The way I describe those are the greed + need models. The first question you need to answer is whether the purpose of gov't is to provide for people's needs or to enable people to provide for themselves. The former requires centralization where people don't own the product of their own labor. I think that our compassion is being used to …
The way I describe those are the greed + need models. The first question you need to answer is whether the purpose of gov't is to provide for people's needs or to enable people to provide for themselves. The former requires centralization where people don't own the product of their own labor. I think that our compassion is being used to strip our sovereignty under the guise of helping 'disabled people who can't work.' But it really ends up giving defense contractors $61B for 'Ukraine'. There are other ways to help families and communities care for their own, I think.
Yeah I like that framing.... When soulless demons are in control, our compassion always will and always is used against us... Centralisation in and of itself isn't the overriding issue in my opinion, obviously it allows for a point of failure, which in any system or structure set up can be a major flaw... The issue as I see it, is continuous centralisation, where as we see today megalomaniacs are running a muck absorbing as much as possible into the core of their monopolys to achieve their goals.... If one group/country centralises it's resources for the betterment of that group or country as whole then the benefits are multiplied, so there's absolutely positives to centralisation... Norway is a good example on country level... They have vast natural resources, now no individual could ever benefit from these natural resources without the cooperation and centralisation of already existing resources. As the country extracted these resources and invested the money, the country grew richer in dollar terms and people lives improved, their health improved and they score highly by most metrics out there....
Now having said all that, the ultimate crux of it all is, what is the ultimate goal, because that will absolutely determine the process or structure you would require to create to achieve it...
I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on how a society deals with the spectrum of potential that is with the human condition without some sort of centralisation... I really want to try and crack that nut.
Thank you! I love my cover art too. The neighbor I mentioned in a different comment did a cartoon version (that's one of her skills) with photoshopped petrodactyls. That was fun too but I'm really pleased with the final iteration, done by a new grad graphic designer. She really captured my image!
🤣... Of course as I was thinking about you last night, I thought I really should read your book... Thanks for the link I'll take a peek at that and then obviously know your thoughts a bit deeper from there... 🙏
And I didn't mean my response to be snippy. It's just hard to reduce a new economic system to an elevator pitch. And this book, to be honest, is really out to disabuse readers of the notion they can 'fix' a centralized money system with taxes on the rich or tweaks or independent actions. It's not until people fully give up that they're ready for the final section on a framework, within which decentralized solutions can be developed specific to each community. We think there are 'quick fixes' that would be easier but in fact, they're impossible. But what we really want is not only possible but inevitable, and may be much quicker than we think.
Ah I wasn't exactly sure when I first saw it, however I gathered after some consideration that you wouldn't be and that you were more than likely guiding me to a more in depth and nuanced perspective, without having to repeat yourself and where I'd get a better answer. I'm aware there's no fixing a current system, I'm not saying we should plaster over the current crop of centralised systems that exist, I'm suggesting there's aspects of them worthy of consideration and aspects that have proven clear success... I'm absolutely anti government, so I'm open to any ideas that do away with that, I just feel rationally whatever is replacing the shit has to contend with many, in not all sspects of the human condition otherwise we'll be chasing our tails, or performing sacrifices again because some group think some people are inconvenient.... I'm absolutely fully aware there's no quick fixes, my concerns are mainly that we swap one thing for another and find out in order for the new system to exist, certain people are deemed unworthy, unproductive or "useless eaters" and disposed of... A few different forms of child sacrifice or abandonment still exists in today's world and other forms of euthanasia and such like... I feel it is imperative that we avoid these traps.
What protects the minority is the right of secession--to take their toys (property) and stay home. Under my system, credit to repay mortgage debt is distributed equally to all members of a commonwealth. But if you can show their system doesn't increase self-reliance through measurable goals like home ownership, small local businesses and small local landlords, you can secede from their system and design your own model. So there's no one with the authority to dispose of useless eaters ... but no one with the obligation to feed them either.
How does a disabled person, reliant on others for care/help just to live a basic life get to choose? If they are being abused in someway, they'd most likely not have the same ability as able bodied person to just up and leave, so they're choice is to remain in a abusive position because they literally have no other alternatives.... A minority that is fit and able is one thing, a minority that is reliant of others for life is something else entirely....
I have heard you discussing the credit/mortgage part before but hadn't quite absurd and understood it fully yet... Are you saying, all money at the point of creation is distributed equally or when debts are repaid to the commonwealth they are distributed equally to commonwealth members? Or am I missing the mark entirely? 🤣.....
Nobody has the authority now to dispose of "useless eaters", nobody as ever had that authority either, yet it's still happening, it's happening in my opinion, because We The People have forgotten our own power and authority, the collective we have outsourced our thinking to others, allowing the absolute worst of us to be able to interject into themselves into our lives... So I guess my question there would be what do you think will happen to those people, if there's no obligation to feed them? I'll give you an example...
A husband and wife have 4 children, 3 of which are disabled, they are immobile in various ways. The 3 disabled kids require 24 hour care alongside the "normal care" for their other child... This means the mother and father are unable to work enough hours to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.... Do they have to choose to kill their kids in order to participate in a system? It's obvious they are unable to contribute but also that they require help, and with help then could contribute...
I'm not trying to argue against or for anything here, I'm just trying to get my head around what would happen in certain scenarios or with problems I see occurring, so I can or obviously a commonwealth has solutions, that are of the final variety....
Let me answer your question starting at the level of story. The basis of this story is "I, Winston Smith, care about disabled people and would gladly do what I could to help a family with three disabled kids. But other people are inherently not as caring, perhaps heartless and cruel, and would force these parents to kill their children."
Is that story of your moral superiority true? Do other people need to be forced to do what comes naturally to you? It's this story of good vs. evil and moral superiority that keeps us trapped in centralized systems.
So let me reverse the question, how would you solve this problem as czar of your economic fiefdom designing a distribution system for carets? What carets represent is the legacy of already built homes, and other things like knowledge and infrastructure but let's keep it simple. They're only good for the services and goods you produce locally, unless exchanged for an imperial currency at the rate you'll set.
If you distribute dollars, like UBI or welfare (and my system doesn't take those away or compete with them, btw, so however this problem is solved now in the tax system will continue), that's backed by the labor of people in or from other countries who mine our energy, grow our food and produce our goods. So essentially, you're making it their obligation to support the disabled in our communities at the expense of their own. Make sure you figure that into your compassionate model. UBI is NOT universal or it wouldn't work.
The caret system takes the collective monthly mortgage debt, backed by the intergenerational legacy of housing, and distributes it equally AHEAD of repayment. That's a fixed rule so that it can't be corrupted and the money in circulation will always equal the debt.
Within that system, my model--developed independently by each commonwealth or subset thereof--distributes those as targeted dividends that can only be used in each of four categories: locally produced food, wellcare, education and home improvements. I also have a maximum wage for anyone accepting carets. Wellcare includes childcare, elderly care, and care for the disabled. So within that neighborhood, others who aren't using their wellcare dividend could gift it to this family. Through other means I lower the cost of housing, so no families need two fulltime incomes to survive. It's not just disabled kids who need a mother who's around, imo. But again, this is a supplemental system that doesn't replace whatever's happening now through gov'ts. The only thing it takes away is money from nothing for the bankers.
"Is that story of your moral superiority true" two things.... True is in a real world example. And you say "your moral superiority" what are you trying to get at here? That I'm trying appear morally superior? Or what?
I meant that philosophically, not in a personal sense. I just posted the YT responding to this but it will take me awhile to get the stack version, since I didn't write it before I recorded. I think the belief in our own moral superiority (for everybody) is what keeps power centralized. Here it is in YT form to hopefully explain my point better: https://youtu.be/yXdvZx86ENQ.
The way I describe those are the greed + need models. The first question you need to answer is whether the purpose of gov't is to provide for people's needs or to enable people to provide for themselves. The former requires centralization where people don't own the product of their own labor. I think that our compassion is being used to strip our sovereignty under the guise of helping 'disabled people who can't work.' But it really ends up giving defense contractors $61B for 'Ukraine'. There are other ways to help families and communities care for their own, I think.
Yeah I like that framing.... When soulless demons are in control, our compassion always will and always is used against us... Centralisation in and of itself isn't the overriding issue in my opinion, obviously it allows for a point of failure, which in any system or structure set up can be a major flaw... The issue as I see it, is continuous centralisation, where as we see today megalomaniacs are running a muck absorbing as much as possible into the core of their monopolys to achieve their goals.... If one group/country centralises it's resources for the betterment of that group or country as whole then the benefits are multiplied, so there's absolutely positives to centralisation... Norway is a good example on country level... They have vast natural resources, now no individual could ever benefit from these natural resources without the cooperation and centralisation of already existing resources. As the country extracted these resources and invested the money, the country grew richer in dollar terms and people lives improved, their health improved and they score highly by most metrics out there....
Now having said all that, the ultimate crux of it all is, what is the ultimate goal, because that will absolutely determine the process or structure you would require to create to achieve it...
I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on how a society deals with the spectrum of potential that is with the human condition without some sort of centralisation... I really want to try and crack that nut.
Well, I have written a book on it ...
Absolutely love the cover artwork...
Thank you! I love my cover art too. The neighbor I mentioned in a different comment did a cartoon version (that's one of her skills) with photoshopped petrodactyls. That was fun too but I'm really pleased with the final iteration, done by a new grad graphic designer. She really captured my image!
🤣... Of course as I was thinking about you last night, I thought I really should read your book... Thanks for the link I'll take a peek at that and then obviously know your thoughts a bit deeper from there... 🙏
And I didn't mean my response to be snippy. It's just hard to reduce a new economic system to an elevator pitch. And this book, to be honest, is really out to disabuse readers of the notion they can 'fix' a centralized money system with taxes on the rich or tweaks or independent actions. It's not until people fully give up that they're ready for the final section on a framework, within which decentralized solutions can be developed specific to each community. We think there are 'quick fixes' that would be easier but in fact, they're impossible. But what we really want is not only possible but inevitable, and may be much quicker than we think.
Ah I wasn't exactly sure when I first saw it, however I gathered after some consideration that you wouldn't be and that you were more than likely guiding me to a more in depth and nuanced perspective, without having to repeat yourself and where I'd get a better answer. I'm aware there's no fixing a current system, I'm not saying we should plaster over the current crop of centralised systems that exist, I'm suggesting there's aspects of them worthy of consideration and aspects that have proven clear success... I'm absolutely anti government, so I'm open to any ideas that do away with that, I just feel rationally whatever is replacing the shit has to contend with many, in not all sspects of the human condition otherwise we'll be chasing our tails, or performing sacrifices again because some group think some people are inconvenient.... I'm absolutely fully aware there's no quick fixes, my concerns are mainly that we swap one thing for another and find out in order for the new system to exist, certain people are deemed unworthy, unproductive or "useless eaters" and disposed of... A few different forms of child sacrifice or abandonment still exists in today's world and other forms of euthanasia and such like... I feel it is imperative that we avoid these traps.
What protects the minority is the right of secession--to take their toys (property) and stay home. Under my system, credit to repay mortgage debt is distributed equally to all members of a commonwealth. But if you can show their system doesn't increase self-reliance through measurable goals like home ownership, small local businesses and small local landlords, you can secede from their system and design your own model. So there's no one with the authority to dispose of useless eaters ... but no one with the obligation to feed them either.
How does a disabled person, reliant on others for care/help just to live a basic life get to choose? If they are being abused in someway, they'd most likely not have the same ability as able bodied person to just up and leave, so they're choice is to remain in a abusive position because they literally have no other alternatives.... A minority that is fit and able is one thing, a minority that is reliant of others for life is something else entirely....
I have heard you discussing the credit/mortgage part before but hadn't quite absurd and understood it fully yet... Are you saying, all money at the point of creation is distributed equally or when debts are repaid to the commonwealth they are distributed equally to commonwealth members? Or am I missing the mark entirely? 🤣.....
Nobody has the authority now to dispose of "useless eaters", nobody as ever had that authority either, yet it's still happening, it's happening in my opinion, because We The People have forgotten our own power and authority, the collective we have outsourced our thinking to others, allowing the absolute worst of us to be able to interject into themselves into our lives... So I guess my question there would be what do you think will happen to those people, if there's no obligation to feed them? I'll give you an example...
A husband and wife have 4 children, 3 of which are disabled, they are immobile in various ways. The 3 disabled kids require 24 hour care alongside the "normal care" for their other child... This means the mother and father are unable to work enough hours to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.... Do they have to choose to kill their kids in order to participate in a system? It's obvious they are unable to contribute but also that they require help, and with help then could contribute...
I'm not trying to argue against or for anything here, I'm just trying to get my head around what would happen in certain scenarios or with problems I see occurring, so I can or obviously a commonwealth has solutions, that are of the final variety....
Have a great day. 🙏
Let me answer your question starting at the level of story. The basis of this story is "I, Winston Smith, care about disabled people and would gladly do what I could to help a family with three disabled kids. But other people are inherently not as caring, perhaps heartless and cruel, and would force these parents to kill their children."
Is that story of your moral superiority true? Do other people need to be forced to do what comes naturally to you? It's this story of good vs. evil and moral superiority that keeps us trapped in centralized systems.
So let me reverse the question, how would you solve this problem as czar of your economic fiefdom designing a distribution system for carets? What carets represent is the legacy of already built homes, and other things like knowledge and infrastructure but let's keep it simple. They're only good for the services and goods you produce locally, unless exchanged for an imperial currency at the rate you'll set.
If you distribute dollars, like UBI or welfare (and my system doesn't take those away or compete with them, btw, so however this problem is solved now in the tax system will continue), that's backed by the labor of people in or from other countries who mine our energy, grow our food and produce our goods. So essentially, you're making it their obligation to support the disabled in our communities at the expense of their own. Make sure you figure that into your compassionate model. UBI is NOT universal or it wouldn't work.
The caret system takes the collective monthly mortgage debt, backed by the intergenerational legacy of housing, and distributes it equally AHEAD of repayment. That's a fixed rule so that it can't be corrupted and the money in circulation will always equal the debt.
Within that system, my model--developed independently by each commonwealth or subset thereof--distributes those as targeted dividends that can only be used in each of four categories: locally produced food, wellcare, education and home improvements. I also have a maximum wage for anyone accepting carets. Wellcare includes childcare, elderly care, and care for the disabled. So within that neighborhood, others who aren't using their wellcare dividend could gift it to this family. Through other means I lower the cost of housing, so no families need two fulltime incomes to survive. It's not just disabled kids who need a mother who's around, imo. But again, this is a supplemental system that doesn't replace whatever's happening now through gov'ts. The only thing it takes away is money from nothing for the bankers.
"Is that story of your moral superiority true" two things.... True is in a real world example. And you say "your moral superiority" what are you trying to get at here? That I'm trying appear morally superior? Or what?
I meant that philosophically, not in a personal sense. I just posted the YT responding to this but it will take me awhile to get the stack version, since I didn't write it before I recorded. I think the belief in our own moral superiority (for everybody) is what keeps power centralized. Here it is in YT form to hopefully explain my point better: https://youtu.be/yXdvZx86ENQ.
Or are you asking philosophically? Sorry I'm not reading the sentiments behind the questions very well here...