In the society where everything we do is vital for the preparation and procurement of social, economic, financial and physical end, money always tend to exist. Money is essentially for living; we need money for food, clothes and payment for bills; we also need money for education; and we need money to have some fun, such as to travel, to enjoy delicious food, nice dress, and other things whether necessary or whimsical.
Basically, money is the fundamental for living. Without this material, we have nothing to possess, tangible or not. Hence, it is a tool of exchange to get what we want. However, the proof that our economy is outdated, can simply be seen in the fact that we now recognize the insanity and the effects it has on the world itself, and can create a means for alternative lifestyle that is completely separate from our current ways of living, just like in the case of Janet Lim-Napoles, overexposure leads to excessive greediness of money and probably, power. There is evidence as well that we are depleting our country’s resources at such an alarming rate, that we are not able to keep the standard for much longer.
If I am to be given a considerable amount of money, where should I give it? Should I give it to the government, the poor, or to the people at large (upper-class; middle-class; and poor)?
As provided in the Preamble of the 1987 Constitution, the word “equality” was included for the application and determination of our constitutional rights and obligations. It embodies all kinds of social, moral and legal aspects with respect to equality. Majority of our laws were made for the lawful application of several cases involving money but come to think of it, framers of the law indirectly intended to prevent people from excessive use of money.
Our country has listed equality either as a fundamental aspiration or as an achievement. However, no such claim is free from criticism, and the lack of demonstrable progress toward equality among society is remarkable. The debate about whether it is possible for equality between individuals to exist at all, let alone whether or not it has ever been achieved in any form of human society, remains open. In lieu of that long lack of success, no discussion of the views of the society on the subject can be either simple or short.
Appropriation to the people in general
On this issue our society rests on the propositions and teachings. Some says that chance accounts for the origin of our species. The Conventions on knowledge extends the application of that proposition to include the range and nature of the characteristics and attributes of humanity. The society must therefore find its ground or justification for equality elsewhere.
The proposition gives rise to the principle of Unity which states that, during our mortal lives, we can have no independent standard or measure of the relative worth of individuals. However, Peace derived from them give us the prospect of being able to make just such judgements, if only in retrospect, in the immortal era that will follow social end. Achievement of the Objective of the teachings will put humanity in possession of an ability to review and assess the value and worth of every individual.
These necessarily complex ideas and their implications for the society are first set out in the individual agreements. There it is concluded that an assessment of the worth or value of the contribution of any individual to the achievement of the objective of the propositions and teachings of the Society can properly extend to a comparison of the value of each of the separate attributes they possess or display.
Gleaning in the above-mentioned paragraphs, the conclusion to be reached on this issue as it is understood by the society is that, prior to the achievement of its aim, the latter must accept that every individual, and all and any of their abilities or characteristics, must be regarded as of equal value and worth. There can be no losers or winners, and no prize list, in that contest. Hence, it can be drawn that the above-mentioned question may be given to the people at large irrespective of ranks or level.
The problem with this however, that it leaves the society in some difficulty if it tries to apply its concept in the present time, particularly if it seeks to promote or apply its views on that issue in communities other than those composed of its own members. The earlier discussion has shown that the equality arising from the proposition depends on the choice of the objective as to the purpose of our lives. The definition and criterion of an equal society advocated by the society is therefore neither available nor applicable to individuals unless they make that choice.
Where no such choice has been made, any action by the society to foster or encourage the adoption of its view, other than those composed of its own members, will amount to an attempt to impose its belief on others. And that course of action would be fatal. It would seem therefore, that, the society may be required to tolerate the existence of gross inequalities and accept the most oppressive of hierarchical tyrannies. Having more money means having more prestige and therefore more attention and esteem. But wealthy people often experience that this kind of instance isn’t long lasting. It has to be earned each day, a never-ending fight which leads to uncontrollable greed if it wasn’t prevented.
The overall effect is therefore, that while the progress requires the society to tolerate any present or proposed set of social relationships even if their individual or combined effect is to generate injustice or inequality as between individuals, such indulgence is strictly limited.
In this present time, our society will not take it upon itself to demand or create equality, nor will it attempt to design or construct systems of social relationships intended have that effect. Rather the society will pursue equality by publicizing, and drawing attention to, its teachings, so that the commonalty and interdependence of all humanity set out in the Principle of Unity is more widely recognized and will be acknowledged.
At the end of the day, it will always expose us to the historical background of our government. Our trade system has changed with technology, and our culture values have always changed with time based on belief. There has been a proceeding culture for every culture that failed, and proved its predecessor wrong or indifferent, thus making the former outdated. Our law systems, government, and entertainment have changed in form with time.
However, our needs for survival, and to maintain a healthy status have not changed to a great degree when in our natural state. Despite dependence on drugs, metabolism changes, or any dysfunctional body organ/s that need treatment, disease or injury, our basic means of survival haven’t changed.
We used to live in a culture that fostered our resources, and that allowed for no one to claim possession over anything. People would prevent a person trying claim leadership whatsoever. It was simply a different way of looking around it. It was only until people could create a surplus of food through agriculture, and mine valuable metals, that there was then a need to claim possessions.
Many people, even the person posing this exact question, also see that this trend of change throughout history can be applied to today’s world. The technological mask of computers can certainly hide the presents of outdated city infrastructures, and the fact that our government is operating under the founding fathers, when years ago, we barely have laws regulating internet use/abuse. My point is that, I was born from the corrupt system itself. Money per se is worth nothing without that system and vice versa. That’s why the monetary system and money itself is perceived by me as the same thing. If it makes everyone happy, I’ll say that the system is the problem, not money itself.
The only thing that can fix this dilemma is a new system but how can any government survive without interest? If you take those two factors out of the equation, money will just be paper that can be manufactured endlessly. The reason its value stands is because it is in constant circulation, going back and forth, and the only way it can continue doing that is for people to feel the need to return it back to the banks with a little interest. Problem is, you can never pay your debt off and our government can create money out of thin air against our funds. And when I say that money is produced by governments at will, it naturally isn’t that clean cut. The point is, lots of money is created out of thin air and we can’t do anything about it. Most don’t even understand how this system works, let alone fix it or realize where this is all going wrong.
Society defines poor as the lowest among the ranked and the listed. The epitome of poverty, thus, making them more distinctive than the other level. Ideally, it is clear to say that money should be given in favor of the poor, especially during times of natural disasters, political strife and economic brief. Providing aid such as money can be reasonably spent in favor of them. However, such idealism has its own limitations, such as but not limited to:
– The tendency of the society to rely solely on those who aid and provide means for purposes of rebuilding, establishing life and providing a self-sufficing methods of protection and health. This characteristic is futile against both parties as will prevent them from improvement or might be the source of decreasing their resources that would pull them down.
– Lack of self-esteem which cause the subject to limit themselves to things they are comfortable with and preventing themselves to grow within the boundaries of their social standing.
– Characteristic that other person may use as a means to exercise their malicious intent. Government officials particularly those applying for public office usually come in this instance. They make use of the vulnerability of the poor for them to effectuate their unlawful end.
– Private individuals also use this as favorable to them. An act of gratitude sometimes make a person held liable even if the amount or the extent of their aid is more than enough to release them from such gratitude.
– This opens an opportunity to syndicates, grooming/employing children and even adults being deprived of their free will to beg for alms; to take advantage for those homeless to do unlawful acts such as pick pocketing, robbery or even kidnapping; and child labor.
- Malnourish and Uneducated children
– Unfortunate parents have tendency to give birth more children for them to use it as means of income and food. This is a way of thinking of Filipinos of having more children, means more help. The precept “The more, the merrier”. Hence, the former tend to force their children to work , instead of giving them the opportunity to study and provide them sufficient food.
In view of the foregoing, it shall be noted that appropriation must be made on all people of our country and not making favorable appropriation to the government nor limiting to the lower rank society or the poor. Although it was clearly stated in the above-mentioned paragraphs, the advantages and the disadvantages of equal appropriation, still the reasonable option. Up to now, money as a motivator has worked well to perform the ‘mechanic’ jobs that needed to be done. However, most of those jobs can be automated. And with the profit motive out of the way, we can truly develop all good inventions to their fullest potential, and develop technology to the betterment of humanity, rather than to maximize profits.
v 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
v “The Root of All Evil”, a short story by Graham Greene
v “World Politics in the 21st Century”; W. Raymond Duncan, et al; 2009