ABSOLUTE EQUALITY - HEALTHY CITIZENS: APPARENTLY UNAMERICAN

5 May 2008

Is inequality the price we pay for civilization?

Most everyone confuses FAIR with EQUAL. We are told early on that, "life is not fair," which is no doubt a true statement. Neither life, nor society is fair; never has been, never will be. It must follow then, that if life and society is not fair, neither can be equal. FAIR and EQUAL are two very different ideas, and Equalism is not about fair.

In an April post I briefly approached the subject of absolute equality and Equalism. What is Equalism? To start with it is the second principle in the philosophical doctrine of Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Conduct of Government. It is, perhaps, the keystone in the arch of a Humanistic approach to government and politics. I will define it for readers more precisely.

"ism" is a suffix added to the end of a root word that means action, process, or characteristic behavior. It is a state or quality that can imply doctrine, theory, or a system of principles. Therefore, in the specific context of Humanistic Equalism, when "ism" is added to the root word equal, creating the term Equalism, the meaning is narrowly defined as describing the active practice and process concerning the doctrine and principle of equal, or equality. In other words, Equalism, is a system whereby absolute equality is actively applied.

When I was researching the word "equal" I discovered an interesting notation that turned out to be extremely important in crafting the narrow focus of this new term Equalism as it applies within the context of Humanistic Equalism. The notation to which I refer points out that until very recently the word equal has always been considered in terms of absolute equal -that two or more things were either equal or they were not. However the advance of Relativism seems to have thrown the "absolute" nature of equal into question. Therefore, so that readers have no doubt upon the matter, I chose to reclaim the traditional "absolute" nature of equal for use in regard to this newly developed political philosophy, wherein, Equalism means absolutely equal.

It means absolutely equal status, privileges, and rights for every citizen. It means that government must be the promoter and guarantor of absolute equality in its actions and functions. "Not possible," some readers are thinking. Perhaps that is true; it is especially true as long as citizens remain subjugated to protect and preserve the Status Quo. If, however, we, the people, reclaim and exercise the full force of our power, throwing out our current ineffective and corrupt government, and apply a new and different philosophical foundation to the framework of our United States Constitution, a true, meaningful, and lasting shift of power can and will occur.

I have established that life, society and government are not inherently fair; nor can human beings be forced to be fair by law or any other means. We live within a society of individual citizens that are by their very nature concerned first and foremost with self-preservation, their own needs, desires and ambitions. Society is a living body, a swirling jumbled mass of personal necessity and aspiration. One that is constantly changing and adapting. Government, on the other hand, is an institution, a creation and construct, man made and laid upon citizens. Thus far, as a general rule of human history, government is neither fair nor equal; how could it be in light of the facts?

Since "fairness" is a perception, a subjective judgement that can be facilitated by equal and may lead one to act fairly under certain circumstances, even in the absence of the condition of equality. Since fair treatment cannot be legislated or forced upon citizens in their dealings with each other; and since government is an artificial institution arising from the citizens in order to serve their various needs. I submit that it is the responsibility and duty of government to establish and maintain the condition of absolute equality with regard to its activities and functions, thereby providing equal treatment, consideration, enforcement, opportunity, support and choice for all citizens. That is to say, if our government is predicated on the condition of absolute equality of status, privileges, and rights for every citizen, it will by its very nature be fair.

For example, in an earlier post I introduced the Four Changes I am convinced that our nation must make if we are to have any hope of reversing the inexorable process of decline and eventual ruin now unfolding all around us. These changes are: Equal Taxation, National Service Benefit Development, American Citizen's Good Health and Care, and United States Universal Public Education. Every one of these changes depends on, and will only work if they are applied and affect every citizen absolutely equally. Everybody, including our Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution, agrees that equality is fundamental to human life and liberty; when it comes to the idea of equality everybody talks a good game. But the factual truth is very different.

Equality is great, as long as this group, or that special interest is, for whatever reason, treated a little more equal. Equality in the minds of certain pious persons, certain victims of abuse, certain members of government and, of course, all those that are among the wealthy powerful members of the elite minority faction ruling class is good so long as it does not infringe upon or threaten their position, their privilege and their expectation of being the "most" equal. As time goes forward I will discuss each of the Four Changes noted above extensively with relation to Equalism and equality. I am going to start with truly universal free womb-to-tomb health care for ALL citizens because it is such a huge issue in the 2008 presidential contest, and because the ignorance and stupidity preventing us from having free lifetime health and care is literally killing us.

Now that readers have a clearer and better understanding of what Equalism is, and what I specifically mean when I use words such as equal and equality it will make our next meeting and discussion concerning the condition and future of our health, our care, and our continuation as a nation much more meaningful. As a preview I will tell you that everything we are currently being told by the major presidential candidates is pure unadulterated smelly crap. Everything they say is a calculated lie, until we, as citizens, overcome our own credulity and ignorance, until we shut down and permanently prohibit such flagrantly fraudulent institutions and businesses known as health insurance companies, and health care providers, families will continue to fall into ruin, soldiers will continue suffering the fate of political deal making, and many, many more babes and children will die unnecessarily.

I am very anxious to know your thoughts and encourage readers to leave any comments they may have. If you think someone you know might be interested, you can email this post to them directly from here, and finally, while you are here and thinking about it please save "Shift of Power" to your bookmarks or favorites. I will communicate with readers again on or before 9 May 2008. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.

COPROMISE PART II: THE PROMISE OF CORRUPTION

30 April 2008

What is compromise? Is it a co-promise? Is it a promise to cooperate? Is it a commonly agreed upon promise? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd. Edition, indicates that compromise is a settlement of differences by concession; or combining the qualities of different things. Within the context of government and governing, I submit, that compromise is more about what is given up, rather than what is gained, that everyone loses, while only a limited few realize some degree of benefit; and, that compromise is the first act of corruption. How can this be?

Compromise, when all is said and done, can only occur between two people. Yes, more may be involved in the negotiations, but in the end the ultimate agreement is usually struck between two individuals that have enough power to enforce it. Conversely, two well-founded, well-developed ideas or plans cannot be compromised if either is to accomplish its purpose. For example, presidential hopefuls, Republican John McCain and Democrat, Hillary Clinton, are currently clamoring for a suspension of the federal tax on gasoline throughout the summer season; Senator Barrack OBama opposes the idea. He is against it for two basic reasons; it would not significantly effect the price of gasoline for average citizens, and the loss of revenue diminishes what can be allocated for infrastructure maintenance and repair.

I am not advocating for Mr. Obama, but he is right. If and when this issues comes before congress, some sort of compromise will be reached, and regardless of the final terms, average citizens will lose far more than we will gain, while a limited number of politicians and corporations will reap the greatest benefit. Think about it! Consider the compromises that have been reached about funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for S-CHP (State Children's Health Program) funding, and for the so-called "economic stimulus" package passed earlier this year. Each of these actions by our government were passed, some have been vetoed by President Bush, but all are the product of compromise.

One may argue that, had it not been for compromise, nothing would have gotten done. That may be true, however, it does not make it right, honest or effective. Because of compromise thousands of soldiers and civilians have continued to die, children and entire families are being denied health care- some of them will die as a result, and as many as two million citizens still face foreclosure, economic ruin and homelessness.

Reader's can argue until they are blue in the face about the need for compromise in legislation and government, but the the evidence of its harmful consequences throughout the course of our nation's history is undeniable and overwhelming. The growth and maturity of the United States; its industrialization, our inestimable wealth and nuclear domination of the planet is the product of compromise. By the same token, our increasing and immediate dysfunction, deterioration and decline are also the result of compromise. Compromise has made the United States of America what it is, and what it is not. Now, the question is, "How can government function without compromise?"

There must be a process. A process that makes all citizens the primary objective and beneficiaries, that will bring about the best results and effects for everyone. Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government contains such a process. It is a Three-question Test process. When considering final passage of any policy, legislation, or action lawmakers must ask and answer three questions:

1. Will this action or function cause ruinous harm to the dignity, value, happiness and progress of citizens' lives?
2. Will this action or function secure, without exception, absolutely equal privileges, status and rights of every citizen?
3. Will this action or function require and guarantee without exception, equitable, impartial application and enforcement to every citizen?

The answer to the first question must be No; questions two and three must be answered in the affirmative. If the response to any of the questions is qualified in any manner, is unclear or ambiguous, the action or function must be rejected as it is and debate resumed until it complies with the rules of the process. The objective of the three questions is to eliminate self-interest, special interest, greed and compromise; this would all but do away with the opportunity for acts of corruption and collusion. I will discuss this in greater detail at a later time. For now I ask only that readers think about it and consider the possibilities such a process could produce.

Throughout the coming days, weeks and months pay attention and make note of when you read, hear or see something about compromises, deals or agreements reached by congress or the president. When you do look into it, see who is gaining and who is losing. I will bet all the money I could make for the remainder of my life that in all instances average working people, common citizens, will always be the biggest losers and that politicians and the wealthy will always gain the most benefit.

I will communicate with you again on 4 May 2008, until then please be safe, let me know what you think and give Peace a chance.

James Tinsley, B.A.