What is FREE SOCIETY?
free society works in the idea that money must be abolished as it is the cause of the majority of the problems in the world. it reinforces poverty and prevents the sustainability of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. think of a begger outside a grocery store. he is prevented from eating because of money. think of a minimum wage worker. he would love to take a trip to the bahamas but he cant because he lacks money. someone who dreams of being a scientist, but cant pay the tuition needed to educate himself is also a victim of money
we labor so that we can have money, using that money to sustain our lifestyles
with no money, we can not sustain those lifestyles. we feed ourselves, house ourselves, clothe ourselves, get ourselves nice things, with money.
we are essentially dependent on money
and how does money relate to labor? more valuable labor is given more money to compensate it.
but what is more valuable labor?
it is more "skilled labor."
what makes that labor skilled?
if we start from that everything is free, then we can say that equal opportunity for education is established and labor relations become a 1 to 1 ratio.
what?? theres no way! doctors are way more valuable than burger flippers right?
well, only in the same way that models are more valuable than teachers, and actors and athletes are more important than social workers. in reality, everyone is needed. doctors send their children to school and need teachers who go to the movies and need entertainers who have leaky faucets and need plumbers whose houses burn down and need firefighters whos own houses get dirty and need housekeepers and so on. besides, mcdonalds is a huge corporation and probably one of the wealthiest in the world. if the worker is making that happen, why shouldnt he be the richest in the world in the same way that the ceo is the richest? the ceo depends on the worker as much as the worker depends on the ceo. without one, the other would have no work.
the point is that demand is created and therefore must be supplied. economics are based on this simple rule. through demand, supply is created and sustained through labor.
in FREE SOCIETY, the labor relations are basically broken down into a system like this:
if i supply the demands of society with my own area of expertise (practicing law or medicine, educating people, fighting fires, running a restaurant etc...), my own demands will be supplied by society in return. it is in this way, all demands are free, paid for not by money, but by productivity and labor.
give me a break. everyone knows that doctors are inherently MORE VALUABLE than burger flippers.
but why is that?
um, let me think...because its skilled labor and not everyone can do it?
because not everyone has the opportunity to get schooled as a doctor
exactly. not everyone has the resources to go to school to become a doctor. studying takes time, effort, and money. you are not making any money as a student and since your studying all the time you have to choose making money to sustain yourself or spend money to educate yourself. doctors are paid well because not everyone can pay to get the education needed or has the time to spend getting the knowledge needed to become a doctor
so if education was free, everyone would have equal opportunity to pursue being a doctor, or a lawyer for that matter, or a scientist or whatever. in fact, some people hate school. some people dont want to do anything but a low skilled job so they can get back home and get on with their life.
just as it prevents people from eating, money prevents people from being educated. with equal opportunity for education, people are free to do what they want to do, without worrying about making enough money to survive. when you were six, and your teacher asked you what you wanted to be when you grew up, imagine saying a bus driver, and not changing it to a corporate litigator 10 years later just because you wanted a big screen tv.
money says one person is more important than another, when really they need each other to be productive: the bus driver drives the corporate litigator to work who in turn runs the bus company. FREE SOCIETY works on the supposition that all labor, as it is now freely available, reaches a 1 to 1 relationship.
why wouldnt everyone pick apples then if you dont have to work hard for your money?
because some people dont want to pick apples. competition today works in the way that says, if i work harder than you, ill make more money, and i can buy more things, and have more stuff. FREE SOCIETY says that my incentive is no longer to make enough money to survive and buy the things i want. because i can survive and have the things i want anyway, i am free to be competitive in that now i can be the best doctor i can be, the best banker i can be, the best orange picker i can be etcetera.
hell no, people would not do shit if they didnt have to because everything would be free. everything would fall apart
your right, everything would fall apart if everybody did not do enough and demand was not supplied. which is why to sustain this economy, people would have to do the bare minimum at least. thats how a lot of people regard work now anyway. FREE SOCIETY makes the incentive to work the idea that if you do, everything will be free for you. therefore you will make good on your contract. also, if you go above and beyond, you are accepted as more relevant and necessary in that now you are a part of society that is more greatly desired, depended on, whatever. this is again what is reality now, except that the incentive is money. it is a false incentive that is actually a ceiling. tycoons often times expand and expand their businesses with no consideration of money. their business has gotten to be so huge, there is no real difference between 50 billion and 100 billion. your not going to need money. they simply do it for the advancement of their enterprise, which promotes the advancement of civilization. on the otherhand, many people work simply to sustain themselves and dont do anything once they have enough money to get by. once you ensure people will get by regardless and have everything they need, people are going do what they love, and do it to the best of their ability. no one wants to be mediocre at what they choose to do, and if they are, thats fine too.
let me give you an example, or maybe an analogy....
let's take two card games and assign a social structure to each
we'll equivocate capitalism with texas holdem poker and FREE SOCIETY with blackjack. in texas hold em' everyone starts off with 20,000 dollars we'll say. the object of the game for the individual is slowly but surely get money from every single person until the winner has all the money 12 million dollars, and everyone else has nothing. sure the rich have it good, but everyone else has nothing. theres only so much money to go around and one person wants it all, because what he can do with 12 million is way better than what he can do with 50 thousand, 100 thosand, and way better than nothing. his value is related to other people through his relation to money.
FREE SOCIETY or black jack is not this kind of individualistic, darwinian strong survives kind of mentality that inherently creates poverty. all the players are next to each other and playing simply to get more for themselves, regardless of, or at least independent of, the person next to them. each person is getting his chips from the bank, and each can potentially triple their money. in fact they actually help each other. if one person gets a two, the other has a better chance of getting a king. if one sees the other get a king, they can strategically decide whether they want to hit again or not. in this way of competition with people rather than against people can everyone benefit. the bank is their own money anyway, provided by their own chips, their own labor
money prevents this joint partnership because money says that one person is better than another. if two people want a glass of milk, the one who can pay more for it, the "privileged" one, will get it. does he "deserve" it more? no. weve just discussed why everyone is necessary and how everyone needs each other. the elimination simply provides a more fair and balanced way to determine who gets what.
let me give you an example.
ants are a more rudimentary civilizaiton in itself. or so we will accept for the purpose of this argument. there are certain ants who go out, scout, and find food, there are ants that make sure the population is created through reproduction, there is the queen and the ones that create the home for the ants. in this idea there are 4 types of ants. (im obviously not an ant specialist)
pretend for a moment one of these groups of ants decided their labor was more important than another groups. the ants who scout for food realize that everyone is dependent on food for survival, so they want to be priviliged. scout ants say that they get first priority on the food, or perhaps create a currency that dictates how much food will be provided in relation to the other ants work, which is not as inherently valuable, so they dont get as much money. the other groups of ants are only allowed to eat if they have money, even though their labor is just as important and without them there would be no ant species/population as the ants would have nowhere to sustain. as the scout ants become the privileged "guardians" because they are the ones who provide food for everyone, ant life becomes too oppressive to continue, and the species either goes to war to establish their rights, die off in a darwinistic model of the strong survive, or live in slavery to service the strong ants
just as in the ant population, the human population has a "guardian" class to. it is the educated class. once we establish the ability for anyone to become a guardian (equal opportunity for education-FREE SOCIETY!!) then all labor becomes inherently equal to itself. we do things not because it is affordable to do so, but because it simply needs to be done. it is in this way that humankind is finally granted equality by all members, and the problems that pose serious threat to our continued existence are alleviated.
people supply demand, and supply demands people (or labor)
dude, that all sounds like commy bullshit. didnt they try this?
no, they tried a authoritative, abolishment of private property, government controls everything, type of deal. FREE SOCIETY says that you barter with your private property, to get other property that becomes your private property. you barter your labor for what you want.
in communism, there was no private property. whereas before, the owners had the mode of production and the laborers provided the means, now the workers owned the means and the mode. workers became the owners. this was contradicted by the governments authority in its ability to dictate quotas, and what was necessary and what wasnt. in this way, the government became the REAL owners, and the workers, though they "owned" the work they were doing, were at the mercy of those who dictated how much of what was needed, and rationed products accordingly
this entire system is based on capitalism, but without money. we already trade with each other- our labor for money for consuming things, but what money does is prohibit certain people from having things. this is discrimination and must be abolished as it is the cause of crime. people wouldnt steal if they could have what they want themselves.
i dont expect anyone to agree to this idea because it is so ludicrous, outlandish, extreme and radical, but so was the abolishment of slavery. the difference is that slavery is reproduced through money. if abolished, we can all contribute to the development of the country and the world.
our wars are fought because of money. no one wants to stop global warming because people would lose money. if money was abolished, they would have no reason to not stop it. they would have no reason to war, because there is nothing to fight over.
in fact the majority of problems could potentially be alleviated- prisons are related to crime- most specifically theft and drugs.
in FREE SOCIETY, you recognize that demand requires supply. despite the war on drugs, demand has not decreased. therefore supply has not decreased. eliminate war on drugs, you eliminate drug crime. theft comes from poverty, if you want something and you cant afford it, you steal it. eliminate poverty and you eliminate crime pretty much.
our country is housing an entire population, mostly minorities, simply because we have declared a demand to be illegal. poverty comes from lack of education also, proven by a decline in recidivism due to education. in FREE SOCIETY, these people would have no reason to be in jail and produce for the common good of society. billions of dollars and lives are being wasted when we could potentially alleviate the entire problem with a solution like abolition of money
my point about slavery through money is this.
government wants to increase spending on education but it cant because that would take away money from the people through taxes. people do not ever want to give up their money unless they see a return. most people with large amounts of money that are taxed do not utilize these public schools or their children because they go to private school, because those educationa facilities are better recommended. the problem here we can see, is money. money is all the time trying to be redistributed "fairly", so poor people can have social security, educaiton, medical aid, food, housing... money is then taken from the rich and given to the poor, creating one group essentially supporting the other. this is essentially the reality that we are living in today. and by the way, america is leading in the grossest display of this-only one without healthcare this class is dependent as long as there is a difference in money between differnt people. if i rely on money to feed me, clothe me, educate me, house me, and generally support me, then its absence puts me at risk.
immigration can be solved too. the main problem with immigrants is that they want to come here because we oppress their governments and wont let their economies flourish and thrive. if we invested in their countries, not because we could afford to, but because people would want to live south of us if they could, then immigration would decline and our own economy would be strengthened because our partner is stronger. think black jack again.
FREE SOCIETY is not an off the wall utopian concept of a universe that never will be. it is simply an alternative to a social system that is perpetuating world war, poverty, and hunger, destroying billions of lives, and will eventually destroy the world. think of us as a bunch of separate groups of ants right now, red, black, yellow, brown, etc with little hierarchies within each group.
now imagine if all of them realized that the only way to survive and avoid nuclear war, famine, global catastrophe, and general disintegration of ant kind was to work together to propagate the ant species.
reality, i think, has set the stage for that realization.