The Future of Money: None

[Castout]

I know this will terrify people whose mindsets are so entrenched with the accumulation of possessions and money. I will be called names and derided as a fool and crazy. Just sharing a thought.

We are moving towards a moneyless society (Not digital money or a cashless society but no money at all). Money has been the primary problem for our species and in order to help free our society from a fear-based living, money has to go. A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though. The alternative to a moneyless society is a world rife with enslavement, discrimination, and persecution. Any authoritarian government is only a manifestation of the fear-based world we are co-creating that stems from an unequal and unfair distribution of money and thus, influence and power.

Don’t mistake this with a lazy unproductive society. On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable. We are responsible in co-creating our interactive movie in this life. If we put everything at monetary value then we will get a humanity enslaved to money. Capitalism doesn’t work. Less than 10 people own half of the world’s entire wealth. Around 200 people probably own as much as 75-80% if not more of the world’s entire wealth. This interactive movie, this dream is turning into a nightmare for too many monadic ‘consciousnesses’ by a world pandering to just so few people. Currently, we don’t get the best of things produced simply because they would be unaffordable for most people. By doing away with money altogether we can start producing what we can actually produce totally unrestricted by monetary constraints. We must do away with a fear-based living. A life based on the mindset of illusory scarcity. Deep sea mining would become possible if you took away cost. So would lunar and asteroid mining. Even mining other planets would become possible eventually giving us the means to harvest our sun’s energy. Many of these aren’t done simply because the costs would be prohibitive. There probably isn’t enough money in the entire world even to try to mine our moon on a massive scale. Thus, money impedes progress and raises inequality through a fear-based living creating a world rife with persecution, oppression, poverty, envy, and enslavement of humanity to money.





https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016...ady-happening/

Imagine yourself growing up in a society where there is never any want or need or financial insecurity of any sort. You will be a very different person. You will be absolutely uninterested in conspicuous consumption. … You will probably be interested in things of a higher nature—the cultivation of the mind, education, love, art, and discovery. And so these people are very stoic in that sense, because they have no worldly interests that we today could relate to. … I usually say that they’re all aliens, in a way.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/geeks-...rek-economics/

It’s one step at a time,

[Castout]

Just as a background:
If you think logically, it becomes clear that banks are a means to facilitate a transfer of wealth by giving the advantage to the haves at the expense of the have-nots. This is so because there's almost nothing to gain by putting your money in the bank nowadays. What little interest banks give you, is further cut by fees. So, you give banks your money for essentially nothing. The banks in return loan the money at much higher interest rates to the haves since only the haves would have the collateral that exceeds their borrowing. So, the haves fueled by borrowed capital enrich themselves and the banks at your expense...Banks precipitate inequality and thus stagnate the economy in the long run (although banks do help economic growth in the short run). Only when the underprivileged are made to prosper that you can have a robust economy. But banks aren't loaning money to the poor. Today, those who manufacture are starting to run out of people who could afford their products. Essentially making themselves the buyers of their own products. This will become evidently clear when inequality is further raised to greater unprecedented levels. So, banks work to impoverish the average man and accelerate wealth gained by the rich. It is a means to transfer wealth.
Today, ONLY 6 richest men own as much as 50% of the rest of human population. Without banks, this would not have been possible. Certainly, you can see how this would impact politics everywhere, our global economy, and societies. Don't kid yourself. The divide is only going to get bigger.
Do you know HOW MUCH JUST 62 RICHEST MEN OWN compared to the rest of the world, TODAY? You would be outraged! Our politics, economies, and societies pandering to just 62 men...and we wonder why our democracies are failing us. We all have been made irrelevant, LOL.

[Von Due]

Something a friend of mine said in all seriousness a long time ago:

You can not do anything without money, it is simply impossible. With no money, humans will starve to death because even getting a fish to bite a hook costs money.

He meant every word. So, it seems to me, do most people. We simply are too deep into the belief that money is above humans, like a god money just _is_ and must be obeyed.

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Von Due

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

True, we will all be dead before we see a moneyless society but assuming civilization continues, a moneyless society is simply the most logical solution to enable that leap of civilization advancement.

It's part of the natural evolution of living.

Chasing after money is unnatural and it inhibits humanity, stalling personal growth and creating all sort of ills in society and for the environment.

I know all too well that human beings are not sophisticated...Was almost killed for doing nothing wrong, defamed mentally ill, and subsequently persecuted for about 7 years. It was only due to the unhappiness and insecurity of some people in power. My past ordeal too stems from money. Dictators always hoard money in the conviction that it adds to their influence and power factor. Society seems to share the idea that more successful people can get away with crimes especially if they hold a high public office. At least in Southeast Asia.

This fear-based living is destroying human's natural evolution. Women now marry for money and bad leaders get elected and followed simply because they command or have the support of vast sum of money. Money becomes the goal unto itself. It has become a universal perversion.

When just a few hundreds of people command 80-95% of the world's entire wealth, where does that leave the rest? Enslaved to work for money that will never be enough until the day we die.

[Skybird]

Who does the dirty jobs that everybody hates, but that must be done?

How to decide ressource allocation if no economic standaridzation- by calculation ressources, time, cost-effect ratios in terms of money - is possible?

People act stupid, and selfish, not rational and altruistic. For thsi reason I already argue that most voters should be banned from a general right to vote. Voters must earn the right by contirbtuion, and must qualify by competence and knowledge, in an idela world. Why would I want to assume that if money must no more be earned, people would not live lazy and contra-productive? Heck, i even live like that myself since some years, since I can afford it!

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

Money is no god, I do not dance around it at all. But - it is a tool hat is indispensable in a complex world to make sure you can establish coplex prudction chains and have industrial mass-production in a scale capoable to fee and dress not just some hundreds, but severla billion people.

Just another one of these insance socialist follies that already were tried so iften, with brilliant ideas causing the starvation and dying of millions. Afterwards, the heaps of bodies mount high into the sky, and those who apllauded the dieas still will claim: it wa snot us, for they corruoted our brilliant conception, if only they wuld all have hinestly supported our vision, then it would have worked.

Two hundred years and over 150 million dead later, we really should know it better.

The world is no tiny, clean (and boring as hell) Star Trek city where you can lick food from the street, that clean it is. Its a dirty world, with chaotic events.

You want me to work, you pay me, give me a reward that is worth it for me. Just altruism and your idealistic vision is not worth it for me, so why should I work for just that?

And again, to not be misunderstood: money is a tool only, but an indispensable tool. The function it fulfills is what counts. You cannot replace it with nothing more than singing "Just do not be like you are, just be somebody different." That is not how the plebs works, that is not how humans are.

I recommend to read Gustave LeBon-The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, in which he concludes - correctly, I say - that crowds (societies) are not just a collection of individuals, but that crowds form their own super-individual dynamics. And these dynmics are what is against the idea of thinking that if you enobble the individuals you get a world of altruists that all are eager to come to each other's rescue.

And please, no talking now on that robots will take all the work. That is a.) in doubt for principle problems ith that idea, and b.) still would be decades and decades away.

And finally - and that may be the most important point in the long run - who says that a perfect world windeed would chnage people for th ebetter? I claim, and I man it serious: it would bring out the worst in man in unforseeable ammounts, right becasue he must not prove himself anymore and must not care anymore. Mill thught that pltical work would turn the plltical acting indivodual into a more responle, more ennobled being. When I see modern democracy at work, i see right the opposite being the rule today.

Money last but not least is an incentive, a convincing one. I claim yu need another incentive to repalc eit wiorth, if you take money out of this function. Not a sentimental, altruistic incentive, and certainly not pure force by a givenrment that tells people to work (that would be leader-related dictatorship again), but an incentive that respects and takes into account the nature of man as a a lfie form that fights to survive and that acts therefore necessarily egoist and selfish. You cannot get around that.

Money is a tool, not more, not less. But an indispensable one. I touched the econmic importanc eonly on the surface, but it should be obvious anyway. Try to run a mass-producing economy without such a tool. Communism and money-lessness only works in the sallest of smallest possible comunal contexts. And even then it tends to raise troubles sooner or later.

[Skybird]

P.S.

What I would agree on, however, is that today's papermoney is no real money, but is a selfdeception that most people do not understand, and a fraud by the ruling elite. The distortions and rifts it causes in the economc base structure, reach deeper and deeper, and there will be no escape from the devastating consequences in the end. whenever that will be.

What I mean is: we already live in a money-free world, if "money" shoukd be a word of real value, should be a real money indeed. Obviously, this has not enobled mankind, nor has it freed society from greed, need, and the effort by many to form monopolies of their own. One has evaded into surrogate values instead - material assets and knowledge monopolies, and left the crowd to its illusions.

Imagining a world without something that serves in the role of money - that is like demanding not to eat food anymore, but to simply stop feeling hungry.

[Castout]

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good. It is fear that makes them do otherwise. Fear begets insecurity which begets hate, hate begets violence which begets violence and more fear.

This is why so few people reach Maslow's transcendence level. In corporations, the highest attainment of mankind isn't even acknowledged.

To realize that the highest attainment of mankind has NO place in a society speaks volumes on just how perverse our society has become.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

I know this will terrify people whose mindsets are so entrenched with the accumulation of possessions and money. I will be called names and derided as a fool and crazy. Just sharing a thought.

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...

Money has been the primary problem for our species and in order to help free our society from a fear-based living, money has to go.

Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though.

Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

The alternative to a moneyless society is a world rife with enslavement, discrimination, and persecution. Any authoritarian government is only a manifestation of the fear-based world we are co-creating that stems from an unequal and unfair distribution of money and thus, influence and power.

People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

Don’t mistake this with a lazy unproductive society. On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable.

Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...

It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.
The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly, most people will defend money.
But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.

For economical reason (money), we justify polluting our world to the brink of our own extinction with climate change. Even money works against the effort of mitigating our folly in ruining our planet, one which we can't escape from, yet.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

We did small barters only because we didn't have the technological capacity for mass production. It had nothing to do with money.
A moneyless society is termed a resource-based society that would enable us to produce what we CAN produce instead of what is affordable.
There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money. Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it. People would still form enterprises but out of a common passion and purpose rather than chasing after profits. It would be a world based on value and purpose rather than profit.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people).

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

Mainly through the above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.

Your opinion is based on your own perceptions. It's still defensive. If I say you're going to tell me I'm greedy and stuck in a rut, I'm being defensive, because you have done neither of those. I do believe you're looking toward an end that you believe will save mankind, but not seeing any way to make it happen that's not worse. I believe the same thing about the men in the videos.

The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly most people will defend money.

It's easy chide someone negatively while not seeing the same thing in yourself. Dreams are fine, but practicality demands a workable solution, not just saying it's so.

But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.

I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.

The Bible doesn't say "Money is the root of all evil," it says "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's not money that does those things, it's greed, and greed isn't necessarily just for money. Most dictators, starting the first Pharaohs, weren't after money, they were after power. Not the same thing. Controlling the money can be a part of that, but controlling other people is what it's really about.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.

And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.[/quote]
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it.

So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people)/

No, it sounds like a sales pitch because you didn't look at both sides, positive and negative, but you pitched it at us to convince us of its correctness. That's what a pitch is, trying to convince people to believe what you believe.

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.

Put another way: There needs to be a group of people to tell us all what to do, and to tell us they're doing it for our own good. Now we have an unpaid dictatorship trying to make us do what they deem best. Still a dictatorship.

Mainly through above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.

A noble sentiment, but it still depends on men being perfect, or at least mostly so. You may convince the artist or musician to embrace a world like that, but how do you convince the common worker? Someone has to build your big-screen TV an your car, and he needs to believe there is a reason for him to work hard all day to produce things. Someone has to haul away your garbage and build your roads. How do you convince them?

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)

Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

[Castout]

I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

True.

And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

By getting rid of money altogether.
Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.

So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

Like I said, we are the products of our age.
Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots. The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.

Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money. If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.

[Castout]

I think in a resource-based economy the question we should ask ourselves is 'if we had everything we needed or if we had all the money in the world, what would we do?'

Perhaps our minds picture traveling the world, others may picture playing games all day, other perhaps sailing the world's oceans in a big yacht
but then what will we do...

Keep asking then what will we do and you will find that in each man there's a natural drive to improve himself, to make a better world.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

By getting rid of money altogether.

How?

Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.

No, I don't expect you to have answers that I don't have myself. The problem I see is that none of these preachers seem to have an answer for that either. The dream is fine. The reality seems to be much different.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.

Why would anyone work when there's nothing in it for them? People used to farm so they could eat. They also made their own clothes. That was about the limit of the technology. The man who could make a plow or a wagon could barter it for a pig or a cow, but how many pigs and cows can one man deal with, especially if he'd rather be making plows. Or clothes. A medium of exchange is needed, hence money.

Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots.

Who builds the robots? Other robots? That technology can only take us so far. Mining and farming can be greatly aided by machines, but machines can't do it all.

The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.

And what will they do when they don't have to do anything? Some will thrive, but others will not. Can we build a society structured to support us all? Again, a nice dream, but nobody is telling us how it can be done. So far it's all talk.

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money.

Not really. A strong man who can convince other strong men to follow him doesn't need money. Ancient armies were supplied by force - they took what they wanted. They would follow the man who could guarantee them what they wanted. They didn't pillage, rape and kill because they wanted money (though that was a part of it), they did it because it was fun. Exercising power is an end in itself. Taking away the means of exchange won't change that. Gold didn't become a precious commodity because of the money it represented, but because of its rarity. The man strong enough to take it will try to do so, whether you say it's worth anything or not.

If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.

And if there are no paychecks? Why will people become policemen at all? Why judges? Because they have decent hearts? Or because they like to have power over others? Probably a bit of both, but money doesn't make men bad. The bad ones are already that way.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.

Most of the world is already tyranny-based. Some of the tyrants want money. Others want power for its own sake. Still others believe they are doing what is best, even as they slaughter whole populations.

Money isn't the problem. People are.

[Peter Cremer]

Read "Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan, if you can find it. It is science fiction but it shows what can happen when a 'money' society runs into a 'moneyless' society. You can't 'buy' anything. Entertaining if you care for science fiction, a waste of your precious time if you don't.

[ValoWay]

Originally Posted by Castout

...On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money...

That's exactly how they explain it in star trek , I approve Before we can go there, though we need more technological advancements like beefed-up 3-D printers (aka replicators) or better ways to create and store energy. Automated drones/robots will do the jobs nobody wants so that we can focus on what we actully wanna do instead of redundant needs like to possess an expensive car only to feel superior to our neighbors..