Saturday, April 16, 2016

The Problem with #FeelTheBern

While Sen. Bernie Sanders certainly deserves credit for shining the light on wealth inequality in the 2016 Presidential campaign, the political revolution he repeatedly calls for has yet to materialize. The reasons for this are twofold.

The first reason the movement to #FeelTheBern hasn't and likely won't materialize in any real, substantive change that is best for all is simply because creating change in the system requires more than sharing inspirational messages on Twitter or even showing up to vote. It requires change within to be able to put oneself in the shoes of those abused by the system and then work towards implementing real changes that actually improve the lives of such beings to an acceptable level. Many Sanders supporters are comfortable posting something to Facebook, perhaps even donating money to his campaign, and then going to vote for the man in the primary. Perhaps progressive Americans have a short memory but voting for a single person and expecting change didn't work in 2008 and it won't work in 2016.

The second reason why Sen. Bernie Sanders isn't the savior we've been waiting for is that he, himself, hasn't undergone the changes necessary to understand what it takes to replace the current system with something that values all lives equally. This is not to fault the man, although Desteni has made the tools of self-change public for nearly a decade and, at this point, the choice not to utilize them belies a certain sense of self-deception... Thus, Sanders' approach is still rooted in the old ways of doing things and his mindset seems to be rooted in a certain nationalistic American exceptionalism that, unfortunately, puts him in the same playing field as all of the other candidates with their rhetoric of making America great, or greater, or the greatest. It's partly a reflection of the zeitgeist of today, but any call for revolution that seeks to maintain American superiority is bound to be short-lived. American superiority/exceptionalism/greatness (or whatever you want to call it) is inherently based upon the perpetuation of self-interest as if its pervasiveness was a cultural success.

To those who support Sanders' call for a revolution and are genuinely interested in a politics of equality, I suggest to first start with investigating oneself through the free, online DIP Lite course. Within, you'll learn the nature of the thoughts, emotions, and feelings that dictate our daily participation in 'life' and learn to CHANGE them and thus yourself into a more effective being capable of the compassion and empathy required to be a leader in bringing about a new world order. Did I mention its free?

For further investigation:
Desteni.org
Living Income Guaranteed
Self-Perfection Merchandise at EQAFE.com


Friday, April 15, 2016

Drop the Idea of a 'Universal' Basic Income

In a recent interview with Gawker, writer Rutger Bregman answers the question of why a basic income should be given to everyone rather than just targeted at those who need it.

He gives two reasons and both short-change humanity’s ability to overcome its image as petty and selfish. First, he argues that we should have a universal basic income (offered to everyone) because people would be more willing to support something if they were to gain from it. This seems to be a rather politician-minded approach to basic income inasmuch as it betrays a preoccupation with the optics of the policy- Bregman worries that people will not support something targeted at just the poor, even though they are the only ones who actually need a basic income.

Not only does this imply that we don’t believe people are willing to rise up to their best selves to support a program that will end suffering for others, but Bregman seems willing to actually change the policy itself to satisfy voters. One must then begin to question the soundness of the policy itself- and if we look at the math, it turns out a 'universal' basic income doesn’t make sense.

The second reason Bregman offers for universalizing a basic income is that it removes the ‘stigma’ of welfare, presumably because everyone receives the same amount. Once again, while Bregman’s efforts on promoting basic income are laudable, it appears as if the scope of his vision is limited in terms of the transformative change this policy offers to catalyze.

Basic income can be the cornerstone of a new society based upon equality and bringing about the best in each of us. In that sense, it can be the starting point for myriad transformative changes that go beyond the scope of this simple, poverty-eradicating measure. Finding a way to sneak it through Congress so that well-off people don’t get upset and poor people don’t feel stigmatized focuses on peoples’ transitory feelings about poverty and stops at that.

If we are going to get serious about basic income, we must drop the idea that it must be given automatically to all citizens. This is different than saying it shouldn’t be guaranteed to all that should require it. It’s simply not necessary to give it to everyone right off the bat- the money saved can be used elsewhere in better ways. Arguing otherwise on behalf of citizens’ petty prejudices and emotions is shortchanging society.

For assistance in dealing with the emotions and feelings that drive our everyday participation in society, check out DIP Lite.

For further assistance:
Desteni
Desteni Forum
EQAFE
Desteni PRO