Theory: Having (a) a guaranteed basic income for every citizen and (b) no central bank and (c) limited Zionist interference in social policy can lead to (d) an overall more enjoyable living experience.
It flies in the face of everything we've ever been told before, but humanity has already achieved a level of technological advancement that makes a leisure society feasible if not required. By leisure society, I just mean a rational society where people are not driven by fear, but by play instincts and their natural heart's desires. How would people decide what to do? By referencing their own affinities, intuitions, and impulses from both the heart and the brain. Wouldn't some just watch TV all day and eat corn chips? Yes. Some would do that. Would anybody be motivated to do anything productive? Yes. Here are some ideas regarding how to successfully make such a transition, ideas on how to transition from a wage slavery culture to a leisure culture...
1. Declare a jubilee as the Romans used to do periodically: Wipe away all debts.
2. The government should take possession of the Federal Reserve and print dollars itself. The government should welcome competition in the issuance of currency. We should allow any person, group, or state to create their own distinctive currency if they so desire to and to loan it to others with whatever conditions they want to apply--except for interest--Usury should be illegal just like slavery and murder are illegal. Instead of charging interest, they can do like the Arabs do and charge a lump sum fee if they prefer.
3. Put into place a basic income involving a federal or state government issued currency.
4. Make a law that people can own a certain reasonable amount of land without having to pay property taxes. Anything beyond that reasonable amount should involve exponentially increasing property taxes. Nobody should be owning more than one or two residences. If a person's land is being responsibly farmed, then an individual can own a larger area of total land without having to pay taxes because responsible farming is something to be encouraged.
5. Legally redefine corporations. A corporation shall not be deemed to constitute a "person." It shall not have the same rights and privileges of a private citizen. A corporation shall be legally construed as a “human community” first and foremost rather than as a mini-totalitarian country. Every corporation shall be considered as having the public at large (including the fauna, flora, and land) as one of its most important stakeholders.
6. Public school should be offered by government, but not required. Home schooling should be supported by government, yet under the complete control and discretion of the parent. It's up to the parents to decide how their own children should be taught.
7. Do away with the income tax and the tracking of people's personal incomes.
8. It will still be necessary to track and tax the income of publicly traded corporations to prevent them from getting out of hand.
9. Decriminalize industrial hemp farming, marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca, amanita muscaria, and all similar nature-based psychedelics.
10. There really shouldn't be any Warren Buffets owning billions and billions of dollars. There should be some sort of law that prevents it. People that are that addicted to the game of acquiring money and/or who need that much money in order to feel good about themselves are a tremendous burden on the rest of society.
11. Government should not be creating laws all the time. Presently, government is like the proverbial dude with a hammer who sees every new problem with civilization as a nail in need of a solid hammering. Once civilization is functioning rationally and people are aware of the truth about God, the hammering instinct of politicians should become less of an issue.
12. There’s a real possibility that free energy technology has existed since Tesla’s day. If this is at all true, and if free energy devices can be produced quickly, then the leisure society will be a lot easier to realize.
13. Maybe in the beginning, the guaranteed basic wage is earned by a promise to work a minimum of 6 weeks a year on public projects. This is just to ensure that basic public services are accomplished: transportation of food and water, sanitation, maintenance of infrastructure, et cetera. Once the new economic system is functioning healthfully, this could be scaled back. People would adapt at different speeds to the new paradigm of doing stuff for oneself and ones civilization out of joy instead of fear.
Okay, but what should we do about the threat of sabotage by Zionist Jews and other pathological control freaks with tons of cash on hand? Hmm. That's a thorny problem. It's the eternal question of "3rd Density" civilizations -- How best to deal with the elitist fascist control freaks (and miscellaneous factions of sons of bitches) without slowly turning into a controlling person oneself? The short answer: I don’t know, but awareness, awareness, awareness is key. People need to be informed and they need to have both a level head and an intelligent heart.
The PTB's three major weapons are (1) the mainstream media and (2) the school system and (3) false flag type stuff to make people scared. Without control of the media, the false flag type stuff wouldn't work nearly as well, so maybe it would be good to break up the largest media companies and sort of level the playing field in that manner. Otherwise, it may be necessary to disallow Zionists from owning the largest media companies or from being involved in the management of such enterprises in a significant capacity.
"Why do we work? From necessity or love? If the former, then our world is failing us, we are being exploited, being made slaves for the benefit of others. The ethic that work is a 'good thing' is a throwback to a Victorian mentality of puritanical pain and denial of our humanity, an ethic that is so far removed from the reality of our human nature as to be pathological."
- CALResCo, Freeing Us From Labor
"A lot of us are working harder than we want at things we don't like to do. Why? It figures! In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care to live."
- Bradford Angier
"Jehovah, the bearded and angry god, gave his worshippers the supreme example of ideal laziness; after six days of work, he rests for all eternity."
- Paul LaFargue
"The dominant work ethic in the United States is founded on the presumption that people will not work unless forced to do so by sheer life-and-death necessity. Does this imply a belief in the value of work or, beneath the surface of this loudly asserted attitude, possibly just the opposite?"
- Lynn Chancer
"Education... now seems to me perhaps the most authoritarian and dangerous of all the social inventions of mankind. It is the deepest foundation of the modern slave state, in which most people feel themselves to be nothing but producers, consumers, spectators, and 'fans,' driven more and more, in all parts of their lives, by greed, envy, and fear. My concern is not to improve 'education' but to do away with it, to end the ugly and antihuman business of people-shaping and to allow and help people to shape themselves."
- John Holt
"Poverty is not created by the poor but by the institutions and policies that we, the better off, have established. We can solve the problem not by means of the old concepts but by adopting radically new ones."
- Muhammad Yunus
"Isn't it obvious that the whole purpose of machines is to get rid of work? When you get rid of the work required for producing basic necessities, you have leisure -- time for fun or for new and creative explorations and adventures."
- Alan Watts
"Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store or farm."
- C. Wright Mills
"I am the laziest man in the world. I invented all those things to save myself from toil."
- Benjamin Franklin
- Mark Twain
Many rightwingers oppose welfare on the basis that it diminishes self-reliance. It’s true that welfare diminishes the kind of “self-reliance” which results from a life of desperation and struggle (for the obvious reason that welfare reduces desperation and struggle). But does welfare diminish the type of self-reliance which results from a supportive and nurturing environment? It seems unlikely. Do rich people feel that their self-reliance is diminished by having access to trust funds and inheritances? Do corporations feel that their self-reliance is inhibited by receiving government subsidies?
What type of “self-reliance” do conservatives wish to encourage by removing welfare? The desperate self-reliance of the criminal, the conman, the fraudster, the crack dealer or the respectable self-reliance of the comfortably affluent?
“Who pays if everyone takes?” That's a common question in debates on welfare or Basic Income. I think the question “who pays?” shows a misunderstanding of the problem. Let’s rephrase the question:
“Who creates the life-support wealth?”
That distinguishes “real wealth” from “money wealth”. My answer to the question would be: “people following their natural abilities/enthusiasms, building on the staggering amount of real wealth (intellectual and material) already created.””
Anti-Consumerist Myth No. 1:
“People are dependent on jobs because of their addiction to expensive consumer products”.
This is a very common viewpoint in forums on anti-consumerism. My own viewpoint reverses the cause and the effect: People are addicted to expensive consumer products because of the unfulfilling nature of their jobs. I base this claim on three perceptions:
1. Most people start at the bottom of the job ladder, at a very low income. After several years the income gradually increases (if they’re lucky). But the initial motivation for getting a full-time job is to “grow up”, become an adult and leave the “parental nest”. It’s not about consumer products to start with – we’re happy if the job simply pays the rent. It’s a growing-up ritual.
Eventually the novelty wears off, the boredom sets in, and we start to see that jobs are soul-destroying. But by then we’ve probably started a family and have become dependent on a regular income (if we’re statistically average, that is). In a life of job-induced drudgery, consumer products start to represent the only novelty (the advertisers know this -- most products are aimed at bored, frustrated workers looking for adventure and excitement).
2. Studies show that people who have jobs watch more TV (as a proportion of their leisure time) than those who don’t have jobs. Studies also show that people with little free time tend to buy expensive consumer products in order to “reward” themselves, and in a (doomed) attempt to pack as much possible enjoyment into the little spare time they have. As if high spending will increase the intensity of the pleasure in the short time they have free.
Leisured people, on the other hand, feel no need to compress their life’s enjoyment into a few hours a week, so they don’t compulsively buy stuff. They also have more time and energy to do things that take time… Employees are probably too tired in the evening to do anything but collapse in front of a TV (and of course, this means they’re subjected to TV adverts in their exhausted state).
We can be judgemental and say “snap out of it” consumer products are no good”, etc, but what good did judgement ever do? The reality is that, statistically, people in jobs don’t have the time or energy to know how to change themselves. Consumerism is a symptom of this state, not a cause.
3. At the start of the industrial revolution, there were no “consumer products” in the sense that we understand them today. So, by anti-consumerist logic, you would expect that people wouldn’t have been dependent on jobs. Not so -- the workers were badly exploited precisely because they were dependent on their jobs for a survival income. Slavery has been around a lot longer than consumer products. Employment is just a modern form of slavery. Consumer products function as a distraction from the slavery, but they’re not the cause of the slavery.
A “Christian” Parable
Imagine you’re 2,000 years old. For most of your life you’ve been in a semi-conscious state, with a hypnotist sitting close to your left ear. Every day for the first 1800 years or so, the hypnotist gave you the following hypnotic suggestions, over and over:
“You are a son/daughter of Adam who betrayed God”
“You betrayed God by being born”
“You are evil in essence.”
“You are no good.”
“You are lower than low.”
“You are totally depraved.”
“You are damned.”
These are followed by a series of instructions: “If you cleanse yourself with a life of suffering (denying pleasure) and obedience to the priests, you may, with God’s grace, receive redemption. However, there is no absolute guarantee of this.”
This goes on every day for centuries. Then, when you were about 1700 years old, the instructions changed a little, according to the views of Protestantism:
“You may earn redemption if you work hard.” There’s still no guarantee of redemption, but an outward sign of your virtue and redemption would be possession of capital.
Laziness and a lack of property are sure signs that you are damned eternally to hell.. (See sociologist Max Weber's writings for the link between Protestantism and Capitalism).
Now you’re 2,000 years old and have woken up a bit. There’s no sign of the hypnotist any more. It’s 8.15 a.m., and you’re driving to work. Despite a weekend of buying nice new furniture, you still feel vaguely depressed and unsatisfied. You don’t understand why -- after all, you’re everything you’re supposed to be: a hard worker, a loyal, obedient corporate team player. And you’ve got a lot of nice, expensive consumer products.
On your way to work, you pass a vagrant, and you feel a sudden, intense anger towards this lazy "good-for-nothing". Then a little later you have a vague feeling of guilt. But once you get to your desk and have a few cups of coffee, these vague uneasy feelings disappear, so you can do your job.
Later, after work, the vague feelings of depression and futility return -- but happily, a few glasses of whisky numb those troubling feelings, so that when you go to bed you can sink into oblivion, ready for another early morning start. "Original sin" means absolutely nothing to you.
Obstacles to Change
1. Outdated work ethic.
2. Market Fundamentalism (eg the belief that all income should be generated and distributed solely by the commercial market).
3. Social Darwinism (eg “survival of the fittest”).
4. Malthusianism (eg belief in the inevitable scarcity of resources).
5. “The Conservative Instinct” (resistance to change, fear of losing position of relative wealth and power.)
Plus a few other factors.
The best solution to these obstacles that I can see is a phased-in scheme of Basic Income (guaranteed income, not conditional upon work) which proves itself, over time, to benefit all sectors of society (except, possibly, the very rich, who might have to survive on a few million rather than a few billion).
Although Basic Income seems to be against all conventional “free market” wisdom, I argue that it would lead to a true free market -- ie one based on true choice rather than financial desperation and survival-anxiety. Crime would fall, health costs would fall, compulsive (anxiety induced) consumerism would fall, and, therefore, environmental destruction would fall. Free time would rise, health & happiness would probably rise, people would have more time to inform themselves, pursue their true interests, actually relate to each other, human-to-human, rather than grudgingly as rushed, stressed wage slaves.
It’s a curious feeling to be “pitied”. It tends to trigger defensiveness. It’s something that poor and unemployed people have to deal with a lot, which I think explains why various forms of misery (eg depression, anxiety, stress, etc) correlate with “relative poverty” more than “absolute poverty” (according to sociology).
To explain what I mean: Everyone in a poor country may suffer from "absolute poverty", but there’s also not much inequality -- everyone is at the same income level, more or less (except, perhaps, for a tiny ruling elite). It’s often been commented by visitors to poor countries that everyone seems happier than in the “civilized” West ie there’s more of a sense of “happy community”, despite material deprivation. Of course, some anti-consumerists might see this as supporting their claim that consumer goods don’t make people happy. But that’s missing the point slightly. The point is that steepness of social hierarchy correlates with unhappiness in a society. That’s a well-supported finding in the social sciences.
Social-status comparison is a very strong influence on our behaviour -- after all, we evolved from hierarchically social mammals; much of this behaviour is hard-wired into our nervous systems. Trying to “rationalise” it away seems like a bad strategy. It’s going to push our buttons whether we like it or not.
In “respectable” society, social status seems correlated with financial status. No doubt this is a result of decades of advertising and “education”, conditioning us to associate symbols of wealth (“status symbols”) with elevated position in the social hierarchy.
Many studies have been conducted into the level of income-inequality (a measure of the steepness of social hierarchy). In the UK, for example, the 1994 Borrie commission reported that the gap between the earnings of the highest paid and the lowest paid were “greater than at any time since records were first kept in 1886.”
That’s the “free market” in action -- busy creating more and more inequality, steeper and steeper social hierarchy. And the result is high levels of human misery, as reflected in all those surveys you see on stress levels, depression epidemics, anxiety disorders, tranquilliser addictions, etc. One UK psychologist even wrote a book (Britain on the Couch by Oliver James) claiming that the steep social hierarchy created by “advanced capitalism” is drastically affecting our brain chemistry, reducing serotonin levels, making us unhappy.
It’s the extreme winner-loser, success-failure polarities, with money as the measure of winning/success, that seem to be the most damaging element of this social inequality. The reaction of pity towards someone perceived as being low(er) on the social/financial ladder seems an automatic reflex in most people.
. . . Any belief which is held by a society for thousands of years eventually becomes "common sense". However, common sense is not always correct ("the Earth is flat" and "sex is dirty" used to be common sense).
What happens when emotion-triggering beliefs -- such as the belief in “sin” -- become common sense? (eg when we automatically regard a certain behaviour as “sinful”). The answer may be that we continue to be emotionally triggered, but we don’t understand why -- because we don’t make the full connection between the belief (which being common sense, we take for granted) and the emotion (eg guilt).
An example would be the belief that we should have "respect for authority", which many people regard as "common sense", without realising the history of why disrespect for authority was not only "bad", but a sin against the gods, and probably fatal for the person showing the disrespect.
Guilt arises from living unquestioningly (“on automatic”) in a certain type of dysfunctional society with irrational beliefs. And the remedy is not to conform, but to continually question and unravel “common sense”.
Source: http://hermeticallyblond.blogspot.com/2010/08/freewrite-re-genesis-of-better-society.html
0 nhận xét: on "Freewrite re: The Genesis of a Better Society"
Post a Comment