One simple trick to decimate the entirety of the Illuminati overnight.
17 2017-07-02 by LightBringerFlex
First thing first, note that all 3 major economic models (capitalism, socialism, and communism) are designed to enslave the people. With capitalism, the most powerful corporations work with the government to harvest the money using giant money vacuums leaving the people in shambles. Socialism is just a middleman between capitalism and communism. It is is used when people are trying to move a community a step into the opposite direction. In communism, the government owns everything, gives the people about $3 a day, and expect everyone to work hard to keep society going but nobody is going to work hard with a $3 a day salary in a job the government forced them into.
Basically, the whole thing is fucked and it is done so intentionally to confuse us into thinking all we have to pick from is 3 different kinds of evil. We need to think outside the box.
Here's what we know: Money is how we are enslaved. The way it works is that the slave master holds most of the money and throws a few sheckles into the goy's bank account thereby forcing the goy to do something for the slavemaster. If the goy does not do it, the slave owner no longer throws a few sheckles to that particular goy. The slave-masters secret is that he always has control over most of the wealth but he has to simultaneously make the goy think that it is only a matter of time before the goy gets rich. Most of the goys usually realize they were fooled on their death bed.
Here's the secret. Since money is what they are using to enslave us, we can simply stop using money and become free. The way this economy works is that someone claims ownership to 1 item and will only give it away if he receives green paper money or something of at least similar value. If we stop using money, the Illuminati will just use another trade medium like gold and silver. This will maintain the Illuminati's power since they control all the wealth.
So what is the solution? The solution is to end all of our dependency of cash and trade but we will have to replace it with something that works and that something exists right now.
Here is a very humane and very profitable economic system that doesn't use money or trade called Sacred Economics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs
Here's how it will work.
First thing first, we have to all agree to do it and then just do it. This might be in 1 state or the whole country.
At first, we will be instructed to keep working where we are working for at least a year while we get the hang of things and set certain things into motion for 8 hours a day/5 days a week with a 1 hour break for lunch.
The 30% of Americans who currently don't work will be instructed to follow their passions and do exactly what they want to do for the same 8 hour/5 day work week.
We will all work for free. Money will be out of the equation at this point. 5 hours a day of work/5 days a week will be the mandatory minimum for all people to work by law. Those who want to rebel against the system will be forced to go to a 2-6 week class showing them exactly why work is so beneficial for us all. This would be a form of rehabilitation. We have to all admit that unless humans and/or robot works, we will fall apart therefore work is a key component of society. Any who goes to college doesn't have to work since college is work. This gives people a good incentive to educate themselves which is always good for society. Also, college without work gives students time to study.
We will all consume for free. We consume as we go. If we need water, we pick it up at 7-11 and swipe out ID cards to make the purchase without money. The reason we swipe our ID card is so that the cashier can see that we are all working. Most of the time, the cashier gets a green light to allow the customer to consume.
Ownership laws will state that all humans own all everything together. Nature gives everything for free and it is given to all of us, not just a few billionaires.
We will need to use the caretaker system. For example, if Bob is using a laptop, that laptop is Bobs until he no longer needs it. Once he no longer needs it, Bob gives it away to any other human that needs it. Places like Ebay would be used to give away hard to giveaway things. If people around us don't need it, we give it to someone on ebay and ship it to them. Basically, whatever we are using is ours until we no longer need it. Hoarding would be illegal. If someone has loads of storage units worth of 30 year old shit that he never uses, he would have to simply give it all away to recycle the wealth back into the society.
Once the first year goes by and we have most Americans working, we will make the rules a little more lenient. Instead of 8 hours a day, we work 5 hours a day for 5 days a week but lunch time would have to happen outside of those 5 hours so that we work a full 5 hours.
After year 1, all people will be directed to follow their own passions. Some people will have a passion to serve humanity and those people will become our honor workers who work honor jobs such as taking out the garbage. Janitors will be seen as civilians willing to get dirty for humanity just like soldiers are willing to put themselves in danger for humanity. Since people are following their passion, they will do a much better job at work plus work time will convert into "fun time" since doing what we love is fun.
So, basically we are all working/consuming for free as we go. Society itself will be of our making. Our quality of life would be completely in our own hands and all 7 billion of us would be focused on the same EXACT things which is: How can we improve society so that we are even wealthier than we were yesterday. This 7 billion man focus on building an extremely wealthy society would lead us straight into the golden age of man. 7 billion cooperating humans is insanely powerful since the the formula for cooperative human power is N(squared). This means that 7 billion cooperating people have the power of 49,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 7 billion "every man for himself" humans hold the power of 7 billion. Cooperation is the key and cooperation would be taught in our schools. All this would lead to insane amounts of wealth.
We would need to seek and find the hidden technology, information, and resources so that we can throw them into society which would literally skyrocket society. This alone is powerful enough to transform society into a wealthy one but combining all of the techniques is how we create a Utopia.
The first thing we will notice is that many harmful elements would be removed from society such as enslavement, bills, debt, evil for profit operations, the collapse of the drug trade, end of pimping women and children for cash, the end of buying out politicians, the end of financial stress, the end of banks, the end of the evil banking practices, the end of the Illuminati's source of power, the end of withholding technology/resources for the sake of profit, the end of homelessness, the end of withholding cures for diseases, the end of the massive stress building projected from poverty, the end of worrying about losing our jobs, the end of asshole bosses using their employees like slaves, ect..
The hardest part of this whole thing is figuring out how we can all agree on this together. Word of mouth advertising helps but we need more than just that. I am not sure if we need to drain the swamp before or after we use this system. It would be easier to simply use this system and watch the swamp naturally drain itself after the profit motive is removed from politics. We need to work like a giant caterpillar to make this happen. We would have to all be on the same page and all of us would have to be active participants in the transfer of the capitalistic system to the Sacred Economics system. There is no way a 1 man leader can do all of this. It's pretty much impossible so we would all have to be part of the leadership in our respective neighborhoods. If we can figure out the riddle of how we can simultaneously agree on this, the rest will be very easy.
Another supporting element would be open source government where people and government are essentially 1. All representatives of the government will have a 2 year limit so that many civilians can cycle through the government. To make this happen, we would need a circus protest in front of the While House. This would be extremely easy under sacred economics because "protestor" is a job and so many people could easily go to DC and setup a spot for long term protesting while they eat and drink for free and they stay at hotels for free. The idea would be to create a full blown attention grabbing circus where the people raise peaceful hell so to speak. Crazy signs saying that McCain is arming ISIS, Trump is a Zionist shill, Obama and Hillary created ISIS would be used while we humiliate every single politician that walks in or out of the white house. We would have to ride them for months until they break. Once they break, we create an open source government with cameras on us so that the entire country can see exactly what we are doing. We would essentially be "open source" right off the bat since we would be working on live camera. The government would essentially be like a live reality show with cameras following around all politicians at all times. The 2 year limit will also hinder corruption greatly. The sacred economics model will make it impossible for politicians to take money in exchange for evil acts. The whole thing would work like a charm.
Again, the biggest riddle is how we can all agree to do this at the same time. This needs to be figured out. There is an answer for this but we need to think creatively and outside the box to figure it out.
Edit:
Check out the power of cooperation. India planted 66 million trees in 12 hours:
57 comments
n/a UnMuricanActivities 2017-07-02
I don't know if the Illuminati even exists anymore. The Freemasons sure do, though.
n/a mcmacsonstein 2017-07-02
What are your thoughts on them if you don't mind me asking?
n/a iSUREdoLIKEpeas 2017-07-02
But... how do we pay prostitutes? Serious question.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Prostitution is impossible without a financial trade. If these ladies are genuinely into sex, like many are, they will do it the old fashion way by looking for a one night stand at the club.
n/a EricCarver 2017-07-02
Prostitutes would have no financial motivation to perform.
n/a EricCarver 2017-07-02
Interesting thread. How does society deal with tending to their physically and mentally disabled in your setup?
Also, couldn't this be setup on smaller scale to where collectives pop up and work together? It wouldn't need to be the whole country. And collectives as they get larger could congeal.
How would you protect the way of life? From other non compliant people or groups, or pirates, etc.
How would resources be allocated for research and development? It doesn't seem like intellectual advancement would be natural.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
The ones too disabled to work get a free pass. They would work only if they wanted to.
Sure as long as we have enough people working the many jobs positions that are needed. We would need people to cut trees, to make furniture out of those trees, to create medicine in labs, doctors/hospitals,ect... At the very least, we need the bare necessities. A state like Rhode Island might be enough since it has most of this stuff.
The idea is to make life so worth living in a legit manner that it prevents good citizens from leaning towards jobs of desperation such as gangbanging, pirates, ect.. Most people commit crimes from desperation but the occasional psychopath who simply wants to do harm due to insanity would definitely need rehab. We need to exchange prisons for rehab centers. All of our workers work for free so we can do this easily. Right now, rehab centers aren't as profitable as prisons so many of our prisoners are suffering. But, if a young 18 year old wise ass wants to rebel for the sake of rebelling, we would intervene as people but if the intervention doesn't work, then we send him to rehab to teach him why working is so important. His ID card will show him as a non-worker so he wouldn't be able to go shopping like the rest of us and this would also persuade him to work. We want to make working worth it. Right now 1/3 of America doesn't work because its simply not worth it to them.
First of all, I believe that we have an insane amount of hidden, hoarded resources and these are hidden from us for power purposes but also to artificially raise the prices on our resources for maximum profit. We have at least a thousand year supply of a lot of different things (Ie wood, plastics). We would focus on an open source government as well so that we can go around hunting down our secret resources/technology. In the meantime, we run the country like a business. We will run into problems as we go and solve them as we go. IE. Let's say I make furniture but my state is low on wood and I sometimes can't get the wood that I need. I call the wood suppliers and tell them to figure something out. The wood suppliers are alerted of the shortage and work with their connect across the country to increase the supply of wood in my state. Problem solved. The idea that we don't have enough to go around is a total myth. We have much more than enough. We just don't have money since money is limited and hoarded in the pockets of 10,000 bankers and so even money is artificially limited.
n/a EricCarver 2017-07-02
Your reply reminded me of Star Trek, how those workers in that society didn't work for money.
n/a benjamindees 2017-07-02
No it isn't. See The Mythical Man-Month.
Work is an illusion. Communism doesn't work. It's obvious that you aren't smart enough to be "decimating" anything any time soon.
n/a hoipalloi52 2017-07-02
What Illuminati you mean the Sons and Daughters of the Illuminati you think they're still carrying on like their parents and grandparents did? 🤔
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
The powers that rule over us basically, Jesuits, Zionists, and the Windsor royal family.
n/a OperationCyclone 2017-07-02
Withdraw your support and your energy from these sick fucks.
n/a Ninjakick666 2017-07-02
Someone just got done reading Walden Two...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
That's the first time I have heard of that book actually.
n/a EricCarver 2017-07-02
After reading flex's reply, made me think of Star Trek. They all work in that society with no need of money.
n/a ryarger 2017-07-02
You've just re-invented (crudely) Communism.
What you described as Communism is actually Socialism.
Seriously, read Marx's Communist Manifesto and you'll see your ideas looking back at you.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Marxs communism was never used. What we saw in communism is a gov that owns everything, tells people where to work, and gives them $3 a day. Sacred economics asks people to follow their passion, the people own everything, and no money is ever exchanged.
I'm sure there are a thousand versions of communism mostly which have never been tried but let's forget about communism and focus on Sacred Economics so we don't confused.
Also, Marx was Jewish. Communism was planned out to bankrupt the USSR. Sacred economics was created to drastically improve all of our lives. Big difference. It's better to lay the 3 economics system to rest and try something new.
n/a ryarger 2017-07-02
True. But it's still what you're describing.
What does that have to do with anything?
Marx wrote his manifesto before the USSR ever existed. His goal - like yours - was to drastically improve all of our lives.
Seriously. Read his book if you're serious about your idea.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
I have no idea what Marx version of communism was but I have friends from the USSR who explained how their life was. It was almost the complete opposite of what Sacred Economics is.
The point is that it would be stupid to drop the sacred economics idea and go to some untried version of communism instead. This would completely confuse the world especially those from communist countries who experienced the horrors of communism where the government owned and controlled everything and still used money for trade.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
Unsure about your friend, but I can safely assure you it sounds a lot like Eastern Europe communism.
n/a raisinpop 2017-07-02
Whose passion is being a trash man?
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Those who like to serve. Typically they become soldiers, cops, and firemans in today's economy.
n/a JeanLucPicardAND 2017-07-02
So why would they become trash men instead of soldiers, cops, or firemen?
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Because it is honorable to do the job everyone is so afraid of in a system that encourages everyone to follow their passsion. I wouldn't have any problem with it for a year or two. We just need to cooperate and get off the selfish bandwagon. We can cycle ourselves in and out of jobs as needed.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
What's going to ensure the number of people willing to be garbagemen is equal to the number of garbagemen needed?
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Dynamic living. Dynamic living means we approach problems as they come.
We need people to work as recruiters as well. We also need job placers. Basically, a young 18 year old who doesn't know his head from his ass can come into a job place,ent center and be guided into a job. These people can help us. We also need to use friends and family. For example, Joe's garbage pickup needs 2 more employees. They spread the word and the human side find that employee. Also, we will have a job posting site (i.e. Craigslist) where we urge people that we are short X amount of garbage men.
We just have to "wheel and deal" as we go. Imagine how fun it wouldn't be to solve major problems as a United society. We would be uber powerful but this is light power vs the cabals dark power. Star Wars got some things right.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
Who gets to solve the problems? From the small problems (too many people want to be racecar drivers, not enough want to clean sewers) to the big ones (time to decide how much land goes to wildlife preserves as opposed to new living areas) and all the ones in between (who gets to live on the beach, and who has to live in the swamp), people are going to disagree about the solution so someone's got to have decision-making authority. Now you've got a government again, and law enforcement analogs.
Stuff like this is fun to think about, but as a plan it seems like it doesn't even begin to deal with human nature. Sure, a completely altruistic species could accomplish some amazing things--but we aren't that species. (And to be fair to us, we've still accomplished some pretty amazing things.)
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Ok check this out.
We build an open source government without secrets. Everyone can see what we have going on inside. This will prevent it from being corrupted and is well worth the "national security" list but to be honest, I doubt anyone gives a shit about attacking a country like the US with this massive military of ours.
We can still have representative government but all government positions can only be 2 years long in length so that the people are constantly cycling through the system.
Most all problems are solved by the people. Some of us will work in organizations that preserve wildlife and so those people will make such decisions but out in the open since it is a government job. When people do things out in the open, they tend to do what is acceptable to most people simply because they have to.
All humans have a right and wrong weight system inside of them. Everyone knows the difference. If someone does something worthy of a court case, a 12 man jury will decide if we should or shouldn't precede with the court case. For example, a man steals a TV and the victim wants to do a court case because he still hasn't gotten his TV back and that TV had sentimental value. The 12 man jury might agree that its worth going to court. The judge's job is only to coordinate matters. The jury will hear the case and decide if the culprit is guilty or not unless the culprit please guilty to begin with. The jury decides what kind of rehabilitation will be needed for the criminal. It might be inpatient or outpatient rehab centers which are operated by civilians. Also, the jury has to power to mend the issue. In this case, they would order the culprit to return the TV.
All humans will have access to an online voter database where they can both present issues or vote on them. If the issue they present gets enough signatures, it is put up for a vote. All major decisions have to be voted on and passed by 2/3rds of the voters. Voters can participate in voting simply by going online and using a bullet proof system that reduces any potential fraud by 99% since a 1% error rate isn't a big deal.
We basically tend ourselves. We do everything out in the open if we are in government and the ordinary civilians have to maintain at least a semi-transparent work station so that anyone can inspect them at anytime.
n/a raisinpop 2017-07-02
Their is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Morals are based on the society you live in.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Do you have an internal moral compass?
n/a raisinpop 2017-07-02
I do, based on what I was taught growing up in this society. It used to be moral to burn witches. And some cultures have no problem with rape. Morality is a byproduct of society
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
See. Everyone things the world is full of crazy people but they themselves are one of the good ones.
The cultures that are big into rape are sexually repressed. Sexual repression leads to sexual dysfunction. We literally have solutions for everything but the elite hold it back from society. We can fix all the misunderstandings that exist in the brain.
Also, everyone does what they think is right from their perspective. The only way to change behavior is to alter beliefs. Beliefs cause behavior. The more primitive humans thought they were taking out Satan's army when they killed the supposed witches.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
Sure. They just don't agree on what's right and what's wrong.
I'm a critic, obviously, but lots of respect for thinking so carefully about this. Utopian schemes, even impossible ones, are a great way to think about human nature and ways to improve the world. They don't have to be realistic, but it can also be interesting to think about whether they are realistic, if not why not, and how they might be made realistic.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
I did all the hard work trying to figure out how the brain works. One example I can make is that the government has been telling the people to only worry about self gain and forget the rest of the humans. This isn't even natural. We all need to think about what's fair for all parties involved. Once we make the switch, a lot of problem will disapear from society. The government has been brainwashing the people through the TV for 100 years now. It's all very complicated but there are very simple solutions to fix all these things. When I found the solutions, even I was shocked. My jaw is dropped to this day.
For example. Beliefs cause behavior. Punishment does NOT work because once the punishing hand is removed from teh equation, the behavior resumes. A teenager taking cocaine might not take it when mom is sitting there but once mom leaves, the cocaine consumption resumes. See how I just debunked punishment? The cabal never mentions these things. The only way to change behavior is to change beliefs. The only way to make the teenager stop using cocaine is to order some movies about the dangers of cocaine on physical/mental health, get some popcorn, and watch a few anti-cocaine movies with the teenager.
We have completely confused most everything in life thanks to the elite cabal's brainwashing. This whole society can run like a well oiled machine solely through education alone that can be conducted on TV. Information is power and informing the people will empower them.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
Respectfully, I think you're trivializing human psychology. People are much, much, much more complex than you're making us out to be. And more cussed, unfortunately.
People will take this thing more seriously when there's an example of it working. I don't think that will ever happen (and since I prize liberty over eusocialism, I don't regret that), but utopian communes do sometimes work for a while. Any plans for finding some like-minded friends and starting a co-op home or neighborhood?
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
There are simple explanations to the most complex parts of life. Figuring it out is hard but when it is explained, it seems very easy. That's is what you have with humans. People cry that we are too complicated to understand but when someone finally figures it out, they see how simple it really is.
Source: I studied the human mind both in and out of university.
I'm not really planning anything. I'm only worried about the present moment we're in now and what can be done now.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
Well, I'll believe you have the human mind all figured out when you can demonstrate results. Until then, respect for the mental exercise. Utopianism is fun and interesting, even when it's a pipe dream.
n/a irrelevant_spam 2017-07-02
From what I know, Marx's communism was attempted in Soviet Russia to such a degree that the New Economic Policy was instituted to ensure enough capitalist infrastructure was developed to sustain the communism thereafter. As tends to be the case, it was only in the redistribution phase that the government diverged from communism as envisioned by Marx. Some would argue that this simply means communism was not tried, rendering the experiment irrelevant, but it is my conclusion that this is perhaps an inevitable fate of attempted communism, at least in this climate and with the Marxist approach.
n/a Z_He_Lives 2017-07-02
I got 3 points in and found flaws in all three.
This isn't feasible. Can you really find something every single person agrees to in an entire state or country? Especially something as complicated as an economic model that everyone has to just "decide to do" one day. What happens if they don't want to do it and refuse? Will they be thrown in prison, shot?
So every person is forced to work where they are for a year, that sounds like the government mandating specific jobs for the public. Again, what if they don't want to? And who says 8 hours a day/5 days a week is the best amount of time to force these people to work at their same jobs? All jobs are different and have different requirements.
So the people who already have jobs have to be punished by continuing to work them even if they don't want to, while people with no job who aren't tangibly helping society get rewarded by doing literally whatever they want all day just because?
You should read the Gulag Archipelago and think on your utopia a bit more.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
We are bound to evolve our economic system out of sheer necessity. There are two options. Either wait until the suffering is so brutal that it forces us into action such as it's happening in Venezuela or do it now so we can avoid further suffering. Either way, something will happen between now and 2035 max.
I can see you misread something. We all get to decide where we want to work and for how long we want to work there. I might decide to be an artist but get bored after 6 months and become and architect. You might want to raise horses at the farm. We decide what to do. All that is required is 5 hours of work per day. That's nothing. We are forced to work 8-16 hours a day under capatalism only to barely survive. What's better? It's a "have it your way" economy. Just participate.
No, anyone can switch jobs at anytime. I was just recommending that we move slowly so that the system doesn't trip over itself in the beginning. If we just abandon all of our jobs without finding a replacement, we will have problems. As long as we find replacements for our job in the beginning, it should be fine.
I have thought this out completely. I am certain I know the recipe to make this a lavish utopia for us all. We can all live in dignity and life would be a lot more fun than what it is now.
n/a Z_He_Lives 2017-07-02
Our system is by no means perfect but it's the greatest economic system in the history of the world that has provided the most wealth and happiness to the greatest number of people. Name another system as good as capitalism, you can't. Venezuela collapsing is from moving away from capitalism and towards a more communistic system - which is pretty much exactly what you're advocating. You're just rebranding the name.
I didn't misread anything. You stated in your second point that people would have to continue working their jobs for a year whenever your system is implemented. Your words not mine. By the way nothing is stopping people from deciding what jobs they want to do now. Western culture has the greatest mobility of any culture because people have the freedom to choose what they want to do and as long as they are good enough at it to make money they can continue doing it.
People have to be motivated. You work harder (and through your hard work make society better) to earn more money to live a better life. Why would someone work near as hard when they know all they have to do is show up and work half ass for 5 hours and they still get whatever they want. Which by the way, how will we have enough resources for this? If everyone can just swipe a card and get free stuff what's the limit to how much they can get? If there's no limit people will get whatever they want and over use our limited resources.
You have not thought this out at all - this is basically communism with a flashier name. Again, you should read the Gulag Archipelago and listen to Jordan Peterson's perspectives on Communism/dreams of utopia.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
This is partially true. The government isn't interested in an economic system that works. The government know exactly how to make this economy boom but is unwilling to do it. The truth is that Capatalism is the absolute best way to rob society because it all looks so good on paper. This way, the people don't complain and the government extracts cash and energy out of the economy without hindrance. So ya, in that way, Capatlism is the best system. Its the easiest on sleeping humans while extremely profitable for the cabal until the humans wake up and realize they were robbed blind of course.
I was only recommending that people stick to their jobs until they find a replacement. Most people are hindered from following their dreams simply because there's no money in the venture. Take out the money and free everyone so that they can pursue their dreams.
In Sacred Economics, we will all work hard to build a wealthy society so that we can all enjoy it. Can you imagine the type of cooperation that would occur among people when everyone has the same exact goal in mind? People will consume as they go. Hoarding would be illegal. If anyoen is found to be reasonably hoarding, they would have to account for the mistake and fix it. Simple. If they are too stupid to understand why hoarding would kill the entire economy, we would have to send them to educational classes explaining the benefits of playing by the rules of society so that it works for all of us. There are always douchbags who are arrogant enough to thik they can somehow outsmart the system and get away with it but we, the people, will policie ourselves for the most part but if someone is really breaking the rules, we would have a court session. Punishment will no longer be used though.. only educational and emotional rehabilitation which actually works.
I've thought this through for over a year. I have a solution for any problem you throw at me.
n/a Z_He_Lives 2017-07-02
I would say communism is the best way to rob society. Considering everyone (or atleast the great majority) in socialist/communist countries get dragged into extreme poverty while the Party members are wealthy. I mean that's literally what it is is redistribution based on collectivized equity. Again, name a system better than capitalism that has been tried and shown to have value in the real world.
In your original point it wasn't a recommendation, it was an order. My counter was how are you going to force people to do what they don't want to do? Sure. Money isn't a perfect system but it's a pretty great qualifier to show skill and knowledge level being used as a utility to benefit society. I don't want some random Joe being my brain surgeon because now anybody can do it because it's what "their passion" is. I want the best, most qualified individual for the job. And the best individual is going to get paid more and continue to do his job well. Society rewards you for being useful by giving you money. The free market determines just how useful you are but it makes sense that people who contribute more to society get more money and a better life.
Says who? How will you convince all these people to buy into your idea just because you say it's good. "Hoarding will be illegal" - this is literally mammalian nature created by hundreds of millions of years evolution. You are trying to outlaw something that all creatures do - the acquisition and storage of resources, because that's what leads to a better chance of reproduction.
"They're are always douchebags who are arrogant enough to think they can outsmart the system and get away with it" that's sounding a lot like you right now. We have the greatest system the world has ever seen and you're trying to recycle ideas that killed nearly 100 million people in the last century because you don't understand how the world works.
n/a BorisKafka 2017-07-02
Globalists hate him!
n/a JonBendini 2017-07-02
Lol. 1 simple trick.... But it is true. Solve the money problem and everything else will disppear.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
Please do not take this in a negative manner, as it is not my intention.
I would like feedback on the following:
How would the switch to this model be made? Who will 'make the rules'? Who will be the 'driver' and who will be the 'enforcer'?
How will the model change over time? Who will 'decide', who will 'monitor' and who will 'manage' the implementation of change?
How will the mapping of 'desirable activities' (what people want) to 'needed activities' (what the system needs) be made? How will conflicts be settled? Will the system change to cater to what the individual wants, or will the individual need to abide? Who will decide on the latter?
How will consumption be regulated? Will some sort of quota be implemented? Who decides how much I can consume? Is the nature of my work relevant? Is physiology relevant?
How will the concept of 'universal ownership' work with the 'anti-hoarding' concept? If it is not mine, how am I hoarding it? Who decides if I need something or not?
If I am already doing 'what I love' and living 'how I love', how is the creation of additional wealth of any relevance?
... I have plenty more questions, but I am going to leave it at that, for the moment.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
We would use an open source voting system where the people vote on everything and are also able to present issues that need to be voted on using an open source, online (or real life) voting system. The people would be arranged in groups all over society. Most voting can be done by anyone at anytime but if we take someone to court, a jury of 12 random civilians would decide if they want to take the case, decide on the verdict, and decide what the reprehension are (ie rehab). The people can sign up to be political representatives but the max limit should be 2 years per life time. We don't want career politicians in case they become corrupted. People are at the top of everything.
We will forge our own future from the centralized open source voting database where we can both vote on stuff and create ideas that need to be voted on. a 2/3rd vote is a pass. We can also vote to X certain laws that could be damaging to society.
The people would run the entire employement system. We will all work for each other. For example, our streets need cleaning so one of us would become a street cleaner. Another one of us would become an artist. Another becomes an architect. We simply have so many people that all these would be filled in no problem. If a hard job isn't filled, we can throw robot workers into it so that it is completed or we can use recruiters to hire honorable men/women to do the job. We would be like a bunch of people who constantly look around us to see what we need and work together to fix problems as we speak to our friends/family. We would be "wheeling and dealing" just like we do now but in a new way.
We have been lied about the amount of resources we hold. If the people knew what the elite were hiding from us, they would kill them with their bare hands. We need to find these resources. In the new system, the people own everything so they have the right to inspect any building where these resources might be kept. There is more than enough. If we run short on 1 resource, we will again work together to figure things out. We don't want consumption laws but we want consumption education on TV commercials where people advise people to consume responsibly just in case. Waste is never good. The nature of one's work is irrelevant. We are all equal. Handicapped don't have to work so its optional. We would have to decide a retirement date as well.
Common sense. Keep an eye out on all people. If you see some form of corruption, let them know. Confront them. We can fix many of our problems without court. If needed, we can go to court but the jury will simply tell the culprit to donate all the junk he's hoarding inside an underground bunker. If he doesn't comply, he can no longer consume. Consumption is free but people have to swipe an ID card to consume. The ID card will show the cashier if the person is in good standing. 99.9% of the time, we will all be in good standing and can consume but the people who abuse the system may have to go to court where the jury may decide they can't consume.
It's not only about you. It's about all of us.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
Again, it is not my intention to be a critic.
I have a feeling you are mixing the legislative and judicial branches a bit. They are supposed to be separated and it is very much desirable they are.
From what I gather, the cornerstone of your legal system is people having an equal say into how the system is to function. This can be an implementation of direct democracy, be it EDD (electronic direct democracy), or maybe something closer to what Switzerland is already using.
Now, with regards to the judicial branch, you propose an implementation of jury trial across the board. Moreover, you propose the jury determine the sentence as well. This is very much contrary to how the world works now, in that a jury decides on guilt, but not on punishment (except some very particular cases, such as death penalty).
I can see how it would become a conflict of interest when the same individual that has direct involvement in creating and passing law, also has direct involvement in the direct application of said laws onto the population via trial.
You talk about 'groups', with people being arranged in groups. What would be the purpose of said groups?
Going further, what would be the use of political representatives? This is directly against the whole idea of direct democracy.
I have a feeling you are focused too much on irrelevant specifics such as 12 juries and 2 years of political representation and not on the critical underlying concepts. While you might feel such restrictions have a direct effect on the overall outcome, it is the basic concepts that would create a good foundation.
I can see you are leaning more towards an EDD implementation. However, you are proposing a centralized approach, which is both a major security vulnerability and a step away from what you would want a world-wide distributed direct democracy to function as.
Again, you insist on specific parameters, such as a vote pass threshold of 2/3. I feel there are more important matters to address first.
How would you tackle the major issues a direct democracy would bring about: lack of stability due to no clear definition of goal, huge room of corruption and manipulation due to the number of direct points-of-contact available, potential lack of understanding and expertise of the individual, requirements for dedicated involvement and education of the individual which translate to a lot of time and effort?
I understand how some of the work might be picked up from individuals interested in doing said work, but you must realize that the 'do what work I want' system will not regulate itself. At least I cannot see how it would.
There will always be the argument of 'why can't I do job X?', 'why is job Y needed?', 'why can't someone else take care of job Z?', etc.
Moreover, when you bring in automation, the greatest issue of all will arise: 'why can't I just relax and enjoy myself all day while robots do my job?'.
The problem with equality with regards to work is that activities are inherently not equal. It would be hard, if not impossible, to reconcile the idea of overall equality, even around the main argument of 'I do what I choose to do'.
Consumption education, while a decent concept, still has to have its core around some universally agreed best practices. You can say said best practices can be agreed upon via the legislative system, but if they are not enforced as law, there is no predictability of them being followed or not.
'Keep and eye out on all people': this is the most dangerous approach possible. It is exactly how communism has worked for tens of years in Eastern Europe. Everyone turns on anyone and what you get is fear and lack of trust.
You say consumption is free, but then you say it is restricted by the individual being eligible, in 'good standing'; and this is to be achieved through fulfillment of duties in the form of work. So, basically, you take the current employment and work system and the current consumer system and you strip all the metrics from them: our work is unregulated, un-appraised, considered equal; our consumption is unregulated, non-metered, considered equal. I hope you realize where the engineering problem is here: none of the above are equal, and cannot be treated as such. Balance is not emergent, it is a measure or consequence of control. Erecting random ideas and hoping for the result to be favorable is a bit far fetched, you need proper design and control.
That was meant as impersonal. I was referring to the individual, because ultimately that is the smallest block in the system. While you might say the individual is 'equal', the truth will always be that the individual is unique.
My issue was with your tendency to place wealth as ultimate objective, goal or justification for a system whose every component is supposed to be designed to prevent exactly that. I understand you meant wealth for all, not for the individual, but you must understand that individuality is something that should not and can not be stripped from us.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
This is good. We should talk about things like this as we build our open source government. We all need to combine our minds so that we can further optimize our system. This is a very good point. The only thing is that if the judge is going to be considered a public job, they can only say 2 years so that they won't get corrupted is what I would recommend (just like the rest of the politicians.)
All groups need a leader type for optimization purposes. A group who works in Macy's will need a head manager to coordinate events and optimize the shopping experience. They won't be slave masters. It would just be someone elected by the group through voting or whatever. We just want the most qualified person to lead all the small groups so we will have millions of private leaders all over.
We need public leaders. There's no way around it. The government is mostly for coordinating in the new system. If we need something from the gov, we will have to call a representative. All reps only work a max of 2 years to keep them honest. It would still be a direct democracy np.
Every bit of the code and the activity has to be made public. If the public can see the code in action in its entirety, they can spot sinister manipulations.
Can you give me an example. We need to live dynamically? Most problems have to be solved on the spot. Static government is horrible. Dynamic means we have to determine the problem and our solutions as we go. Static is the process of using old rules that are no longer applicable because of the nature evolution of the species.
Most cities would have civilians running head hunting agencies to find people willing to spend a year or more in a particular job that nobody likes such as sewage clean up. If we have 10 people in the head hunting job and they cant handle the load, we can up it to 20 or 30 people. Whatever we need.
Once the robots pop up, we will find new types of work that the robots can't handle. There is always something to do. We just don't do it now because 60% of the country is working only the most critical of jobs (ie we have to have janitors but we don't need people to beautify our streets with art).
We don't have to be exactly even. We only need a humane system that gives us a "do it yourself" option meaning we can all choose our own path exactly as we like it as long as it doesn't harm other people.
We would have to work 5 hours a day. We would create our own inspection groups that go around making sure people are in fact working. If a douche-bag decides to game the system, we, as inspectors, would just notify our courts and have a trial. Punishment would be out of the picture and replaced with educational and loving rehabilitation.
When punishment is taken out of the picture, keeping an eye out for each other will be exactly as we keep an eye out for family members. We do it out of love.
Absolutely. The absolute most important things are:
The individual
The entirety of humanity
As long as we fully work on making these 2 entities fully optimized and taken care of, we will succeed. It is only when we focus on individual groups when we fuck up. For example, we have 3 groups of wealth: poor, middle class, rich. Instead of worrying about the rich only, we need to focus on the ENTIRE group of humanity AND the individual itself. This is the big secret. We need to forgot about group division and respect the rights and aspirations of both the individual itself and the 1 giant group of humanity itself. This will ensure we are all on the same page which would empower like you have never seen before. Imagine if we were all working towards the wealth of the planet as a whole while we worked out the details of optimizing our own individual lives at the same time. It would work like a charm to be honest. At least, that is what I believe.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
I am not sure why you are so confident in this 2 years 'magical interval'. The less the time, the more aggressive the corruption (I can give you plenty of examples around the world). I doubt how you'd fix corruption.
But this goes directly against universal equality and direct democracy. While I am not supporting a radical solution, I can see the issue with centralization in an equality-based decentralized system.
The moment you have representatives, and most importantly, a government, that is no longer a direct democracy.
Transparency brings about vulnerability. You cannot have security and transparency. It looks to me like you are building a lot on trust, which, while ideal, I doubt is practical.
Well, consider my previous raised points: Do you think people will be able to function without a clear goal? Do you think corruption will disappear in a system that has vast points of contact for it to operate in? Do you think the average individual is qualified enough to act as ultimate decision maker?
That still does not solve the issue that I have raised. You are working towards solving them by operating on the result, rather than on the source. The existence of those mentioned questions is the underlying issue, and they are a product of the system.
While new jobs might emerge over time, the tendency to not do any job will still exist. How is the system supposed to handle individuals that do not want to cooperate?
Yes, but that requires that the system be tailored such as to be mapped exactly to those paths. I feel this balance is unattainable practically.
So, basically, this whole system is going to be 'enforced' rather than 'embraced'?
However, that will not stop people from acting in such a way that they avoid to said 'rehabilitation'. I believe you are again treating symptoms rather than cause.
I understand, but, it is the focus on the individual, coupled with inherent inequality that creates above mentioned classes. I am not sure how you can reconcile aspirations of individual with aspirations of the whole, most often than not, they will collide.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
I cannot understand why so many demonize the idea of money.
The concept of currency is the main catalyst for the largest part of development this planet has seen (at least from what we've understood so far) and it emerged from a need for a practical means of exchanging value. Its advantages and merits are without doubt.
Of course, its practical nature made it very much easier for the invention of a multitude of financial constructs that may have a negative effect on civilization or the individual, but this has nothing to do with the underlying concept of currency.
It is as if you blame the usage of cursed words on the invention of language. Language makes communication easier, and it is not the reason why people curse.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
Think of money like a temporary evolutionary system that one day has to be replaced like oil. Oil is useful for sometime but it eventually has to evolve into something else once it loses its usefulness. Language will eventually be replaced by telepathy but language alone doesn't really cause many problems outside of people having a hard time conveying ideas.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
I am not sure my point was understood.
When I say 'money' or 'currency', I do not necessarily refer to the material representation (coins, notes, etc.), but rather the practical one. The purpose of currency is to facilitate exchange of value. It is a catalyst of trade. Usage of cash is merely an implementation, one of many. For example, a block-chain based general ledger would be another.
The problem is not the currency itself, but rather it's centralized and non-transparent implementation. The language analogy was meant to convey exactly that point. It is not the concept that is the problem, it is the usage of it.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
There's no need for trade. We run this whole world like we run our households. We split up the responsibility of work as fairly as possible using our own free will so that the production/consumption machine keeps going.
Trade is a fear based system and it is riddled with horrific side effects like we see in today's world like the drug trade. A gifting economy would fix all of this.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
I am not certain you are fully taking into consideration the implications of a gift economy.
Gift giving is fundamentally based on the concept of reciprocity. Reciprocity, most precisely the expectation of return, is an implicit part of gifting. And the return is not necessarily of a material nature. The only way reciprocity is not expected is when the sides taking part in the gift giving are not equal.
So, whether it be establishing dominance between non-equal individuals or expectation of another means of reconciliation from the person receiving the gift or a third party, the main point is that gifts establish a qualitative relationship between the transactors, thus creating dependence between individuals.
On the other hand, commodity exchange (be it with or without the use of currency) establishes a quantitative relationship between the objects exchanged, while preserving reciprocal independence between the transactors.
n/a LightBringerFlex 2017-07-02
We don't need to keep score like children. In a gift giving economy, I might give you a glass of water in my 7-11 but then I got that water for free from Aquafina. Aquafina got that water for free from water extractors. Also, after I close up 7-11 for the day, I will go to Sizzler for a free dinner.
My point is that giving and receiving doesn't have to happen between the same people. I can give to you and receive from a man you have never met before. That's beautiful really. Giving without expecting anything back feels good and it is healthy for the soul.
n/a Intangibil 2017-07-02
This is basically the cornerstone of your whole argument, and, while theoretically possible, a major change in how human beings work would be needed.
n/a raisinpop 2017-07-02
Their is no such thing as an internal moral compass. Morals are based on the society you live in.
n/a Kolyin 2017-07-02
Sure. They just don't agree on what's right and what's wrong.
I'm a critic, obviously, but lots of respect for thinking so carefully about this. Utopian schemes, even impossible ones, are a great way to think about human nature and ways to improve the world. They don't have to be realistic, but it can also be interesting to think about whether they are realistic, if not why not, and how they might be made realistic.
n/a Z_He_Lives 2017-07-02
I would say communism is the best way to rob society. Considering everyone (or atleast the great majority) in socialist/communist countries get dragged into extreme poverty while the Party members are wealthy. I mean that's literally what it is is redistribution based on collectivized equity. Again, name a system better than capitalism that has been tried and shown to have value in the real world.
In your original point it wasn't a recommendation, it was an order. My counter was how are you going to force people to do what they don't want to do? Sure. Money isn't a perfect system but it's a pretty great qualifier to show skill and knowledge level being used as a utility to benefit society. I don't want some random Joe being my brain surgeon because now anybody can do it because it's what "their passion" is. I want the best, most qualified individual for the job. And the best individual is going to get paid more and continue to do his job well. Society rewards you for being useful by giving you money. The free market determines just how useful you are but it makes sense that people who contribute more to society get more money and a better life.
Says who? How will you convince all these people to buy into your idea just because you say it's good. "Hoarding will be illegal" - this is literally mammalian nature created by hundreds of millions of years evolution. You are trying to outlaw something that all creatures do - the acquisition and storage of resources, because that's what leads to a better chance of reproduction.
"They're are always douchebags who are arrogant enough to think they can outsmart the system and get away with it" that's sounding a lot like you right now. We have the greatest system the world has ever seen and you're trying to recycle ideas that killed nearly 100 million people in the last century because you don't understand how the world works.