Is there an alternative course?
Enclosure II with the appeal of De Hutte Holding BV versus the Tax and Customs Administration, case number 07 / 2920 VPB 77 21 december 2008
What’s the alternative course?
Integral (integrated) economy
Today, we are experiencing several crises at the same time, all of which are interrelated below the surface and all of which come down to one and the same synthesising question: How can we co-exist? While the theoretical answer to this question is fairly simple, it is much harder to put it into practice – it takes two to tango. ;-)
A. The foundations of society
A healthy and living foundation for society requires certain conditions that promote life and survival. The simpler these preconditions are, the clearer and thus more effective they will be. What needs do we all share? The need for drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, education and health care. The constitutional state is responsible for these conditions and maintaining the foundation of society while we, the people, are responsible for the practical concretisation of this foundation by working together. In political terms this means solidarity and the ability to share what we have and what we need.
B. The absolute necessity of integrated individualisation
Without integrated individualisation, the foundation of society is doomed. If you understand this interaction, you have the seeds of the pragmatic concretisation of a fairer society within your grasp. No political, social or commercial (market) party (whether majority or minority) can claim the exclusiveness of the foundation of society. That foundation is humanity as a whole and disallows any exclusivity on the part of any single individual. Once the preconditions for the foundation of society have been met, this will automatically create a breeding ground for integrated individualism, which is nothing other than the complete freedom to develop as an individual. This self-development should not, of course, be at the expense of the foundation of society. In political terms, this can be called integrated individualism, integrated liberalism. We can then put the synthesis of the foundation of society and integrated individualism into practice and call it integral economy.
This can be summarised as follows: everyone is an entrepreneur who, through co‑ordination, communication, practical actions and feedback, gradually improves the living conditions of the individual and the collective.
The consequences for the legal system
The necessary synthesis of socialism and liberalism
It is not clear whether socialists and liberals are aware of it these days. They want the same thing: ‘more’. Socialists want this ‘more’ to benefit everybody. Neo-liberals want this ‘more’ to benefit the individual. However, this ‘more’ is just a bureaucratic illusion we are all, collectively or as progressives, conservatives, liberals and socialists, chasing.
A substantive synthesis of socialism and liberalism is urgently required.
The basic needs of every human are the following:
A) Solidarity as basic priority
Basic needs for life (= public interest)
4. clothing and shelter
5. health care
7. nature and infrastructure
8. just administration
B) Freedom, a latitude each individual must absolutely be allowed
c) art (of living)
d) research and development
e) world renunciation and tolerance
The basic needs listed under A cannot exist without those listed under B, but the B priorities should not be at the expense of the A priorities.
An approach that could be considered as progressive as it is conservative. ;-)
This synthesis is possible when participation, the ability to share, co-operation and sincerity replace competition and the current bureaucratising mechanisms of power.
Legally speaking, the following change in priorities will occur:
From today’s (mostly subconscious) key decision criteria and logic based on mutual competition:
2. protection of the political and financial worlds
3. fundamental rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights
b. liberty, consciousness-raising and responsibility (as part of the whole)
Points a and b are reflected in the fundamental rights under our Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights wherever possible. Mutual competition has compromised this, as a result of the urge to possess and a general emphasis on the protection of the acquired rights of the winners. And though we do not realise it, this has made the government and society errand boys of ‘the winners’ at the expense of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. It is the faith in profit that keeps us all captive and that grounds the real social challenges (that is, a society where everyone is welcome, not just the so-called winners/profit).
For the sake of clarity: we ourselves nurture this unjust logic. Pointing the finger is not an option in this case. Consciousness-raising is the only medicine for a sustainable cure! And this is only possible when people, regardless of their position within the current system, learn to take responsibility for the collective good.