What’s the most just and effective reform possible? Ensuring every child a measurably fair start in life.

Documents like constitutions and treaties do not constitute legal obligations and nations – only people empowering others can do that, and the first necessary condition of that process is ensuring we account for the costs of ensuring all children enter the word above a “one person, one equal and influential vote” standard of democratic empowerment.

How do we assess if the costs are being covered? Those who wish to pay them can never compete against those who refuse, who would exploit infants and animals.

Take anyone’s or any institution’s value assessmenhttps://share.google/WXipyKPxLibirwjJts and impact claims – this is what situates them in the political system.

Questions: Is the target making political authority and entitlement to wealth contingent on empowering those subject to these things, and first order- children entering the world? Are they constituting a just future? Are they legitimate?

 

 

 

Are they #illegallydiscounting and disenfranchising future lives?

Fact: Growing political inequity would have done more to harm their professed values than they have done to further them, and they are likely knowingly omitting the countervailing impacts of that growth in their value assessments and impact claims.

Anyone can use any AI tool to see this clearly, contrasting claimed impact with the impact of that growth.

Or use this great tool: FalseClaimsChecker,org

 

This is called #illegaldiscounting, a cost/benefit analysis that uses a false premise – legitimate obligation in a legal system that does not empower those subject to it – to enable certain business models.

It derives from the privatization of the creation of power relations, an inversion of the meaning of self-determination, by corrupt leaders in the human rights regime decades ago. These leaders subverted racial justice and decolonization efforts by maintaining “separate but equal” ideologies, and the protection of mostly white generational wealth, in the reproductive rights regime over intergenerational justice and a threshold for democratic empowerment of future children.

This decoupled political representative ratios from ecological carrying capacities – the resulting inequitable and unsustainable growth – what one Nobel laureate called a Ponzi scheme – has been catastrophic, ensuring vast inequity and ecocide, and moving the freedom and self-determination of many into the banks accounts of a few. That wealth now funds a fantasy world of misleading public impact claims to hide the illegitimacy, with sensational micro victories hiding how daily growth undoes the benefits.

Illegal discounting entails assuming children deserve what they are born with rather than what their rights and political equity require and discounting costs accordingly. It also involves assuming the legitimacy of a political system in which children of color receive a fraction of what white kids get.

This enriches some illegally, at deadly cost to others.

It skews the baseline for things like climate reparations by as much as five times, minimizing life-saving liability because it does not account for actual, or birth-based power relations. Instead it looks at them abstractly.

This has a disenfranchising and discriminatory impact on future generations, relative to things like democratic representative ratios and ecological carrying capacities.

Here is what we can do to stop it:

Take anti-greenwashing legal frameworks and look for #legitimacywashing instead.

Illegal discounting violates unfair competition and civil rights laws because it disenfranchises future generations relative to a zero / legitimate baseline, and is inherently deceptive and discriminatory.

It is preemptively illegal, under constitutional law, because the authority to govern derives from the need to empower those subject to that authority. Illegal discounting converts the possibility of democratic participation into unsustainable, inequitable and disenfranchising growth by discounting the lives of future children beneath a threshold of democratic empowerment.

 

 

 

Major philanthropic institutions and nonprofits in the United States and Europe use it to preserve status quo generational wealth, over the public interest values they proclaim.

That means the same institutions that claim to be fighting climate change have for decades been discounting the damages in things like public interest litigation, in some cases with as much as one fifth the accurate damage assessment.

This is the primary ethical, moral, political, legal question, and because it is existential: Are we valuing others enough to make our benefits and obligations contingent on their empowerment?

What would it take to empower children as they come into the world with a representative ratio pegged to restorative ecological carrying capacities, and racial/political equity?

 

 

 

Then challenge the claims and business models as illegal under unfair competition, civil rights and constitutional law. Only this tests whether political authority and entitlement to wealth is contingent on empowerment. Only this accounts for the inseparability of values from obligation.

The University of Denver recently returned $250k to a funder because of their illegal discounting in regards to their animal law program.

Read the complaint about that here.

Fair Start Movement is now assisting Truth alliance.global to make its own claims against the school for the harm it suffered.

In circles of funders and advocates dedicated to animal protection the question of whether organizations are illegally discounting (ID), devaluing the future lives of animals in their business modeling, is a real issue.

How it works (much like a Ponzi):

Funders create their wealth based on inequitable and unsustainable growth – by not paying the costs of empowering children or evading the climate crisis, by discounting black lives, etc.

The funder then invests in the growth-based food or materials industry to make money, funds nonprofit organizations to create market preference for vegan products through downstream activism (distractivism) – after the harm has occurred, and more animals go into the system with more harm to the environment.

The funder and their wealthy kids walk away with the proceeds, the activists get paid their salary and their egos get fed, and animals and vulnerable communities are worse off.

Corrupt lawyers look the other way.

 

 

Trump and those like him (mostly white generational wealth) win, because instead of animal protection blocking the inequitable and disenfranchising growth that created him, the animal protection movement enables the growth by creating a fantasy world of downstream victories to hide it.

Anyone can analyze animal protection claims against growth to see this.

I’ve seen high school students spot the Ponzi.

This has gone on a long time, but as the climate crisis death count rises, so does the liability of those engaged in this, and we may be reaching a point where key targets/examples start to fall.

Anyone can take similar action against similar targets.