Where do we start?

A possible approach to ZeGLS is this article: http://www.extremedemocracy.com/chapters/Chapter12-Greenfield.pdf

Five Questions to begin with:

Question 1: Should we have a semi-fixed directory-like taxonomy at the highest level (Level 1) or just dynamic Tags lists.

If Taxonomy I think we could start with something similar to current government ministries just without the emphasis on national interests: Economy, Education, Social, Culture,… Or maybe start with the 7 chakras on level 1: Spirituality, Intellectuality, Communication, Love, Will, Emotions, Sexuality/Subsistence. Or several dynamic taxonomies coexisting simultaneously as filters.

Question 2: Should there be a coersive minimal compact core? what could this say?

Maybe something like: Rule 1: Be as free and happy as you want or can without affecting others access to Rule 1 which should imply no killing, maybe no hurting, but not necessarily no robbing.

Question 3: How decisions are dynamicaly taken by suscribers?

Maybe: Proposals are posted and periodically rated by suscribers. Above some rating*popularity coeficient the Proposal is accepted and, if was the aim, becomes a rule for suscribers, until next voting period. Maybe ZeGLS is a Wiki

Question 4: What kind of coersion can be vested upon suscribers, who watches upon its fulfillment and what punishment is applied on infringers?

Hopefully no coersion exept removal from set. (maybe also vanishment from it for an extended period of time)

Question 5: How could money and work matters be regulated under such voluntary based government system?

Maybe thanks to a Guaranteed Basic Income

Stuart White’s main three answers are:
“Well yes but, think that:
1. Overall, society will be fairer this way
2. Overall, society will be less exploitative, more reciprocal, this way
3. Its his property, he inherited it, so he can do with it what he wants. And so do you”

I hereby would like to add, four more answers to such an objection:

1. We don’t really know at any given time if an act is a contribution to society or not.
What is a contribution to society? Can we really tell?
A man working in an arms factory is contributing to society? An artist making strange paintings few people like is contributing? An executive in a transnational corporation?
First, we don’t have a consensual goal for society against which we could measure our advances.
Second, even if we had such a consensual goal, is not easy at all to assess whether an act leads us to it or not, specially in a complex society like ours.
Third, an act in this context, cannot be judged disregarding the Time dimension: John Doe is indeed doing nothing all day, but his mind is working, maybe it is restructuring itself, maybe it is planting the seeds for a great contribution to society in a few years. We really don’t know what consequences a moment has over time.
If we were 4 persons starving in an island, it would be easy (or easier) to solve the above uncertainties. Indeed it would be hard to justify any behaviour that does not directly leads towards getting food. But in a complex enough society that is not starving, it is not easy, if not impossible, to know what acts contribute to its well being and what acts don’t.
Notably, from an ecological point of view, there is an excess of production in our society, so someone not producing would contribute more to society than someone producing.

2. When left free, people eventually begin to do something with their lives.
This assertion should be confirmed by scientific studies, but in my experience and observations, inactivity comes mostly from a reaction to previous ‘bad’ activity. It is a rest and purification from it. After a few years, we naturally begin to want to do something with our lives.
If a persons’ motivations for doing something were usually ‘external’, to the person and to the act, it takes a few years to develop, or find again, internal motivations for doing something.

3. Contributing to society should be seen as a good in itself for the contributor, the reward is in the act itself.
The exploitation objection’ is based on the premise that contributing to society is a sacrifice, but that needs not be the case, specially in a BI society. You might want to contribute because you feel good doing it, not because you have to, or because you’ll get a reward from it.
People usually want to feel they are ‘good’, so if they do a ‘good’ act, they will feel good doing it. Thus if a person is not contributing to society right now, well, too bad for him.

4. Work under BI should be justified by measuring satisfaction plus payment, minus effort plus sacrifice.
Should the satisfaction of doing something good not be enough motivation, let us not forget that under BI, acts are still payed for. So the exploitation objection is mitigated by the fact that the active get paid more than the inactive.
If satisfaction from action plus payment is not enough to compensate an effort, then let it not be done.

To summarize, if someone argues against BI saying: “Oh yes, sure, I’m going to be working, while people watch TV all day on my expense!?”
One could further answer:

1. “Are you sure your own actions are contributing to society? Are you sure his inactivity is not seeding a future contribution? How can you tell?”
2. “Oh give him some time, eventually he’ll start doing something, and best of all, stemming from the right motivations this time”
3. “Well that’s just too bad for him, he won’t enjoy the satisfaction of contributing to society as you do”
4. “Besides, he won’t get paid above BI, and you will. If satisfaction from action plus payment is not enough to compensate your effort, then don’t do it. You are free to watch TV all day too, if that’s what you want.”

What if too many people end up not doing anything all day for too long and BI cannot be maintained? Well that would be a different problem. Perhaps society could address it through all kinds of work incentives and education. But it is my personal belief, that few people enjoy inactivity for a long time, even if they are free to do it. We seem to have a deep need to justify our own existence, at least to ourselves, and that is hard to achieve not doing anything.

Barcelona, 01/07

Sure enough, terminé llegando a un lugar increíble. Un corredor marino larguísimo, totalmente solo, perfecto para caminatas románticas o filosóficas a cualquier hora.

- Y ahora que? he de vivir entonces obedeciendo siempre ese llamado de mi intuición destinica? No dejaría de ser libre?
- Al parecer sí, pero te conviene, llegas más lejos y te va a gustar más.
- Y no podría eso pero con libre?
- Bueno siempre serás libre de no ser lo que habrías de ser
- Y para que sirve esa libertad
- Para no ser cuando el ser está malo
- Ah no todo está bueno?

Opción 1:
- No, justamente estamos aquí para depurarlo.
- Y entonces como he de saber cuando seguir mi intuición a pesar de mi razón? que tal si el llamado era malo?
- Ya me enredé, vayamos a otra opción

Opción 2:
- Que es malo?
- Mmm… la muerte? lo contrario a Amor y Libertad?
- Y quién tiene capacidad para juzgar eso, tu? malo a que plazo? si es malo a corto pero bueno a largo? si viceversa? si para muchos malo pero para unos buenísimo o viceversa?
- O sea que ni hablar de bueno y malo?
- En Infra sí, en Meta no.

- Bueno entons qué: Puedo seguir siendo libre obedeciendo llamados?
- Tu sabes que no puedes dejar de ser libre, estás condenado a serlo (Sartre)
- Ya pero yo siempre hablo de Desarrollar esa libertad, donde quedaría eso?
- Mmm… Podrías darme un ejemplo de ese Desarrollarla?
- Mmm…quitarse trabas, puertas, paredes y poner otras, que permitan nuevas opciones.
- Eso me suena más a transformación que a libertad. Finalmente las nuevas que construyas algo estarán obstruyendo. Y bien sabes que si no construyes nada, no puedes subir al segundo piso, ni dormir protegido.
- Alomejor Desarrollo Libertad = Desarrollo Transformabilidad (Selectiva Consciente). That way you are more capable of freely chossing at any point.
- Bueno pues eso no se contradice con obedecer llamados. Al contrario, entre más transformable seas, más llamados serás capaz de obedecer.

How should the world be next? That’s what this is all about.
And its own implementation.

No hay nada y hay todo, y hay uno, y dos y tres, y varios, y todos y ninguno y solo siete.
Todo es neutro* salvo freedom+love
Everything to/from Nothing except freedom and love.

*neutralidad que reconoces en nivel meta, pero no dejas de participar y preferir/promover un algo en nivel infra (atem).

La “verdad” es el consenso/hijo entre la madre/tierra/ser y el padre/sol/podría-debería ser.
Nosotros somos las palabras de su comunicación.

Ejercicios de autodesidentificación. P.Ej. nuevo estilo de barba…

La precaución no se mide en cantidad sino en calidad.

Ser es un verbo de Intensidad cuantificable.
Me gusta ser intensamente.

Ser todo desde la Nada (Nada-mente Todo)

Libertad es Atomización,
Amor es Centralización, Fusión.

Juego “Rebato”: Tras 5-10 minutos de interesantísima discusión argumentativa con reloj sobre algún desacuerdo, Tú veredictas honestamente y yo veredicto honestamente. También se puede jugar en chat con jurado. Podemos empatar, o que tu te lleves 2 puntos o que yo me lleve 2 puntos.

The New Future