Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
Why get rid of money?
  • I keep reading about people want to "get rid of money" and that currency is the source of all our problems or that currency creates scarcity. I don't think this is necessarily true and think the problem lies more in who is verifying the transactions, creating the money, and the creation process. Money is not needed to survive, it is just a tool to trade. If everybody valued goods and services the same way, we couldn't even trade. If you don't trade, you have to chose between self sufficiency with no specialization nor division of labor or some people imposing values to others. What one group of people has done, is taken the power of this tool which enables trade, and crafted its creation in such a way that they are the center of all trade and transaction.


     
  • 26 Comments sorted by
  • The purpose of this is to fight a class war. People create classes, money does not. 
     
  • "money" is fine as long as it is never centralized in a massive way.  Keep money local and keep banks small and all will be well.  The Bankers have taken us all for a ride this time.  Lets not allow that to happen again.

    The Dawg
     
  • I think money will be with us for the foreseeable future, even as we start to build an economy based on abundance.  Self-sufficient people and villages need to buy things from external suppliers.  This is done using money and no way around that.  As such, people and villages will need to have a cash income of some kind.  Sadly, this ties us to the old economic order.

    Speaking for my own self-sufficient enterprise (Phase 3 Farm), my strategy is to maximize my income and use it to build a self-sufficient infrastructure.  I don't think I can keep this up forever ('ll be in my 60's in a few years), so it's important to prioritize our building.  Roughly, this looks like:

    1.  House (about 1/3 complete at this point)
    2.  Chicken coop (a move towards being self-sufficient in meat production)
    3.  Pasture and Field development (a new 1 acre field is under development and being seeded with pasture grasses).
    4.  Pole barn (for my equipment)
    5.  Workshop (building exists, needs tools and an extension to build LifeTrac in ).
    6.  Farm Pond (provides water reserve, fire fighting reservoir,
    aquaculture, and micro-hydro power)
    7.  Solar power installations (SolarFire?  Steam Engine? PV Panels?)


    The above will take years to complete and many dollars - especially since it is our policy to avoid debt at all costs (even delaying things).  If you look at the above list of projects, it's easy to see that money will be needed:  various bits of hardware (screws, nails, etc.), new tools (lathe, drill press, mill), etc.  That's assuming I can mill my own lumber (I do have lots of trees).  Still, I am hoping that my need for external spending decreases over time (essentially our operating expenses) by developing my own local resources (a micro-economy of abundance).

    - Mark

     
  • @Anderxander, I think you might be interested in this documentary.
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/status-anxiety/
     
  • I don't see money as the problem at all, not even loans.  One, it is true that there is too much emphasis on it and traditional economics because that is the only thing we know much about - there is some reliable research that indicates that the reason for the wall-street centric economics view within traditional economics is not that is is oh so special but in fact that economists almost all have a conflict of interest and competing systems just are not studied.  Therefore not talked about and not understood and not as useful as a tool.  As a result we get stuck with wall street.

    It's very interesting how the predatory behaviour of banksters etc. can extend well into scientific understanding in this way.  Science is not always a bastion of truth - at least not the whole truth.

    What this comes down to is the predators in our society. Read the economist James Galbraith for more information on predatory behaviour.  Banksters only use money as a tool for profiting *at the expense of the rest of us*=predation. 

    We can stand up to them, but like true predators they disrupt our communication by using their louder voice to put ideas in people's heads that shut out other ideas - like hatred of communism and other such silly things.   Even when a small number of people see through the fog and understand what is going on they cannot get their message out there.   In a million different ways the use their existing power to consolidate their power over their prey.  But we can fight back, and we must as it is the only way. 

    They don't know everything and they can't predict the future.  Fortune favors the prepared mind, and we may find a way to enlighten the people yet despite them.
     
  • I agree with you Gregor. What if there was a materials bank... sort of like a library... where people who wanted to create something could check out a hammer, a screw driver, a computer, a guitar, an easel, or a printing press, a 3d printer, a laser cutter, and of course a MIG welder. And the materials were the money, real, physical, tangible goods. And at the end of the day they would all be returned, just like all of the play money in the game Monopoly after every last person either goes bankrupt or quits.
     
  • @WP9

    I have heard of such things on a local basis.  Tool libraries, etc.  While it can work, there can be problems with failure to return, breakage, lack of training, etc.

    - Mark
     
  • @Gregor - Well put.  I would add that the system in place now is VERY dependent on consumers.  Especially consumers willing to get into debt.  This is where people can have the most effect I think.  Don't borrow if at all possible and try to consume less.  Their house of cards will quickly fall if these simple suggestions were universally accepted.

    The Dawg
     
  • @WP9: We have a few tool libraries, in our area. One of the biggest barriers is availability - a tool library has no guaranteed stock. The other is accountability - breakage and delay, as Mark mentioned. The solution that I've been fiddling with for a while is a 'Depot': anyone who joins, provides an account they'd like to exchange through (a bank account, PayPal, whatever), and they can LEASE items from the Depot up to the value of their account balance. (You break it, you buy it.) The OSE-style game-changer is the ability to produce goods for the Depot, and have all proceeds from the lease of those goods funneled into your account. The Depot takes a 'consignment & storage process fee', enough to finance its operation, but like a co-op, the profits flow to the users. Leasing is better than borrow - it allows longer-term use, limits transaction costs of daily exchange, and encourages stocking of more valuable goods. Want to build a shed? Tool library is good for borrowing a saw, but no good for full equipment rentals. Depots could handle classes of needs; rather than owning your trade tools, you'd lease them. (My kingdom, for a GVCS Depot!) Also, having a way to add to the stock creates a market for durable goods: if you make weed-whackers that are cheap, handy, and resilient, you could earn a lot more money on successive leases than a corporation pumping out buyer-beware tinfoil obsolescence. (Yeah, my weed-whacker is funky, too.) The critical development hurdles are in the structure of the organization: accountability procedures, for lost/broken/complaint/etc, accrediting process, for accepting 'Depot contributors' of reliable skill, with reliable products, and reputation methods, for leasors and leasees to coordinate reliably, and to weed out 'tool-trolls'.

    The general structure, if solidified, could act as a method for local coordination of a wide range of goods and services. I'd played with extending this to a smartphone app that coordinates services, similar in concept to the Open Capitalism model (and Craigslist, without being gross and abusive); you create an account, list the services you provide, receive accrediting from accredited members, (whose reputation drops if YOU screw up, so they have an incentive to only accredit folks they know & trust!) and your needs & services 'ping' the network, to coordinate a local match. ("I was at the store, today, and I got a ping from an elderly woman down my block - she was looking for someone to bring her gin and cat food. I also got a ping response for my dog-walking request - a kid at the local high school won the bid. I plan to leave my plumbing-service ping on over the weekend - I can probably pick up a few extra jobs, for that camping trip I have planned. I'll need to swing by the Depot for all the supplies.") These sorts of 'task mobs' could also fragment and coordinate large-scale projects, much as Marcin is setting up.

    The major future barrier to these approaches is interoperability - I don't want to be a member of twenty different coordination services, or have to post offers on three different sites, and hop between them to compare results. Folks've been looking for the silver bullet to this one, since Socialism. I think the OS solution will work better than corporate consumerism's trash-huckstering, as well as welfare states' heavy-handed 'utilities' that seem to require secret police to work. They're not hard to beat, but any solution has to grow from the ground up, and that evolution of scale normally kills it; what works at one scale, often won't at the higher scale. OSE adapts, and I bet it'll win. :)
     
  • Greed and laziness are inherent parts of human nature, and will be for millions of years until we evolve out of it/Christ comes/pick one.  This greed and sloth corrupt systems.  The best systems, that have lasted the longest, are resistant to this corruption.  Communism on anything but a small, voluntary scale will fail because of it.

    A free market moderates greed by forcing people to deal reasonably, moderating their demands.  Money has been described as a way to "keep score," a very good analogy.  This works best though when large, immune corporations and governments with a monopoly of force are out of the picture, with their abilities to distort the market as we're seeing today.  It also punishes laziness, since someone who does no work and therefore does not contribute will not earn any bread.

    Even a commune needs a way to place a value on the work of it's members, and reward work and discourage sloth.  If you don't have this, the greedy and lazy will leech off the system until it collapses.  Even if you think of something new, it'll probably be called money anyway, because that will be how it will work.
     
  • Perhaps in an abundance-based economy, the lazy person looses out on variety or choice.  In a future OSE village, some grains and vegetables are grown communally - perhaps via the crop circle robot.  The process is so labor free that this food can be considered free - just drop by and pick up (when in season).  Still, a diet of wheat gruel and turnips can get old after a while (not to mention all that swiss chard!).  Meanwhile, there are a few enterprising souls in the village who enjoy a greater variety.  Everyone in the village has a small plot of land they is there to do with as they like.  The foodies plant hot peppers, edamame beans, cantaloupes, etc.  When they come into season, they have something they can trade with - perhaps honey, or wheat beer, or strawberry jam, etc.

    The lazy man has a RepRap printer, or may be access to one.  He can print up a new coffee mug if he needs one.  There are all sorts of plastic things can can be downloaded and printed out - but they are all plastic and well, kinda generic.  Meanwhile, an enterprising woman has discovered a deposit of clay at the back of the property.  Reading up about it on the internet, she has the fab-lab make her a set of progressive screens that she can work the dry clay through until only the very smoothest of clay is left.  With the clay she fashions pots, cups, bowls, and plates.  Talking with some friends in another OSE village, she learns that glass from the waste stream can be ground to a fine powder and used to glaze her clay pots.  Soon, her pots are in great demand for their artistic value, especially since she takes custom orders.

    The lazy man lives in a simple house made from compressed earth bricks with a metal roof shaped by the metal extruding machine.  The brick, even plastered over, are pretty bland (ie, ugly).  Elsewhere in the village, people are experimenting with frescoes (colored plaster paintings), wood paneling, stenciling, etc.  These artistic souls offer to fix up your home in return for help maintaining their solar oven, open source dishwasher, etc.

    Even surrounded by abundance, there will be opportunities for people willing to do a bit of work, apply their talents, or think out of the box.

    - Mark

     
  • @kunkmiester - I suppose you can make negative assumptions about human nature, if you'd like, but I would rather not see economic's fundamentals misrepresented. The use of currency is independent of a market economy, and both are aspects of managing the problem of economic allocation: given a set of resources, how should they be allocated into goods, who should get those goods, and what is provided in return? Barter markets have been the dominant mode of human economy for most of our history, and I'd expect human nature has a better fit to barter's reciprocal, long-term trust relations, than a 'faceless' currency, diluted of trust by fraudulent printing ('fractional reserve') and usury. Barter doesn't eliminate a market, or the ability to 'keep score', and neither works on the concept of competition. My ability to produce value isn't hindered by your ability to produce value, so it's not a competition. They actually amplify each other, through exchange. Capitalist markets happen to be most stable when they are monopolistic, so government sanction against monopoly creates a continuous flux of new businesses. That's why we currently compete. ('Capitalist' means private property owners hold the means of production, and insist upon a 'wager' with those who don't: "I'll give you $X, in return for immediate ownership of everything that YOU produce in the next hour." It's a bet that they can profit from your work more than you could, and encourages capitalists to discourage alternatives to the wager! Wages aren't the only way to organize labor and 'keep score' in a free market...) The pricing system is were a standard set of currencies, of fixed relative value, (a $5 bill will always be worth exactly half of a $10, however much they buy; a goat may be worth more or less than a bolt of silk, depending on the situation) are used to mediate exchange. These currencies have known quality and value, and are compact, durable and protected from fraud. They make exchange easier, allowing longer chains of coordination and trade, which increases wealth by increasing the efficiency of allocation. A communist dictatorship would still find value in using some currency in their account books, even if none of their peasants had cash on hand.

    The idea that 'fighting for work opportunities' is the source of success, while alternatives lead to 'the greedy and lazy', is not born by economic theory, or history. Our ability to produce value is a result of efficient allocation and processing of raw materials into valuable goods. Competition doesn't enter the equation. The more efficiently you can predict the needs of a group, and allocate the available resources between those needs, the wealthier everyone becomes. Currencies allow long-chain trades and coordination, making them a decent 'optimization algorithm' for the allocation problem. It's not clear that they are best, and they certainly aren't natural or necessary. "Even if you think of something new, it'll probably be called money anyway, because that will be how it will work"  is lacking imagination.
     
  • I should make a note: there is a difference between a person's motive, and their choice. The choice to 'act greedy' is equated in pop psychology to 'being selfish'. I see greed as the misdirection of a deeper human drive: the desire to provide for the continuance of your loves. Similarly, 'laziness' is the desire to allocate one's energies maximally - why do what you don't have to? More fundamental than either of these is the human desire to belong: we like people, and hope they like us. It's valuable to recognize that the structures to squelch corruption used most often by our non-agrarian brothers are methods of exile. If you're not pulling your weight in the tribe, you'll wake up one morning, and find that they'd packed and left without you. Exile is worse than death: we'll use death to escape the tortures of isolation and the deprivation that results from loosing our connection to the 'common means' (Lao Tzu's phrasing, via Witter Bynner, for the value of being a part of a community). Belonging's primacy over self-preservation motivates altruism, as well as suicide. Check out National Geographic: Solitary Confinement (Netflix has it) for a vivid look into human responses to exile.

    It's always amusing to see, when people argue for the primacy of greed and laziness, how little a role those play in their own lives. What percent of your day is spent scheming to steal, and dodging what needs to be done? Compare that to the time and effort you spend, often without recompense, for your friends, family, and fulfillment. Marcin hasn't been paid well, I assume. Is he greedy and lazy? Are the rest of us?
     
  • @Anthonyrepetto
    You are right to remind us that applying labels like "greedy" and "lazy" are just value judgments.  Is the contemplative monk who sits and prays all day (doing no other work) lazy?  Perhaps by some definitions, but I think that society should be able to support such individuals.  Is the person who works very hard to acquire things "greedy" if in the process many people around him also benefit?

    Really, what we are assessing is benefit to individuals and benefit to society.  We should acknowledge that sometimes these things will be in conflict.  We also need to admit that people will generally try to optimize their own situation (perhaps extended to include immediate family).

    The challenge to us, if we want to move aware from scarcity towards abundance, is how to motivate behavior such that the overall, net effect is an improvement in everyone's lifestyle.  IMO, it starts with education.  The better understanding that people have about how their society works and SHOULD work, the better off we will all be.  To some extent, this requires shared values - which again comes down to education, especially when young.

    - Mark
     
  • @mjn
    Right there with ya. :) I'd offer that, once folks see that they have options, (that's the part of education I like) they're free to choose their lives, instead of 'the system' choosing for them. The situation has a huge impact on where we direct our choices, and whenever we're in a spot that challenges us, and empowers us, our good natures come forward. We may not all share the same values, but our strengths inspire each other, and we gather around the work that inspires us. I picture the night of a circus: a kid sees, for the first time, a man juggling nine pins! It's human to be inspired, seeing human capacity. The child says to themselves, "We have that power in us." And, when the kid gets home, he practices, all the while thinking: "I bet we can juggle ten." We each strive to be a demonstration of life's possibility and human potential. Trobriand islanders have a system of government and exchange I particularly like: various items are given a history and significance, and become gift exchanges that display your good relationship with others, acting as currency for resolving disputes and weathering emergencies. No one commands another, but the Big Men of each tribe are called upon for direction and steadfast morals. How do you become a Big Man? You throw the best feast for everyone! Ongka, one of the Big Men interviewed by anthropologists, explained as he pointed to his sleepy and full guests, that feasts are better proof of strength than combat: "I have given you all these things. I have won. I have knocked you down, by giving so much!" That guy is my hero. :)
     
  • hehe - completely off topic! A silly puzzle-joke just came to me: "Summer's low tooth ink orbit sums e vast end thin knot."
     
  • @kunkmiester I would argue that greed and laziness are not inherent to human nature.  Children are born selfish, because they lack the ability to understand things beyond themselves.  In the early teens we develop the ability to think abstractly, from there environment is a pretty big factor in how we behave.  Attachment to the people around us drives us to give to them.
     
  • The cost of pursuing a university degree, getting regular medical care and housing have all skyrocketted at double-digit percentage points year after year while wages for most workers have not.  It takes longer and longer for a student loan to be paid off by income gains (and with high unemployment, there's no assurance of being able to get a higher-wage job despite having a degree), making it a worse and worse gamble; similarly with getting a house, and fewer and fewer Americans are able to afford basic medical care resulting in the deaths of some 45,000 Americans every year from preventable causes (illnesses that would be treatable if caught earlier if they had regular medical care) simply due to a lack of access to regular health care (this was a finding by the Harvard School of Medicine conducted a few years ago).  Executive pay has gone up at a much faster % year-over-previous amount than normal worker pay ... the net effect is wealth continues to be drained from the poor to the wealthy.

    The claim that the wealthy create jobs just doesn't ring true.  The wealthy concentrate more and more wealth in their hands, causing millions more Americans to fall below the poverty line.

    It isn't that money in and of itself is evil, its that it is a source of power, and a tiny minority are able to scheme for it out of their customers and employees even though this is, ultimately, unsustainable even to themselves ... underpaid employees and overcharged customers are one and the same; when things cost too much money and someone earns too little money, eventually a tipping point is reached and the economy collapses.  Only when real wages (employment and wages for the employed) gains traction over prices can the economy recover.  The U.S. has persevered through economic hardships before, but the bigger the U.S. gets, the harder it is for the giant to pull itself up.  The ongoing suction of wealth from the impoverished to the already wealthy is unsustainable ... it creates misery for the masses, and eventually they will be completely bled dry and the wealthy will have little for themselves as well if this continues unchecked.

    Any power is abusable, to misery-inducing and unsustainable ways ... political power, military power, religious power and economic power.  OSE provides a new way to escape the economic powers that be, enabling those who could not afford to do so before to take care of their own necessities without being tyrannized by the low wage/high cost of goods system.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    November 2011
    The problem is not the money. The problem is the speculation. Prices of certain necessities of life are inflated artificially, with no connection between the cost of production and the selling price.
    You can't buy a home because of the inflated price of real estate. And those who work in construction can't sell and they lose jobs. And there is no solution as long as a group of real estate monopolies keep the spaces empty refusing to sell/rent at a decent price. Because the space is limited.

    Money are very good because they are a universally accepted currency. Open Source Machinery brings two vital things: democratization and less speculation. That means, more people can create businesses that make parts for the machines - more democracy, and you won't have to pay another 500$ to replace your washing machine just because it's door is broken. You simply buy another door, with 10-20$ - therefore it's reducing the speculation.

    The more you can produce things on your own, the less you need money and the less you need to have a job (i.e. to work for someone else). But as long as people trade things, money are the best way to trade.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    November 2011
    [quote]We can stand up to them, but like true predators they disrupt our communication by using their louder voice to put ideas in people's heads that shut out other ideas - like hatred of communism and other such silly things.  Even when a small number of people see through the fog and understand what is going on they cannot get their message out there.   In a million different ways the use their existing power to
    consolidate their power over their prey.  [/quote]

    Well put. For example, in the newspapers this days, you can see the following mantra: "there are no jobs because there is no demand". But there are so many people able and willing to work who lack even the basic necessities of life. They need those things, so there is demand. If the private sector fails doing the job, then even the government can jump in and create those things, in the same time employing those without jobs. The focus should be on the resources, well before jobs. If you can do what you need in 1 hr/day, then you just need to work 1 hr/day. Yet they talk like jobs are the necessity of life, not food, housing, etc.

    And then, what exactly they mean by repeating over and over the same mantra? (we don't have demand). And I've seen many other "mantras" like this in the news. My conclusion is that they simply want to feed the public with nonsense in order to make it incapable to think and to react. "Economy is complicated and therefore anything bad that happens has a very logical (economic) explanation",

    [quote]like true predators they disrupt our communication by using their louder voice to put ideas in people's heads that shut out other ideas - like hatred of communism and other such silly things.[/quote]
    That's so very, very true. If you look at unemployment statistics in EU, you can notice that countries like Austria and Germany had biggest unemployment in 2005 - well before crisis. They were not affected by the crisis, only indirectly, because their trading partners were. Why? because they had no real estate speculation - and that because they have a good public housing sector. Now, if you tell to people in the US that we need a public housing sector, they will scream in horror: "OMG that's communism!". Anytime you come with an idea to implement a solution, you are labeled as a communist.

    [quote]But we can fight back, and we must as it is the only way.[/quote]
    In my opinion, unfortunately that "we" doesn't really exist. How many people think about doing voluntary work, about giving back something to the society, how many try to improve things and not just benefit from the comfort of a functional society? Even worse, there is a lot of dumb activism, unfortunately. Charities, foundations, organizations without real communication with the people, without accepting feedback, without organic growth, hypocrisy (boss of Green Peace has a yacht while he advocates for a simple life, scary thing to hear how much money makes the bosses in the Red Cross, etc.). Lots of voluntary work spent on relief, without focusing on solutions. If you implement solutions then you won't have to come with relief anymore.
    The majority of the people accept to listen to the louder voice of the predators simply because they can't be bothered to be other way than lazy, selfish, cynical and uncompassionate.

    So the number of those "we" is quite small. There is no central point (like a web forum) where those real "we" can come and talk and get directions and suggestions.
    If you want to improve the world, then you should be able to come to the central hub and get directions there, a hub where you can find the activity that fits you - and a hub where you can get back in order to see and talk about the main issues. A true activist might want to involve a little bit in more than just one direction.

    In order to fight back, we need to create that central hub first.
    Something like TED, but in a form of a web forum.
     
  • We want change, we need change, but we wait!

     Um, the answer is WE need to change.
    It begins with an individual commitment to change what we DO,
    One must do something different to effect change.

    http://TheHourExchange.org

    Incremental changes towards a different form of exchange, as it is comfortable.
    Loving others enough to recognize their effort as equal to ours is required, remember there is abundance.

    Marcin wrote that 6 people can provide for 20. I recognize this to be factual. I believe the same standard of living can be carved down to about 15% activity under the right circumstances. But this carries a negative stigma. I prefer the focus to be: working the same amount - and letting the effect expand outward.

    There is abundance.

    Local community is key.

    Paying it forward transforms a community in under two years.

    Starting from raw land is hard, but doable, and then... well, rewarding!

    It is difficult to see even five years future.  The standard of living and meaning of life is unparalleled with each year.

    Getting to critical mass (15-30 families) is the focus - after that word of mouth will naturally fuse new community members.

    Russell Philips

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    February 2012
    "We can stand up to them, but like true predators they disrupt our communication by using their louder voice to put ideas in people's heads that shut out other ideas - like hatred of communism and other such silly things.  Even when a small number of people see through the fog and understand what is going on they cannot get their message out there.   In a million different ways the use their existing power to consolidate their power over their prey."

    In order for the people to wake up, to see through the fog, and to help others to see through the fog, they must talk.
    We need a web forum for talking about those things and for searching solutions together.
    We need a global activist forum, a place where the activists can come and share experiences, learn from each other, debate solutions, and find ways to implement solutions.
    Unfortunatelly, if you look at the biggest charities and foundations in this world (like Red Cross for example), none of them have web forums and none of them call the people to talk about solutions.
    They are not transparent, and they don't engage the people to involve into building reliable, long term solution. They lack any real communication ability.
    This situation is a reality because the people allow all those organizations to be so artificial and fake, because they don't protest against them.

    If those organizations are not doing it, then we must do it. We must have a place where we learn from each other and where we find solutions together.
    Democracy is not really understood. The people don't understand that the most important thing in democracy is the freedom to associate and to solve community problems with donations and voluntary work.
    The people think they depend on politicians to get the solutions they need, and the reality is not like that at all. The people don't realize that the true power is in them, that the only thing they have to do is to associate and implement solutions together.

    That's why we need a global activism web forum.

     
  • I think money does encourage the emergence of classes. Money is a representation of wealth that can be stored and transferred between individuals. In order for there to be a "wealthy class" you need some form of wealth that can be stored and transferred between individuals, so that the wealthy can accumulate more wealth than anyone else.

    So, money makes classes possible. It might not lead to classes in and of itself.
     
  • @PulseFuelNerd

    "Marcin wrote that 6 people can provide for 20. I recognize this to be factual. I believe the same standard of living can be carved down to about 15% activity under the right circumstances."

    Can you provide a reference for this, please?


    "There is abundance.

    Local community is key.

    Paying it forward transforms a community in under two years.

    Starting from raw land is hard, but doable, and then... well, rewarding!

    It is difficult to see even five years future.  The standard of living and meaning of life is unparalleled with each year.

    Getting to critical mass (15-30 families) is the focus - after that word of mouth will naturally fuse new community members."



    I like your principles, but can you provide more information?
     
  • @kunkmiester
    "Even a commune needs a way to place a value on the work of it's members, and reward work and discourage sloth.  If you don't have this, the greedy and lazy will leech off the system until it collapses.  Even if you think of something new, it'll probably be called money anyway, because that will be how it will work."


    How about kicking out the free-loaders? You don't work, you don't eat. Seems like a fair principle to me.
     
  • Oh yeah, there is also such a thing as having concern for one's neighbor, which occurs naturally in all of us except sociopaths. But you don't even need that for a commune to work; see my last post.
     

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Tagged

Loading