If we do not turn our love of self to our hate of self, we are bound for our near extinction.

No one else has a problem with it.

Regards
DL

 

The introduction of money introduces a parasitic middle-man, unnecessary complications, unnecessary risks, and a multitude of problems to what could otherwise be a very simple, healthy, stress-free life for every individual.

Yes, money (technically) is a means to "hold wealth and buying power", but this is precisely why it should be eliminated.

Money presents an opportunity for any person to siphon more energy (labor & resources) to themselves at the expense of others, which then empowers them to impose their will on others. If that individual be unscrupulous, then they pose a great danger to the well-being of all. It allows a single (wealthy) person to literally dictate the life of millions of people, no matter the merit of that person...and all by simply possessing the necessary wealth.

So the so-called "convenience" of money comes with many risks, many strings attached, a burdensome & stressful climate of unnecessary competition, the need for strict enforced rules/laws, and complex bureaucratic & political management to ensure that it can continue to operate. The serious adverse side effects of capitalism then requires further (socialist) laws/programs to be enacted to ensure both people & the environment are not excessively harmed. The monetary system can thus be viewed as a parasitic "rider" that grows upon the foundation of a strong socialist (taxpayer funded) system.

(1) With no monetary system...a chicken farmer can participate in building the car he wants, and the car maker can help raise the chickens he needs. Each person (if able) can earn the products they want/need by having some direct input (skilled or unskilled) into procuring it. This isn't an issue, of course, if advancements allow machines to produce most of what we need...which would be easier to accomplish with a reduced global population, the absence of money, the elimination of non-essential jobs, and full technological transparency & access.

(2) With a monetary system...enough chickens still need to be sold, either now or later. If the farmer cannot carry enough chickens to buy a car (or house, land, machinery, feed, etc.), then you're advocating he go into debt. If he goes into debt then he is forced to produce enough chickens to pay the debt. If he fails and/or acquires further debt, he stands to lose his home, farm, livelihood, etc. This is a fear-based economic system which has the additional consequence of creating physical/mental stress, domestic conflict, substance abuse, criminal activity, lower quality products (cutting corners), etc. A glance at the history of our debt-economy should be enough to show you that it is a political, social, economic, and environmental time-bomb.

(3) There's no need to subject the well-being of all life on earth to the adverse effects of a manipulated market demand & arbitrary value system...a monster the Many have no control over, but which only the Few have. It is best for production to be based on what & how much is needed at the time, rather than on excessive, wasteful 24/7 production to generate the greatest revenue.

(1) Eliminating money does not mean that money has to be replaced with something else, for money is itself unnecessary. If a cancerous tumor is removed from someone, there's no need to replace it with something else. It needed to be removed because it was parasitic & harmful to the well-being of the person.

(2) Bartering can be used at any time, in any society, in any economic system. But bartering is NOT an essential replacement or only option to money. Full COOPERATION is what is essential. The labor is always present, but what is not present is cooperation. People are working long, hard hours in mostly unfulfilling jobs for money rather for each other. If we work for each other, then each individual will literally have millions of others working for them. It's basically a "pot luck" system where each person brings a little so that all will have abundance.

(3) Removing money would allow cooperation to finally develop. Eliminating money would eliminate all jobs/labor, infrastructure, rules/laws, and resources necessary to keep the monetary system going (and that's a TON of jobs!)...and leaves only essential work. This creates a vast surplus of labor, which means each person will have far less work that needs to be accomplished. The absence of money also eliminates corruption (what could the would-be elites offer the people that they didn't already have?).

(4) If you're wondering what would be the incentive to work if there was no money, think of about this. Would not the incentives be too numerous to list? How about optimal health, abundant clean food & water, no worrying about the health/well-being of your loved ones, less work, work that is satisfying/meaningful/fulfilling/fun, tons of free time to pursue other activities (art, recreation, travel, exploration, etc.), a chance to learn a variety of skills, access to any kind of education/knowledge, the highest standard of living possible for all, no homelessness, access to the most advanced technologies, machines performing all the difficult/tedious/dangerous labor, a stress-free life, a pristine environment & abundant resources, elimination of dangerous cell tower & wifi radiation, no wars, virtually no crime, no animal abuse, no ability for corruption to take root, everything is free (no bills/charges/fees/penalties/debt/etc.), no politics & no rich/wealthy/elites to be concerned about, full transparency (no elites) & no suppression of important information/knowledge/inventions, no scarcity, smaller global population (a natural result of higher standards of living), travel anywhere in the world at any time (cars replaced by personal/family aircraft), no grocery stores (fly to anywhere in the world and pick your food fresh from the farm or the wild), live anywhere you want, chance to explore the planets/stars (and lifeless asteroids/moons/planets can be used for mining & industry), interaction & exchange with ET's (no alien/UFO suppression by the elites)...and so on.

And I explained why that has been the case for millennia. And it's not because we are war-like, but because, in simple terms, the Few (authority) have the means (money) to make good people do bad things.

At its core, the epidemic of violence is the product of a multi-faceted, fear-based behavior resulting from a very sick, anti-human, anti-social, anti-life culture of death. The industrial age, which brought us the abuse/misuse of useful technologies, mass migration to & expansion of mega-cities, global population explosion, scarcity, debilitating chronic illnesses, environmental pollution/destruction, and rampant consumerism has only made the authority-money problem far worse & more dangerous than it was prior to the industrial age.

Also, if our nature was fundamentally aggressive/violent corporations wouldn't feel the need to post ads on TV appealing to our hearts...that is, our innate good, peace-loving, family/socially-oriented, and trusting nature, as well as exploiting our natural fears in order to peddle their wares. This is not surprising, as humans are a very social & gregarious species. Thus TV ads often display images of happy people with big smiles, loving couples, family-oriented themes, patriotic themes, beautiful nature scenes, etc.

If humans were indeed fundamentally aggressive/violent, TV ads would instead appeal to our joy in causing suffering & harm to others. And our govt would not have needed to plot a 9/11 event as a pretext for invading the Middle East. Instead, the 9/11 conspiracy was necessary as a means to incite anger, hatred, and fear among Americans against Arab Muslims to muster public support for an American invasion of the Middle East & ensuing endless "war on terror."

(1) Money itself is an unnecessary stress, as it unnecessarily complicates life in every way possible. For this reason, MOST people would love to be rich not so much out of pure greed, but just so they no longer have to be stressed about money. This is why they jump for joy when they win a lot of money in the lottery or a game show. As thoroughly brainwashed/programmed as people may be, they are not blind to the fact that their money-authority based society is frail, unstable & unreliable...and their own future uncertain.

(2) Poverty is the result of money. There is no poverty in the absence of money. No money = no income inequality/no class system/no poverty. Money also allows the Few the opportunity to control the Many through the hoarding/control of resources & labor. No one can present a good case for anyone to be rich/wealthy, for it offers no benefit to society, and in fact only causes problems.

(3) The ability to accumulate wealth also defeats the very purpose of living as a group. For what purpose should we coexist together for the mutual benefit of all if we are to allow a certain Few to become rich and behave like parasites at the expense of the Many? If people want to "be rich", then they should try to "be rich" on their own by leaving the group. Have them test their ability to survive off the land without benefit of the group in some remote area. Better yet, gather all the rich elites and let them live together as a group in some remote area with their $billions. See how long they last before they kill each other. Such people often tout the virtues of being "independent" and portray themselves as "rugged individualists"...yet they would be nothing without the great benefits made possible only within a social system.

The purpose of society (ie, why we gather into groups) is not to benefit the Few at the expense of the Many. However, the introduction of money will allow the Few (the money authority) to co-opt what should be a money-less, fully cooperative & mutually beneficial social system.

Our acceptance of a hierarchical, pyramidal/stratified control system is a programmed/conditioned response to imposed control by the Few (authority) over the Many through the introduction of money (the means of control). Money allows the Few to hoard/control/regulate resources that the Many depend on. Thus, money = power for the Few over the Many.

In human culture, the absence of authority would naturally be replaced by a respect for the wisdom of certain people, such as our "elders". These elders need not behave as a ruling body by formulating or enacting rules/laws, but merely provide wise counsel & advice, and act as mediators when necessary. In such a socially advanced society the people won't have to be led by the hand. The health, intelligence, education/knowledge, and abilities/skills/potential of each individual would be great...making each person able to think & act independently and free to explore their creative potential, while being socially & environmentally responsible...and all within the support of a strong social foundation. Should anyone come along hoping to impose their will upon others, they would summarily be ignored by the masses and left without power/influence, as they will have nothing to bargain with or offer the people that the people don't already have.

By contrast, in our money-authority world, mad men can gather an audience & exert great influence over the Many because they possess wealth, and are able to feed upon the fears & desperation of others brought on by the money-authority culture of death.

The problem with the French Revolution is that authority + money remained. Every major revolution simply results in a change of leadership (often through violence)...but never in the elimination of the authority-money control/slave system itself and subsequent transformation into a fully cooperative & democratic society.

I don't follow any religion, but I agree with that Bible quote. The "meek" will indeed one day inherit the earth, for it is the meek who have always owned the earth. It is the meek who hold the very power necessary to alter the course of humankind towards a genuine Utopia. They just need to de-program & wake up to that truth. It's not a matter of if, but WHEN.

The Few have always recognized the power of the Many, but have learned to exploit it for their personal gain by cleverly channeling it in a direction of their choosing. Thus, the Few have no real means to impose their will over the Many except through the power they're given by the Many. Like a parasite, the Few must co-opt the energy of its host (the Many) to create the kind of world/reality they desire. Thus, the world we have created is BY the Many, but not FOR, nor the DESIRE of the Many. Rather, it is the desire of the Few, but not BY the Few. The Many have always held the greatest power.

The primary tool used by the Few to accomplish this feat, and which has lasted for millennia, is by convincing the people into accepting the implementation of a money + ruling body system, and maintaining the lie that this very system is essential to keep society functioning.

Also I had an exchange about socialism vs capitalism with other members in the following thread which you may read if you like. The basis of my argument was that capitalism could not exist without a strong, stable socialist platform...and hence, renders capitalism as not only non-essential, but also detrimental.

And finally, here's a quote I've posted a couple times in these forums that I like a lot which humorously exposes the ridiculous & non-essential nature of money. It's a scene from the 1935 movie, Mutiny on the Bounty, where, on the island of Tahiti, Midshipman, Roger Byam, explains the concept of "money" to King/Chief Hitihiti of Tahiti.

 

Exactly!

Global unification is a given. It's just a matter of when...not if. The issue is, who will end up being in control...the Few, or the Many?

The Few want unification, but they want it on their terms...not on terms that would benefit all.

So we'll all unify, but we'll get there the hard way...or the easy way.

 

Does this make sense? =

"If we do not turn our swords into plows, and devastate the worlds populations with war, our environment will do the deed and near extinct us."

You want to elect a God? If there is an actual God why hasn't it stepped out into the light?

 

Creating money, I agree, has some parasitic implications. In our make work world, this is a good thing. It is called job creation.

You somehow think that if I need a car, I can walk into a factory and start building one. Insanity.

If I was a doctor, for instance, do I want a back yard full of chickens and cars? No. I want cash in the bank.

If we were still into rural or small town living, cashless bartering might have a chance. Not in our city states.

That is why they invented cash so long ago. They could not carry their wealth, many camels, with them everywhere.

Regards
DL

 

Yes, it all makes sense.

No. There is no supernatural god.

All our gods are man made. We should admit it and elect/create another one, so as to unify the earth under one ideology and vision that the world.s electorate would choose.

Anything, in terms of central leadership, will be better than our presently squabbling oligarch owners who have screwed up our eco system to near extinction.

Regards
DL

 

No, the need for to acquire basic needs is what creates LABOR...and THAT can be done cooperatively to greatly reduce individual labor needs (recall the "pot luck" system). In aboriginal cultures around the world where money is not used people WORK cooperatively and on behalf of one another (the group)...not because they're getting paid to do it, but because it's NECESSARY. Necessity is what compels us to work...but if we cooperate the necessary work is greatly reduced.

So we don't need "jobs". We need merely to cooperate & do what's essential for the benefit of all. Looking to create jobs willynilly just to generate profits & obtain a paycheck is wasteful & destructive, and creates the need for MORE labor than is necessary to not only meet everyone's needs, but to ensure a high standard of living.

No, you would HELP build one by working alongside the experts who have chosen engineering/mechanics as their field of interest. Recall I said the person can help by providing skilled OR unskilled labor (if able)...unless machines can do it all (or most) for us. It would also give each person a real sense that they earned that product, more knowledge about that product, an appreciation for where that product came from & what's required to produce it, and a sense of accomplishment by having a hand in its production. Another benefit is that we produce only what is needed. There's no need to be producing products 24/7 just to generate profits to keep the money economy going. It's extremely wasteful, environmentally destructive, and boring/tedious & too laborious to workers. It's simply stupid!

If there was no monetary system you would be doing it for free...but you would also be getting everything you need for free from the labor of others. Your primary contribution is healthcare/medical expertise. In such a fully cooperative, advanced, transparent society free of the burden of money & authority and a pristine environment & much lower population, think of how healthy people would be. The doctor will probably have very little to do...other than having to treat mostly injuries & acute care.

In a monetary system as we have, you are screwed if you don't have the cash...unless you can borrow the money. But then you'd be in debt (and with interest!)...which means you are then under enormous pressure to keep generating enough money from your farm [and (1) hoping your are competitive enough in the market, and (2) people keep buying your products]...or you risk losing not only the car (repossession), but also your home, farm, etc. And if your health is not good, then this becomes even more of a stress. You see how money makes life very difficult through a series of domino effects that can become unstoppable? Only the Few really benefit from a monetary system...although the "benefits" for the Few are material only & shallow.

No. The problem in rural/small town living is the same as in urban/large cities. There's no cooperation among the inhabitants to acquire all they need...unlike aboriginal cultures around the world that are fully cooperative and have been for 80,000+ years! Now, people are so used to having money (and programmed/conditioned by fear & propaganda) that they can't even conceive of life without it, because virtually no one has any ability/skills to survive without going to a store to buy what they need, or survive without electricity or running water...and that's because we never really learned how to work together/cooperate.

Also, you're confusing cooperation (no money) with primitive, bartering, and lack of advanced technology. But you need to keep in mind that LABOR will exist whether there is money or no money. Money was created for the benefit of the Few (self-styled authoritarians/"God's chosen") to control/hoard resources by co-opting labor/man-power. After that, it became an unstoppable MONEY-AUTHORITY monster lasting millennia.

I will admit though, that although money is unnecessary in developing a highly advanced Utopia, money was less of an issue in the period before the industrial age, as humankind (remaining technologically primitive & also relatively stable in population numbers/growth) was still limited in how much damage they could impose on their natural environment. Yes, they had wars and killed one another...but their effects on the environment/natural resources was kept in check. The earth remained basically pristine...and that's more important than whether or not we have wars, because for those who don't wish to fight, there's still nowhere to run to get away from man-made poisons & destruction.

The industrial age represents an advancement in technology that came far TOO SOON before humankind was mentally & spiritually ready to use it wisely. Technology is being used to wage global wars, oppress people/restrict freedoms, poison/sicken & dumb down people, destroy the environment, expand big business, and implement an economic & military global takeover.

Ideally, if we are to continue to use money today, we should be stripped of our technology. Instead, we're just a bunch of smart monkeys with dangerous toys.

 

I think the correct answer is compassion for ourselves -- the same compassion we show for others. When "love" means compassion and empathy, we should have it for ourselves and others. When it means possessive obsession, we shouldn't have it for ourselves and we shouldn't have it for others.

Egoistic selfishness and self-hatred are both self-absorbed in destructive ways. If we don't have some love for ourselves, I don't know how we can be able to emulate enough to show true love for others. "Love others as yourself" actually seems like a pretty good measuring stick for me, and it requires a certain level of self love in order to operate.

Imagine turning to someone you care for and saying, "I love you so much, but I don't want you to have the same love for yourself that I have for you. I want you to hate yourself while I love you." It just doesn't sound viable.

 

Compassion/love for self & others is important and certainly in short supply...but it needs to be balanced with logic. And that means the willingness to always question so-called experts/authorities...no matter how convincing they may be or how popular their claims may be. Many people have harmed or killed others in the name of compassion/love, because they were programmed/conditioned by propaganda & false information to believe they were acting on compassion/love.

As the saying goes..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

It's counterproductive to be so heavenly minded that we're no earthly good.

 

Absolutely, and a great call-out. I have more to say and I need to process that response, but this absolutely has to be elevated ASAP.

 

We have a fundamental difference in view that will not be resolved.

The old synonym for cash is bread. It was coined, pardon the pun, because one of the first uses was the king of city states paying his workers with it so that they could buy various products in the city and the impetus for him to mint coins was to have the workers pass them on to the Temple Prostitute who gave it to the priests who then put it back in the hands of the king. Then, as today, it is not so much a question of how much money is out there. It is how much it changes hands and thus get's value added put into it.

I am sure you have seen that when new jobs are created in your city that people increase the numbers by saying the one new job will create 3 other new ones.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one as we are in a stalemate.

You seem to resent that the top levels of society might gain more, but man has always been a hierarchical species with the cream rising to the top, so to speak.

Regards
DL

 

You are half way there in understanding me buddy.

We already love each other too much to let our haste for what we do move us to berate each other for not loving the environment more and hating ourselves for screwing it and our children's futures up. If they will even have one.

We are on the same basic page but my play on words might be having you think we are not.

Be it motivated by love for the good or hate for the bad, action is what is required and both of us seem to know that.

I worded the O.P. as I did because I know that hate is born from love. When we love something or someone, we will automatically hate what jeopardizes what we love. If we love the planet, we should hate all that jeopardizes it, including ourselves and our destructive actions.

Regards
DL

 

Did you have religions that use inquisitions and jihads in mind, as well as other fascist regimes like Hitler's?

Regards
DL

 

Feel free to avoid money. Just grow your own food and live off the land. And embrace pacifism. Love everyone. And make decisions based on the will of the people.

 

Foolish notion to Socrates who ended such thinking by asking those who proposed such nonsense, with his question, who will make your shoes.

IOW, no one can live without the tribe, given that we all rely on each other for what we need to live. Freedom and humans cannot exist. Only liberty is a possibility. Americans have a statue of liberty. Not a statue of freedom. You would not like to see people have freedom.
You would live in constant fear that they would use their freedom to do everything against you.

Regards
DL

 

My post was intended as sarcasm.

 

Oh.

Regards
DL

 

The following article, entitled, We Need a Riot of Empathy, was just posted today that reminded me of your post, which I think you'll like.

 

Are you not aware of our govt's history against its own people and that of foreign nations? This nation was built on genocide, plundering of resources, slavery, and greed...basically, a continuation of European imperialism...and it's still going on to this day.

 

Why is it you're telling me this rather than to the wealthy class who are self-described "rugged individualists"? If they are rugged individualists, then why is it they cannot survive without the social benefits of the group? Why is it they cannot survive in the wild on their own?

I want to remain with & contribute to the mutual well-being and advancement of the group, and from which I myself benefit & am provided a means to explore my own individual potential...while it is the wealthy class that seeks only to hoard & control our resources & fruits of the working class, which would not even be possible without a social group.

The problem is that our social group/society has been cleverly designed by the Few to hand power over to these would-be parasites who really contribute nothing of value to society...allowing them to dictate the direction of labor, distribution of resources, and the channeling of wealth to them. And so, they grow more powerful & destructive and become a persistent liability & nuisance to all life on the planet.

Human history, with all its craziness, is essentially a very long history of the Many (working class) vs the Few (parasite class).

 

Thanks. I will have a look.

Regards
DL

 

I am aware of this, yes. I am also aware that many are trying to change our ways to inclusion instead or exclusion. It is a long slow slug, but it is active.

The older generation is lost. The younger one thinks more universalist instead of the us against them foolishness. They are recognizing more that we are all in this together, alone. Our children are better thinkers than their parents. We still lose many sheeple to their old tribalism but many want to be global citizens and not restrict themselves to just being a citizen to a small location or ideology of exclusion and exclusivity. Supremacy groups, even Democrats and Republicans are losing their cohesion thanks to people like Trump making even Republicans shake their heads and bow them in shame.

Time will tell.

Regards
DL

 

True, but that is natural for a hierarchical species like ours.

We naturally create a pyramid shaped socio economic demographic pyramid. It is not the shape that is particularly bad. It is the spread of the wealth that is the irritant. We are not supporting the poor enough and that leads to an unstable shape.

That is the problem with our tax system imposing poverty onto the population.

Regards
DL

 

Everything we do can be considered "natural", though not always the most beneficial or best for all. What seems to be the common denominator is that we're all social creatures. How we choose to coexist becomes the issue.

"Hierarchy" definition: a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

We should draw a distinction between what I would call a "true hierarchy", and, for lack of a better term, a "pseudo-hierarchy."

(1) True hierarchy: A social system with a power structure controlled from the top-down by an untouchable/elitist parasitic class who dictate, on the basis of personal wealth, the lives of those below them for their own personal interests & benefit.

One could view this top-down control system as a pyramidal form (what we have globally). The control of resources & labor is designed NOT to benefit, nor ensure the well-being of all within the social group, but to serve the interests of those at the top. Slavery would be the extreme form of this type of system.

(2) Pseudo-hierarchy: A social system where those with the highest status (or higher standing) are afforded special respect based on their wisdom, merit, integrity, and incorruptibility (eg, chiefs, medicine men, and elders within tribal groups).

This tribal-like, laterally managed egalitarian system could be viewed as a flat, circular disc with the chief/medicine men/wise elders at the center. The management of resources & labor are designed to strengthen the social group through mutual benefit.

No monetary system = no poverty. So why complicate things and have a monetary system?

Technically, taxes are not necessary even in a monetary system if the not-for-profit, people-owned government does all the hiring for essential jobs to meet the needs (not greed) of all people. If a monetary system is to be allowed, then this would be the best way to conduct it.

 

nationalism, is the measles of mankind. Said Einstein.