Political Humor | About the Politics of Empowerment

What are the “politics of empowerment?”

To explain the politics of empowerment, it’s probably easiest to start with what it isn’t. It isn’t the competitive model.

The competitive model says that for A to win, B must lose. For B to win, A must lose. It often does work that way in specific areas of life, but the pattern falls apart when applied to life itself, as a whole. In other words, if a company has 1 open position and 10 applicants, it fits the competitive model. Nine applicants lose and only one wins. In a football game, one team wins, and the other loses.

Life itself does not work this way. It’s a common misconception to apply this thought pattern to life itself. As a result, people think that if someone is wealthy and successful, that person must have done so through betrayal, selfishness, and other unethical means. Worse yet, it cripples others who actually fear success because of this societal lie that’s been constantly programmed into our culture. Yes, people actually fear success because they think the rest of society will suffer as a result.

It simply doesn’t work that way.

The competitive model is based on the premise of zero sum. What that means is that there is a limited and specified quantity of wealth, resources, or whatever. To explain zero sum, think of a pie. There is only one pie, and it has 8 slices. That means that if someone gets a piece, someone else is deprived, and if someone gets two pieces, they’ve definitely had more than their “fair share,” because now there are twice as many people deprived by the “two slices for me” douche bag’s abundance.

Socialism says, slice the pie into more pieces that are smaller and distribute them all equally. The result is that no one is satisfied, because no one even gets one whole slice of pie. In fact, all anyone gets is a tiny crumb.

The perception of Capitalism is that the highest bidder gets the most pie. However much he can afford. That’s not what true Capitalism is, though. Real Capitalism would say, “There isn’t enough pie for everyone,” and make more pie. Then there’s enough for everyone, and the high rollers can have all the pie they want, which funds making more pies.

The Empowerment model rejects the notion that one person’s gain is another’s loss. It rejects the idea that one person’s advantage is another’s disadvantage. The empowerment model recognizes that as one individual improves - Financially, physically, emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually - It benefits everyone. It’s the same reason why tax cuts grow the GDP.

So why not just call it Capitalism?

I like calling it empowerment politics for a few reasons:

• I hate the “two party” system. It’s dis-empowering, and based on the competitive model.
• I hate “both” parties. It disgusts me that people choose to be victims of this pathetic, idiotic notion of only having two choices. You are only limited to two choices if you believe the competitive model.
• People have an incorrect impression about what Capitalism is, so I’d rather not call it that. This faulty understanding is based upon the competitive model.
• It’s much bigger in scope than just an economic philosophy. It’s a philosophy for Life itself. This is probably the most important reason for calling it by a new name.

The goal is to understand that when you empower yourself, you empower everyone. You can’t change the world, but by changing yourself, and the lens through which you see the world, the world will change. There can be no other way.

I have plenty more to say about this topic, and I hope you look forward to discussing it as I do. Life is not something that happens to you. It’s something you create in your own image.

If this sounds like an idea you would like to learn more about, Subscribe to Radioactive Liberty.