Inspired by [url=http://freeworlder.org/blogs/item/66-the-transition-plan-for-a-free-world]The Transition Plan For A Free World Charter[/url], in the understanding that some points are subject to improvement and even I myself could not be satisfied yet, I expose some ideas, some of them are common to the FWC, and some of them I understand are not.
Having a plan for a new system means we to depend on the acceptance of such a plan and the willing of lots of people to following it. Among the crowds there could be several ideas that would conflict one to each other; leadership and power competition would rise and expectations would be prone to disappoint people. Such disappoint would even be the target for their detractors.
Actually, Socialism and Capitalism are both examples of good-intentioned systems that were very well planned and both have shown how some people are capable to always find the way to take advantage against the others.
One important weakness of systems, that I've never known that it's critiziced, is that they're systems... A system is intended to establish rules that people can follow [color=#000044]without thinking[/color], they discourage people act spontaneously and use their common sense, so unfair rules ought to be improved before acting in a better way. Even though systems are subject to improvement, rules are discussed and approved not necessarily with the most clearity, fairness, intelligence and/or the best intentions.
People want to change from Capitalism to Socialism to Capitalism to ... because they are waiting for something to solve their problems, even when sometimes the problem is our wishes (in this I know I disagree a little bit with the FWC team, who believes the problem is the system and not us).
So I agree there shouldn't be a plan; I think there shouldn't be a Big Bang to change the conciousness of the masses that we know are not ready for quick changes; there shouldn't be a way to qualify or even define what's happening, there shouldn't be a way to name it and describe its attributes to convert it into a doctrine with self-appointed benefactors and detractors that may speak on his name (I understand we're speaking about it, but we feel it and we don't have any hidden agenda).
End of first idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next still requires more reflexive analysis.
What about starting the change without consent of the masses or even without their cooperation?, what about not swimming against the river but changing its course?
By learning to plant our own food, learning to purify dirty water and learning to create clean generators of power could help to start the change without the need to wait for the masses to get convinced; which in turn could push their adoption by imitation. It would also help that skilled people, whose talents are appreciated to invest the resources they are getting from current system to sponsor the sustainable change. Besides it would strengthen the sustainable lifestyle, that would never need monetary recycle, it would also be an economic leak for the unreasonable industries so they could crash and force people moving to useful industries that are more complex and that we know they cannot afford to have so many employees. Lack of jobs with sustainable alternatives could leverage he change of mindset if successful people demonstrates that goods are not the most important thing, but life, and stop bragging. Bragging is one of the most powerful motivations nowadays and stopping doing it I think could have a huge impact.
Pending challenges to mediate: Unlike food harvest and energy access, relevant tools/services generation, like computers, telecomunications, wash machines, clean vehicles, are complex to be built on home, so in this case it would be necessary to convince the scientists to get involved with the free world.
Lennarth Anaya
Comentarios
How is suicide forced? Guards are sent who tell you, you can take your own life or they are authorized to take it. Either way the state desired Socrates dead as he posed a threat to Statism. Statism is a belief that the state, leaders have all authority.
What I see is people waking up and realizing statism is patently false and winds up creating a negative version of anarchy called dystopia. This negative form of anarchy is then passed off as display to disparage people from accepting true and positive anarchy. There are two forms at play, positive and negative. Even with having government and leaders we still have anarchy, because the leaders create it.
If people wake up and see leaders hold no authority, they realize authority is themselves. They go out, plant gardens, fish, hunt, build houses. They, "Keep good relations with your Kith and kin. Speak the truth. Help the poor and the destitute. Serve your guest generously. Assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones." That is considered being "good and moral". Kith in this sense usually means neighbors, could even extend up to what was called by the Saxon a hundred, a group of ten tribes, each tribe being ten households or hides. A hide was a unit of land which provided all a family needed, estimated to roughly forty acres nowadays. Although I'm sure governments would seek to limit that to a tenth of it, around 4 acres.
So, we need to go back to the positive form of anarchy. We need to not have leaders. We truly have no need of them anyway. They simply serve their own interests, know I would serve my own if I were a leader, it's human nature. People wake up to this. They wake up and realize there is no "killing" human nature, no changing it, except to change themselves. Hopefully, they change in the sense of being "good and moral". If not a village or tribe can run them off to the next village or tribe. Eventually these "evil and unjust" ones are weeded out of all villages and tribes, or ultimately realize their folly and accept a life of being "good and moral".
We need no leaders to attain this. We simply need resolve, the good to be good.
- Ben Badgley
That is to say not all of us with the FWC believe the system is the problem. Hell, some of us do not even accept there is a problem because in doing so you accept a Hegelian Dialectic. That is you accept the whole premise of Problem, Reaction, Solution. That premise has been used so much by the evil ones as to make it a stinky fish trope. We've come to realize that accepting a problem infers we accept, consent to being fed a bunch of bull dung as a solution. Sorry. Not all of us buy it.
Some of us realize we create the system. We are the problem. We will be the solution as well. We believe people are capable of change, adaptation in order to live. This is called surviving and many of us are highly proficient in doing it. We're tired of shills and trolls debasing us for having common sense, for being realistic, for thinking for ourselves, for painting us all with a brush of unfit. Maybe these shills and trolls ought to try living, as we do?
There is your detraction. Please leave as negativity is not something needed.
Systems are means of organizing. To attain goals we organize. This ensures we all know what to do, how to do, when, who is helping and so on. Without knowledge there is no wisdom, no common sense and no attaining goals. To criticize a system as being negative is rather non-intellectual. Systems are but tools like words. They are neither negative nor positive until one explores and creates the intention of them. That is to say the tools do the user's work. If we all choose to use a system, then the system does our work, with the intention of [Insert Whatever Project A Village Desires Here]. Systems in and of themselves are then not good or bad, so it is counter-intelligent to deem systems as evil or criticize them. They are simply tools, as are ideas.
Not everyone follows the idea you suggest we follow. Not all of us see systems as evils, not all of us expect some miraculous hero to ride in and save us. Some of us are being our own heroes. Some of us are changing ourselves, our perceptions, our knowledge, our ideas, our methods of doing stuff, our means of living, we are changing to avoid dead ideas.
Dead ideas are ones which are proven to have no further use as tools. These are ideas which are proven to apply negative consequences, such as the idea of money. It is used only as a means of enslavement. Why use what enslaves you? Why not choose to walk away from it? It is there but only by our consent. If we stop consent to it, it goes away, on to the next village. This is the same notion as applied to the evil and unjust, we ignore them and do not consent to them, we do not allow them a foothold, we annihilate by doing nothing in their regard. They find themselves without power often enough, they may start accepting the message. If not, well then they like their ideas can go crawl off and die. That is adaptation to live, that is surviving.
- Ben Badgley
I didn't read the idea of not having systems ruling our lives, my non-common sense told me since I was a child that rules invented by humankind involving conscious beings as an automated system with predictable inputs and outputs is bizarre. [b]I[/b] believe tools and techniques are good systems as long as they are made up of inert matter. Ecosystems are wonderful since no human stated that she/he likes apples returning back to the center of the Earth because she/he felt like. Just try not to create another kind of Statism while trying to create your system and we'll be ok :)
We both are creating our new world, no need to feel part of any group, no need to say "I am a ..." or "I belong to...", no need of recognition; pure inspiration proceeded by action, an sometimes sharing the space and ideas.
- Lennarth Anaya