The Ethical Planetarian Platform; Revision 001

New Socio-Political Party

Have you tired of the empty promises of politicians? Have you seen the “divide and conquer” successes in everything from school teams to country identities? Do you want the planet to coexist?

Perhaps you might consider the Ethical Planetarian Party.

What is the Ethical Planetarian Party? What are its goals and platform?

First, we stand for upholding the three Laws:

1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being

2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property

3. Do not willfully defraud another Being

In other words, we choose to maintain civil interaction, face to face. The biological parent has precedence in the case of our children, unless there is evidence that these same Laws are not kept with them as well. They are Beings, too. Beings are any who ask for rights, or have others of the same species ask in proxy if they are unable to ask, themselves. This is not license to mal-treat beings of “lower” Consciousness, for all Consciousness should be respected. The goal is for as much of Consciousness to spend as much of the time as possible comfortable.

A quick, clean and honorable death for the flesh a Being eats, having given comfort throughout the life for any domestic food.

Second, we are predicated on the idea that Humans should be free to take advantage of the abundance of the planet by eliminating money.

Third, we strive to allow religious choice, believing that there are as many Callings as there are Beings, and as long as the Laws are kept, how One approaches that which One is, is to be respected.

Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone.

We are out to eliminate poverty.

Fifth, we will bring forth a website where problems can be brought up locally and people can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone).

Also, issues with some set number of bumps up will be considered issues that need a wider awareness and go to regional sections. From there, continental, perhaps, and then global, as more are needed to be involved in solving the problem. Problems will beget the awareness to solve them.

Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws.

Sixth, we are staunch in our support of an organic planet. Though hybridization is an awesome tool, genetically modifying organisms is NOT. Without money, there is no motivation to create GMO. We know that organics can produce on par yield and better nutrition than their petrochemically “fertilized” brethren. Any non-organic approaches to problems will be highly discouraged, unless it is seen that such a solution is the best.

Beyond this, sustainability is our goal.

Seventh, we see that, without money, we can build machines – robots – to do all necessary work. Without work as an “ethic,” we substitute a “betterment ethic,” and encourage all to look for ways – within the three Laws and with organic solutions prized – to improve conditions on this planet for everyone, and offer these ideas for consideration and possible action.

Eighth, we understand that virtually all crime is, on one level or another, related to money, and without money as motive, virtually all crime will vanish – leaving the very few, passion-related crimes for us to deal with. We will deal with all crime publicly, and those who care can and will decide each case. Most such choice of behavior will lead to social pariah-hood for the perpetrators.

Ninth, we support open source in all things we program. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs.

Tenth, we understand that food waste is rampant with food distributed by profit, abundant as it is but poorly and/or untimely delivered. Without money, food distribution will be based on need and not profit, ensuring that waste is minimal, food is fresh for all (no one waiting for the wilted cast-offs), and readily available.

Though these approaches are revolutionary, we understand that if enough people are on board, a fresh, free, fun, and fulfilling life will be ours – and everyone else’s – as we choose. No one needs to change anything except where there is a problem – and then those who care are free to solve it within the three Laws.

Without money, bureaucracy will become unnecessary, vastly reducing paper use, and streamlining solutions. Jobs in banking, insurance, and other such money-related industries will disappear, and in their place, the opportunity to spend time as One wishes.

Transportation will be free – for ourselves, our food and product systems, and any other transportation needs. This offers the ability to go where One wishes, moving food to where it is needed, and other freedom we presently do not have, with transportation energy costing so much.

We are a planetary party and decry any solutions that maintain a “divide and conquer” attitude or outcome, including stateism, nationalism, partyism, teamism, etc. We are one species on one planet, and we seek to benefit the planet ethically and wholly.

To join, merely state that you are a member. All that is required, as a Party member is to inform others about the Ethical Planetarian Party – send this link, or copy and paste to email this content.

You should look up the Venus Project, a lot of your suggestions are pretty much the same. In my opinion anyways

Sounds like the Zeitgeist Movement, which has a lot of good ideas but comes off as a little too socialistic for my tastes. I'm not sure you'd be able to keep it from degenerating into totalitarianism.

I have a good awareness of the Zeitgeist movement, and based a fair amount of my ideas on their concepts. Still, the ZM wants to retain an economy. I think it is unnecessary if we have plenum energy.

Originally posted by NthOther
Sounds like the Zeitgeist Movement, which has a lot of good ideas but comes off as a little too socialistic for my tastes. I'm not sure you'd be able to keep it from degenerating into totalitarianism.

I got to thinking about your comments regarding totalitarianism... Unlike the ZM, what I propose is a website to handle a self-governing of, for and by the people. Also, since "economy" suggests an economic hierarchy, which is the major control factor in totalitarian regimes, eliminating "economy" as a useful device removes all control over others and leaves us with a control over self but no others situation.

What I offer will not lead to any having power over any others. Totalitarian regimes cannot take hold.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I'm in total agreement with the three Laws. The capitalization of the word implies, at least to me, that these are greater laws than simply man's. They are basic truths necessary for the happiness of humanity--natural law.

But, if they are formalized and instituted as "laws" as we typically conceptualize them, you would have to have a social apparatus to enforce said laws--hence coercion and control--which is exactly what we don't want.

What we truly need is to evolve past the need for such "law" to the point where it is simply human nature to voluntarily adhere to the Greater Law. Of course without the element of coercion in society (and namely, as you pointed out, money), it would look radically different. I don't think social organization on a planetary scale would be practical, nor would it be necessary to live in peace & prosperity.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea of planetary organization, but I think small, autonomous--and peaceful--communities are a more likely outcome when humanity is actually ready for it. Many of the current systems that are dependent on large-scale organization would likely disappear, as there would be no coercive support structure that props them up.

Originally posted by NthOther
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I'm in total agreement with the three Laws. The capitalization of the word implies, at least to me, that these are greater laws than simply man's. They are basic truths necessary for the happiness of humanity--natural law.

But, if they are formalized and instituted as "laws" as we typically conceptualize them, you would have to have a social apparatus to enforce said laws--hence coercion and control--which is exactly what we don't want.

I see issues with breaking the three Laws (and you're correct in your evaluation based on the capitalization) as being handled by the people who care (remaining within the three Laws). Any issues must be public and accessible by the Being on the street. A website, perhaps.

But with money removed as a motivation, statistically speaking, few will commit crime (no crime presently connected to money in any way, which leaves a statistically insignificant number of crimes to deal with - statistically speaking, we will not have crime. FAR better than a moneyed society has.

What we truly need is to evolve past the need for such "law" to the point where it is simply human nature to voluntarily adhere to the Greater Law. Of course without the element of coercion in society (and namely, as you pointed out, money), it would look radically different. I don't think social organization on a planetary scale would be practical, nor would it be necessary to live in peace & prosperity.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea of planetary organization, but I think small, autonomous--and peaceful--communities are a more likely outcome when humanity is actually ready for it. Many of the current systems that are dependent on large-scale organization would likely disappear, as there would be no coercive support structure that props them up.

Oh, this will happen, for sure, as people divide, not by how close to a job they can get because transportation costs too much, but by interests and family ties. And, yes. Large scale organization WILL take place when the issue is large enough for people to care. Out of that milieu will emerge the leaders of the moment, people who care and have the best ideas about implementing ideas.

The central site is a necessary component for global awareness to take place if needed, with most activity taking place at a "local" level.

Thank you for your considered thoughts. I appreciate them. [smile]

Thanks for the U2U my friend! Nice thread - had a quick glance so far, and like a lot of what you have written, in fact only today was discussing some of these elements with a friend of mine!

Problem with losing the economy is that removing it, would in theory remove the perceived power those who hoard the finances wield over the planet. They won't want to give that up.

Sometimes the only way to take down a system is actually to take it down from the inside. For example, we know what companies are not conducive to a truly sustainable future - as they are run by money, we need to stop buying their products, and support smaller local businesses - or set-up businesses instead.

For big corporations, what better way to take them down, than to buy shares in their business? Get a big enough shareholding, and vote on a board of directors designed to change the ethos of the company. Yep it would take a lot of cash for some companies, so take over the competition, and support and promote them big time!

An ideal is great, but there needs to be a roadmap toward it, strategic planning, and enough people invested in its outcome, whilst not restricting the freedoms of anyone in the process.

Anyway bud, once I hit those 20 posts, I will U2U you more

Originally posted by moleskin
Thanks for the U2U my friend! Nice thread - had a quick glance so far, and like a lot of what you have written, in fact only today was discussing some of these elements with a friend of mine!

Problem with losing the economy is that removing it, would in theory remove the perceived power those who hoard the finances wield over the planet. They won't want to give that up.

You've got THAT right! LOL! I know They are big and terrible, and I have an uphill battle. But not all the way. Just to the tipping point. Yes, autonomous control of self and no others is the result we would see.

Sometimes the only way to take down a system is actually to take it down from the inside. For example, we know what companies are not conducive to a truly sustainable future - as they are run by money, we need to stop buying their products, and support smaller local businesses - or set-up businesses instead.

Excellent choices, I agree (and avoid many brands, look for local produce and, when I have money beyond that, avoid the Wal-Marts of this world). But I also contend that now is our chance, as Humanity, to step up and claim this planet and the solar system as Ours, eliminate money and poverty, and consciously co-create Heaven.

For big corporations, what better way to take them down, than to buy shares in their business? Get a big enough shareholding, and vote on a board of directors designed to change the ethos of the company. Yep it would take a lot of cash for some companies, so take over the competition, and support and promote them big time!

Or better... Eliminate the money/power/energy (different manifestations of the same thing) by flooding the world with energy. No money needed. Just the awareness and then the will.

An ideal is great, but there needs to be a roadmap toward it, strategic planning, and enough people invested in its outcome, whilst not restricting the freedoms of anyone in the process.

Having studied the science of emergence, it mostly will take care of itself... Add the energy, the website, the Ethical foundation, the awareness (someone in the MSM...?), and the will, Humanity will flow into it, with leaders of the moment emerging to solve problems (and solve them the best they can see, rather than bowing to or being motivated by profit/cost).

In fact, freedom will be opened up far wider than it is now.

Anyway bud, once I hit those 20 posts, I will U2U you more

Looking forward. [smile]

I believe this change is already evident. Ask anyone if they think the world would be a better place without money and surely they will answer yes.

A co worker and i were in simple conversation about this very topic a few days ago and i have not read into anyone's ideology of such an idea until now. I simply feel this way, I also agree with the "web site" idea only in my thoughts it was more visible say a electronic screen or billboard with the top issues etc.

Lets hope we usher in the change we want to see.

reply to post by RRstl1000


Excellent to see another who can see the advantages of this Party. For further reading, I offer the companion piece to this work, called The End of Entropy: A Look at Our Entropic World and the Evidence Supporting How We Can Change This :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is an article I wrote that is the foundational work that led me to creating this Party.

Thank you so much!

Name that quote...
"I feel for instance I have the right anything I please. BUT if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me! So where you gonna find a fairer #in deal than that?"

Originally posted by Amaterasu
New Socio-Political Party

What is the Ethical Planetarian Party? What are its goals and platform?

First, we stand for upholding the three Laws:

1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being

2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property

3. Do not willfully defraud another Being

/quote

I think this is a brilliant starting place (indeed only starting place) for any ethical theory. I humbly submit that you could simplify these three rules into one - the Non Aggression Principal. Its wonderful that youve embraced and are attempting to codify this simple yet profound moral rule, and for that I applaud you. But the rest of your post, to me, is in exact opposition to your stated ethical ground rules. Perhaps Im mistaken, so I'm wondering if you could clarify.

First, I would ask you if it is even possible to have a government (that your party would govern) without it neccessarily initiating force and thus breaking the non aggression principal. Since a government is properly defined as a monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical region, and you advocate governance, how do you square the apparent contradiction of terms? How would this government extract the funds or resources necessary for its survival? Do members of your party work with eachother based on pure altruism and goodwill? If not, how are resources aquired in order to 'pay' them? What if I dont agree with the policies of your party and simply not cooperate? Is force initiated in order to bring me into line?


/quoteSecond, we are predicated on the idea that Humans should be free to take advantage of the abundance of the planet by eliminating money. /quote

I thought you were predicated on the idea of non aggression? Of course people should be free to experiment in any economy that they consent to, but what about people like me who prefer money? Will force be initiated against me if myself and likeminded individuals decide that we like using money, against you partys wishes?

/quote
Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone. /quote

Im wondering what evidence you site to support your assertion that a cashless society promotes altruism? Actually that is besides the point as I believe you should be perfectly free to experiment with your moneyless utopia. I would warm you though, command and control economies have been experiemented with extensively (see the 20th century) and always result in the untold horror of millions of deaths. The assumtion that a small group of individuals, even with the super-est computer in the world, can determine the allocation of scarce recources (scarcity always exists even within relative abundance as desires are infinite) better than the price mechanism, i find to be hiiiiighly suspect. (unless your computer can read everyones minds...but what if i want my back rubbed for 9 hours a day by some nubile young human and not a roboid...*does not compute*)

/quote We are out to eliminate poverty. /quote

How is this achieved?

/quote Fifth, we will bring forth a website where problems can be brought up locally and people can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone). /quote

So is non aggression your founding ethical premise, or is rule by majority? What if I reside in a region subject to this 'vote' and I dont agree with the outcome? If the end of voting is a law being passed, and enforced, what happens to anyone who voted against, or simply didnt vote at all? Will your party break its commitment to non aggression if I take this 'vote' into consideration but then decide not to obey its outcome? What relevence does the majority opinion of others have on my 'right' to my life and property?


/quote Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws. /quote

Again, the problem here is that the forceful abolition of money breaks your laws. Unless youre requesting that people voluntarily give up money, of course. But you wouldnt need a political party if this is the case.

/quote Sixth, we are staunch in our support of an organic planet. Though hybridization is an awesome tool, genetically modifying organisms is NOT. Without money, there is no motivation to create GMO. We know that organics can produce on par yield and better nutrition than their petrochemically “fertilized” brethren. Any non-organic approaches to problems will be highly discouraged, unless it is seen that such a solution is the best. /quote

I fully agree that current GMOs could be catastrophic for the world as a whole, and companies like monsanto are indeed evil. But again, I ask, you, if I were to start my own backyard GMO farm, would your party violate my property and person in order to uphold your vision of the world?

/quote Beyond this, sustainability is our goal. /quote

Good!

/quote Seventh, we see that, without money, we can build machines – robots – to do all necessary work. Without work as an “ethic,” we substitute a “betterment ethic,” and encourage all to look for ways – within the three Laws and with organic solutions prized – to improve conditions on this planet for everyone, and offer these ideas for consideration and possible action. /quote

These machines that your futurist society will be dependant on were almost entirely created by the incentivised monetary system, which is why it was the west that created almost every significant invention in the last couple hundred years, and which is why the Soviets could build state directed hardware and basically nothing else that could have improved the standard of living for its people. How many of todays wonderful inventions (like this internet thing) would have been created if not for the profit motive? What incentive will the brilliant inventor of your future have to create these machines besides his own altruism? And if he wants to withhold the fruit of his labor and genius to only paying customers, how would your party react?

/quote Eighth, we understand that virtually all crime is, on one level or another, related to money, and without money as motive, virtually all crime will vanish – leaving the very few, passion-related crimes for us to deal with. We will deal with all crime publicly, and those who care can and will decide each case. Most such choice of behavior will lead to social pariah-hood for the perpetrators. /quote

I find this assertion to be totally wrong. The number one corralation to crime is not poverty, but child abuse. Am I contributing to the criminal element if I trade the apples I grow to someone else for a bag of rice, or instead some pieces of paper that myself and my trading partner both agree to voluntarily?

/quote Ninth, we support open source in all things we program. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs. /quote

And if I want to withhold my creation to paying traders? What if I dont care about the approval or 'status' granted to me by others?

/quoteTenth, we understand that food waste is rampant with food distributed by profit, abundant as it is but poorly and/or untimely delivered. Without money, food distribution will be based on need and not profit, ensuring that waste is minimal, food is fresh for all (no one waiting for the wilted cast-offs), and readily available. /quote

How do you determine who needs what and who gets what absent of a price mechanism? Some sort of inventory checklist? If so I check the kavier and lobster boxes every night.


/quote Without money, bureaucracy will become unnecessary, vastly reducing paper use, and streamlining solutions. Jobs in banking, insurance, and other such money-related industries will disappear, and in their place, the opportunity to spend time as One wishes. /quote

I think youre misunderstanding the nature of bureaucracy. If money were the cause of bureaucracy you would expect every business and corperation, who use money, to be just as enmeshed and paralyzed by bureaucrats as the government is. Since this is not the case, we must then ask what differentiates the government from a business, and the answer is violence. Since businesses are voluntary, the competition between them neccessarily eliminated overhead as a matter of survival. Any unproductive entities in a voluntary situation are just plain overhead which reduces competitveness. Not so in a monopolistic situation - the lack of competition, or choice, incentivises a bloated and parasitic bureaucracy that has no check on its growth and thus will become dominant and destructive. This has nothing to do with money per say, and everything to do with monopolized violence illiminating competition that would naturally checks and eliminates parasites.

/quote Transportation will be free – for ourselves, our food and product systems, and any other transportation needs. This offers the ability to go where One wishes, moving food to where it is needed, and other freedom we presently do not have, with transportation energy costing so much. /quote

I cringe everytime I hear the 'F' word - not the one that sounds like 'duck' but the one that ends in 'ree'. Nothing is free. Ever. Even breathing the near infinite air comes at a cost to my cellular sytem. Nothing is free. Who builds this transportation, and why? Who owns the land its built on? How do we know what system is best? Who designs it? Are all the millions of combined hours of work rewarded simply by 'status'?

While I agree with many of your goals and values, I fundamentally disagree with a whole host of issues as outlined above. Suppose I'm totally wrong and youre totally right...but I still wont cooperate. How will your party deal with people such as myself?

edit on 4-3-2011 by Neo_Serf because: appoligies for not getting the quote function!

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I have a good awareness of the Zeitgeist movement, and based a fair amount of my ideas on their concepts. Still, the ZM wants to retain an economy. I think it is unnecessary if we have plenum energy.

Number 1: Plenium energy would have to exist before you could have it. So that doesn't work.

Number 2: Your third rule, "Do not willfully defraud another Being" I believe you are already guilty of that.

You post ridiculous claims in every thread I've seen you in with absolutely no base for said claims. You perpetuate actual fraud that is going on in the world. The real world.

Unless you can back those claims up than this ideological nonsense (which is very similar to Venus Project) looks as though it is headed towards some cult styled creation. What are you real intentions with this idea that has no basis on reality?

I can say that because you claim this system is going to operate on a fundamental principle that doesn't exist.

ie.

"I have a Unicorn and the Unicorn is going to make us rich"

"Where is it?"

"Right there"

"Where?"

"There"

"It's not there"

"It is, we're rich"

"No were not, we're poor, why did I listen to you and your Unicorn nonsense"



Your Unicorn = Free Energy, plenium energy or whatever other name you want to make up for it.

I apologize if this is in the creative writing forum, as it should be.

I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.

Do you have any comment on Scientology or any other cults that were created in the last century?

An opinion on alternatives is fine, a doctrine is something entirely different.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I think this is a brilliant starting place (indeed only starting place) for any ethical theory. I humbly submit that you could simplify these three rules into one - the Non Aggression Principal. Its wonderful that youve embraced and are attempting to codify this simple yet profound moral rule, and for that I applaud you. But the rest of your post, to me, is in exact opposition to your stated ethical ground rules. Perhaps Im mistaken, so I'm wondering if you could clarify.

I would be happy to.

First, I would ask you if it is even possible to have a government (that your party would govern) without it neccessarily initiating force and thus breaking the non aggression principal. Since a government is properly defined as a monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical region, and you advocate governance, how do you square the apparent contradiction of terms? How would this government extract the funds or resources necessary for its survival? Do members of your party work with eachother based on pure altruism and goodwill? If not, how are resources aquired in order to 'pay' them? What if I dont agree with the policies of your party and simply not cooperate? Is force initiated in order to bring me into line?

The "party" would not govern. We would self-govern through the Interweb - "we" being Humanity. I think my work, The End of Entropy, which is a foundational piece to this one, will offer answers that you seek.

All that is necessary to be a member of this "party" is to declare oneself as such. All one has to do is spread the information. No funding needed. And you may do whatever you like as long as you do not break the three laws.

I thought you were predicated on the idea of non aggression? Of course people should be free to experiment in any economy that they consent to, but what about people like me who prefer money? Will force be initiated against me if myself and likeminded individuals decide that we like using money, against you partys wishes?

The party is predicated on several things. This is the second - we expect to eliminate the need for money. What would you need money for if you can have whatever you want when you want it? I mean, if you want to exchange pieces of paper amongst others who want to too, by all means, do so, but you won't need to.

Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone.

Im wondering what evidence you site to support your assertion that a cashless society promotes altruism? Actually that is besides the point as I believe you should be perfectly free to experiment with your moneyless utopia. I would warm you though, command and control economies have been experiemented with extensively (see the 20th century) and always result in the untold horror of millions of deaths. The assumtion that a small group of individuals, even with the super-est computer in the world, can determine the allocation of scarce recources (scarcity always exists even within relative abundance as desires are infinite) better than the price mechanism, i find to be hiiiiighly suspect. (unless your computer can read everyones minds...but what if i want my back rubbed for 9 hours a day by some nubile young human and not a roboid...*does not compute*)

At this point, seeing that you are unclear on things - because you started with this piece, I suspect - I invite you to read The End of Entropy. I will address any questions you have then, because it's clear you aren't seeing things from an abundance paradigm. You are asking things from a scarcity paradigm stance and I have described the abundance paradigm already in that piece, linked also in my sig.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.

Thank you for your input. Though there are some who have chosen to imply (or outright state) that plenum energy is unavailable, they have an agenda and will be ignored here. I have an awareness of electrogravitics and what it can do and that it is black ops, and also am aware that it can produce overunity.

I appreciate your willingness to be open. That is all I ask. Thank you again.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

I cringe everytime I hear the 'F' word - not the one that sounds like 'duck' but the one that ends in 'ree'. Nothing is free. Ever. Even breathing the near infinite air comes at a cost to my cellular sytem. Nothing is free. Who builds this transportation, and why? Who owns the land its built on? How do we know what system is best? Who designs it? Are all the millions of combined hours of work rewarded simply by 'status'?

You are looking at this the wrong way. This is a fantasy world that does not factor in any real life variables. It is predicated on things that don't exist so therefore it is a virtual world. It is fiction, to take it seriously is to cause yourself brain damage. But your critical look at the overall idea was very entertaining.

reply to post by boncho


Look, you are welcome to your own thoughts, but unless you can come in here and bring something more constructive than the disinfo agent behavior of nay-saying and disparagement, I will thank you to leave this thread alone.