There is a common aspect between these two seemingly different ideologies (Anarcho Capitalism versus Anarcho communism). A rational worldview. And we cannot ignore the horrors perpetuated in the name of that "worldview" by capitalism and by communism in the past.
While one should be wary of "...being a communist" on the other hand we can also explore to see what all the said system involves, instead of what all it claims. There is a visible wave of pro-communism, much like green colored energy, circular economy etc, at a time when the given world order (capitalism and imperialism) is falling apart, slowly but surely.
As for the "wealth" part, we can also view the host planet as a fixed entity. Fixed in size and capacity to provide. Once beyond that limit, the top species is screwed. The higher the domination, the bigger the fall. Hence, whatever system of governance, the question above that, is about scale. Is it good for 100, 1000, 10,000? Till what limit?
I really appreciate that you can encapsulate so many aspects of our much troubled society. To me, it appears you search for a way out, or for new meanings. Best to you Amaterasu!
While I agree that Our planet is a "fixed entity. Fixed in size and capacity to provide," I might point out that the money/profit-promoted practice of planned obsolescence is presently using up vastly more than what We would need to use if pride in workmanship and quality products were the norm. 90+% of the waste We see is created because of that ghastly motive.
Add to that that if You gave 1/4 acre of land in Australia to every single Human, from newborn to on deathbed - enough land to support Them if it's good land - You would still have a fair amount of land left over there. Australia is 4% of land mass not counting Antarctica.
So the support of Humans needs less than 4% of the land here. Granted, not all land is viable, but with technology, We could use 70%ish. And maybe more. And with things like vertical farming, We could add support of many more per 1/4 acre. So.
Clearly, the planet could support a very large number more than are here now..
And if the stewardship is done well, I doubt We would have a problem with population here on Our planet...for a million years or more.
And... When One does not need money to live as richly as One might choose, extravagance is no longer a status symbol, and make One just look pathetic. Few would opt for more than They are happy and comfortable with. Few would want a mansion to worry about caring for when an upper middle class living style at most would fulfill all One's desires.
And solving problems Ethically is good for every Ethical One. Which will be Most, nigh everyOne, for what would be the point of unEthical solutions?
Here are a few more of My articles You might find enlightening:
Hey hi... Is absolutely true "practice of planned obsolescence is presently using up vastly more...". If Australia is identified as common land and open to outsiders, I agree that the space versus human problem could be solved in theory. Same can be said about vast tracts of land in Canada, Siberia, south Argentina, Chile etc.
I for one, am not for a singular rational worldview, which then allows us to frame our own meanings, in terms of sustainability and responsibility.
Let me read all these stories you have sent .. and revert.
Australia was just used as an illustration. Let's not be taking it as if I expect Us all to move there. LOL! It is convenient for illustration because most of it would be taken up, so the point could be made as to just how much land We need per Human on Our planet.
I do give very high probability, as money is removed, that We will go back to producing food the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable, or in ways the deteriorate the health of the Ones than eat it - as the psychopaths in control have been doing.
Because most of Us do care about People and do care about Our planet. In abundancism, "fair shares" is kinda meaningless, if I'm grasping things correctly on that. There will be plenty for ALL of Us, irrespective of "fairness."
I think that showing the basic tenets of ancaps and ancoms really helps to see that there is not a false dichotomy, and that that anabs is a lovely reality to enact. So thank you for this! It also helped me to see the whole robot aspect in a different light.
I cook wholesome food for my family and friends instead of relying on packaged "food" that is essentially garbage (well, I do allow about 10% for "healthier" packaged snacks!).
I am a musician/singer-songwriter, and I make and teach music.
I write to help others open their eyes to the actual state of our world so they can make better decisions on where to exert their energy and place their focus.
Indeed, technology is neither good, nor bad. Like any tool, it can be used for good (a hammer inserting a nail when building something) or bad (using a hammer to hit someOne over the head).
And robots doing work We need done but no One wants to do is a boon.
Thank You for Your payment of attention in reading! I am enriched!
An explanation. A small percentage of the population involved in the unanimous Declaration of the united States of America 1776 and for most of the 1770’s wanted to revolt. Wars are controlled by Banks and BAR attorneys and the militaries they control.?! It was about 3 to 5 %, actually, that succeeded in the revolt on the land and brought forth a Confederation and perpetual Union with articles that stiled themselves The United States of America. 1777. They worked their original jurisdiction sovereign man on the several states system and were unable to govern. To govern they needed to obtain a consensus, it required 100%. So, they wrote a Constitution for the several states which formed the United States a government service company for the several states and reduced themselves to 12 for the 1789 inauguration of George Washington. Vermont was a separate nation seeking statehood. Rhode Island and Providence Plantation did not ratify the Constitution. New York ran them out of the city.
However, the 12 coerced Rhode Island and Providence Plantation to return to the Confederation and perpetual Union. Vermont joined the Union. Washington District of Columbia a 10 mile square between Maryland and Virginia was dedicated. It remained the de jure original jurisdiction; The United States of America from 1789 to 1859 in a proper Congress Assembled. A de jure government, of the United States of Washington District of Columbia the 10 mile square with forts, ports, and needful buildings, according to our Constitution(s). The First law of the land was the Constitution created by the several states. A Confederation and perpetual Union stiled The United States of America 1777. Each a separate nation state (33) with individual Constitutions, that will not conflict with The United States of America’s Constitution circa 1859; the last lawful de jure iteration of original jurisdiction. Constitutions now totaling 35. Oregon was / is the last de jure state added to the Union. Kansas was the first de facto state and Nevada and West Virginia are both Lieber Code Federal states, de facto martial law.
Fraud vitiates all contracts either partially or completely. This is decided by ARTICLE I Section 1 Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —aka Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly the de jure provisional government on Oregon. To be determined by each of the other 32 states and 17 territories as they may think proper when they form their social compact and do the work.
There was no preamble ratified. It is an affectation without value in law. It is not part of the First law of the land. To which, that land is defined, “what is left of their 10 mile square on the Potomac River.” Virginia took their portion back, now named, Arlington. Our government service company the United States is one proper oath away. Just as Oregon’s de jure government is one oath away.
A proper oath, is to the proper de jure Constitution(s) with Laws of Nature and of Nature's God included.
Thank You for all this! Very interesting indeed. Still and all, I do not relinquish My sovereignty to any state. I do not consent to any but the three Laws...
There is a common aspect between these two seemingly different ideologies (Anarcho Capitalism versus Anarcho communism). A rational worldview. And we cannot ignore the horrors perpetuated in the name of that "worldview" by capitalism and by communism in the past.
While one should be wary of "...being a communist" on the other hand we can also explore to see what all the said system involves, instead of what all it claims. There is a visible wave of pro-communism, much like green colored energy, circular economy etc, at a time when the given world order (capitalism and imperialism) is falling apart, slowly but surely.
As for the "wealth" part, we can also view the host planet as a fixed entity. Fixed in size and capacity to provide. Once beyond that limit, the top species is screwed. The higher the domination, the bigger the fall. Hence, whatever system of governance, the question above that, is about scale. Is it good for 100, 1000, 10,000? Till what limit?
I really appreciate that you can encapsulate so many aspects of our much troubled society. To me, it appears you search for a way out, or for new meanings. Best to you Amaterasu!
While I agree that Our planet is a "fixed entity. Fixed in size and capacity to provide," I might point out that the money/profit-promoted practice of planned obsolescence is presently using up vastly more than what We would need to use if pride in workmanship and quality products were the norm. 90+% of the waste We see is created because of that ghastly motive.
Add to that that if You gave 1/4 acre of land in Australia to every single Human, from newborn to on deathbed - enough land to support Them if it's good land - You would still have a fair amount of land left over there. Australia is 4% of land mass not counting Antarctica.
So the support of Humans needs less than 4% of the land here. Granted, not all land is viable, but with technology, We could use 70%ish. And maybe more. And with things like vertical farming, We could add support of many more per 1/4 acre. So.
Clearly, the planet could support a very large number more than are here now..
And if the stewardship is done well, I doubt We would have a problem with population here on Our planet...for a million years or more.
And... When One does not need money to live as richly as One might choose, extravagance is no longer a status symbol, and make One just look pathetic. Few would opt for more than They are happy and comfortable with. Few would want a mansion to worry about caring for when an upper middle class living style at most would fulfill all One's desires.
And solving problems Ethically is good for every Ethical One. Which will be Most, nigh everyOne, for what would be the point of unEthical solutions?
Here are a few more of My articles You might find enlightening:
Abundancism: Things Done for Purpose, Not Profit (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundancism-things-done-for-purpose
The Betterment Ethic vs. the Slave’s Creed (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-betterment-ethic-vs-the-slaves
One Outcome in Abundance (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/one-outcome-in-abundance
Abundancism: Things Done for Purpose, Not Profit (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/abundancism-things-done-for-purpose
What in the World is Stigmergy? (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/what-in-the-world-is-stigmergy
Hey hi... Is absolutely true "practice of planned obsolescence is presently using up vastly more...". If Australia is identified as common land and open to outsiders, I agree that the space versus human problem could be solved in theory. Same can be said about vast tracts of land in Canada, Siberia, south Argentina, Chile etc.
I for one, am not for a singular rational worldview, which then allows us to frame our own meanings, in terms of sustainability and responsibility.
Let me read all these stories you have sent .. and revert.
Australia was just used as an illustration. Let's not be taking it as if I expect Us all to move there. LOL! It is convenient for illustration because most of it would be taken up, so the point could be made as to just how much land We need per Human on Our planet.
Looking forward to Your thoughts on the rest!
I'm anarchist by nature, but have struggled with the idea of anarcho-communist. I think anarcho-abundancism may be exactly what I've been looking for!
I'm also a permaculturalist and feel that these two ethical frameworks could sit well together. The 3 ethics of permaculture are
1. People care
2. Earth care
3. Fair shares
I do give very high probability, as money is removed, that We will go back to producing food the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable, or in ways the deteriorate the health of the Ones than eat it - as the psychopaths in control have been doing.
Because most of Us do care about People and do care about Our planet. In abundancism, "fair shares" is kinda meaningless, if I'm grasping things correctly on that. There will be plenty for ALL of Us, irrespective of "fairness."
I think that showing the basic tenets of ancaps and ancoms really helps to see that there is not a false dichotomy, and that that anabs is a lovely reality to enact. So thank you for this! It also helped me to see the whole robot aspect in a different light.
I cook wholesome food for my family and friends instead of relying on packaged "food" that is essentially garbage (well, I do allow about 10% for "healthier" packaged snacks!).
I am a musician/singer-songwriter, and I make and teach music.
I write to help others open their eyes to the actual state of our world so they can make better decisions on where to exert their energy and place their focus.
Indeed, technology is neither good, nor bad. Like any tool, it can be used for good (a hammer inserting a nail when building something) or bad (using a hammer to hit someOne over the head).
And robots doing work We need done but no One wants to do is a boon.
Thank You for Your payment of attention in reading! I am enriched!
An explanation. A small percentage of the population involved in the unanimous Declaration of the united States of America 1776 and for most of the 1770’s wanted to revolt. Wars are controlled by Banks and BAR attorneys and the militaries they control.?! It was about 3 to 5 %, actually, that succeeded in the revolt on the land and brought forth a Confederation and perpetual Union with articles that stiled themselves The United States of America. 1777. They worked their original jurisdiction sovereign man on the several states system and were unable to govern. To govern they needed to obtain a consensus, it required 100%. So, they wrote a Constitution for the several states which formed the United States a government service company for the several states and reduced themselves to 12 for the 1789 inauguration of George Washington. Vermont was a separate nation seeking statehood. Rhode Island and Providence Plantation did not ratify the Constitution. New York ran them out of the city.
However, the 12 coerced Rhode Island and Providence Plantation to return to the Confederation and perpetual Union. Vermont joined the Union. Washington District of Columbia a 10 mile square between Maryland and Virginia was dedicated. It remained the de jure original jurisdiction; The United States of America from 1789 to 1859 in a proper Congress Assembled. A de jure government, of the United States of Washington District of Columbia the 10 mile square with forts, ports, and needful buildings, according to our Constitution(s). The First law of the land was the Constitution created by the several states. A Confederation and perpetual Union stiled The United States of America 1777. Each a separate nation state (33) with individual Constitutions, that will not conflict with The United States of America’s Constitution circa 1859; the last lawful de jure iteration of original jurisdiction. Constitutions now totaling 35. Oregon was / is the last de jure state added to the Union. Kansas was the first de facto state and Nevada and West Virginia are both Lieber Code Federal states, de facto martial law.
Fraud vitiates all contracts either partially or completely. This is decided by ARTICLE I Section 1 Natural rights inherent in people. We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper. —aka Oregon Statewide Jural Assembly the de jure provisional government on Oregon. To be determined by each of the other 32 states and 17 territories as they may think proper when they form their social compact and do the work.
There was no preamble ratified. It is an affectation without value in law. It is not part of the First law of the land. To which, that land is defined, “what is left of their 10 mile square on the Potomac River.” Virginia took their portion back, now named, Arlington. Our government service company the United States is one proper oath away. Just as Oregon’s de jure government is one oath away.
A proper oath, is to the proper de jure Constitution(s) with Laws of Nature and of Nature's God included.
Possession by pirates does not change ownership.
Thank You for all this! Very interesting indeed. Still and all, I do not relinquish My sovereignty to any state. I do not consent to any but the three Laws...
Just Stop Consenting! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/just-stop-consenting
Dear AnyOne, I Am Not in Your Jurisdiction (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/dear-anyone-i-am-not-in-your-jurisdiction
Very nice. Will Share.
🙏🏻💜🙏🏻