Fair Start Movement

Category: Freedom & Intergenerational Justice

Two Reasons Freedom Loving Americans Will Target Concentrations of Wealth and Power to Pay Their Share of Ensuring a Fair Start in Life for All Kids.

Reason One: Extreme concentrations of wealth and power were made at cost to your, and your kids’, freedom – as well as our national security.

How? That money was made mostly through unsustainable growth policies that filled the world with dangerous people in order to make money on them, people who came from dysfunctional homes and never got what they needed growing up because we never had to assure their rights as children. More people, who did not trust one another, meant bigger government and less of a say for each.

Those at the top could back policies that made a lot of people, and made money off then, because they never had to invest children’s rights and empowering birth and development conditions. They were making consumers, workers, and taxpayers for Amazon, Inc. and the politicians they bought, not citizens who trust each other – for town halls and main street.

A nation is not some abstract idea – it is first and foremost the quantity and quality of those in it. And free people will only follow laws in systems in which they were empowered with political control, with a meaningful voice in making the laws. Many disregard the authority of politicians for the same good reason they disregard the authority of bosses in large companies – because those at the top represent so many, and with such different interests, they do not and cannot really represent you.

Why is your right to bear arms – your freedom to own a gun – threatened? Mass shootings mean the average American cannot be trusted with guns. Where did these shooters come from? If you cant trust those around you with guns why would you trust them with your democracy?

Why does the average American have a vote that is pretty much worthless, diluted by growth? Why is your access to places like national parks so regulated and threatened, as you wait hours in line? Where does immigration originate from?

If we can do these things, we can be a people with a certain idea of America, of certain unalienable rights, to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle us. But we cannot be a nation, conceived in liberty, without a land in which nature thrives.

Laws of Nature, Not a State of Nature – American Greatness.

Those at the border do not fall from the sky – and the best research treats growth as the key driver of threats to national security. These same growth policies have been used abroad to create those coming to the United States. Billions were made by creating billions of people, who now threaten our future – and your kids’ future – at home and abroad.

Many in the generations that came before died to defend democracy – town halls where we trusted one another. They did not die to ensure economic growth for a nation of consumers in shopping malls, run by far off boards and bureaucrats who leech the wealth.

To the extent wealth made can be used to rebuild democracy – long run – by funding responsible parenting, we deserve to take and use it as such. Doing so is defending freedom – just in a more complex way than we are used to. For truly free persons who wish to orient their lives based on a system of being empowered with share equity rather than living under extreme wealth entitlements made via inequity, backed by state violence that cannot be justified, there is no obligation that comes before ensuring the thresholds for being and development, described below. Doing so constitutes freedom at the first border of power, a border that overrides and precedes national borders. We owe our first obligations to the governed, and the future majority, and never the government which has no inherent authority – especially not to protect concentrations of wealth and power, and those that lie for them.

Need a more concrete reason to act?

Reason Two: One of those costs is horrific child neglect and abuse, and we can end it.

Guess who really suffers from growth policies based on not ensuring good homes for all kids? Five children die, often tortured to death, and the hands of their parents in the United States each day,

Child abuse and neglect are common. At least one in seven children experienced child abuse or neglect in the past year in the United States. This is likely an underestimate because many cases are unreported. In 2021, 1,820 children died of abuse and neglect in the United States.

Children living in poverty experience more abuse and neglect. Experiencing poverty can place a lot of stress on families, which may increase the risk for child abuse and neglect. Rates of child abuse and neglect are five times higher for children in families with low socioeconomic status compared to families with a higher socioeconomic status.

Child maltreatment is costly. In the United States, the total lifetime economic burden associated with child abuse and neglect was about $592 billion in 2018.5 This economic burden rivals the cost of other high-profile public health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes.

Photo by JPagetRF Photos/BigStock

No child should be born to parents who are not ready to do a good job. And we can ensure that, through things like financial incentives that pay would-be parents to wait, and show readiness. It works – and we know where those who should fund it live. Why would we not make the wealthy, who benefitted from poor family planning policies and growth, not pay to end it? Why should kids suffer to enrich a few? Halting the torture of children justifies action.

Again, this works. Some funders are moving away from dysfunctional charity, and towards fair start freedom. Others can be urged to do the same.

TAKE ACTION: There is a move before the United Nations to make national sovereignty and authority fully contingent on making each citizen a sovereign, or self-determining, using measurable outcomes. This is the core of freedom and democracy, and it would authorize targeting concentrations of extreme wealth for the freedom they took from us, and our kids. Back that move by sharing the link above, and demanding the UN act.

August 7, 2024
Urge Peter Singer to Discuss Inequity as a Barrier to Animal Liberation

The high human and nonhuman deaths counts we see attributed to the climate crisis assume our current near-universal reproductive rights standard, the one that caused the crisis by ignoring the primary and overriding self-determination rights of future generations. Peter Singer, for decades, backed traditional reproductive rights modeling even though it was doing more harm to animals than his work on animal liberation was doing good.

For decades, I left out crucial facts while claiming to create public benefit that I knew was actually being undone by growing inequity. The statements I made were inaccurate – claiming I was saving animals when on balance I was not – and ensured the death of many by hiding growth and inequity. These omissions helped illegally enrich mostly the white children of the wealthy funders and influencers benefiting from omissions, at impoverishing and often deadly cost to millions of children of color.

Singer did the same, but can correct the harm he caused and also lead Effective Altruism backers to also change course simply by admitting the facts of how children entering the world without sufficient resources for years reversed the good he he promoted, and how inverting our first obligations and influence can allow us to do better.

Because we now owe climate reparations to the future generations harmed by our accumulation of wealth, the true cost of which was placed on them, and mostly children of color who are least responsible for the crisis, those traditional reproductive rights systems will have to change to avoid benefiting a few at deadly cost to many.

Many thought and other leaders who failed future generations and would have to pay for the benefits they enjoyed at cost to others are hiding their liability by omitting information when making claims.

Singer is one of those leaders, and he can save lives by adding the key context to his work on animal liberation – admitting the role of inequity in reversing the liberation he promotes. Read more on Singer’s deadly omissions here and how hi focus on dietary change rather than more fundamental family reforms ensured the subjugation of humans and nonhumans.

Through omission., Singer and others are able to use the failed and illegitimate standards that caused the crisis, or are otherwise trying to reduce the amount owed. That exacerbates the threat of violence, both climate-related and from communities and individuals who feel disempowered and at risk.

We can identify key leaders like Singer to role model the change by asking them about their views on child welfare and reproductive rights, and about how their approach – with no real protections for the children born – has undone many of the good things they publicly claimed to have done. We can ask of all claiming to do good: What are we doing to first ensure – as a fundamental policy – that the conditions in which children are born and raised are being improved using simple metrics, and so we are not undoing and misstating the benefits of the work we otherwise do?

A quiet filing before the United Nations is urging these disclosures as well as changes to the fundamental reproductive rights regime that correct the fundamental problem.

TAKE ACTION: Urge Singer, at psinger@princeton.edu, to admit that not basing his animal liberation work on share equity undercut the results, and that as the climate crisis unfolds, liberating nonhumans will require no longer exploiting future generations but rather improving their birth and development conditions.

July 27, 2024
The Climate Crisis Is a Chance to Fix Democracy at the Most Basic Level. Ask Those Around You This Question.
Ask anyone claiming to do good in their work to account this variable: How children being born into the world and raised impacts the claims they make.

You will find that:
- If they claimed to help children, they will have omitted the fact that more children were born into conditions that violated what they considered to be the standard of care than their after-the fact policies would have saved. You will also find they benefited, at deadly cost to others, from omitting that fact.
- If they claimed to help animals or the environment, they will have omitted the fact that the family policies they ignored meant greater harm to animals and the environment than their after-the fact policies would have saved. You will also find they benefited, at deadly cost to others, from omitting that fact.
- If they claimed to further human rights and democracy, or the racial and other forms of equity on which those ideals derive, they will have omitted the fact that the horrific child welfare standards they accepted would have reversed the progress claimed, using simple measures like representative ratios, than their after-the fact-policies would have saved. You will also find they benefited, at deadly cost to oethers, from omitting that fact.
Would those being protected have wanted to the full story to be told?

Many at Fair Start, in former work, made the same omissions, omissions that resulted in the death of many, omissions that hid the reparations liabilities of a relatively small group of wealthy and mostly white families. Many came from the animal rights movement, where the contrast between what was claimed, and the reality, is the greatest in terms of numbers of animals impacted and way concepts like animal law have been perverted by many wealthy funders who backed things like vegan food investments because they benefiited from them, whike choosing family systems that on balanve harmed animals and children.

They and many others – through their omissions – hid an error made by world leaders between 1948 and 1968, an error that some exploited. to favor wealthy white elites, and create the disparity we see today. You can see the error if you examine a very reliable summary of legal baselines, something that determines what our fundamental obligations are and the costs and benefits associated with them.

Note that there is no specification of a concrete ecological baseline that would have prevented the climate crisis, or an equity standard that would have avoided those least responsible for the crisis absorbing most of its deadly costs. That is a very material omission, one that hides the primary obligations – based on equity – we owe would-be parents.

Freedom, or self-determination, by definition first flows from the restoration of nature (a baseline defined by the relative absence of human influence) achieved via delayed parenting, which is entitled through birth and developmental equity funding pegged inverse to wealth. This is owed as the first and overriding human right, and it allows each to be relatively free – from the ecological and social influence of others – and thus capable of constituting a system of legitimate governance. Ignoring this fact created the state of affairs we see today, and the inevitable death of millions. One of the leading political philosophers in the nation has backed this truth.

The omissions make the baselines in the summary static, inverted relative to the environment humans need, and dangerously abstract. Legal theorists generally debate whether something is law or the supreme authority/obligation, based on whether it derives from 1) social sources and processes, 2) particular values, and/or 3) values specific to law (or what many call the rule of law). All of these are evidently problematic without accounting for how children enter the world and are raised. This assessment should be unique to issues of birth equity because it alone requires dealing with the creation of legal relations – generally occurring at birth.

And this is clear: That omission benefitted mostly wealthy white families at deadly cost to countless children of color. We constitute ourselves as free persons by changing the way we speak, and through that how we see the world.

Here is the fix, and start by demanding those claiming to do good in the world not make deadly omissions.
April 26, 2024
Dr. Breeze Harper, on the Primacy of Black Birth Equity

“I advocate that Black birth equity, through reparations, should be the primary action taken to resolve consequences such as corporation induced climate change — in particular, because those who are negatively impacted the most are Black communities in California and their future Black children.” — Dr. Breeze Harper

February 13, 2024
What Does Fighting for Freedom Look Like Today?
Free people feel obligated to follow the law because their legal system first empowered them – through birth and development conditions, with with a role in making the law and and thus ensuring the capacity for each to choose who has influence (including climatologically) or power over them. That is the core of legitimacy, or the creation of fundamental power relations that look more like a town hall of citizens than a shopping mall of workers and consumers controlled by owners. By definition, freedom among equals first means birth and development against ecocentric or natural ecologies in conditions that ensure equity of opportunity and an influential voice in deciding – and thus legitimating – the rules under which one must live.

A young Nigerian attorney, Esther Afolaranmi, is overseeing the key move to ensure that capacity, a complaint before the United Nations Human Rights Council that would ensure universal self-determination through one simple change – basing political legitimacy on children’s rights. This would ensure the right of young women to family planning incentives/entitlements that would enable ecosocial birth and developmental equity, ensuring they have any children only at a time, place and with resources that ensure those children will thrive based on very specific metrics, which would also constitute the most just form of climate reparations.

Such a change would ensure that we do not benefit from a system at deadly cost to others, a fact that have driven some to desperate acts.

Move to Trash

And because being free in this sense is constitutive, or comes first, those women would have a claim to such resources that overrides the existing property rights to extreme wealth that was made at cost to future generations. The policies that would keep this wealth in place are illegitimate governance because our generations can’t get the benefit of future generations’ political obligation, not to violently target us for reparations required by the deadly climate catastrophe for example, because we never met our obligations to them – starting with children’s rights. Expecting to benefit from others without paying the costs of freedom – truly investing in kids – is proceeding from a false premise.

If a young mother were charged with trespassing in making the demand for birth equity reparations, could she challenge it – and expect a jury to side with her – because the state cannot limit access to property without first empowering (actually or physically constituting) its people to be involved in the making of such property rules, i.e. empowering them through just the sort of constitutive discourse in which she seeks to engage? How do we every get to governance by the people without elevating her pre-political right above the process-based rule of trespass? Do we really choose to constitute our relations via top-down force in a system run by men, versus a system of bottom-up empowerment run by women, via the act of care? Her act would be fundamentally liberating, and the best explanation of political obligation, because free people will start by limiting and decentralizing the influence others have over them.

I recently had one wealthy, white funder tell me that “fair start” sounded like ensuring their grandchild would be born in hospital conditions like those in Kampala, rather than in Palo Alto, and they wanted to avoid that. They felt this way, even though they had made their wealth through a system that externalized its costs, and relied on family policies that fundamentally allowed that externalizing, with deadly impacts on Uganda and the children living there. This was the same cost-externalized wealth, and policy control, that had also ensured this funder’s daughter would be the executive director of their foundation.

The funder urged me to do “make work” and low impact window dressing, as other funders in nonprofits urge their employees to do, rather than see the fundamental issue. They insisted on framing the issue as “population” to avoid discussions of equity as equal and influential shares in a democracy – equal control, through law, to limit and thereby free us from those who would have influence – including climatologically or through irresponsible parenting – over us. They did this all while using that same money to decoy audiences away from equity with that same focus on overpopulation, and towards geoengineering solutions that would make them a savior in the climate crisis driven by policies that benefitted the funder at deadly cost to others.

Telling stories like this, and taking other actions to make examples of the funder, could model the trolley problem in ethics, change what we mean by the word legitimate, and also free massive resources, minimizing climate deaths. Funders who want to exploit birth positionality for their own benefit go beyond influencing nonprofits, and control how reporters cover the climate crisis, and the solutions politicians offer.

Many of written about this phenomenon, but now it is costing millions of lives.

This is an existential question. Who should we be? Persons that leave extreme wealth where it is, made at cost to future lives because the wealthy got the benefit of seemingly legitimate governance without actually paying the costs of children’s rights, or freedom fighters who move it and save countless lives? Many are already giving voluntarily in this way, leading the way for others.

What are we doing to ensure the conditions in which children are born and raised, including their environment and role models, are being improved so as not to undo the benefits of the work we are promoting? What minimum protections for children and animals do we require for political systems to be legitimate? Can we admit that our failure to ensure such minimums through a correct system of entitlements, historically, is now killing millions of those least responsible for the climate catastrophe?

Here are two legal moves we can all make for truth and justice:
- Back new Tell the Truth ESG reporting requirements geared around the actual harm the climate catastrophe is doing to the most vulnerable. Current ESG reporting requirements are designed to benefit rich white kids at cost to the global majority and nonhumans, and to minimize climate reparations – including by hiding the overriding right to ensure resources are prioritized for ecosocial birth equity. It’s called the ImpactScam: Many organizations raised money while making policy choices that benefitted their leadership at deadly cost to others, choices that – given the climate crisis – did more harm to the causes they promoted than they were doing good.
- Stand behind Esther’s work at United Nations Human Rights Council that would ensure universal self-determination through one simple change: Basing all political legitimacy on children’s rights, with the right of young women to family planning incentives/entitlements ensuring they have any children only at a time, place and with resources that ensure those children will thrive based on very specific metrics, which would also constitute the most just form of climate reparations. This legal process is the beginning of a fundamental sovereignty process of exact intergenerational reparations that would have truly primary jurisdiction.
January 18, 2024
Pope Francis and the Vatican Owe Future Generations the Wealth They Took

The Vatican has for decades urged family planning policies that attempted to grow the base of the church, and its income, in a way that destroyed our environment and now threatens to kill millions. Their policies enriched themselves at deadly costs to others.

The have, after being asked, refused to share even some of that wealth as family reparations that would save lives.

They must be held accountable.

The Vatican has roughly thirty-three billion dollars in net worth. It’s not about population. People are not numbers. It’s about the impossibility of separating values like welfare, equity, and nature from their creation.

The curve above represents the opportunity to promote values like child welfare, parental readiness, the restoration of nature, and democracies where each person plays a greater role, or to exploit people as consumers, workers, and taxpayers. We should choose the former, and arc down.

As Nobel Laureate Steven Chu noted, growth-based systems have acted like a Ponzi scheme that has pulled massive wealth to the top of the economic pyramid at cost to women, children and the environment. It’s a fundamentally unjust and exploitative system. And the greatest impact in reversing it, and furthering the Sustainable Development Goals, comes though changing our family policies to promote an ecosocial Fair Start in life as the first and overriding human right.

Many young people stand ready to support such a trend of giving and planning, putting people and nature before profits and property, and treating Fair Start redistributions as a peremptory norm overriding governmental processes. It’s about people, starting from the source, limiting and decentralizing power, and thus becoming the relatively self-determining – or free – people we deserve to be.

Urge Pope Francis to admit these truths, at @Pontifex, and pay back the wealth the Vatican took at deadly cost to others.

Here are a few facts:

Climate change is now harming fetal and infant health harm, primarily in vulnerable families of color, as heat increases threaten to kill millions in the future. Roughly three quarters of attempts to mitigate the crisis has been undone by pro-growth policies, policies that exacerbated the one-tenth wealth gap between black and white families. This is happening because a handful of largely wealthy white men chose economic growth as the baseline for policymaking, rather than equity and democracy-building children’s rights that would actually legitimate – through inclusivity – nation-states. They chose to exploit a false sense of autonomy to exchange participatory democracy for economic growth.

Investing in women rather than exploiting and isolating them without equity funding would have significantly mitigated the climate crisis. Changing family outcomes by paying young women delay and readiness entitlements would have worked and saved many lives. Instead these men evaded investing child-rights based family planning, and further birth-privileged their own wealthy progeny while profiting from the unsustainable growth that allowed lack of child-rights allowed.

This divided social justice / public interest movements into less effective silos – like misperceptions of animal rights – that did not threaten the status quo the way birth-equity (equally empowering shares in your democratic system of voting) would have. This in turn undercut democracy, leading to the oligarchic threats the United States faces today.

This now means they – the disenfranchised – will suffer the brunt of a crisis for which they were least responsible, including violations of their right to have even one child in healthy and safe conditions. And because of basic vote dilution, voter suppression, and other factors, they will be unable to use democratic processes to protect themselves, and may rationally choose other measures. And in the face of all of this, many governments driven by industry are paying women to have more children with no easy safeguards like “survive and thrive” baby bonds in place, while wealthy families and foundations reliant on growth fund charities engaged in distractivism.

January 16, 2024
The Raymonds Made Their Wealth at Cost to Your and Your Kids’ Freedom. We Can Take It Back.
John T. Raymond is the son of Lee Raymond, who have may have done more to exacerbate the climate emergency than any one person.

John, who through his father became an fossil fuel magnate in his own right, is a great example of unearned and massive birth privilege.

And because he is in the business of fossil fuels, the wealth he “owns” was made at cost – through the climate crisis – to those in the future. The cost of much of his family’s wealth could be the death of millions.

John T. Raymond is great example of the climate trolley problem, recently covered in Newsweek. What if you could save millions by engaging one man? You can. John. T Raymond is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, money made by externalizing costs and risks on others.

That money could be used to reform the way we create families, moving from parent focused modes that isolate us to child-centric modes that unify communities, which would be the most just and effective response to the climate crisis.

It could reduce emissions in a massive way, and relocate children – while arming them with resources – to safety. This change could unfold in ways that impact billions of at-risk families over time.

That move is not just reducing emissions, but readying future generations for the worst.

This will save millions of lives, and end policies that are irrefutably racist and ecocidal.

And because families come first, this unique reform limits John’s property rights (capturing the costs his wealth foisted on others). We are just, before we own justly. We have a right to engage him on this issue of unpaid costs, and the need to cover climate reparation, because governments cannot assign rights in derogation of our being – at constitutional level – free and equal. What I just said has been subject to multiple positive peer reviews, and some have tried to hide it because of what this truth could do.

There are baselines for assessing costs and benefits, including when we use currencies like freedom, but all would have to start with how systems of obligation – like the laws that protect John’s wealth – actually include the persons they impact in the allocation decision-making process. Are they actually constitutive or obligatory, or attenuated from their subjects? The particular laws that protect John’s wealth do not fare well when scrutinized. They are based on creating lots of people for shopping malls rather than ensuring minimum levels of development in each person to ready them for town halls. Freedom comes in reversing that basic form of disempowerment.

One could argue that the positive law entitlements described in the first link of this paragraph must control in the absence of agreement otherwise, but unpacked that boils down to doing what the government – the men with guns – says, because it is the government. But that, as a reason, is the opposite of the ideal of American freedom.

This is all beyond liberalism or conservatism. We might equally target the lead at the New York Times – Joseph Kahn – for his role, his use of power, in holding up the family system that created John’s wealth.

Justice means more freedom for all.

TAKE ACTION: Contact John here through his agents, and urge him to do the right thing, or find and reason with him lawfully and peacefully in person and we will publicize your bravery. Free persons will limit and decentralize the influence others have over them (including climatological influence) by physically constituting just communities, relative to a neutral baseline like a restored climate and nature, such that we are not interfering with the freedom or relative self-determination of others.

John, using some of his wealth to give back to future generations and reorient what we mean by being free, could lead in this regard.

Want to be effective? Target other choke point high-value targets like Vladimir Putin (who financed western oil companies) or Joseph Kahn, lead editor at the New York Times, who urges women to have kids to in order to further grow the economy that is ensuring the climate crisis.
January 8, 2024
Pivotal Reforms for a Sustainable Future: Prioritizing Children’s Rights and Birth Equity

By Esther Afolaranmi

In today’s rapidly evolving landscape of global challenges, a critical need has emerged—a pressing call for substantial reforms to steer us towards a fairer and more just society. At the heart of this urgent plea lies the imperative to prioritize children’s rights and birth equity in our policymaking processes, reshaping the foundation upon which our future stands.

The essence of this urgent appeal lies in the recognition that our current norms and policies lack a crucial element—a just creation norm that centers on children’s rights and birth equity as fundamental benchmarks for assessing costs and benefits. It’s a call for a paradigm shift, urging us to become a society capable of inclusively evaluating decisions based on the well-being of our children. This call is underscored by the looming climate crisis, which poses an existential threat to future generations. Our current growth-driven systems are proving to be exploitative, particularly for vulnerable communities and the generations to come.

Implementing these crucial reforms involves more than just words—it demands actionable steps. It requires us to challenge deceptive claims, advocate for objective standards, and support reparations aligned with children’s rights and climate justice. It’s about holding accountable those whose policies impact the future well-being of our children and the environment they will inherit. The vision for change isn’t merely a theoretical construct. It’s a clarion call to revamp our approach to policymaking, rooted in the values of inclusivity, justice, and sustainability. It necessitates redefining success beyond economic growth to prioritize the well-being of our children and the sustainability of our planet.

Born in response to the threats against children’s rights, the Fair Start Movement offers a universal model built upon the principle of self-determination. This model aims to eliminate threats and serve as the bedrock for legitimate and inclusive policymaking. Central to this endeavor is the acknowledgment that investing in children and ensuring birth equity is not just a gesture of goodwill; it’s a moral obligation. Prioritizing these aspects propels sustainable development, protects our environment, and upholds the rights of generations to come.

As we stand at this critical juncture, it is a collective responsibility for entities, policymakers, and individuals to rally behind these reforms. It’s a joint commitment to center children’s rights and birth equity in our policymaking, charting a course towards a future that is not only sustainable but also fair and inclusive.

In conclusion, the importance of establishing a fair start for all, anchored in the empowerment of our children and the preservation of our planet, cannot be overstated. Let us band together in this noble pursuit to create a world where every child has the opportunity to thrive in a sustainable and equitable environment.

This is what the fair start model is truly about.

December 19, 2023
What Could a Second American Revolution Look Like?
Of course, no one knows. But these facts might indicate one way it might go:
- There is massive inequity that largely tracks race, based largely on inherited/unearned wealth, that means some have much more power than others, undercutting the democracy many died to protect.
- That inequity, coupled with growth, has ensured that many will die as the climate crisis unfolds, with those who benefitted from the crisis using their wealth to thrive while the least wealthy face the greatest risks. The stakes for a correction are high, with those who benefitted from creating the crisis on the verge of escaping its harm.
- Government no longer sufficiently represents citizens – thanks to massive vote dilution, which has allowed concentrations of wealth and power to move into control.
- There is a clear way to avoid the horrors above and restore democracy: If all rules should be fair, and the first rule does not regard what each should do, but must first account for who we should be, then whatever makes those relations/bonds fair is the first and overriding rule. If that’s true, it would justify effective incentives/entitlements to change how, where, when, why, with what resources, etc. women have children – to ensure birth equity, where each child is born and raised with what they need to thrive and be free.
- A nonviolent revolution moving wealth from the top to fund all of this could ensure freedom for many.
In other words, we have many seeking liberties, and a small group blocking it. A peaceful revolution based on fair starts in life for all kids would by more evolved than other revolutions, happening at the true border of human power: Our creation and development, which is where true self-determination occurs.
November 5, 2023