I agree there must come a change. The sooner the better!
"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
Maybe it is time to summarize most of today's problems.
Pollution (cars, factories, farms), corruption (companies, politics, rich individuals, organisations), wars, unexplained sicness/deaths, social
unrest, thiefs, madmen and terrorists.
Except sicnesses, madmen and maybe terrorists, these problems is caused by money:
-factories does it to save money for their (often) already rich owners.
-cars (boats, plains) because oil companies benefit from it and car companies are afraid to change their production to make electric cars; people
might not buy electric cars.
corruptions, wars, theft
-In africa they fight over gold and diamond because of its value
-Bush fight for oil for its value to his friends (wich is corruption too)
-theft everywhere. It is done by many otherwise normal people and it cause anger and social unrest among the rest of us.
-police (and fbi) is misused by politicans and/or rich for their own causes. Fbi have prevented many americans from engaging in political protest
marches. I would have to view this as corruption as police and fbi should not be engaged in politics.
All this happens because of money. So what would happen if we change form a money-depending society to money-free one?
Factories would have no reason not to build pollution filters for air and water.
Car companies could safely make only electric cars. And there don't have to be as many car factories as there is now.
Bandit armies in afrika would no longer have a reason to fight each others/goverments as it would be pointless (they fight over gold and diamond
resourches). The bandit groups would hopefully disband.
What use is oil for electric cars? One still need some for airplains and rockets, but the pollution would be nothing compared to now.
No reason to steal when one don't have to. Or if some fool steal anyway one can easily replace the missing item.
History shows that our money society does not work. For hundred of years we have tried in various ways to make it work. Well, it's soon 2005 and it
still don't work! (all the poor, all the homeless, all suffering and deaths caused by money prove (for me anyway) that the money society does not
work. Some insane people might think it must be like that, but I, at least, can not accept such a wiew of it)
Money is only a thing. It is we who make it, not the other way around. When a thing make so much trouble for us as money do, I'd say; let us throw it
away! A society need people to work, not money. Even today society is made up by people (we are affected by friends, colleagues, local politicans or
organizations deciding things that influece us) for people. Money is only playing an indirectly role in this; they might decide to demolish your house
for the new road as it's cheaper for them than making it go around your house. So my hope is that we don't need to change the world upside down in
order to change from money-depending to money-free society.
My thought is that money-free society will be just like now; only remove banks, insurance companies and stock markeds and you're there. I could be
wrong and we might have to change or organize society differently and that is why I don't suggest we switch to money-free permanently just yet. I
suggest we could try it out for 10 years, maybe. I like round numbers
So my suggestion is;
we try money-free society for a 10 years periode. In those years we can try different aproach of how to organize it and find one wich most are happy
with. A countrys population must decide if they want to be a part of this money-free expriment.
As it is a test periode all money, prices, taxes and all is frozen at the time of the change.
When those 10 years nears its conclusion we'll see what we've learned and tell the population. Then the population can choose to 1. try it for new
10 years, 2. go back to money-society, 3. continue money-free society forever after.
What is needed for money-free society to work;
jobs. No matter what kind of society we invent; people must work. It's no trouble; we (I am an industry worker) need something to do anyway or we get
bored (we=people like me/you/all). I was unemployed for 5 years in the 90's and I can tell you; you don't want to live like that. It's boring not
to have anything to do and depression sets in. Others need a job for social network.
organizations. Politics; someone must decide where to build houses, where to build factories or whatever, giving permission to start companies and so
on. Police; all crime does not end with the end of money. Even murder will still happen (hate, jealousy, accidents) and other trouble (rape, fire and
so on). Hobbies; people need something to do when they are not working.
people. Secrets won't run a society; only by telling people about this money-free idea will they become aware of it and act on it if neccesary.
involvement. I can not make money-free society happen. I am after all only one. All will have to do their part or one can forget about it (all; most
people). People values things that require much work by themselves more than what is handed over without any effort.
The next step.
So now some work for money-free society so what now? How can the money-free countries be organized?
I prefer decentralizing of power. Most people would find politics more interesting to engage in if their local politicians and parties make the
decisions for their area. Now it is often the capital politicans who make the decisions.
I have two suggestions how we could organize politics;
1. People vote for politicans in their local city or rural area. Then those politicans choose whom of them will represent their town or rural area in
the county. That is right, only one of them should be neccesary to represent the population there.
.b Then the politicans in the county choose wich one of them will represent their population in the state/country.
.c Further I'd like those politicans for the state/country to choose one of them to represent their population in that part of the world. This means
that the existing unions becomes obsolete/unneccesary. So there would be one person talking for England, one for Espain, one for Island and so on.
.d And lastly that group of politicans choose one of them to represent their part of the world, so in the world-government there would be one from
africa, one from asia, one from europe, one from north ammerica, one from south america. When we begin to settle and make towns in space and on the
moon and Mars they will also have a seat in the world(s) government (one from Mars, one from the moon and so on). And when the population on colonized
planets grow into many towns I guess it will be neccesary to have a world government for each planet and possibly make a star government with one
politican from each populated planet. And if we meet other people ('aliens') from other starsystems I imagine they'll make a Milkyway government
with politicans from each starsystem...
2. as above, but it is the population in each country that vote for whom will represent them in the county and country. but 1c and 1d above will still
have to be done that way.
My reasoning to choose only one to talk for his county/country/worldpart is that he represent the interests of his/her people and area. One people is
one people and it should not matter who many they are. I see no logic in having hundreds of politicans for each area as they all usually have the same
opinions anyway. And having only one increases the chance minorities of being heard, wich they are not today.
And it will be more easy for people to get to know the top politicans when their numbers is limited. People need to get to know the person talking for
them in order to trust him/her. Trust is more important then numbers.
Politicans representing countries with many different cultures will of course speak for them all, not just his own. Nobody know everything so there's
always room for learning
Actually I think politics should be organized this way even if we don't go for money-free society