- December 3rd, 2024, 11:37 am
#470336
If you haven't already, you can sign up to be personally mentored by Scott "Eckhart Aurelius" Hughes at this link.
This is a key tenet in my system for success, both financial and otherwise:
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It can be created.
There are two main ways to create wealth:
1. When we creatively find a way to metaphorically kill two birds with one stone, when others are using two stones, we create wealth. For example, you get paid two stones to kill two birds, but you kill both birds with one stone, and thus you have profited one stone.
2. When we have mutually beneficial relationships, we create wealth.
Don't be afraid to help someone else succeed. If you're afraid of anything, be afraid not to.
Selfishness breeds failure. Generosity breeds success.
There is a deep connection with (1) the concept of wealth creation, namely through mutually beneficial transactions, exchanges, and relationships, and (2) the Non-Aggression Principle.
That's because free people who voluntarily enter into a consensual transaction/exchange/relationship/etc. typically only do so if it is profitable to them.
To use a gross but poignant example: Consensual sex tends to be pleasing (a.k.a. emotionally profitable) to both parties; rape would only be beneficial to one, at best.
Slavery and theft tend to (at best) benefit only one party at the loss of the other, and at a total net loss overall. The rapists, enslavers, thieves, and other violators of the Non-Aggression Principle tend to treat wealth as if it was a zero-sum game. They tend to think that for them to win, profit, or benefit from an interaction/exchange/transaction with you that you must lose. They profit, but you lose, and due to transaction costs and friction the total wealth in the world goes down. They do the opposite of create wealth: They destroy wealth; they destroy it in the process of expensively moving it from your possession to theirs against your will.
In contrast, free people tend to form mutually beneficial relationships. And mutually beneficial relationships are profitable to both parties by definition, meaning when those kinds of relationships happen the total amount of wealth in the world goes up. Wealth has been created out of thin air.
For example, if oranges are worth more to me than apples, and apples are worth more to you than oranges, I can trade you two of my apples for two of your oranges, and we both have profited. We are both better off. Wealth has been created.
Consensual trade tends to be mutually beneficial. Needless to say, it's not consensual if there is a threat of violence or dishonest fraud taking place. Or if one party is drunk or a young child being taken advantage of or such.
In fact, since value is subjective (e.g. one man's trash is another man's treasure), the only reliable measure of whether a transaction is mutually beneficial is whether it's consensual.
In other words, not only is consensuality so heavily correlated to mutual beneficiality, but also it's so much more correlated to it than anything else that it's the only reliable measure of mutual beneficiality.
Apples might be relative trash to me compared to oranges, and for you it might be vice versa, but the only reliable way to measure that is by whether or not you and/or I voluntarily agree to consensually trade my apples for your oranges. If I am eagerly willing to pay 100 apples for a single orange, you can safely conclude that apples are relative trash to me compared to oranges and that the exchange would be profitable to me even though I'd be giving 100 apples for just one little treasured orange. If you choose to do the trade too, then that indicates that the 100 apples are worth more to you than the one orange you pay me for them, so you've profited too. We both have more relative treasure. Otherwise, we wouldn't do the trade.
Keep in mind, the idea of profit and mutual benefit isn't limited to simple monetary profit.
For example, I may donate $5 to charity or to a homeless person I pass on the street. If I am doing it voluntarily (a.k.a. consensually), then you can safely conclude that it is a mutually beneficial exchange (at least, that is, assuming the person receiving the charitable donation receives it voluntarily and consensually and doesn't have it forced upon them by me against their will). Presumably, the good emotional feelings I get and sense of pride, or some other reward, is worth more to me than the $5.
Colloquially and roughly speaking, there's a popular motto that helps capture the main point of this post: Good ideas don't require force.
If a trade with you will profit me, and be my best option, you don't need to put a gun to my head and force me into the trade.
If the sex is going to be in my best interests, you don't need to rape me.
If you want to be a wealth creator who can create infinite wealth out of thin air, my advice to you is to be a firm supporter of and strict follower of The Non-Aggression Principle.
Refuse to do business with or even have personal relationships with people who engage in theft, robbery, fraud, or any acts of non-consensual non-defensive violence. In other words, don't do business with or even be friends or romantic partners or golf buddies with people who violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Those are wealth-destroying thugs, and you want nothing to do with them.
More importantly, since you can't cut yourself out of your own life, make sure to not be one of those people yourself. In fact, work as hard as you can and do your absolute best to be the utter total opposite of one of those people. Do your absolute best, day in and day out, to strictly adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. Go above and beyond at it. Don't even get near the borderline of trespassing on other people's freedom. Don't even get into the borderline of forcing someone else into a non-consensual relationship or exchange with you. In practice, there's a lot of gray areas when it comes politics, freedom, business, and consent. My advice to you is this: When you hit those gray areas, yield. Let the other person have their way.
I'm not a full-blown pacifist, and I don't encourage full-blown pacifism. Stand up to bullies. I will meet non-defensive violence with defensive violence, and I encourage you to do the same. At least, that is, when you are dealing with a black-and-white case where it is clear who the violent aggressor is and who (if anyone) the defending NAP-following innocent victim is.
It's very common for two people to have a violent conflict in which both parties genuinely believe they are the defender and the other is the aggressor.
Personally, my bet in those situations is that more than 99.9% of the time that happens both parties are violators of the NAP, and there is no innocent NAP-following victim.
If non-defensive violence erupts (i.e. if a non-consensual interaction occurs), we know at least one party is initiating it (i.e. is an aggressor), but that doesn't mean at least one party is an innocent victim who is only engaging in defense against an aggressor. If two people are fighting each other to the death (non-consensually), we know one is a murderer, but they could both be murderers.
In practice, following the NAP becomes pointless if the moment your smiling kind neighbor steps his toe slightly over where you think the property line is between your two houses you shoot him and his entire family for trespassing and then blow their house up with grenades. You can argue you are following the NAP and just defending yourself in that situation, but in practice you would be sacrificing all the benefits of following the NAP.
You only will reap the practical benefits of following the NAP (i.e. becoming a wealth creator who can easily create infinite wealth), if, and only if, you go above and beyond in following the NAP. When you find yourself in those gray areas, you err on the side of peace, non-violence, and peaceful negotiation that works towards mutually beneficial voluntary fully consensual interactions and exchanges. Don't just look for a resolution that would arguably be just barely consistent with The NAP. Go above and beyond in following it, such that it is not even arguable whether the NAP has been followed by you. Look for enthusiastic consent, not just mere consent. Hold yourself to a much higher standard than you hold your could-be or would-be enemy or opponent.
It's not that uncommon for two people to have a sexual interaction and then disagree about whether it was consensual or not. Don't put yourself in that situation, for a variety of reasons. And follow the same principle in business and all other non-sexual matters. Do business that is so above and beyond consensual and so incredibly mutually beneficial that it's even close to a gray area.
When I give my customers a survey after doing business with them, I don't ask, "Do you feel I violently robbed you and that you have been victimized by me?" A 'no' answer to that question gives me little indication that I am creating wealth. It's adequate enough, perhaps, to show that I didn't definitely violate the NAP, but it's not adequate enough to reap the practical and ultra-enriching benefits of following the NAP.
Instead, I'll ask something like, "Do you feel you got incredible bang for your buck? Will you eagerly buy from us again? Do you feel my team and I consistently went above and beyond to serve you? Would you rate our product and service 10/10? Have you been overwhelmed and shocked at how incredible our service has been?"
I might ask, one way or another, "Would you not only say that you feel you enthusiastically consented it our previous exchange but also that you would eagerly and enthusiastically consent to do business with me again if I was willing?"
When you have that kind of attitude and go above and beyond in practicing The NAP in that way, eager people line up your door to business with you and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges you that you make you (and them) richer. Your restaurants can't keep up with all the customers lining up at the door. Your customers start pricing themselves out in (peaceful) bidding wars against each other to get your highly valuable, in-demand, and ultra coveted services. They start bribing the bouncer at your nightclub to skip the line because it's so long. You'll have to hire security just to keep all the people wanting to give you great offers at bay because you are literally overwhelmed with how much money people want to to throw at you.
I look for enthusiastic consent before, during, and after.
I ignore tiny transgressions.
I treat gray areas like they are black-and-white in my would-be enemy's favor.
You could call these principles and habits of mine The Nap PLUS.
If The NAP is profitable to follow, imagine how profitable bi]The NAP PLUS[/b] is to follow.
I don't just practice the principles of Live And Let Live and To Each Their Own. I take those principles to the extreme.
I am an extremist when it comes to freedom and peace.
I'm not a full-blown pacifist. But it takes a lot for me to conclude that defensive force (i.e, defensive violence) is not only possible but warranted and desirable. And even then, I will only use the bare minimum and err heavily on the side of peace rather than potential excessive force.
In the gray areas, I err on the side of peace, meaning also on the side of peaceful honest persuasion, peaceful honest negotiation, and peaceful honest acceptance of other people's choices, even if I think those choices are not in their best interests or area a borderline violation of the NAP against me.
I treat borderline or minor violations of the NAP against me as if they are no violation of the NAP at all. I treat borderline or minor violations of the NAP by me against others as if they would be full-blown huge violations. That's what The NAP PLUS means to me. I hold myself to a much higher standard than I hold others.
If you don't want to trade apples for oranges, fine, your choice. To each their own. Live and let live.
If you want to use your freedom of speech to say racial slurs against me, or even arguably commit defamation/libel against me, or even borderline threaten me with violence, fine, your choice. To each their own. I'll live and let you live even as you infringe on my living a little bit.
I hold myself to a much higher standard. When I rate the severity of a would-be transgression against me, I purposely underrate it and err heavily on the side of underestimating it. When I rate the severity of a would-be transgression I would be committing against another, I purposely overrate it and overestimate it. When I decide whether to treat a gray area as black or white, I treat it in the way that would favor my would-be opponent or would-be enemy, in the way he would prefer. That is The NAP Plus.
And it so profitable.
The NAP Plus is so profitable.
It creates so much damn wealth, for you and everyone who chooses to be your friend or business partner.
You become the goose that lays golden eggs.
Your problem will be that you have way too many people lining up eagerly wanting to propose and engage in mutually beneficial, ultra-profitable exchanges with you. Your problem will be that you have way too many people throwing way too much money at you.
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
mutually-beneficial-relationships-create-wealth.png (2.79 MiB) Viewed 4506 times
---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.
This is a key tenet in my system for success, both financial and otherwise:
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It can be created.
There are two main ways to create wealth:
1. When we creatively find a way to metaphorically kill two birds with one stone, when others are using two stones, we create wealth. For example, you get paid two stones to kill two birds, but you kill both birds with one stone, and thus you have profited one stone.
2. When we have mutually beneficial relationships, we create wealth.
Don't be afraid to help someone else succeed. If you're afraid of anything, be afraid not to.
Selfishness breeds failure. Generosity breeds success.
There is a deep connection with (1) the concept of wealth creation, namely through mutually beneficial transactions, exchanges, and relationships, and (2) the Non-Aggression Principle.
That's because free people who voluntarily enter into a consensual transaction/exchange/relationship/etc. typically only do so if it is profitable to them.
To use a gross but poignant example: Consensual sex tends to be pleasing (a.k.a. emotionally profitable) to both parties; rape would only be beneficial to one, at best.
Slavery and theft tend to (at best) benefit only one party at the loss of the other, and at a total net loss overall. The rapists, enslavers, thieves, and other violators of the Non-Aggression Principle tend to treat wealth as if it was a zero-sum game. They tend to think that for them to win, profit, or benefit from an interaction/exchange/transaction with you that you must lose. They profit, but you lose, and due to transaction costs and friction the total wealth in the world goes down. They do the opposite of create wealth: They destroy wealth; they destroy it in the process of expensively moving it from your possession to theirs against your will.
In contrast, free people tend to form mutually beneficial relationships. And mutually beneficial relationships are profitable to both parties by definition, meaning when those kinds of relationships happen the total amount of wealth in the world goes up. Wealth has been created out of thin air.
For example, if oranges are worth more to me than apples, and apples are worth more to you than oranges, I can trade you two of my apples for two of your oranges, and we both have profited. We are both better off. Wealth has been created.
Consensual trade tends to be mutually beneficial. Needless to say, it's not consensual if there is a threat of violence or dishonest fraud taking place. Or if one party is drunk or a young child being taken advantage of or such.
In fact, since value is subjective (e.g. one man's trash is another man's treasure), the only reliable measure of whether a transaction is mutually beneficial is whether it's consensual.
In other words, not only is consensuality so heavily correlated to mutual beneficiality, but also it's so much more correlated to it than anything else that it's the only reliable measure of mutual beneficiality.
Apples might be relative trash to me compared to oranges, and for you it might be vice versa, but the only reliable way to measure that is by whether or not you and/or I voluntarily agree to consensually trade my apples for your oranges. If I am eagerly willing to pay 100 apples for a single orange, you can safely conclude that apples are relative trash to me compared to oranges and that the exchange would be profitable to me even though I'd be giving 100 apples for just one little treasured orange. If you choose to do the trade too, then that indicates that the 100 apples are worth more to you than the one orange you pay me for them, so you've profited too. We both have more relative treasure. Otherwise, we wouldn't do the trade.
Keep in mind, the idea of profit and mutual benefit isn't limited to simple monetary profit.
For example, I may donate $5 to charity or to a homeless person I pass on the street. If I am doing it voluntarily (a.k.a. consensually), then you can safely conclude that it is a mutually beneficial exchange (at least, that is, assuming the person receiving the charitable donation receives it voluntarily and consensually and doesn't have it forced upon them by me against their will). Presumably, the good emotional feelings I get and sense of pride, or some other reward, is worth more to me than the $5.
Colloquially and roughly speaking, there's a popular motto that helps capture the main point of this post: Good ideas don't require force.
If a trade with you will profit me, and be my best option, you don't need to put a gun to my head and force me into the trade.
If the sex is going to be in my best interests, you don't need to rape me.
If you want to be a wealth creator who can create infinite wealth out of thin air, my advice to you is to be a firm supporter of and strict follower of The Non-Aggression Principle.
Refuse to do business with or even have personal relationships with people who engage in theft, robbery, fraud, or any acts of non-consensual non-defensive violence. In other words, don't do business with or even be friends or romantic partners or golf buddies with people who violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Those are wealth-destroying thugs, and you want nothing to do with them.
More importantly, since you can't cut yourself out of your own life, make sure to not be one of those people yourself. In fact, work as hard as you can and do your absolute best to be the utter total opposite of one of those people. Do your absolute best, day in and day out, to strictly adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. Go above and beyond at it. Don't even get near the borderline of trespassing on other people's freedom. Don't even get into the borderline of forcing someone else into a non-consensual relationship or exchange with you. In practice, there's a lot of gray areas when it comes politics, freedom, business, and consent. My advice to you is this: When you hit those gray areas, yield. Let the other person have their way.
I'm not a full-blown pacifist, and I don't encourage full-blown pacifism. Stand up to bullies. I will meet non-defensive violence with defensive violence, and I encourage you to do the same. At least, that is, when you are dealing with a black-and-white case where it is clear who the violent aggressor is and who (if anyone) the defending NAP-following innocent victim is.
It's very common for two people to have a violent conflict in which both parties genuinely believe they are the defender and the other is the aggressor.
Personally, my bet in those situations is that more than 99.9% of the time that happens both parties are violators of the NAP, and there is no innocent NAP-following victim.
If non-defensive violence erupts (i.e. if a non-consensual interaction occurs), we know at least one party is initiating it (i.e. is an aggressor), but that doesn't mean at least one party is an innocent victim who is only engaging in defense against an aggressor. If two people are fighting each other to the death (non-consensually), we know one is a murderer, but they could both be murderers.
In practice, following the NAP becomes pointless if the moment your smiling kind neighbor steps his toe slightly over where you think the property line is between your two houses you shoot him and his entire family for trespassing and then blow their house up with grenades. You can argue you are following the NAP and just defending yourself in that situation, but in practice you would be sacrificing all the benefits of following the NAP.
You only will reap the practical benefits of following the NAP (i.e. becoming a wealth creator who can easily create infinite wealth), if, and only if, you go above and beyond in following the NAP. When you find yourself in those gray areas, you err on the side of peace, non-violence, and peaceful negotiation that works towards mutually beneficial voluntary fully consensual interactions and exchanges. Don't just look for a resolution that would arguably be just barely consistent with The NAP. Go above and beyond in following it, such that it is not even arguable whether the NAP has been followed by you. Look for enthusiastic consent, not just mere consent. Hold yourself to a much higher standard than you hold your could-be or would-be enemy or opponent.
It's not that uncommon for two people to have a sexual interaction and then disagree about whether it was consensual or not. Don't put yourself in that situation, for a variety of reasons. And follow the same principle in business and all other non-sexual matters. Do business that is so above and beyond consensual and so incredibly mutually beneficial that it's even close to a gray area.
When I give my customers a survey after doing business with them, I don't ask, "Do you feel I violently robbed you and that you have been victimized by me?" A 'no' answer to that question gives me little indication that I am creating wealth. It's adequate enough, perhaps, to show that I didn't definitely violate the NAP, but it's not adequate enough to reap the practical and ultra-enriching benefits of following the NAP.
Instead, I'll ask something like, "Do you feel you got incredible bang for your buck? Will you eagerly buy from us again? Do you feel my team and I consistently went above and beyond to serve you? Would you rate our product and service 10/10? Have you been overwhelmed and shocked at how incredible our service has been?"
I might ask, one way or another, "Would you not only say that you feel you enthusiastically consented it our previous exchange but also that you would eagerly and enthusiastically consent to do business with me again if I was willing?"
When you have that kind of attitude and go above and beyond in practicing The NAP in that way, eager people line up your door to business with you and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges you that you make you (and them) richer. Your restaurants can't keep up with all the customers lining up at the door. Your customers start pricing themselves out in (peaceful) bidding wars against each other to get your highly valuable, in-demand, and ultra coveted services. They start bribing the bouncer at your nightclub to skip the line because it's so long. You'll have to hire security just to keep all the people wanting to give you great offers at bay because you are literally overwhelmed with how much money people want to to throw at you.
I look for enthusiastic consent before, during, and after.
I ignore tiny transgressions.
I treat gray areas like they are black-and-white in my would-be enemy's favor.
You could call these principles and habits of mine The Nap PLUS.
If The NAP is profitable to follow, imagine how profitable bi]The NAP PLUS[/b] is to follow.
I don't just practice the principles of Live And Let Live and To Each Their Own. I take those principles to the extreme.
I am an extremist when it comes to freedom and peace.
I'm not a full-blown pacifist. But it takes a lot for me to conclude that defensive force (i.e, defensive violence) is not only possible but warranted and desirable. And even then, I will only use the bare minimum and err heavily on the side of peace rather than potential excessive force.
In the gray areas, I err on the side of peace, meaning also on the side of peaceful honest persuasion, peaceful honest negotiation, and peaceful honest acceptance of other people's choices, even if I think those choices are not in their best interests or area a borderline violation of the NAP against me.
I treat borderline or minor violations of the NAP against me as if they are no violation of the NAP at all. I treat borderline or minor violations of the NAP by me against others as if they would be full-blown huge violations. That's what The NAP PLUS means to me. I hold myself to a much higher standard than I hold others.
If you don't want to trade apples for oranges, fine, your choice. To each their own. Live and let live.
If you want to use your freedom of speech to say racial slurs against me, or even arguably commit defamation/libel against me, or even borderline threaten me with violence, fine, your choice. To each their own. I'll live and let you live even as you infringe on my living a little bit.
I hold myself to a much higher standard. When I rate the severity of a would-be transgression against me, I purposely underrate it and err heavily on the side of underestimating it. When I rate the severity of a would-be transgression I would be committing against another, I purposely overrate it and overestimate it. When I decide whether to treat a gray area as black or white, I treat it in the way that would favor my would-be opponent or would-be enemy, in the way he would prefer. That is The NAP Plus.
And it so profitable.
The NAP Plus is so profitable.
It creates so much damn wealth, for you and everyone who chooses to be your friend or business partner.
You become the goose that lays golden eggs.
Your problem will be that you have way too many people lining up eagerly wanting to propose and engage in mutually beneficial, ultra-profitable exchanges with you. Your problem will be that you have way too many people throwing way too much money at you.
With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
---
In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Signature Addition: View official OnlineBookClub.org review of In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
View Bookshelves page for In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
- By Bethel Saint Bright
- By Sy Borg