SSN- You’ve coined the term “solutocracy.” As I understand it, this system would solve problems as they arise without the need for thousands of statutes and legal codes. Can you explain how this would work?
AS- What I’m trying to set up right now through my site is a central website that will have local sections, regional sections above that, then say continental sections…Not sure how many we would need but about ten sections should be suffice… Up onto a planetary level. You have people who see a problem. Something that’s affecting things in a bad way. They go to the web and there will be an emergency place were people who like to respond to emergencies can keep an eye on. So that’s how you handle your emergencies.
“I see someone putting something in the stream near me that’s making the water not good anymore.” They type it onto the web and other people who…our social duty is to spend 15 minutes a day on the site trying to find some issues…The people locally will look and say, “hey, that’s a problem.” Anybody who has suggestions will suggest them and people who can investigate can bring back their reports. Through this, of course, contact is made to this person who is doing whatever. First its established whether or not this is actually occurring. If it is, then people will say “hey you have to stop. Is there another solution for the reason you’re doing this, that we can come up with so you can do what you want to do that’s causing this problem. But you have to stop this.”
So now the problem is solved locally. Nobody has to get involved and say “he did this, you can’t!” It’s not going to be a matter of ‘you can’t’ but if you do, we’re going to deal with you too.
SSN- My question then would be… for something like that to work you would still need some level of enforcement. Unfortunately that deals with the word force…
AS- Well, yes, but what happens is when this person says, “this guy is dumping stuff and its causing problems in the stream by my place.” The people that respond will be solving in an ethical fashion. But it might boil down to it. He might decide, “I don’t care. I’m going to keep doing this and keep dumping this stuff in the water.” And then yes, the people that care… and with the web let’s face it, this guy who’s water is being besmirched types to all his friends and family, “OMG, come look at this!” Anyone from all over the world can go look at the problem. Probabilities are it will mostly stay local. If your sister says ‘hey there’s this problem,’ and you come over and look and say ‘oh it’s a problem’ even though you live on the other side of the planet, you can still vote this thing up. As the problems get voted to s certain level, the awareness is spread by its moving up into the regional area. If it still gets no resolution…Now of course, without money anybody can travel anyway they see fit because they will have the wherewithal to do so. People who care can show up personally. Now we won’t be hurting or killing anyone, but we can confine someone.
If we have someone who it’s very clear is going to keep creating problems, lets say by murdering people, we can confine them indefinitely. It’s all a matter of ethics. Each situation is looked at on it’s own merits. This way we avoid things where a law that was meant to solve this problem, when applied in that situation is totally absurd. We see people saying, “Sorry but the law says…” and they stomp you into the ground. It’s like, wait a minute! Lets get this back off this legal track and onto an ethics track. What’s ethical here? Without ethics, the law clearly becomes the enemy. Ethics trumps legal. Ethics trump religion. Ethics trumps everything.
SSN- My concern is that…the obvious. With any system there will be somebody who’s going to be disagreeable and wants to exploit people. How would we try and prevent that?
AS- The question then becomes, how does this exploiting occur on a planet where everyone can live as richly as they choose? No one has to stay with anyone else unless they choose to. In any circumstance where mostly the people we associate with are the people we like. It’s not like you have to have that person in your life like the boss that you hate. Or that weird co-worker that you have to put up with everyday. This is one of the top reasons for social friction. What I see is what I call social superconductance. Because no longer will we be having a situation where we will have to deal with people that we don’t want to deal with. We can say, “I’m outty!” and go somewhere else.
You ask about exploitation. There really isn’t any way to exploit other people accept on a personal basis. Where you can have a lot of charisma and get people to believe what your saying. Even then, if your ideas are whacko, on the whole scope of the planet there not going to get very far.
SSN- I was definitely thinking on something like this it would be regional at most and then it would kind of die down and people would kind of catch on.
AS- This is why I keep telling people…people going, “Well that’s just a utopia,” and it’s like, no…It’s not a utopia. All it is, is a hell of a lot better than what we have now. That’s why I want it to get it going. I just want better. This system is psychopathic whacko-doodle. Why would we keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
I’ve gotten some flack about my comparison of abundancism to communism because really the purist communism is closer to abundancism. There is two key factors that makes it different. It still sees everything as one pie that we divvy up equally. Verses abundancism that sees it as a buffet that everyone can take as much as they would like from. We’re all cool, it’s not sharing per se. Communism gets into the idea of sharing where as..
SSN- Forcible sharing. Sometimes.
AS- Well it becomes that when you start adding the Stalin’s and you know… The people who are still trying to keep it an iconic system with a top down control. What I’m trying to do is put the power at the bottom to move problems up to be solved. And I tell you if some problem hit’s the planetary level and we still can’t solve for it we’re SOL (shit out of luck). I can’t say that all problems will there by be solved, the end. There will be problems that persist. I give it low probability that any problem will reach that level and be deemed unsolvable.
SSN- I heard you mention robots. I love robots and I definitely want to hear your take on that and how do they fit in here?
AS- Here’s the deal. There is two valid functions that money serves. The first of course is the accounting of energy which was scarce when we first started accounting for our energy. The second is to get people to do things that we need done, but no one wants to do them. Beyond those two points there’s really nothing that’s a valid use for the money. If you’re exchanging the money ethically; no problems with money. Money itself is not the problem, it served some good purposes. Like I said its got dangers that we can get rid of.
So at any rate, with the second one, we need things done and nobody wants to do them. We are already putting robots in places where no one really wanted to do that job. They wanted a JOB because they needed the accounting tokens to put food on the table, but they didn’t want to do that work. Nobody thought, “Gee, you know, sitting on an assembly line is what I was born to be.” Nobody goes there, but they need a job and now the robots are doing all the work, because no one really wants to do the work. What if we said, “Hey we need this. Anyone want to do it?”
If no one stands up and says “I’d love to!” then lets build a robot for it. Approach it in that fashion. A lot of people who are afraid of robots is because they fear competition for the jobs. If we have the jobs covered, you don’t have to do anything and you can still have the abundance of the planet. Live as richly as you want. There’s no theft in the robots.
I’ve been talking to someone who wants to go back to free markets. He is very set on free markets. But no matter what, with the system we have in place with corporations running things, as long as there’s money which gives a corporation its raison d’etre. You will not see any major changes. You will see some set backs here and set backs there, in general things will just keep marching in that direction. So take away their reason to be. Take it away! It’s money! Legally if you look at what every corporation’s only purpose is, is to get profits for the share holders, the end! That would include all our governments. City, state, country, virtually the planet over. Just get rid of the reason and that puts power back in the people’s hand to make the decisions. ‘Cause right now their doing things for corporate reasons. And corporations keep them from being personally accountable and when you get into the abundance paradigm you wind up with everyone being personally accountable for the behaviour you choose.