"...70%socialism to 30%capitalism is the best proportion."
The Heritage Foudation gives Sweden a score of 70.5 (out of 100) on their 2009 Index of economic freedom.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx
Uh- wait a sec- no, let's see- that would mean Sweden would have 70% economic freedom- not 70% socialism.
Hmmm...
Well then, who does fit the advice of the Masters?
Here's a list of countries with an economic freedom score within 10 points of 30:
1. 39.9 Venezuela
2. 38.5 Eritrea
3. 37.7 Burma
4. 27.9 Cuba
5. 22.7 Zimbabwe
So, it looks like the winner is ...CUBA!!!
But it's just a tad too socialist- about 2.1% too much.
Nevertheless, according to the Heritage Foundation, Cuba is closer than any other country to the kind of mixed-economy that the Masters advise.
I guess Sweden just has it all backwards...
P.S. The Index is based in large part on data from the World Bank and the World Trade Organization
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Mixed Economy?
If SI really wants 70% socialism and 30% capitalism, then it is important to consider carefully the idea of a mixed economy.
Hence, a new blog devoted not to Share International's public policy- but to the whole idea of a "mixed economy" in general (regardless of who's endorsing it).
here: http://mixed-economy-question.blogspot.com/
Hence, a new blog devoted not to Share International's public policy- but to the whole idea of a "mixed economy" in general (regardless of who's endorsing it).
here: http://mixed-economy-question.blogspot.com/
The Best Proportion
Quote (from SI website- link: http://www.share-international.org/archives/M_teachings/Mt_freedom-and-justice.htm ):
"The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion. "
Well, there you have it.
"The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion. "
Well, there you have it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
"Maitreya's Emergence"
Quote (from SI website intro.):
" From behind the scenes, the outpouring of his extraordinary energy has been the stimulus for dramatic changes on many fronts, including the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the rapprochement between East and West, the growing strength of the people's voice in many countries, and the worldwide focus on preserving the environment."
Public Policy:
1. No to Communism
2. No to Apartheid
3. Preserve the environment
4. The people's voice should determine public policy
Analysis:
1.If no to communism- then does Maitreya define sharing as a voluntary act?
2.No to racial segregation is pretty unambiguous.
3. Who gets to decide what "preserving the environment" actually means?
4. The strength of the people's voice would only matter if it was implied that the people should get to determine public policy.
Well then, is it to be a theocracy by Maitreya or a democracy by the people?
I guess the people will (as a democracy) vote Maitreya's priorities into legislation.
And I guess we won't have to be concerned with how this democracy will manage to accomplish these goals because everyone will just voluntarily agree on how to achieve the desired results.
Note that sharing is in fact a voluntary act- Maitreya's priorities will be funded through voluntary contibutions and not through a mandatory redistribution of wealth by way of confiscatory taxation.
But wait a minute...
If these goods and services (food, housing, health care, education) are universal rights- then what will we do if there's not enough voluntary donations to pay for everyone to be provided with these things?
If it's a right- then it's a right. It's not just something you get to have as long as enough donations come in.
If it's a right- then it MUST be provided.
But if there's not enough voluntarily donated, then how?
There has to be revenue for the government to provide services.
If these unversal rights are not fulfilled, the people's voice will rise up and demand a new form of government that will fulfill them. THAT government will not define sharing as a voluntary act. THAT government able to convince it's voters that it is able to deliver on these universal rights will have to force the rich to pay for them.
In such a case, the fact that sharing is a voluntary act will no longer matter.
" From behind the scenes, the outpouring of his extraordinary energy has been the stimulus for dramatic changes on many fronts, including the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the rapprochement between East and West, the growing strength of the people's voice in many countries, and the worldwide focus on preserving the environment."
Public Policy:
1. No to Communism
2. No to Apartheid
3. Preserve the environment
4. The people's voice should determine public policy
Analysis:
1.If no to communism- then does Maitreya define sharing as a voluntary act?
2.No to racial segregation is pretty unambiguous.
3. Who gets to decide what "preserving the environment" actually means?
4. The strength of the people's voice would only matter if it was implied that the people should get to determine public policy.
Well then, is it to be a theocracy by Maitreya or a democracy by the people?
I guess the people will (as a democracy) vote Maitreya's priorities into legislation.
And I guess we won't have to be concerned with how this democracy will manage to accomplish these goals because everyone will just voluntarily agree on how to achieve the desired results.
Note that sharing is in fact a voluntary act- Maitreya's priorities will be funded through voluntary contibutions and not through a mandatory redistribution of wealth by way of confiscatory taxation.
But wait a minute...
If these goods and services (food, housing, health care, education) are universal rights- then what will we do if there's not enough voluntary donations to pay for everyone to be provided with these things?
If it's a right- then it's a right. It's not just something you get to have as long as enough donations come in.
If it's a right- then it MUST be provided.
But if there's not enough voluntarily donated, then how?
There has to be revenue for the government to provide services.
If these unversal rights are not fulfilled, the people's voice will rise up and demand a new form of government that will fulfill them. THAT government will not define sharing as a voluntary act. THAT government able to convince it's voters that it is able to deliver on these universal rights will have to force the rich to pay for them.
In such a case, the fact that sharing is a voluntary act will no longer matter.
"Maitreya's Teachings and Priorities"
Quote (from SI website Intro):
"Maitreya does not intend to build a new religion around himself, nor to create followers, but to teach humanity "the art of Self-realization." The first steps are "honesty of mind, sincerity of spirit, and detachment."
Maitreya's social concerns are reflected in his list of priorities: an adequate supply of the right food, adequate housing for all, healthcare and education as universal rights. His social message can be summarized in a few words: "Share and save the world." Maitreya knows we will accept his message and that we are on the threshold of an era of peace and goodwill."
Policy Goals:
1. Adequate supply of the right food for all
2. Adequate housing for all
3. Universal right to health care
4. Universal right to education
Analysis:
Who gets to determine what an adequate supply of food is?
Who gets to decided what the right kind of food is?
Who gets to say what constitutes adequate housing?
If health care is a universal right- does everyone get all they want?
Who makes the the descisions as to what sorts of tests and procedures and medications etc.. are available?
Who decides whether or not health care rationing is necessary and when?
If education is a universal right, then who decides what gets taught?
Who decides how much education you can get- or where you can go to study?
How to provide such services if they were decided upon?
How would they be funded?
Who would decide who gets to do what?
Will every one voluntarily agree as to how these services are to be provided- or what the terms of their provision will be?
Who? Experts? Who gets to determine who the experts are? Who does the hiring and firing? Government officials? What form of government will this be?
He knows we will accept his message. I guess that's the end of the story- it's going to happen and that's all there is to it.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
"Maitreya does not intend to build a new religion around himself, nor to create followers, but to teach humanity "the art of Self-realization." The first steps are "honesty of mind, sincerity of spirit, and detachment."
Maitreya's social concerns are reflected in his list of priorities: an adequate supply of the right food, adequate housing for all, healthcare and education as universal rights. His social message can be summarized in a few words: "Share and save the world." Maitreya knows we will accept his message and that we are on the threshold of an era of peace and goodwill."
Policy Goals:
1. Adequate supply of the right food for all
2. Adequate housing for all
3. Universal right to health care
4. Universal right to education
Analysis:
Who gets to determine what an adequate supply of food is?
Who gets to decided what the right kind of food is?
Who gets to say what constitutes adequate housing?
If health care is a universal right- does everyone get all they want?
Who makes the the descisions as to what sorts of tests and procedures and medications etc.. are available?
Who decides whether or not health care rationing is necessary and when?
If education is a universal right, then who decides what gets taught?
Who decides how much education you can get- or where you can go to study?
How to provide such services if they were decided upon?
How would they be funded?
Who would decide who gets to do what?
Will every one voluntarily agree as to how these services are to be provided- or what the terms of their provision will be?
Who? Experts? Who gets to determine who the experts are? Who does the hiring and firing? Government officials? What form of government will this be?
He knows we will accept his message. I guess that's the end of the story- it's going to happen and that's all there is to it.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
" Who is Maitreya ?"
Quote (from SI website Intro):
"At this time of great political, economic, and social crisis, Maitreya will inspire humanity to see itself as one family, and create a civilization based on sharing, economic and social justice, and global cooperation."
Policy Goals:
1. Humanity should see itself as one family
2. Create a civilization based on:
- sharing
- economic justice
- social justice
- global cooperation
Analysis:
Goal #1:
What if humanity saw itself as one family?
The implied answer is that it would solve all the problems of our current "political, economic, and social crisis." It is assumed that everyone would take care of one another like family members do.
Only- not all families do take care of one another. But no matter- because what's assumed is that everyone would take care of one another the way GOOD families do.
So let's assume that happens...
In a good family there are parents and children. Parents set rules and expectations of behavior for their children.
Wait, what? You mean not all parents raise their children this way?
But, of course, we were talking about GOOD parents...
Uh, gee, who gets to define what constitutes a GOOD family, a GOOD parent, or a GOOD child in this "one family" that humanity is to see itself as?
Oh, of course: Maitreya will teach us.
But what if we don't agree with Maitreya's definition of a particluar requirement for GOOD?
Is our rebellious fate to be the same as it is for those who go against God's will- as revealed in the Holy Bible?
The question then becomes: what is the difference between Maitreya's will and the God of Abraham's will?
For now, let's just assume they are the same. Maitreya's "teaching" would be the basis for a correct definition of the GOOD.
In terms of public policy and a form of government, this would mean a theocracy. If not direct rule by Maitreya himself- then by those who know his will/his teaching.
If we are to live in a theocracy, what will it be like?
How can we find out?
We have to know what Maitreya's will is.
If it's the same as God's then those of us who know God's will - know what is expected of us as family members.
What? Wait a minute! You mean there's not a universally shared consensus as to what God's will is?
If we all behave according to Maitreya's teaching- then we won't need to have freedom of religion.
On the other hand, if we had freedom of religion we might have disagreement as to what Maitreya's will was- or we may have disagreement as to whether or not Maitreya even exists- or we may choose to follow someone else's teachings...
That would make consensus for humanity on how to behave as one family very difficult...if not every one followed Maitreya's teachings on how to do so
Will there be any rules in our 'one family'?
Let's see if there's an answer in the second goal:
Goal#2:
Create a civilization based on:
- sharing
- economic justice
- social justice
- global cooperation
Is the sharing and cooperation to be voluntary or mandatory?
If mandatory, then who gets to determine the terms? Representatives elected by citizens? Those who understand Maitreya's will?
Is mandatory sharing really sharing (regardless of who sets the mandate)? Isn't sharing by definition a voluntary act?
"At this time of great political, economic, and social crisis, Maitreya will inspire humanity to see itself as one family, and create a civilization based on sharing, economic and social justice, and global cooperation."
Policy Goals:
1. Humanity should see itself as one family
2. Create a civilization based on:
- sharing
- economic justice
- social justice
- global cooperation
Analysis:
Goal #1:
What if humanity saw itself as one family?
The implied answer is that it would solve all the problems of our current "political, economic, and social crisis." It is assumed that everyone would take care of one another like family members do.
Only- not all families do take care of one another. But no matter- because what's assumed is that everyone would take care of one another the way GOOD families do.
So let's assume that happens...
In a good family there are parents and children. Parents set rules and expectations of behavior for their children.
Wait, what? You mean not all parents raise their children this way?
But, of course, we were talking about GOOD parents...
Uh, gee, who gets to define what constitutes a GOOD family, a GOOD parent, or a GOOD child in this "one family" that humanity is to see itself as?
Oh, of course: Maitreya will teach us.
But what if we don't agree with Maitreya's definition of a particluar requirement for GOOD?
Is our rebellious fate to be the same as it is for those who go against God's will- as revealed in the Holy Bible?
The question then becomes: what is the difference between Maitreya's will and the God of Abraham's will?
For now, let's just assume they are the same. Maitreya's "teaching" would be the basis for a correct definition of the GOOD.
In terms of public policy and a form of government, this would mean a theocracy. If not direct rule by Maitreya himself- then by those who know his will/his teaching.
If we are to live in a theocracy, what will it be like?
How can we find out?
We have to know what Maitreya's will is.
If it's the same as God's then those of us who know God's will - know what is expected of us as family members.
What? Wait a minute! You mean there's not a universally shared consensus as to what God's will is?
If we all behave according to Maitreya's teaching- then we won't need to have freedom of religion.
On the other hand, if we had freedom of religion we might have disagreement as to what Maitreya's will was- or we may have disagreement as to whether or not Maitreya even exists- or we may choose to follow someone else's teachings...
That would make consensus for humanity on how to behave as one family very difficult...if not every one followed Maitreya's teachings on how to do so
Will there be any rules in our 'one family'?
Let's see if there's an answer in the second goal:
Goal#2:
Create a civilization based on:
- sharing
- economic justice
- social justice
- global cooperation
Is the sharing and cooperation to be voluntary or mandatory?
If mandatory, then who gets to determine the terms? Representatives elected by citizens? Those who understand Maitreya's will?
Is mandatory sharing really sharing (regardless of who sets the mandate)? Isn't sharing by definition a voluntary act?
What Is a Non-Governmental-Organization?
From http://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html:
"A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level. "
Therefore, the terms NPO and NGO appear to be synonomous- at least I can't tell what the difference is - if there is one.
"A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level. "
Therefore, the terms NPO and NGO appear to be synonomous- at least I can't tell what the difference is - if there is one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)