risk of creating a world of under-achievers and unsatisfied, disgruntled workers. We end up where we started.

The problem begins with the competition for limited resources and the desire for more. So, the answer would have to take into account all the resources the world has to offer: land, food, minerals and labor; as well as how many takers there are and will be (i.e. population control). Then it would need to put in place a system where no one is given more than their *fair* share and an enforcement policy to make sure that's the case. No free-loaders would be allowed as everyone would have the opportunity to get a job that fits their capabilities, goals and aspirations. Productivity would have to be measured openly and those that prove more capable would be promoted to take on more responsibilities with better pay. They would be compensated correspondingly according to published guidelines. The guidelines would be selected by the results of scientific studies into their effects on higher productivity and personal satisfaction. This includes all positions including governmental and military. Democracy would exist only as a result of cooperation. In this way the laws of natural selection are satisfied as well as the need for power and independence (as higher productivity work would yield better compensation packages). The same goes for the business world as competition is regulated and marketing remains honest for only facts and not hype are allowed. Everyone is allowed to work as many or as few hours as they see fit. Only profits as a function of superior products and value can be shared among the company's ownership (the workers) and accumulated for personal wealth. Tax is collected automatically and fully from each paycheck -- there are no other taxes. All production and consumption are monitored to ensure the environment is not harmed. Religion is allowed as long as it doesn't interfere with the guidelines. Propaganda is used only to highlight success stories or point out inefficiencies in the system. The population birth and death rates are kept in check as responsible parenting is rewarded and health is predictable. All records are made public. No one is above the law. Crime is minimal as law enforcement is strong but fair and no guns are allowed to the citizenry. There is little crime, no death penalty and life imprisonment is not encouraged as efficient monitoring and rehabilitation therapy is applied. Corruption is discouraged by a system of separation of powers. The military must be maintained as efficiently as possible and only strong enough for resisting possible foreign invasions. There are no secrets and no enemy spies as all government, military, everyone and everything in the public is accounted for. No wars are provoked and are only engaged iff in self-defense. No one is left out in the cold as everyone is taken care of according to their own chosen limits as they work to improve the system. At the same time all basic needs are covered and serviced such as food, shelter, healthcare and education for all. This philosophy of equality and merit applies to all of Humanity without exception. The system grows on its own -- without forceful or deceitful means -- until eventually all the world is under it.

Is this communism, socialism, capitalism, a welfare state or a police state? It is a mixture of all of them with the goal of providing everyone with what they are willing to work for (similar to what people today are willing to pay for) without harming anyone in any way or depriving them of their fair share and their right to live in peace. No hunger. No homelessness. No sickness. No crime. All man and woman created and treated as equals under the law. The pursuit of happiness. Freedom and justice for all. Cooperation and competition working side by side.

This is a practical solution to guarantee an end to the world inequality that produces such disproportionate poverty, death and destruction. Otherwise we are back to selfishness, fear and greed as the motivators of human progress and the eventual annihilation of the planet.

-G