CC: Australia’s Anti-Abolitionist Super-Empowered 7
· Scott Morrison — Prime Minister
· Anthony Albanese — Opposition Leader
· Philip Lowe — Governor, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)
· Jennifer Westacott — CEO, Business Council of Australia (BCA)
· Innes Willox — CEO, Australian Industry Group (Ai Group)
· Sally McManus — Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)
· Peter McNamara — President, Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
Consistent with both the interests of the nation and their respective constituencies, each is potentially an Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS) Abolitionist who has a ‘license’ to advocate infrastructuralizing civility; however, ‘the status quo has many friends’.
October 31, 2021
Hi
The Civilisationism vision is:
‘Universal sustainable stability-prosperity maximisation’.
[Implicitly, this envisages humanity no longer facing a culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro- (SEE) catastrophes.]
Its attainment requires government adopting the mission of:
‘Exclusively maximising intra-country Cooperative-Competition (Coopetition) via maximising citizens’ country-contributive self-actualisation’.
And, in order to achieve this mission, it is hypothesised that Government’s goal must be to:
‘Exclusively create and administer infrastructure that
maximises citizens’ desire and capacity to Cooperatively-Compete (Coopete).’
From The Big Bang to Conscious Societal-Animals
The Competition to Survive
Just post-The Big Bang, there began manifesting bottom-up entities — i.e. ‘elemental particles’.
And, ever since this ‘existence inheritance’, The Universe has been a ‘playing-field’ for the most fundamental of time-linear quests: ‘The Competition to survive’.
[Note: Whereas time-linear ‘spans time’, time-lateral is ‘of the instant’.]
In turn, this Competition to survive often involves Cooperation.
For example, while a single quark won’t survive alone, 2 tri-quark configurations — i.e. neutrons and protons — are comparatively stable.
However, life’s evolution constituted a ‘Competition to survive’ revolution.
Life: The Competition for DNA-Configuration Survival
Lifeform-individuals consist of:
1. Mother-DNA
2. Its manufactured-ecosystem, which is externally-bounded by its membrane.
Yet, the Competition to survive is not specific to the mother-DNA or its manufactured-ecosystem or, even, the entire individual; on the contrary, via procreation, it is specific to the mother-DNA’s sequence or configuration.
That is, regarding The Universe’s Competition to survive, life’s revolution involved a transformation from the physical to the metaphysical — i.e. from substance to sequence.
Hence, life is a method for mother-DNA-configuration survival such that, with this DNA-configuration transcending the individual, the individual can decay, ‘die’ and be discarded yet the Competition to survive continues.
In this way, rather than individual organisms being inherently motivated for self-survival, the mother-DNA is structured to Cooperate with its manufactured-ecosystem so that its configuration may survive.
Moreover, there evolved species whose individuals, in the Competition to survive, Cooperated with one another — i.e. they formed ‘societies’.
Societies: Cooperation’s Supreme Manifestation
Societies exist from bacteria to conscious-animals (including humans).
Regarding multi-celled organisms, each individual is a ‘society of same mother-DNA-configuration cells’, which means a society of multi-celled organisms is a society of societies.
In societies:
‘Individuals sacrifice prioritising their own specific mother-DNA-configuration,
in order to prioritise the generalised mother-DNA-configuration common to those in their society.’
Regarding the process of Cooperation, this occurs via Specialisation.
Specialisation
The simplest version of specialisation relates to what we know as ‘safety in numbers’ — for example, in the case of bacteria, specialisation occurs in the form of relative location (and therefore vulnerability) with those closer to the outside environment providing protection to others between it and the society’s centre.
In the case of a single multi-celled organism, there can be radical cellular specialisation — i.e. a given cell may be expressed as a component of skin or an eye or blood or nervous system etc.
And, out of increasing complexity, there evolved ‘sentience’.
Sentience
Originally, sentience was confined to sensing physical pleasure/pain, which, at any given moment (i.e. time-lateral) was a mechanism for prioritising action.
That is, notwithstanding that pain is prioritised over pleasure because it can potentially lead to death, if an organism is simultaneously receiving 2 pain/pleasure triggers on different areas of its body, which may call for contradictory actions, it would prioritise the 1 with the greatest magnitude.
In the case of:
1. Physical pain, the action can be summed-up as, ‘stop it now’
2. Physical pleasure, the action is, ‘let it continue’.
However, this additional bottom-up motivation meant, in total, there is a dualistic Competition to survive motivation:
1. Top-down Cooperative societal-motivation — i.e. prioritise the societal-DNA-configuration
2. Bottom-up Competitive self– (i.e. physical pleasure/pain) motivation — i.e. prioritise the self-DNA-configuration.
Nevertheless, the societal-motivation dominated because it was continuous over time — i.e. time-linear — whereas the self-motivation was confined to the moment such as to be only time-lateral.
However, then there evolved conscious societal-animals.
From Conscious Societal-Animals to Humans
Conscious-Animals
Whereas the simplest sentient-animals’ sensing of physical pleasure/pain is confined to and does not transcend the moment, which means they neither have a recollection of it nor can learn from it, consciousness is a time-linear phenomenon, which allows contextualisation, memory-construction/recall, learning, generalisation and even, via ‘cutting and pasting’ memories, projection, which enables foreseeing and planning.
This means conscious animals can imagine physical pleasure/pain scenarios, which, in turn, provoke indirect pleasure/pain — i.e. what we term, ‘emotions’.
For example, an individual may become angry after perceiving another’s action as careless because it could cause physical pain.
Thus, in the case of conscious-animals, the Competition for survival is time-linearly dualistically prioritised as:
1. Top-down Cooperative societal-motivation — i.e. prioritise the societal-DNA-configuration
2. Bottom-up Competitive self– (i.e. physical and emotional pleasure/pain) motivation — i.e. prioritise the self-DNA-configuration.
This means, in conscious-societal-animals:
‘Societal top-down Cooperation clashes with individual bottom-up Competition.’
Nature’s remedy was that conscious-societal-animals evolved ‘social glue’ emotions such as affinity, love, empathy, yearning to belong, longing for company (i.e. loneliness) and trust, which may be summed-up as a craving for something greater than their self.
In this way, ‘societally-contributive self-actualisation’ is usually natural.
Nevertheless, there are exceptions, which we know as ‘psychopaths’ and ‘sociopaths’.
Psycho/Sociopaths
Psycho/sociopaths’ ‘self-actualisation’ involves maximising their self-benefit such that, without remorse, they will willingly sacrifice other individuals or even the group should they perceive it as favouring their self.
That is, they will only Cooperate to the extent they think it will help them Compete.
In the case of psychopaths, they are born that way and, in the case of sociopaths, they have adopted this insensitivity.
Nevertheless, typically, conscious-societal-animals’ behaviour is conditionally Cooperative-Competitive (Coopetitive).
Cooperative-Competition (Coopetition)
Nature’s Coopetitive intra-group ‘rule for interaction’ is:
Competition
subject to
the foundation of Cooperation.
In Coopetition, intra-societal Cooperation is prioritised above intra-societal Competition because:
1. Without it, the society will fracture and fragment
2. The society provides sustenance to its individuals.
Under Coopetition, individuals can safely and inclusively learn, practise, experiment, create and test themselves — i.e. so long as they Cooperate with other individuals, they are empowered to self-actualise.
Correspondingly, Coopetitors have evolved both to crave the security of Cooperation but also the vitality and dynamism of Competition — for example, play.
Accordingly, individuals must be encouraged to Cooperate yet empowered to Compete — how and to what degree they Compete depends on their motivation.
In this way, they are hard-wired to expect Coopetition such that they have an inbuilt sense of fairness.
While their own pleasure/pain is important, Coopetitors will often sacrifice it for the benefit of the group — for instance, no matter the hunters are tired, the hunt continues until there is enough food for the dependents.
Meanwhile, the group also benefits from efficiently organising individuals as merit-based specialists — for instance, some to look after the young and some to get food.
In this way, ‘society-contributive self-actualisation’ and ‘specialisation’ correlate.
Hence, increasing Coopetition increases both individual’s happiness and the group’s strength — i.e. a win-win.
Thus, Coopetition constitutes a ‘natural-morality’, which is consistent with both many human religious- (or, supernatural-) moralities and secularised ‘human-rights’.
In this way, there is a default toward societal Coopetition-maximisation.
Societal Coopetition-Maximisation
Societal Coopetition-maximisation occurs when:
The conditions for Competition are maximised
subject to
the foundation of Cooperation being maximised.
Thus, in nature, while societies are constantly subject to change both internally — i.e. as individuals are born, mature, decay and die — and externally — i.e. due to environmental changes — there is normally a default convergence not only to Coopetition but also to Coopetition-maximisation.
And, regarding Coopetition’s Competition component, this is maximised when individuals are fully empowered to Compete — i.e. their desire and capacity to Compete is, subject to the Cooperation foundation, unleashed.
The result of societal Coopetition-maximisation is societally-optimal-specialisation.
Nevertheless, Uncooperative-Competition or ‘anti-Coopetition’ can still occur within societies.
Intra-Societal Anti-Coopetition
While intra-societal anti-Coopetition represents ‘societal-illness’, nevertheless, its occurrence from time-to-time is also normal.
It often occurs due to scarcity, which leads to disagreement.
For example, environmental pressures — such as not enough food or space — may mean the society is better-off splitting-up.
Internal pressures — for instance, regarding mating — may also lead to societies cleaving apart.
However, one way or another, intra-societal anti-Coopetition must be resolved so that the convergence toward Coopetition-maximisation can restart.
If subject to extreme anti-Coopetition then individuals will be traumatized and, if subject to sustained long-term anti-Coopetition, they will suffer mental-illness.
In the case of psycho/sociopaths — whose ‘self-actualisation’ involves maximising their self-benefit including via controlling others — they will opportunistically swivel between direct and indirect anti-Coopetition. Regarding indirect anti-Coopetition, this involves them feigning a Coopetitive intent such as via manipulating through charm.
In the case of humans, eventually, they reached a point where they began differentiating themselves from other animals.
Human-Organisation, Science & Technology (HOST)
Humans are differentiated from other animals via their employment of the human-leveraging tools of HOST:
1. Human-Organisation (HO) — ideally Coopetition-maximisation consistent
2. Science (S)
3. Technology (T) — including using other animals as tools.
Of HOST’s 3 elements, Human-Organisation is supreme because, while S&T are Coopetition-neutral, Human-Organisation can exist on a spectrum spanning Coopetition-maximising to anti-Coopetition anarchy.
Hence, regarding S&T, Human-Organisation determines:
1. Whether it develops (or stagnates)
2. Its degree of development
3. How it develops
4. How it is used — for example, nuclear power for electricity or detonations.
Coopetition-maximisation optimises the use of HOST.
And, out of S&T there arose the conceptual innovation of farming followed by the Human-Organisation of settlement, in which HOST became no less than the most revolutionary phenomenon since life.
From Human ‘Societies of Strangers’ to The Industrial Revolution
Human ‘Societies of Strangers’
With settlement only suitable in (and best suited to) particular locations (for example, where there was fresh water and fertile soil), people began congregating.
These congregations delivered advantages in production, ‘safety in numbers’ and social-interaction.
Thus, via their success, there arose ‘societies of strangers’.
And, as societies of strangers increased in size, within the Socio-, there bottom-up emerged a new Coopetition phenomenon — the Econo-.
The Econo-
The Econo- evolved as a system to ‘exclusively produce and distribute the goods & services humans needed/desired’.
If one produces for oneself or one’s family — such as cooking a meal — then that is not part of the Econo- (also, contemporarily, not included in GDP); however, if one produces for others in exchange for payment then that is part of the Econo- (which means, GDP goes up when people pay others to cook even though there is no increase in production).
[Note: The Econo- is emphasised because, though it disproportionately degrades the natural Enviro-, slices are captured by the Government through tax, Capitalists through profit and Paid-workers through wages.]
The Econo- is characterised by:
1. Ownership (including of land)
2. Transactions, which were, originally, in the form of bartering
3. Specialisation by labour in production.
The Econo- disproportionately both used Human-Organisation, Science & Technology (HOST) and drove its innovation.
Lastly, the Econo- is optimised via Coopetition-maximisation manifesting in the form of the market in which, via its ‘invisible hand’, HOST is optimised such that specialisation, self-actualisation, creativity, entrepreneurialism and reward for personal effort are all propelled.
And, assuming the level of Coopetition remains comparable, the Econo- exponentially thrives on an increasing population — i.e. there are tremendous ‘economies of scale’.
Nevertheless, while in the case of small tribes, Coopetition-maximisation is the default, as a society’s population increased, eventually, there arose ‘societies of strangers’.
Society of Strangers’ Anti-Coopetition
As a society’s population increased, there was also an exponential breakdown in affinity, trust, empathy and, therefore, Coopetition, such that Coopetitive behaviour became increasingly confined to societal subgroups such as extended-families.
That is, with rising intra-societal anti-Coopetition, there was increasing thieving, wounding, enslaving (particularly of women) and killing — i.e. rather than empowerment, there was theft of property, freedom, health and life.
However, despite this sustained increasing intra-societal anti-Coopetition, due to ‘big’ society’s extraordinary benefits, there was a bias against societal splintering.
Thus, there evolved 3 main anti-Coopetition counterbalances.
First, cultural commonalities — for example, the handshake.
Second, trust, empathy and ‘good deeds’ were buttressed via religion, which from animism — in which the ‘unexplainable’ was ‘explained’ via allocating decision-making spirits to the inanimate — evolved to morality-instructing (or, moralism) religions first as pantheons and then as monotheistic theologies.
Third, there evolved government.
Government: The Coopetition-Maximiser
Government is a law-maker, implementer, administrator and adjudicator, which, ideally, maximises Coopetition.
In order for government to Coopetition-maximise its society:
1. Its laws must be such that Coopetition is maximised between its bottom-up entities so all are institutionally Empowered and none are Disempowered including addressing ‘natural monopolies’
2. It must not directly Compete with bottom-up entities (though, bottom-up entities may Compete with government — for example, contemporarily, this often occurs regarding schooling).
[A ‘natural monopoly’ is when a single entity can perform a task more efficiently than a multitude of Competing entities — for instance, roads or a police-force.]
Government must not Compete with bottom-up entities because:
1. As the top-down Coopetition-maximising legislator — including of the Econo- (including taxation) — if it also Competes, there is an inherent structural conflict-of-interest, which means there is a potential for corruption
2. Compared to bottom-up entities, it is supremely advantaged — for example, it is perpetual such that it cannot go bankrupt
3. Given there are so many bottom-up entities, except in natural-monopoly cases, even if the government isn’t corrupt and is subject to similar circumstances as other bottom-up entities, it adds next to nothing to have one more.
However, when the first government arose — perhaps more than 6,000 years ago — in The Fertile Crescent, its purpose wasn’t conceptualised as a means of maximising societal-wide Coopetition.
In this way, rather than humans possessing and following a Coopetition-maximising narrative, government bottom-up evolved via nature using humans as its ‘instrument’.
Consequently, this fermented 2 types of governmental corruptions:
1. Anti-Coopetition formation — i.e. what we term, ‘Authoritarianism’
2. Anti-Coopetition governing.
Authoritarianism
Government is vulnerable to becoming Authoritarian because:
1. While its ‘natural’ purpose is to achieve Coopetition-maximisation amongst bottom-up entities, pseudo-paradoxically, it gives those people who become governors top-down monopolistic power
2. Authoritarianism is supremely attractive to psycho/sociopaths — who can self-actualise via it — and, similarly, as per the dictum ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, it is also a sociopath cultivator
3. Authoritarianism is most efficiently gained and held via anti-Coopetitive centralised ruthless manipulation and decisiveness.
Fortunately, though, there exists a Coopetition-maximising antidote to Authoritarianism, which involves a Cooperative rules-based foundation upon which people Compete for governing positions — i.e. Democracy.
However, at the outset, with neither the Coopetition-maximising narrative or the Democratic institutions existent, government defaulted to Authoritarianism.
Authoritarian Motivations
Rather than Authoritarians’ goal being to Coopetition-maximise their communities, it typically devolves to anti-Coopetitive greed in the form of lust for personal lifestyle-extravagance, glorification and power including via territorial-expansion.
Correspondingly, they tended to prioritise their family by, typically, setting-up monarchies.
And, to these ends, Authoritarians’ survival — let-alone expansion — was near totally dependent on:
1. Their control over the Econo-.
2. The relative success of the Econo-
Thus, while most people — who were hunters and gatherers and/or subsistence farmers — didn’t need the Econo-, Authoritarians were absolutely dependent upon it.
In this way, due to Authoritarianism, the Econo-, though a subset of the Socio-, first had its status anti-Coopetitively elevated above the Socio- (and the Enviro-).
The Authoritarian’s Perverted Econo-
While Authoritarians were tempted to confiscate all that they wanted, since they were dependent on the long-term Econo-, they soon found it worked best (for them) when there was a Rule of Law framework upon which there was allowed unrestricted Competition — i.e. Coopetition-maximised markets.
However, Authoritarians still distorted the Econo- via:
1. Tax (i.e. confiscation) — whose expenditure frequently didn’t benefit taxpayers and, on the contrary, often paid for further harassment
2. Slavery (including conscription)
Part of this was used to finance
1. Econo-related ‘natural monopoly’ investments
2. Non-Econo- personal desires including conducting opportunistic warring.
Hence, with the Econo- a means for Authoritarians to achieve their ends, it was perverted from ‘exclusively producing and distributing the goods & services humans need/desire’ to being something Authoritarians manipulated for their personal benefit.
Meanwhile, Human-Organisation, Science & Technology (HOST) innovation directly underpinned the success of both the Econo- and, partly via the Econo-, war.
Thus, driven by the Authoritarian’s top-priority of maintaining and expanding personal power, via conquest, there emerged massive empires, which soon spanned all known territory such that, among other things, it became impossible for one group to peacefully separate from its empire.
Nevertheless, while Authoritarians could control vast territories, most people’s lives continued to be communally-oriented — i.e. most people’s reality was usually confined to their local communities.
Thus, while in awe of the Authoritarians, their Coopetition loyalty was to their community not the empire.
One exception to the masses’ relative autonomy was the Authoritarian anti-Coopetitive example of ‘might over right’, which permeated all society perversely sickening the collective mentality by making it accepted, expected and, even, justifiable.
One manifestation was as snobbery in the form of ‘class’.
Then, there arose the Industrial Revolution.
From The Industrial Revolution to Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS)
The Industrial Revolution: A Transition from the Communal to the National
The Industrial Revolution (c. 1760) was characterised by a transition, via the Econo- (but extending all-pervasively across the Socio-), from the communal to the national.
Regarding production, there arose a voracious demand for subsistence-farmers to become paid-work machinists — i.e. instead of, for example, growing potatoes for self-consumption, they were encouraged off their farms and into factories to produce clothes that could be consumed anywhere in the country or even exported.
And, with machinists earning money-income, they also became consumers in the national Econo-.
In this way, the Industrial Revolution was a crystallisation to the national level of Human-Organisation, Science & Technology (HOST), whose great promise was and is (since it remains unrealised) a global universal ‘fun-fair’.
The Universal Fun-Fair
The Industrial Revolution’s universal fun-fair promise was (and is) the realisation of the Civilisationism vision’s 3 components:
1. Sustainability
2. Stability — i.e. peace
3. Prosperity — i.e. abundance including the progressive prevalence of previously undreamed-of goods & services.
However, achieving this is dependent upon optimised Human-Organisation — i.e. Coopetition-maximisation — spanning the national, even international, spheres.
[Regarding the international, contemporarily, the natural tendency toward Globalisation is coming under pressure from anti-Coopetitive forces.]
In this way, there would not only be universal ‘citizen country-contributive self-actualisation’, it would be maximised and specialisation would be optimised.
However, in order for this universal fun-fair to exist, every citizen needs to receive an Industrial Revolution inheritance consisting of a guaranteed perpetual Coopetition entrance (or inclusion) ticket.
That is, every citizen needed to be Empowered (and their loyalty to their country compensated in advance) with a ‘Coopetition-inclusion ticket’.
However, governments still hadn’t (haven’t) Coopetition-maximised their countries.
Anti-Coopetitive Industrialisation
With still no Coopetition-maximising narrative and, in any case, anti-Coopetitive Authoritarians still in control, rather than an emphasis on stability, sustainability and prosperity, on the contrary, war was industrialised, no thought was given to industrial sustainability and the upper-class still wished to monopolise prosperity.
The result was a ‘mixed bag’, which is rapidly losing its bottom, consisting of exponential growth of output, inequality, population and S&T.
Meanwhile, with Authoritarians now reliant on the Industrialised Econo-, they continued largely leaving it to the wealthy land-owners from which there emerged the new class of Capitalists.
However, compared to their land-owner predecessors, Capitalists faced a very different labour-market dynamic.
The New Labour-market Dynamic
Regarding labour, Capitalists:
1. Had an insatiable desire for it
2. Needed it centralised into cities, in general, and factories, in particular.
Hence, aspirational would-be Econo- participating Paid-workers flocked to the cities.
And, in so doing, they joined society’s other 3 non-subsistence-farming major groupings — the Authoritarians, the Land-owners and the Capitalists — in perceiving the Econo- as being elevated above the Socio-.
Thus, regarding the national labour-market, with it now the pivot to the Econo-, it also became the key to all society’s Socio-Econo-Enviro- (SEE) aspects.
Meanwhile, out of the new labour-market, there arose a new form of Disempowerment.
The New Empowerment/Disempowerment Divide
To be Disempowered means, in the case of:
1. Typical citizens, they are unable to prioritise ‘country-contributive self-actualisation’
2. Psycho/sociopaths, they are unable to prioritise ‘self-actualisation’.
Regarding the labour-market, when community-dwelling subsistence-farmers moved to the cities to become factory-machinists, they gave-up direct-control over their survival-needs such that, over time, they lost their ancestral subsistence-farming land, community and skills.
In this way, with the masses disconnected from their previous subsistence-farmer lifestyle, they became subject to a new particularly insidious type of anti-Coopetitive Human-Organisation — i.e. a new form of slavery — which is here termed, ‘Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS)’.
From Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS) to Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
The Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS) Disempowered
The Coopetition-maximising solution to Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS) was (is) The Universal Survival Income (USI).
However, Coopetition-maximisation is government’s task and they didn’t (haven’t) implemented it.
Hence, ISIS created an anti-Coopetitive divide — i.e.:
1. The Empowered (the Authoritarians, Land-owners and Capitalists)
2. The ISIS-Disempowered, which included both Employed and Unemployed.
The ISIS-Disempowered were such that if they didn’t ongoingly receive a drip-feed of Survival-money-Income, they would likely die, which meant they either had to engage in the labour-market or beg or steal.
Accordingly, the Disempowered’s interaction or prospect of interaction with the labour-market was (and is) a life-dominating obsession, which is crucial to everything from their direct-survival to their social-status to their self-image to their mental-health to avoiding loneliness to their prospects of finding a partner to intergenerationally projecting (into the future) their mother-DNA configuration.
Thus, the labour-market was (is) ISIS-corrupted anti-Coopetitive.
The ISIS-Corrupted Labour-Market: Exploitation of the Disempowered
While markets maximise efficiency, efficiency is only desirable when Human-Organisation is Coopetitive — preferably Coopetition-maximising.
For example, the Nazis had a number of very efficient yet very anti-Coopetitive systems.
Thus, while if not for Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS), Capitalists and Paid-workers interaction would have predominantly been Coopetitive, due to the labour-market being filled with masses of ISIS-Disempowered, it constituted an ISIS-corrupted labour-market, which, therefore, resulted in many of the vulnerable being exploited.
That is, while most Capitalists, as they should, Cooperatively-Competed in the market against one another, the natural profit incentives to maximise efficiency led to exploitation of the ISIS-Disempowered.
In this way, perversely, the most ruthless Capitalists were advantaged.
Hence, the ISIS-Disempowered were frequently subject to Unnecessary Suffering starting with extreme poverty and/or horrific paid-work conditions.
Thus, the ISIS-corrupted labour-market is the genesis, 260 years later, of our increasingly polarising Left/Right divide and its fragmentation into identity self-protection groups and combative ‘gangs’.
And, because ISIS and, therefore, exploitation were never eradicated, businesses have been legislated into becoming part social-service organisation with outsized HR, Accounting and Legal departments, which means they’re inefficient, which, in turn, means less prosperity for society including less tax for government. Yet, to come full-circle, because ISIS still exists, exploitation is still rampant.
Most consequentially, ISIS is still our greatest impediment to achieving Coopetition-maximisation, which means it is the greatest impediment to achieving societally-optimal-specialisation — i.e. maximising country-contributive self-actualisation — which, in turn, is the cause of our culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro- (SEE) catastrophes.
For instance, due to suboptimal Coopetition, S&T progression is frequently counterproductive such as to be leading to a plethora of ‘own goals’ — for instance, Covid (the lab leak), Enviro- Armageddon, Crime (white collar), Escapism (drugs) …
Regarding the Enviro-, ISIS has fuelled:
1. Destruction of the natural Enviro- — for instance, global population has increased 10-fold in just 260 years or 13-generations predominantly due to income-insecurity as subsistence-farmers are reliant on children for both cheap labour and their old-age pension
2. Deterioration in the international Enviro- — i.e. with Democracies failing to be all they can be and, on the contrary, demonstrating vast increasing divisiveness, Authoritarian-Illegitimates have benefitted.
Returning to the historical chronology, with society conditioned to ‘might is right’, the ‘bread-winner’ became the household Authoritarian and prejudice against those adults not in the Econo- — either as an employer or in paid-work — extended to those confined to exclusively caring for dependents (such as ‘housewives’), those with a disability and the retired.
In this way, ISIS further cemented the Econo-’s status above the Socio-.
Meanwhile, the ISIS-Disempowered felt alienated from society to the point of resentment, which is a precursor to anti-Coopetitive behaviour.
In this way, while some unwillingly were forced into crime, others self-actuated their resentment into wilful crime or even revolution against the authorities.
Nevertheless, Paid-workers as concentrated masses of Aspirationals, were also collectively powerful and so, in a new kind of Civil War, like a motivated army with, in any case, retreat impossible and surrender not an option, they fought-back.
ISIS-Disempowered Paid-Worker Fight-Back
The ISIS-Disempowered fought back against exploitation in 2 main ways:
1. Revolution: Communism (a top-down structure)
2. Incrementally: Trade-Unions (bottom-up structures).
Regarding the former, Communism is a juxtaposed form of anti-Coopetition.
That is, whereas most anti-Coopetition is usually Uncooperative-Competitive, Communism is, in a direct sense, Cooperative but non-Competitive — i.e. in the Econo-, companies don’t Compete in a market.
However, because Communism involves people losing their freedom, they are, in an indirect sense, incited to Uncooperative-Competition.
Thus, because Communism is so unnatural — i.e. extrapolating away from Competition — though it has been attempted fanatically and in numerous guises, the only way to maintain it is via the usual anti-Coopetition of Authoritarianism.
Trade-Unions
In contrast to Communism’s top-down anti-Coopetition system, trade-unions are bottom-up entities, which are Coopetition-maximisation consistent — i.e. in a Coopetition-maximising environment, trade-unions are natural paid-worker representing entities.
Accordingly, they have been crucial to the evolution of Coopetition-increasing manifestations such as Universal Rule of Law, Democracy, Education and Healthcare.
However, absent the Coopetition-maximising narrative, as with Democracies, trade-unions didn’t necessarily act in a Coopetition-maximising manner.
In particular, absent the ISIS narrative, trade-unions didn’t (and still haven’t) become ISIS-Abolitionists demanding it be ended.
Instead, focused on representing their paid-worker members, understandably, their core demands — confined to their members’ enterprise, trade and industry — relate to safety, conditions and, especially, salary.
Regarding salary, they successfully advocated for Minimum Hourly Wages, which were eventually universalised (first, in 1894, in New Zealand) as Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW).
From Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) to Country & Citizen Mental-Illness
Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
The government decision to legislate UMHoW was humanity’s post-Industrial Revolution ‘sliding-door’ dystopian moment.
That is, while government could have vanquished ISIS by implementing The USI, which would have led us (and still can lead us) to the vision of ‘universal sustainable stability-prosperity maximisation’, instead it left ISIS to fester, which has led to our culminating perfect storm of exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro- (SEE) catastrophes.
UMHoW’s main benefit is that it may ensure a person who has full-time paid-work also has in excess of a Survival-Income. In addition, it may also be helpful for those with part-time and intermittent paid-work.
However, in terms of the labour-market — which is in equilibrium when demand equals supply and there is, therefore, full-employment — UMHoW decreases labour demand and increases labour supply thereby creating Unemployment & Underemployment.
Hence, instead of the Econo- being to ‘exclusively produce and distribute the goods & services humans need/desire’, in addition to the Authoritarian perversion and ISIS perversion, it has also been UMHoW-distorted.
This UMHoW labour-market distortion also created a new source of resentment amongst both:
1. Business who are competing with each other in the goods & services market yet are restricted from efficiently Competing in the labour-market
2. The Unemployed/Underemployed who resent their situation.
Thus, eventually, there was agitation for income-Welfare, which is a form of ISIS-Band-Aiding.
Band-Aiding
With ISIS festering and its symptoms debilitating, there emerged a Band-Aid culture.
Band-aiding is a treatment of symptoms rather than core problems, which is, therefore, necessarily Coopetitively-suboptimal.
That is, Band-aiding can never be both citizen and country (2-way) beneficial; on the contrary, at most, it can only be 1-way beneficial for some citizens.
Hence, Band-aiding usually creates budgetary pressures for governments because, usually, any generated societal return is less than the outlay.
In contrast, examples of country and citizen 2-way beneficial policies are:
1. Universal Rule of Coopetition-maximising Law
2. Universal Liberal Democracy
3. Universal Education
4. Universal Healthcare
5. The Universal Survival Income (USI).
For instance, with Universal Education, societies can expect to be manifoldly more prosperous despite its financing because, in this case, the outlay is an Investment in which the Return-on-Investment eclipses the initial outlay.
Income-Welfare
Income-Welfare consists of pensions (especially aged and disability) and Unemployment-benefits.
And, with income-Welfare often a disproportionate fraction of the budget — i.e. in Australia, it is normally over 30% of the Federal Budget — governments are tremendously incentivised to harass Recipients via reducing payments and/or increasingly Recipient-decreasing ‘mutual obligations’.
However, while this may provide a short-term budgetary gain for the government, it leads to massive future costs including in health (particularly, mental-health), drug and alcohol abuse and crime.
Nevertheless, income-Welfare’s first deficiency is it creates a new societal division of Recipients and Non-recipients, which requires bureaucracy — i.e. the application, consideration and adjudication process.
Second, it is a conflation of 2 distinct components:
1. 1-way Survival-Income Band-aiding [due to the absence of the 2-way USI]
2. 2-way Coopetition-maximising benefits — i.e. disabled, sickness and aged-related supplements, which would be better designated as income ‘top-ups’ stemming from the Health Department.
Thus, there is a distortion in considering them jointly as a package.
For example, a person applying for the disability pension is likely to have much more onerous requirements because rather than it just being a ‘top-up’ above The USI, it also includes the additional Survival-Income amount.
With regard to Unemployment-benefits, there is also the ‘welfare-to-paid-work distortion’.
Unemployment Benefits: The Welfare-to-Paid-Work Distortion
Regarding Unemployment-benefits, while it may provide Recipients with a Survival-Income — in reality, it is almost always well below the poverty-line — unfortunately, it has particularly anti-Coopetitive ramifications because if a welfare Recipient takes-up paid-work they will lose the benefit.
This means, a person may even be worse-off financially — especially considering the extra costs associated with travel, out-of-home meals, work-specific-clothing, childcare and other caring requirements.
Regarding caring responsibilities, these can be totally prohibitive both financially and/or because, for whatever reason, a stranger cannot adequately do the caring.
Then there are, the ‘what ifs’. What if the job doesn’t work out? What if it requires uprooting the family and it doesn’t work out? What if it doesn’t work-out and it’s difficult to get back on Welfare?
This is particularly distortionary regarding such as seasonal farming paid-work, which is only short-term.
Such doubts and anxiety regarding giving-up the security of income-Welfare is particularly prevalent amongst those most lacking confidence and with mental-illness, which tend to particularly afflict the Unemployed.
In the case of the unconditional USI, none of these distortions exist.
Meanwhile, this distortion and the consequential reluctance to take paid-work leads to a compounding resentment against the Unemployed.
Resentment
Unemployment-benefits have become a massive source of resentment by Non-Recipients against Recipients because:
1. They know a portion of what they earn is being taxed to pay for it
2. Recipients are ‘able-bodied of paid-working age’
3. Though UMHoW ensures some people must be Unemployed, nevertheless, they suspect Recipients ‘can get a job if they really want one’ and are really just ‘rorting the system’.
Such perceptions also fail to take account that, for many people, their country-contributive self-actualisation is maximised in non-paid-work activities — for example, volunteering may be more optimal than paid-work telephone-canvassing.
Hence, Unemployment-benefit Recipients are widely Stigmatised as ‘dole-bludgers’.
The Dole-Bludger Narrative
The dole-bludger narrative not only further cleaves the Left/Right divide, it also dissects the ISIS-Disempowered.
That is, the Disempowered Paid-workers (who are usually UMHoW recipients) are particularly harsh critics of Disempowered income-Welfare Recipients.
Meanwhile, vilified to the point of effectively being shut-out of socialising in mainstream society — including, often, with their families — and mind-washed into feeling ‘useless’, Recipients will eventually suffer mental-illness, which, in turn, will likely lead to escapism such as alcohol & other drugs and, perhaps, even suicide.
Also, they are made doubly resentful — i.e. resentful of being Unemployed and resentful of being Stigmatised.
Thus, the increased costs to the individual become increased costs to society including via the health and justice systems.
Accordingly, we have PUSH anti-Coopetition — i.e. Poverty (ISIS), Unemployment (via UMHoW), Stigma (i.e. ‘the dole-bludger’ narrative) & Harassment (i.e. ‘mutual obligations’) (PUSH).
Meanwhile, with anti-Coopetition continuing to breed anti-Coopetition, in addition to Stigmatising income-Welfare Recipients, non-Recipients’ resentment leads them to act anti-Coopetitionally via:
1. Avoiding tax
2. Advocating for upper/middle-class Welfare such as land and capital (including Superannuation) benefits/concessions
3. Pressuring the government to decrease the Unemployment-benefit and increase ‘mutual obligations’, which dovetails with the government’s short-term budgetary pressures
4. Manipulate the labour market to generate increased Employment, which is also supported by those looking for work or with precarious work.
Regarding the latter, this manifests as Democracy-perverting ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’ (Triple-J) politics.
‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’ (Triple-J) Politics
In contemporary politics, Triple-J is by far the most dominant paradigm.
Its dominance prevents Enviro- problems being addressed — for example, ‘we can’t stop coal-mining because we need the jobs’.
Born of the Band-Aid culture, it advocates jobs-for-jobs’-sake paid-work, which may include:
1. Extra public service employment
2. Subsidised private sector employment.
This has further distorted our Econo- away from being to ‘exclusively produce and distribute the goods & services humans need/desire’ to being, partially, to artificially create jobs.
In addition, it conflates with other paid-work inefficiencies including:
1. Magnify-the-Manufactured-Mess paid-work, which is predominantly in the form of magnifying ‘mutual obligation’ Harassment — in Australia, this consists of Centrelink & the Job-Search Providers
2. Manage-the-Manufactured-Mess paid-work, which is by far the most significant of the 3 — in Australia, this includes most of the charity sector, which is 11% of the Econo- and 5.7 million volunteers, much of the health sector (especially mental-health) and most of the justice sector.
Thus, after 260 years since the Industrial Revolution, though we’ve pocketed a potential 10,000-fold HOST productivity increase, because we haven’t abolished Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS), we aren’t pocketing the benefit.
That is, in an efficient Econo-, just 1 in 10 in paid-work would make us each 1,000 times better-off than our 18th century ancestors.
The Coopetition-Maximising Universal Survival Income (USI)
While there are other ways to end Indirect-Survival-Income-Slavery (ISIS), the Coopetition-maximising method is:
Substitute The Universal Survival Income (USI) for Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW).
However, while Universal Rule of Law, Democracy, Education and Healthcare have been able to evolve without the Coopetition-maximising narrative, The USI cannot for reasons including:
1. The ISIS-Disempowered are income-Welfare polarised into Employed-Disempowered and Unemployed-Disempowered in which the former resent the latter
2. The USI being erroneously perceived as extended wasteful income-Welfare
3. A bizarre perception of it being Socialist and/or Communist — i.e. on the contrary, the markets will be strengthened
4. It is squeezed by Rightist ‘Something-for-Somethingists’ who don’t realise it’s justifiable as an Industrial Revolution inheritance and Leftist UMHoW-Sentamentalists who don’t realise UMHoW to The USI is a massive trade-up.
Thus, in order for The USI to be substituted for UMHoW, the Coopetition-narrative must be accepted, which in turn means people first need to be exposed to it and, ultimately, to understand it.
Fortunately, Coopetition is well represented, which means there is already context.
Contemporary Societal Coopetition
In terms of the Socio-Econo-Enviro- (SEE) components, Coopetition, though still imperfect, is evident in:
1. The Socio- as the Rule of Law, Universal Liberal Democracy, Universal Education and Universal Healthcare
2. The Econo- as ‘the markets’
3. The Enviro-:
a. Natural-Enviro- as ‘sustainability’ programs
b. International-Enviro- as international institutions including international law.
Regarding the international-Enviro-, Authoritarianism has only survived because no Democracy has implemented Coopetition-maximisation.
When a Democracy — any Democracy — becomes the first to announce its intention to pursue the Coopetition-maximisation goal and then methodically begins doing it, this will mark the beginning of the end to Authoritarianism as Authoritarian-Illegitimates’ claims of credibility — to both their citizens and foreigners — will be decisively undermined.
Hence, goodwill, compassion and empowerment will start in one country and spread tsunami-like throughout the world.
However, in the absence of the Coopetition-maximising narrative, as S&T has become increasingly powerful, it has buttressed Authoritarianism in 2 ways:
1. Externally: particularly in the case where they possess weapons of mass destruction, their security against other nations appears guaranteed
2. Internally: Big Brother technology is making bottom-up overthrow perhaps prohibitively difficult.
Thus, we’re in a HOST race — with Authoritarians, nature and Artificial Intelligence — and the one and only that can save us is Coopetition-maximisation.
Meanwhile, our anti-Coopetitive societal institutions — particularly regarding dealing with ISIS — make us all mentally-ill.
Mental-Illness Ubiquity
Mind-washed by our society’s institutions, we are all mentally-sickened to the point we even accept our unnatural anti-Coopetitive society as ‘normal’.
That is, while society should have no perpetual societal-wide ideological contradiction, we accept the paradigm of our society being cleaved into Left and Right to the extent, if politically-minded, typically, we duly self-allocate to one or the other.
Moreover, we are increasingly fracturing into identity-based self-protection groups and combative ‘gangs’ even though, necessarily, this path must end with anarchy, which, if reached, will then herald a new era of Authoritarianism.
And, not only are we anti-Coopetition accepting, we are all, to some extent, even anti-Coopetition supportive.
For example, in the West, despite our incredible 21st century First World wealth, under the guise of ‘mutual obligations’, citizens are institutionally Harassed with the threat and infliction of starvation and homelessness.
Therefore, the only way forward is Coopetition-maximising ‘infrastucture’, particularly, The Universal Survival Income (USI).
…
Thank you.
Best regards
Paul Ross
Founder
The Citizen’s Dividend Organisation (CDO) Australia
The Civilisationism Organisation (TCO)
Video: Indirect-Slavery [& The Abolitionist Path to the ‘End of History’]