The Why of Water!
After the collapse of the communist system, Capitalism assumed a pre-eminent
position. It appeared as though Competition had triumphed over the ideology
of co-operation, and that the self-interested individual reigned supreme, for
the egoistic individual would not be shackled, even by the collective voice
of co-operative enterprise. Appearances can be deceptive. It is certainly true
that the stifling atmosphere that surrounded the dark days of Communist rule,
were briefly alleviated by the twinkling stars of the capitalist night, and
in comparison even starlight appears blinding to a man who has lived his life
in a cave. One thing remains true, Freedom will not be chained. Just as the
shackles of the collective chains were thrown off by those who survived the
excesses of the communist era, so too the capitalist shackles of the economic
servitude will be thrown off, by a spirit that yearns for Freedom. So the question
arises, if not collectivism, and if not rampant individual hedonism, into what
can we invest our energies? Certainly the inner yearnings of both these systems
have at their core an inner truth that has warranted expression from the very
beginning of social conscience. The trick must be not to throw the baby out
with the bath-water. What I am assuming is that people enjoy the fullest exercise
of free will, and choice is at the core of any new system of thought that might
wish to take the mantle of a global system of economics, politics, and social
organization. I think this is born out in the overwhelming drive towards democratization
globally. There are however many different forms of democracy, from the most
conservative to the more liberal, and it is clear that democracy does not in
itself preclude the excesses of human nature. Rather it is the constraints placed
upon it through the legislative agenda by those who take up the reigns of power,
within the democratic process, that dictates to some extent what shade of democracy
one will practice. In this way the excesses of any one ideology can be kept
in check by populations who decide upon whom will be there servants for each
governmental tenure to the next. Democracy then works, and has an appeal to
free thinking individuals, not just because it empowers the general voting public,
but because it mirrors most closely, albeit imperfectly, the internal wishes
and drives of its constituents. The most notable of those drives being the drive
to express ones free will. A free will that finds a constrained form of choice
at least tolerable, when contrasted to the excesses of a totalitarian compulsion
achieved through either the extremes of communism or fascism. For this reason
the far right and far left inclinations of the human personality are left exposed
for what they are, extremist positions out of kilter and imbalanced. I do not
wish however to write here a diatribe extolling the virtues of democracy, for
as long as all due diligence is maintained by the voting assembly, the virtue
of such a system speaks for Itself. However, it is important to remember that
along with Power, comes responsibility, and further, along with responsibility
comes accountability. This is another reason democracy triumphs over and above
other systems. Because each public servant who assumes the mantle of power is
responsible to the electorate and is held accountable by that same electorate
come election time. This sits well with our own inner nature, and mirrors at
least in part the internal workings of the individual, and what a free thinking
individual demands of themselves. It is at this point I wish to turn my attention
to the nature of Capitalism, as it is seen in the modern political climate.
Since the demise of the Communist state we have seen the advent of Capitalist
democracies. It is often assumed that democracy and capitalism are one and the
same thing. This is a fallacy. Democracy is a system Robust enough to encompass
many economic agenda's. Lest we forget that it was under a system of proportional
representation, in a democratic state that Adolph Hitler came to prominence.
The economic agenda's and cultural peculiarities that can be encompassed under
a system of Democracy are as wide and varied as there are individuals to put
them there. It is for this reason I think it is prudent to realize that democracy
and capitalism are not necessarily mutually inclusive. It just happens to be
a historical fact that the American economic agenda was married so successfully
to the democratic electoral process. The American proclivity to emphasis all
things individual owes more to an economic treatise expounded by one Adam Smith
than from a democratic ideal. This said however, the two systems have successfully
for the most part cohabited for a good number of years. Yet the cracks have
begun to show. These cracks have been highlighted all the more of late, due
to the wider understanding Humanity has gleaned from the scientific understanding
of humanities part in the greater scheme of things. Adam smith had at heart,
a desire to crush the monopolies of the then 'Corporate' businesses owned by
the landed aristocracy in Britain, and give the working individual the chance
to establish his own small business and small private holding, unfettered to
the vested interests of larger Corporations. It is strange and somewhat ironic
then that the Current climate within the United States should be such that the
Modern Corporations seek to assume an economic power not rivaled since the British
enigma from which Adam Smith sought to emancipate the economic working classes
during his time. A cyclical economic event that Adam Smith may well have sought
to set us free from yet again. At heart the belief that the Individual is his
own best judge in matters of economic welfare was central to Smiths dream. The
road by which the individuals expression of that freedom, and internal drive,
was to be realized, was a capitalist one, and for the most part has worked quite
well for a time in concert with the political aspirations of free choice through
a democratic process. It is well to remember here though that the American model
was unencumbered by any historical baggage. Something that cannot be said for
the vast majority of cultural or national communities. Although as an addendum,
the capitalist fervor which gripped the American Nation left many casualties
in its wake, the demise of the native American Indian, and the free labor force
found through the slavery and servitude of the African American community for
almost 200 years being but two of those groups who have suffered at the hands
of a rapacious economic system which appears to pander and reward the most ruthless
and avaricious over and above those of a more community minded spirit. I do
not wish though to partake in a form of American bashing. This does no one any
good at all. Rather I wish only to highlight that the marriage of democracy
with capitalism is one of historical and cultural accident rather than any deep
underlying philosophical necessity. What the American model did bring to the
table however was the free market, and if for no other reason we should Thank
God for the success of the western Ideals over the compulsive attributes of
the communist era. The free market is indeed the crux of the capitalist agenda.
It has been wrongly assumed that the free market is the exclusive domain of
individuals and companies whose only drive is that of capital gain, or personal
profit. This is not the case. Lest we forget that the advent of the communist
system stemmed from as much a human drive for solidarity and brotherhood as
it did for a need for collective systematization. The form of this human Drive,
which for all intents and purposes is one of Co-operation as opposed to the
competitive drive embodied within the body politick of capitalism, unfortunately
could not survive a competitive exchange, given for the most part because it
has at its heart a wholly non-competitive instinct. It was doomed to fall from
its very inception, and the compulsion with which the totalitarians of the eastern
block maintained there grip only speeded its demise, and undercut the moral
standing with which it sought to ground itself. It was however a drive nonetheless.
As much a human characteristic as competition itself . It was the art to the
capitalist sport. Both are important characteristics of the human condition.
The free market then has up to this day been the province, almost exclusively,
of the Rapacious individual, and has been hijacked by groups of individuals
who have embraced the capitalist Credo, at the expense of a co-operative one.
This is not the fault of the Individuals at all. They are merely operating within
a system, the free market, along competitive lines. It cannot be the fault of
those who embraced a system that mirrors a belief structure within the human
character. Far from it, all that has happened to the free market is that it
has been operating in an imbalanced manner for too long. Community minded individuals
and groups often decry the fall of the Communist state, this is a mistake of
monumental proportions. Rather than looking back longingly at a failed system
of economics, whose despicable aspects of compulsion sickened even the saddest
of free thinking and freedom loving individuals amongst us, they should be enjoining
the free market, and entering into a spirit with which the moral high ground
of co-operation and community based initiatives can once again come to the fore.
The left should be taking the hand of the right here, and thanking them for
saving them from committing the social atrocity of economic compulsion over
and above the exercise of free will. Had Compulsion been such an attractive
proposition to begin with then the collapse of the communist state would never
have happened. This of course is not the case, for people want the freedom to
exercise choice, a God given choice that no man or system should take away.
Of course there are some exceptions to this, namely in the case of those with
diminished mental faculties, like children and the aged, who are more adequately
cared for by a society in a collective manner, so as to ensure no child or old
person falls through the cracks of a careless society. Yet for the most part
the freest exercise of personal choice should be welcomed not mourned, as is
so often the case with those of left political leanings. I wonder aloud here
whether it isn't the excesses of the current economic climate that has led to
many of the conflicts we see beginning to arise in the world, through such horrific
specters as terrorist organizations. If a state verses state ideology fails
to find a middle ground then the opposition tends to come from within, which
is exactly what the new forms of terrorism are really about. Being as they are,
Ideologically driven over reactions to an imbalanced economic and social global
system. The left is as much to blame for this situation as is the right. For
it is the excesses of a rapacious individualistic system that is too the fore
in contrast to the equally extreme positions of a terrorist network, hell bent
on its destruction. Yet it is the inability of the left to grasp the transition
and redress the imbalance, that has directly led to the advent of such groups,
as much as it is the rights one-eyed fixation on personal gain at the expense
of community based initiatives and concerns. So now the question arises, what
do we do about this imbalance and how do we under cut the impending disaster
that looms large before us? The answer has been with us all along. And takes
the guise of none other than the free exercises of personal choice, in a Peaceful,
non-combative manner. The construction of businesses set up not as agencies
for personal profit, but as redistributive networks constructed so as to compete
within the Free market for the consumer dollar, in the same manner as private
businesses do. What has been the lefts, or the co-operatives stumbling block
has been their mistrust of the consumer to decide for themselves where they
wish to place their economic emphasis. It has been ceded almost exclusively
to the Individualistic avarice of vested interests whose soul aim has been capital
gain. This has been a failing that can longer continue. The imbalance must be
redressed, before the situation of global market collapse of internal terrorist
led destruction drives humanity to the brink of extinction. It's not something
that demands any physical weapons, but rather the weapon of choice is choice
itself. Businesses constructed to compete for the consumer dollar, in such a
way that the profits taken are then; dispersed to the employees of the said
businesses in a competitive wage structure, Including the management who also
work for fair and competitive wages; along with the creation of a progressive
profit share scheme [ net profit: 1% to owner, 9% distributed evenly to employee's,
90% net profit re-invested into community works, charities, et al], whilst adequately
funding the growth of the company so that they can compete on equal footing
in a free market setting. It is in this way that the free market, and the individuals
that make up that free market can actively fund ethically based programs, and
use those same programs as the basis of their marketing and sales drive. What
is required is Trust in the consumer to make ethically based choices, something
that has up to this moment been seriously lacking in the capitalist Free market
agenda. It is no longer acceptable for the left to whine about the lack of compulsion,
and the right to act as though they have exclusive rights to a protected market
place. The time is ripe for the Consumer to be offered the choice between competing
products that have at their core divergent ideological emphasis. In this way
the economic reality will begin to mirror, albeit imperfectly, the personal
reality each individual recognizes as their God given right, namely the exercise
of free will in the use of their hard earned dollar. No compulsion is required,
no armed struggle, no terrorist activity, no restrictions on the exercise of
competitive industry beyond of course the already good legislation in place
that's limits monopolies, businesses with ecologically unsound practices, and
allows for a level playing field in the competitive FREE market place. I ask
you simply, if you are faced with two competing products, one of which you know
beforehand the profits are going into the hands of a vested few, and into the
pockets of an individual whose possible only thought is for the design of his
next super yacht, and another product, competitively priced and of equal quality
and quantity, but you know before hand that the excess profits are going into
some community based project, which will lead to the greater well being of the
community as a whole, which product would you buy? Whatever your answer here
it is obvious that you should be given the choice!, a choice that at present
does not exist. That is not to say that taxation should be abolished, for it
is not my intention here to propose such a thing. There are certainly situations
that demand collective action, and although taxation is a form of compulsion,
it is a compulsion that is of necessity required. Social security, however you
wish to coin that (police, fire services, etc) all being part of a social security,
health, education, care of the old and infirmed, mentally and physically disabled,
ecological upkeep, etc, all fall under the auspices of a possible universal
taxation policy. Yet in order to maintain a system and community in a manner
that one would wish to present to any future generation, and one that promotes
flourishing and that one can be proud of, either an ever increasing tax burden
must be shouldered or some other form of economic contribution must be found
to offset the ever increasing expense a modern society demands in bridging the
gap between the rich and the poor. I have said much here about community based
initiatives, with which the excess profits from companies set up with a community-based
agenda might contribute. I take it as obvious here that the entire earth is
of one economic community, and it is for this reason that many community based
initiatives will be put in place to fund projects that up until now have relied
solely upon the charitable inclinations of good hearted individuals. This is
not to decry the actions of such individuals, for they have been the lifeblood
of many charities and third world projects. Is it not time though that the economic
burden be lifted from the shoulders of a generous moneyed few, and be placed
in the domain of the average consumer? This spreads the burden of funding across
an entire community, freely. In a manner that does not tax the regular person
of good intention unduly. With the advent of ethically and community based companies
we see that even the person or family that struggles from day to day to meet
there consumer needs can be spending wisely the dollar that feeds them. It incorporates
a sense of community and invests the consumer with a power that hitherto has
eluded them. The empowerment of the economic electorate, in the choices that
they make mirrors in no small way the empowerment of the voting electorate within
the advent of democracy. It is a natural extension of such an internal drive
that is an intrinsic faculty of human nature. Charities for too long have shouldered
the burden for global initiatives, grossly under funded for the most part. With
the advent of community based companies this funding of often excellent projects
will begin to quite quickly bridge the gap between the richer and poorer communities.
The spin offs are likely to be numerous, for instance, a decrease of mass emigration
from areas thrust into poverty and immigration to higher socio economic areas,
in favour of staying put and investing ones energies into projects that seek
to help ones own community. Not to mention a decrease in the dissatisfaction
with the global economic agenda generally, thus undercutting the incentives
felt by disenfranchised individuals and groups of individuals who feel their
only form of protest is to take up arms in violent struggle within terrorist
organizations. The lack of sanitation, drinking water, arable land, education,
and health can all be addressed through a redistributive network. An economic
feed back loop the like of which the world has hitherto been lacking. A hand
up rather than a hand out, is what I envisage, although it must be said from
the outset that in order to get to a situation where one can grasp the hand
that is offered one needs to be strong enough to lift the hand in the first
place. It is for this reason that a feed back loop of this nature is required
to fund projects that set up the infrastructure in which individuals within
these struggling and impoverished communities can then begin to contribute themselves.
No person desires to be beholden to another for the necessities of life, most
wanting to contribute to the community of which they are a part, especially
if that community mirrors externally what they feel internally. Free will is
a universal, isn't it better that we create a situation where bye the disenfranchised
sector of the global community is re-incorporated back within a system that
both works for them and for others? Here is a way in which this can happen,
let no one be left behind. In this way, those who have suffered the excesses
of a rampantly individualistic economic order can be brought back into the fold
of a global community that desperately needs them in order for the globe entire
to survive. They can then be active contributors to the global economy rather
than as is the case at present an economic burden that appears to be unassailable.
We need them, and that must be the message we send, they are not a burden, they
are our family. Corruption is of course a major problem in the third world,
as it is in the first. The first world corruption is institutionalized through
a corrupt mindset that believes that the free market is the exclusive property
of the avaricious individualist. This is easily repaired and banished by the
construction of community-based companies. The corruption in the third world
however, has more to do with the mind set engendered through the corruption
in the first than it would at first appear. Often corrupt regimes are kept in
place so as to ensure the safe transit of raw resources by first world companies
set on maintaining a monopoly position in the market place. I do not wish to
broach this here, but suffice it to say that this corrupt practice can also
be overcome by way of the execution of true FREE choice by way of the informed
consumer, in tandem with global legislative process that seeks to create an
equitable environment for those people/consumers to exercise there free will
in making free choice. It is beholden upon the consumer to stay informed and
abreast of the choices that they make in a free market economy, in the same
way as it is for an electoral voter to stay abreast of the choices they make
in a democratic election. This is so because the power base is spread across
the entire electorate, and thus the ultimate responsibility is the voters as
it is the consumers. Accountability is no different within a democratic process
or a proper functioning free market. In democracy, the accountability for the
decision making process falls to each and every voter. Economically, within
a free market the abdication of this responsibility to businesses without ethical
grounding in no way separates the consumer from the Accountability for their
choices. In fact the consumer is directly accountable for the choices they exercise.
In this way companies must be made responsible for the actions they undertake.
It is the consumer that ultimately holds them accountable. With their purchasing
power. This must never be forgotten. For it is the fact that the consumer exercises
their purchasing power in a Responsible manner that ultimately leads to the
accountability with which companies must be held. I have already mentioned the
choice with which the consumer is given; ultimately this decides the fate of
the free market. In a climate where there is only one type of choice, namely
that for the private individual or group of individuals, the consumer is left
with a Hobson's choice, or no choice at all. Even though they may have a plethora
of product choices, the ethical grounding for each of these competing products
is in fact all of the same type, with the exception of course of ethically sound
and run businesses run by rare philanthropic individuals. It is this situation
that has led to the false belief that product diversity equals true market choice.
This is incorrect, for only when there are numerous ethically grounded choices,
can there be any real choice exercised within the free market. The philosophy
espoused here lends itself to any marketable product. It could work as much
for baked beans as it could for water, the example I have decided to use. All
that is required is that an Honest open approach is created before hand, that
is at once open and transparent to external scrutiny. The marketing tool with
which such a company enters the market place IS the ethical framework with which
it is established. For instance a rival baked bean company might set itself
up as a redistributor to the aged in a particular area or country. The product
should be of comparable quality to those already on the marketplace, and should
be competitively priced so as to ensure an equitable footing in the sales arena.
The only Marked difference being that the consumer is aware, through advertising
and the like, that this particular brand of baked beans re-distributes its profits
so as to maintain the upkeep of the company, and fund directly a public scheme
that benefits the elderly in a particular region. The profits do not go into
some fat cats wallet. Thus when faced with two products of similar kind the
consumer can actively choose where they wish there dollar to be spent. By this
means the consumer is then given a REAL choice in the exercise of there ethical
dollar, and the free market finally takes on an ethical dimension, hitherto
unseen in a private profit arena, except in cases of ethical businesses with
philanthropic owners or executives. I mention that the ethically based public
company should be open booked. This is to ensure that Trust is maintained with
the purchasing public. Trust is an essential ingredient in any process where
the individual abdicates their responsibility in favour of an organization,
which takes it upon themselves to exercise the wishes of that individual. This
is certainly true within the parameters of a Democracy and should equally be
true in an ethically based Free Market economy. Transparency is something that
is easy to maintain within an organization whose main aim is no longer personal
greed but public profit. It is the very transparency itself, which helps to
market the company in the market place, for a company designed to help the elderly
in a region, by selling baked beans for instance, has nothing to hide. In fact
the free dissemination of the facts and successes of the projects with which
they are involved, and with which by way of proxy the consumer is indirectly
involved, through funding, can and should be used as a marketing and sales tool.
As the company grows and the projects with which they have become associated
lengthens, the consumers trust for the company grows, and the credibility of
the company is made all the more apparent. So far from hiding the avenues down
which the company profits disappear, an open book policy seeks to strengthen
the connection and trust between the consumer, company and community in which
they operate. One of the abiding problems with relying solely upon companies
whose owners and executives are philanthropic and ethically based, is not to
do with the intent with which they are founded and run, for that intent is meritable
in the extreme, and entrepreneurs of the like are to be applauded for their
incredible efforts in bridging the gap that has unfortunately widened between
the rich and poor. However, no one person or small group of people, no matter
how beneficent their resolve and intent, should be expected to shoulder the
burden and responsibility that is by right each individuals. Although these
organizations have shown the way in some respects, it is time for the wider
community to take on the responsibility that they have abdicated to these ethically
based companies. The problem has been that although some individuals have been
empowered to a certain degree, in some cases enormously, this has not always
translated to the empowerment of the wider populous. Too many people who would
like to contribute but for a multiplicity of reasons find it impossible to do
so, due in part to budgetary constraints, or lack of real ethically based consumer
options, are left dis-empowered within the capitalist market system in which
they find themselves. If however a situation arose, which I advocate here, whereby
the everyday items and goods which people buy anyway, soap, mustard, baked beans,
water, etc in order to live normally within their communities were targeted
by the afore mentioned ethically based public project companies, then the private
everyday consumer would then be incorporated within the structure of free choice,
and a greater sense of empowerment would be spread across the entire community.
Even children could participate in making ethical choices with their dollar
when they decide between sweets at the local store. In this way the burden shouldered
by beneficent individuals with philanthropic concerns could be eased and spread
across the entire market place. So rather than one person or company being all
things to everybody, ethically. Everybody could make Free choices with their
buck, to both gain their daily bread, and at the same time support worthwhile
community projects with which they agree before they spend their dollar. What
I envisage is a multiplicity of companies, each servicing a specific need, rather
than one company doing it all, which is empowering to just a few. Empowering
the entire consumer base must in the end be beneficial, both in raising awareness
of the divide that exists, and in allowing every individual the ability to actively
contribute in the closure of this gap, without having to bust there budgets
to do so. Spreading the load across the entire community in a Free and transparent
manner, allows for everyone to shoulder the burden collectively, and thus each
individual has only to shoulder an incrementally small weight, rather than is
the case at present with philanthropists and ethical companies being asked to
take the full burden of the ever widening gap. This of course in no way precludes
those companies that wish to practice private industry for personal profit;
it merely creates a situation in which ACTUAL ethical choice is created. Private
companies will and indeed should still practice their own form of business,
after all, small businesses often make little more than a livable wage for the
owners and staff. They will be protected by virtue of the choices made by the
consumer in the Free exercise of their consumer dollar. In small communities
for instance many small companies will still be able to compete on an equal
footing due to community based market share, where those consumers that keep
them afloat know the workers and owners personally. However large corporations
are going to find it difficult to justify gross profit greed in the face of
competition from ethically based public project companies. They will be forced
to compete finally with ideologically driven companies in the free market in
a way that has only existed in a minority of cases. If their product and profit
structures stand the test of public scrutiny they will succeed, if however as
I suspect is the case in many instances they do not compare well, they will
be forced to either change their profit re-distribution process or suffer at
the hands of a newly empowered consumer base. Like the Dinosaurs they will be
forced to evolve or become extinct. The empowerment of the average consumer
is exactly the leverage with which this will come about, that empowerment will
come about by the construction and operation of ethical public project companies.
In this way every member of the community will have a say as to how the society
as a whole begins to evolve. This public empowerment through the free exercise
of personal choice in a free market, can only benefit the society as a whole,
and is a force that has up until now been the province of only the vested few,
and an increasingly divided few at that. So to recap, it is the free market
that offers the wider public the chance to herald a new form of economics, one
in which their God Given right to free choice is actualized and the choice to
use ones personal ethical concerns as a yard stick in the acquisition of basic
consumer products empowers not only the individual but the community as a whole,
and strengthens the co-operative qualities intrinsic to each human being whilst
at the same time functioning within the parameters of a competitive free market
environment. In this way funding for public works is ensured, and the truth
of the competitive and co-operative drives within each of us is no longer denied
or set against the other, but rather accepted and incorporated within an economic
system that no longer excludes, but includes, and throws out the mucky water
but not at the expense of the Baby.
Keywords: water, hydrogen, poem, poetry, poet,love, twin soul, philosophy, RMP, politics, Rich Parker, Richard Parker, Richard Michael Parker, richardparker, richardmichaelparker, richardmichaelparker.com, money, budstart, rosebud, dragon, dragonstale, forever, hair, tender, gift, loves tender gift, dragon tale, Taupo, Papamoa, lonely, autumn, twinsouls, twin souls, grace, charity, mercy, trust, peace, photography, faith, hope, circles, spring, face, face remains the same, twinsouls, solutions, true love, two loves, lovepoetry, London, UK, United Kingdom, Great Britain, GB, New Zeeland, NZ, down under, Kiwi, Maori