“A world that works for everyone” is a win/win world. (1)
So often, when we “win” – when we get the outcome we wanted – we don’t really care whether the other person wins or not. That’s theirs to see to, we reason.
But that’s just one thing that’ll have to change if we want to build a world that works for everyone.
We now need to be concerned about whether the other person also wins.
Here are some areas in which we as a global society probably could use some improvement.
(A) We ignore what I call the Rule of Four.
In any negotiation, we need to take into account:
(1) What I want.
(2) What I don’t want.
(3) What you want.
(4) What you don’t want.
If any of the four are pressing and not revealed or known, the negotiation is in danger of breaking down.
When it does break down, we discover that one or more of the four have not been shared, whether overlooked or withheld.
A narcissist would only be concerned with 1 and 2. A martyr would only be concerned with 3 and 4. A balanced negotiation would ensure that all four are seen to and taken care of.
For ease of reference, let’s call this the notion of balanced negotiation.
(B) We hold that business, trade, and commerce are zero-sum games. If I win, it has to be because you lost.
We fail to see that, even if the world were that way, which it isn’t, we could still share the pains and the gains by splitting any profit and any loss. There is never any argument about an even split. When even is not equitable, then an equitable split. Let the default be 50/50.
At its essence, this perspective holds that resources are limited.
It fails to take into account the fact that things can be created. Fiat money was created out of thin air. Fractional reserves were created out of thin air.
Free energy will soon be created … from beyond thin air, from the vacuum. It’ll be free in every sense.
Most galactic societies that we know about – the folks busily showing themselves in our atmosphere in their spaceships? – exist without money because they have the power to create, as we will in the future. Their resources are unlimited because they can create what they need through the use of their own powers.
So, life is not a zero-sum game. Resources are not limited. Life is expansion, increase, unfoldment, and not at the price of another person’s loss.
We create our abundance. Abundance itself is unlimited. We create less of it right now than we will later because we’re still enmeshed in physical and mental density. Later we’ll create whatever we need, as people do already in the afterlife, what we call the Astral Plane or Fourth Dimension.
Let’s call this the notion of creative abundance. We need to integrate it into our lives and cultures.
(C) We go for maximizing our profit by any means without regard to the other party’s gains. We can be aggressively greedy.
Instead of that rapacious, eat-the-other-guy’s-lunch behavior, we can be co-operating with our opposite number to see that both parties get what they want from our negotiation and that both parties gain.
What we aim to get from the negotiation is an equitable arrangement to share the costs and proceeds. The most equitable is a 50/50 split, but there may be reasons why that is not equitable. Nevertheless the basis of our cooperation to obtain a return on investment that neither of us could reach alone, a synergistic effect.
Maximum profit is not the be all and end all. A world that works for everyone is the end all and be all.
Let’s call this the notion of equitable synergistic cooperation.
(D) We ignore the other person’s free will.
We approach them as if they “should” do this and “must” do that. We try to persuade the other person to do things our way, which we consider to be the best way, the best thing for the other person, good for the other person’s welfare, etc. We don’t respect the other person’s free will and we don’t take their “no” for an answer.
I regard this as the quickest way to taint a negotiation. Show the other person that you disrespect their freedom of choice, their point of view, their opinion.
All of us, I think could afford to strengthen our determination to respect the other person’s free will if we’re to make inroads into a world that works.
Let’s call this the notion of interpersonal respect. It may just be the bedrock upon which all else rests.
Elsewhere, I’ve called the most influential point of view in the old Third Dimension social Darwinism and business Darwinism.
It holds that nature, life, and business are red in tooth and claw. Life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive. The weakest go to the wall.
The “fittest” in our society are a small elite, 1% of the total population. The rest, minus a small number destined to serve the elite, are considered “useless eaters.”
The cabal had its opportunity to build its dream of world domination and that dream world crashed to the ground. There was no place to run, no place to hide when the deep underground military bunkers were, first evacuated, and then destroyed. And so it went with HAARP, nuclear weapons, and every other weapon system and hiding place left to the cabal.
All done with the least possible violence and, where necessary, in accordance with local laws and natural law.
The 3D mindset called social Darwinism is grounded in a philosophical outlook called empirical materialism, that holds that only what we see, hear, feel, touch and taste is real. Sorry, Archangel Michael, you gotta go back in the closet. It was nice knowing you, Higher Self. I have to forget I ever paid you a visit, Fifth Dimension. Bliss, love, peace, you’ll have to wait.
I have just reduced myself to a man totally bound and defined by what he does, thinks, and feels. Everything higher than Third-Dimensional reality is now closed to me. Mozart, stop that music. Tesla, stop making those futuristic gadgets. Michaelangelo, stop soaring into the heavens.
Drilled into acquiescence to a dumbed-down, programmed existence, all I’d know and care about would be “keeping up with the Joneses,” “getting ahead,” “having the American dream” – buying that house, raising those 1.8 kids, vacationing in Hawaii, and having a retirement fund put away.
The mindset these values gave rise to was numbing.
We need to be concerned about the position our negotiation leaves the other in. Service to others supersedes service to self now.
We need to take the time in any negotiation – especially at the outset – to establish relationship.
We need to see that all profits are shared equitably, without duplicity, without trickery. No hidden agendas, no scamming and manipulating.
We need to see that everything is framed so that both parties emerge with maximal satisfaction – so that pain and gain are both equally shared.
And I’m sure we’ll arrive soon enough at other elements of a business philosophy for a world that works – win/win – for everyone.
(1) The quote “a world that works for everyone” comes from Werner Erhard:
“Each of us has the opportunity, the privilege, to make a difference in creating a world that works for all of us.” (Werner Erhard, A World That Works, 1980, cited at http://www.worldthatworks.org/.)
“Transformation does not negate what has gone before it; rather, it fulfills it. Creating the context of a world that works for everyone is not just another step forward in human history; it is the context out of which our history will begin to make sense.” (Werner Erhard – A Shot Heard Round the World: A World that Works for Everyone at http://www.scribd.com/doc/143329822/Werner-Erhard-A-Shot-Heard-Round-the-World-A-World-that-Works-for-Everyone
See also Werner Erhard, The Hunger Project: The End of Starvation. Creating an Idea Whose Time has Come. San Francisco: Hunger Project, n.d., p. 3.