A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

Excerpt from Chapter 7 -- Reforming the Legal System

Chapter 7 -- Pages 139-140

Let’s get back to the legal system reforms.  Lawyers in general, had allowed their industry to get completely out of hand in the late twentieth century.  There was no sense of law in what they did and ultimately there was a distinct lack of contribution, and I’ll go as far as to say ethics in their actions.  Lawyers were in my mind in the early twenty-first century, the biggest sponges on society and sucked more value and goodness out of American culture than any other group or professional sector in history.

Lawyers had taken the concept of right to defense and due diligence to overshadow any other aspect of their being.  Right to defense meant doing anything and everything possible to create a measure of doubt in the minds of the jury.  In worst case scenarios, they went as far as to corrupt the entire spirit of the legal system.  This situation of course was vehemently opposed by me personally as I could never see the value of taking advantage of weaknesses in the system and then to utilize that as a defense.  Also, there was the need for judges and government to correct the weaknesses in the system, rather than just exacerbating them and making the weaknesses even more pronounced, such that it became an open flood gate for inequity.

The premise of defendant’s rights was way more important than the victim’s rights.  I always thought this was a gross betrayal of the American legal system that the upstanding citizen that has been hurt by some part of society is not protected at a minimum as much as the defendant.  I fully support the notion that all people are equal before the law, but the victims have already suffered some type of injury and, as a result, should not be subject to increased subjugation during the trial phase.  Hence the emphasis on punishment and retribution for crimes committed.  The victim should always have a sense of justice and compensation upon a guilty finding.

As with the deterrence for frivolous lawsuits by citizens, lawyers who participated in bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit were penalized within the context of the legal system itself.  The legal group responsible for regulating the conduct of its own members embraced a position of contribution over time when they put in place a scholarly and principled type of person to deliver this mandate.  He devised a system whereby contribution was a measured quality.  Along with the new measurement criteria, lawyers were graded as to their competency across certain areas of expertise.  This ultimately led to the legal standards for compensation as well as an access point for people who had been the victim of criminal activity.

This point system was developed so that lawyers who brought forward legitimate cases, argued them in the context of the law and instituted new thinking in terms of the statutes were graded the highest.  Lawyers who brought forward frivolous lawsuits, argued them in context of non-legal issues and relied on precedent, were summarily given lower scores.  

Money As A Measure of Individual Value

Money is a great development to humanity.

Humanity by nature is extremely judgmental and money at least is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is still free to amass as large a fortune as they may want.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.

Why Does Justice Take So Long?

The entirety of the judicial process needs to be shortened such that criminal activity is dealt with in a reasonable and effective manner.

The most important thing that has to happen is that the time lines associated with the process must be shortened.

No criminal trial should ever last more than a year from the time of the infraction. This is possible if the following tactics are implemented. One, lawyers on either side are compensated by determining the truth. Two, the police are given broader abilities to investigate crime and to collect evidence and three the judiciary simply works harder.

Conceptually, the idea of plausibility has to be eliminated.  The notion of reasonable doubt has clouded the legal system as defense lawyers create any myriad of arguments to create an image of innocence. They genuinely create artificial circumstances to cast doubt on the guilt of the accused with no bearing on the facts at all. This should be considered a highly unethical and a catastrophic abandonment of legal principal.

Also, the legal system seems more than willing to take into account mitigating circumstances. Why? If the crime is committed than punishment is warranted.  Though one can argue as to the compassionate nature of our society by considering the factors that might lead to violent crime they should not be admitted as they just cloud the issue at hand i.e. guilt or innocence and take up time.

The first step to changing the system is to have lawyers on both sides of the process paid by how well they arrive at the actual circumstances of the case.  The notion of guilt and innocence needs to go away.  The defense is obligated to provide evidence it collects and witness statements including those from the accused into the trial.  The defense should never be considered a process to create excuses for the action, twist the facts and in worse case even create lies.  The accused also needs to be required to take the stand in all trials.


Lady Justice is symbolic of being blind to the equitable nature of who is the accused rather than being blind to the truth itself.  The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of judicial equality not one where the truth is incidental.

Post from the Road: Dallas Morning News

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas I will comment on the Dallas Morning News cover story regarding the alleged bribery scandal at Walmart in their Mexican operations.
----------------
One significant challenge all multinational companies face is adapting their current business practices to foreign cultures.

The Walmart story is a perfect example of just such a challenge. Walmart (it is claimed) paid bribes mostly in 2005 to local government officials in order to accelerate the process of Walmart expansion in Mexico.  Obviously bribery is an illegal business practice.

The second questionable behavior is in terms of Walmart's investigation of the in incident and the subsequent silence and evasion to regulatory agencies.

This second issue reflects the requirement for transparency in private companies and is testament to the need for the "Spirit of Law" mandate I set out in a prior post (April 12, 2012).  Companies need to at a minimum attempt to play by the rules and not try to hide findings purely for the desire of avoiding poor press and subsequent drops in share holder value.  It is inherent in any fairly run organization, that shareholders have access to truthful information in order to make educated decisions in terms of financial investment.  Executive level management has to come to believe in this philosophy and "the Spirit of Law" provisions would be useful in ensuring appropriate behavior. In instances like this though whereby obviously illegal activities are being undertaken then the Executives need to be liable and subject to criminal punishment.

The bigger issue of course goes back to the first point regarding the bribes. In the era when Sam Walton was in charge, Walmart was generally seen as an extremely admirable and ethical organization in context of its operations. Walton would never have authorized or condoned bribery as he knew that was bad for business in the long run. Short-term profiteering once again is just testament to the selfishness and shortsightedness of many of today's CEO's. It is also representative of the win at all cost too many of today's boomer possess overall in their attitude towards life in general.

American companies specifically have to become the role model for appropriate corporate behavior globally. There can be no challenge to put ethical agenda as a primary objective of business expansion. American companies have to be the benchmark on how foreign companies conduct their operations and also how foreign governments learn to work with them. Economic expediency can never be the only purpose of an American company in a foreign land. The era of exploiting foreign nations is long over.

Finally, as more and more countries around the world have access to capitalism then there is more and more competition for investment dollars. American companies have to be the ones that lead the way in making their profits honestly and ethically in countries where they operate. American companies have to embrace the mindset that if they do business in a foreign land then they have to bring the experience and advanced business knowledge to those regions in order to expedite global development. Successful business practices by these American companies will have positive influence over foreign areas and aide to bring them into a positive, honest and free market environment. Under this model, American companies can thrive by opering new markets without having to embrace the poor business environment that preceded them.

The notion of "ethical capitalism" I put forth earlier (February 28, 2012) is the future for American companies. Brand value and revenue streams will flow to the companies that operate in the most humane and honorable way possible. Corporate valuation and investor confidence will be given not from just domestic operations but international as well.

Bringing Back Ethics: "The Spirit of Law"

America needs to bring back morality and ethics into the private operations of corporations and in the mindset of individual citizens.

One hallmark of the modern world is that organizations, corporations and individuals try to find loopholes in the system that work for their advantage and then stand on the their principals and claim that they did nothing wrong when it blows up. This practice absolutely has to be ended.

The recent Wall Street meltdown is a primary example of this practice whereby the financial firms ultimately had a whole team of lawyers who tear apart every piece of legislation in order to find the gaps or the opportunities within the legislation that are open to them. They then proceed to find ways around the overseeing institutions such as the SEC in order to continue their actions. 

The obvious problem in this approach is that it undermines the intent of the legislation and results in border line illegal activities that benefit very few people but also serve to undermine society in general. Whether one sees intervention in the private sector as socialist or not it has been demonstrated time after time that if left to its own devices, the free market forces will do what is in their selfish best interest and then not be held accountable for any damage done to others.  They do this with a clear conscience as they are able to claim that they have technically done nothing illegal.

The issue is not that they have been able to usurp the legislation rather that what they have done, though not technically illegal, it is definitely 100% unethical.  Morality has gone out of the current American way of thinking.

However, in order to overcome this monstrous gap in America, weherby societal ethics have been abandoned by the "ME generation", what needs to be implemented are "Spirit of Law" provisions whereby the actual intent of the legislation is considered legally binding over and above the actual specifics of the legislation itself.

In today' world, it is pretty unrealistic to imagine that any legisaltive body would be able to create a set of rules that will cover every and all future situations that might arise or have yet to be imagined.

The "Spirit of Law" legal provision will make individuals and corporations legally bound to follow through on the intetnion of the legisaltion rather trying to find ways to circumvent it. Under the "Spirit of Law" mantra any entity that finds loopholes in legislation and then exploits them would be held criminally liable and subject to prosecution.

Americans have to embrace a mindset whereby they respect the intent and spirt of the US way of life rather than imagining ways to co opt it for their own selfish purposes. 

"Contribution" -- The Future is not so Bleak

More and more people want to be involved with the political system.

A spirit of disillusionment with all levels of government has crept into the psyche of many Americans.  In general, people want America to continue to be a global powerhouse but have lost faith in those who govern as well as our institutions.  This current spirit of disenfranchisement if permitted to continue will lead America further away from position as the worlds thought-leader as well as its economic engine.

The culture of selfishness that is the defining characteristic of the "ME" generation has lead to the place we are now.  This generation sadly has abandoned the spirit of JFK who requested of his fellow Americans to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".  I feel it is pretty safe to say that our current members of government and the financial elite of this nation do no think this way in the least.  This is not surprising that these same individuals have lived a hedonistic, self-centered life in terms of their own lives, careers and families.  They hold little regard or interest for their "fellow Americans".

This innate selfishness of the current generation of power-holding Americans however, is being over-shadowed by a movement that embraces compassion, contribution and personal responsibility within the under 30 group of Americans.  Younger Americans want to make a difference not only for themselves but for those around them and not just in their immediate sphere of influence.  Young people want to make a positive impact not only for themselves but for their neighborhood environment as well as the national and global communities.  

The "Occupy" movement was a tangible manifestation of this new spirit of Americanism that the younger generation feels.  However, where they stumbled was in their ability to properly articulate and coordinate themselves during their attempts to express their level of frustration if not outright contempt for the current systems.

Our next generation genuinely puts America first even if they don't know how to say that just yet.

"Contribution" as the foundation of ones personal success will be the hallmark of the new generation and is the correct future for America.

"Ethical Capitalism"...The Next Big Thing in Corporate Profitability

Corporate America is the foundation of America's strength.  The greatest hope for America are its corporations...really!


Many people would likely argue that corporations are self-interested, money-grabbing organizations devoid of any human empathy.  And, this is in fact in most instances is probably quite true. But, embedded inherently within that attitude lies the potential for that self-interest to make a significant positive impact on Americans.

The business movement that is currently evolving is that corporations will see increased profits as the direct result of benevolent actions. I refer to this as "ethical capitalism".

Case in point is the "green" movement.  As public pressure and business opportunities are created due to a demand for cleaner environmental initiatives then it has been demonstrated that this is an area where companies will focus their attention.  The decision by corporations to pursue profits in the environmental arena is a business one and not personal.  To my earlier point, businesses will naturally gravitate to the revenue opportunity and therefore environmental initiatives have become part of the American corporate mindset thus providing a strong sustainability platform for long into the future.


What should be the next step in the green revolution of profitability is that corporations profit more from doing societal-friendly activities.  From a marketing perspective, companies have long known that being seen as part of the community and a good corporate citizen is good for business. Companies will line-up for opportunities to sponsor charitable causes and to provide safe products because the consumer population demands them and it is good for their brand building objectives. Therefore, corporations know that the appearance of being a good citizen is good for business in terms of building brand value and from a product standpoint safety leads to a reduction in the number of law suits and reducing insurance premiums.


The next tactic then in the evolution of corporate contribution is to go well-beyond charitable support, fund-raising and brand building and to make resources and expertise available to the public at large.  For an easy example, one area where corporations can have a dramatic and immediate impact is in terms of disaster relief.  Whenever something happens around the USA the corporations should be the first ones on the scene to help.


The Hurricane Katrina flood in New Orleans could have benefited dramatically from local and national corporations by having access to their expertise in order to provide relief, rebuild the city and care for those affected by the devastation.  A wide variety of companies could easily have pitched in by providing human expertise, labor, supplies, management coordination rather than just providing funds or basic supplies like water and blankets.  Further, corporations are used to working within an integrated network of other companies and suppliers to achieve their goals which is something that governmental agencies cannot claim.  It would have been much easier for a home improvement retailer to work with engineers and contractors to rebuild parts of the city rather than having to wait for governmental resources to coordinate the effort.  Corporations also have the luxury of operating by objectives and have to be less considerate of public attitudes.


If corporations actually pitched in first-hand to actually address the immediate problems then they would be rewarded by increased brand recognition, sales increases and consumer loyalty...all of which which would lead to enhanced profitability and stock price for the company. The result of "ethical capitalism" is increased corporate benefits to the bottom-line through benefiting America.

The Real Value of Money

Money is a great gift to humanity.

Humanity by nature is judgmental and money is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth and our placement in society.

Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.

In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.

The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than savory manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.

Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.

Let me state clearly that anyone is free to amass as large a fortune as they choose.

Ethics though need to be re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.