I do not see any ecomic system presnted.
So far
1. Get rid of laws, for example traffic laws replace with guidelines.
2. Behavior modification, we will all learn to love each other based on the application of determinism.
Marx is considered the best social scientist of all tine, he accurately described the economic system of his day and social consequences.
He advocated violent overthrow of capitalism and thought there would be a spontaneous global revolution.
The problem with social thinkers and theorists like Marx is they never provide details of how a system will in practice work.
Hence in the name of Marx we had Chinese and Radian communism.
Our extreme anti capitalist progressives who want to make radical economic changes do not know what tey are tinkering with. It is all ideolgy to them.
Even in a communist system with no profit and currency and no private ownership of means of production there is still economics. A fact the Soviets and Maoists never grasped.
So, when I hear yet another claim of a profound revolutionary change or something to repplace the current western systems I ask how will it work, what are the details?
Ideologies do not bake bread and keep water and food supplies working. That fact that the communist missed.
The first thing you need to understand is that this new economic system can only work as a result of the new environment. That is why I keep mentioning the transition from a world of free will (i.e., a world of blame and punishment) to a world of no free will (i.e., a world of no blame and punishment) that will be taking place until everyone has become a citizen. Because there is a lot involved with how this economic system works including the financing of a guaranteed income and how taxes will be paid, I can only offer you excerpts. The economic system is a central element in the elimination of all first blows, for if people are hurt due to a lack of a sustainable income, this insecurity may drive them to steal or do any number of things considered wrong by society. People here don't like to read, so this may be a waste of time, but here goes.
CHAPTER SIX
THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD
And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the possibility of war and crime, but completely changes the entire economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the two-sided equation; otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on, each move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game; consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be avoided, nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to stop the development of something everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned, desire what I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the solution, when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to reduce the differences between people to a common denominator which satisfies the whole human race. God shows no partiality, and since I have been sent here on a mission by God Himself, everybody to me is equal regardless of his color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else you care to throw in. Consequently, the United States, though I live here, is no more a problem to me than Russia or China. Besides, nobody asked to be born, and once it is understood that man’s will is not free, and what this means, how is it possible to blame an individual for anything when both sides of this human equation understand the principles? This is a discovery that no one ever knew about, therefore the experts in every field are also inadequately prepared to judge its ability to accomplish what was never before possible, the prevention of war and crime. At this juncture my friend and I continued our dialogue.
“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”
“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”
“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”
It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.
Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life. Just the possibility that this could happen (this pervasive insecurity) activates and justifies the law of self-preservation to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill if there is no other way to get the money he needs or might need for survival. It is also important to realize that when man is compelled to give up his desire to hurt others because he knows there will be no blame, he is not choosing the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, but a good over an evil. But if by not hurting others he makes matters worse for himself, then he is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils and this is what happens where the first two aspects of hurt are concerned. Consequently, if we find ourselves unable to get what we need then we are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. An example of this occurs when employees who find their income falling short of the mark because of rising prices, blame their employer for having too much money and strike to take some of it away. The employer, in turn, who has discovered that the strike has lowered his income; and the government, finding itself unable to meet its needs under the present tax structure, blame the people for having too much money and decide to take some of it away by increasing prices and taxes. The people, falling below their needs because of this increase, blame the government and anybody else they can cheat to get back what they lost. The manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers are compelled to lay off their surplus employees when consumption slows down and to prevent this, since there is no way the United States can consume all it produces (I am using the United States as an example since I live here, but this applies to any country that produces more than it consumes), the government is forced to do everything humanly possible to keep its foreign markets open and reduce unnecessary competition; otherwise, a recession and perhaps depression could result. It is true that war keeps millions of people employed, reduces the already overcrowded earth and the chances of a depression, so what is the better choice? Everywhere we look, man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions our basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow. To clarify this, if A is compelled to hurt B because the alternative of not doing this is still worse, then A has no choice but to hurt B, as when the unions strike, when prices and taxes are increased, when lay-offs occur, when government prefers war, etc. But if there is no possibility for A to make matters worse for himself by not hurting B, then this aspect of justification has been removed and it then becomes possible to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when he knows there will be no blame which compels him, beyond his control, to choose a good (not to hurt anybody) over an evil (to do so). Now the question arises at this point: “How can we create an environment that would remove the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils as a solution to our problems?”
Do you want me to continue?
