My example was merely that.

If greed can change the face of the world, why not something more practicle, like caring for others and a desire for peace and freedoms?

Will you seek to keep it from becoming a possibilty? In your need to feel secure, be led, you will leave your fate to others to decide who are obviously leading you to your own destruction?

Thank heavens I can think of a better world than that! I am also not so brainwashed as to believe it is not possible.

With regards to a perception of having a monetary system:

Imagine we perceive that we have a truck. We only perceive, but not really have it. So, we go and do what we would do with a truck. We grab the load and run around delivering it. We put miles on "our truck".

Sooner or later we realize that we have worn out knees. This is a result of overloading our body, while thinking that "the truck" is doing the work. But the perceived truck can only do a perceived work.

Therefore, whether we accept it as wealth or not, doesn't matter. We still do not have money to use. Because we do not have money, we are not able to solve the scarcity problem, and therefore will *ALWAYS* fail to allocate our resources to their most productive uses. This is precisely what ails our economy right now, and it stems from not using money, but only thinking that we do use money.

The rule of scarcity I will agree with 100%

Money, is an information for economy. It is the "eyes" of every economic decision. Without money, economy can not function. Money conveys an economic information. Money allows us to know who did what and how valuable that work was. Money allows us to properly acknowledge that work with an appropriate amount of goods and services, so that the most valuable member of our society do continue to work for our own common good.

To suggest that an economy is to be repaired by removing money is no different than to suggest that we would be better off without our vision, because the vision corrupts us to see the porn and the blood.

Money, or the perception of it, is a flawed concept creating a division of peoples. It puts a value on an individual, and in self preservation, breeds resentment and greed.

I can't agree such an "infection" on society is a good reward system as has been proven.

Nogame;
You can perceive money to be nothing, but you still want it – why?

Money empowers, why?

Let’s play a game called “If I could have anything”

In this game we will work off the premise that the necessities of life are yours. You have a home of your choosing, based on the designs available for given areas. In other words, you may not want a beech house if you live in Wisconsin. So now you have everything you NEED.

What do you want? If you could BUY anything in the world right now, what would you want? What would make you consistently happy?

Next tell me, what would you want to do if you could do anything, where would you go if you could go anywhere? Why?

Finally tell me, what gives you the most satisfaction in life today?

EVERYONE – please feel free to respond to the questions.

Maybe some of us who are familiar with the Venus Project could reply – respectfully, to those who make their wishes and desires known. I will attempt to respond based from a Venus Project point of view. Maybe this will help clarify the questions people have about a new world order.

Life!

All of it!

You misunderstand the situation if that is the question you ask.

We do not have money today, this is the reality.
We perceive that we do have money, this is why your plan is to abolish money, which, you think, does all the horrible things.

See what is wrong with your plan? You plan to fight the non-existent money.

Now, I am saying that it is precisely the absence of money, that is the problem.

The difference between your and my statements:

- I am at least pointing out the real situation (there is no money), whether I am correct that bringing money back will solve our economic predicament, or not.

- You, on the other hand, pointing to a nonexistent condition, as a cause of a problem. How can money be a cause if it doesn't exist today? Therefore, what can you hope to change, by removing the non-existent bogey-man?



Money empowers? I did not state that. I might agree or disagree, if you can be more specific about this empowerment.


Why can't I have a house in Newport Beach, California?



Pretty much the whole world. That is what I would buy. Then I would post a sign "Socialists will be shot on sight, survivors will be shot again. Americans (in Jeffersonian understanding), are free to settle."

A complete absence of anyone forcing me to anything, would make me consistently happy. I define taxation to which I do not consent as something forced upon me. Anything I am told to do, goes the same way.

In other words, to make me consistently happy, you must leave me alone, to do whatever I want, as long as I do the same for you. This includes myself causing any harm to myself, as I wish. It also includes you telling me "No, you aren't getting anything free from me".



I am most probably moving to Thailand, in a near future. There is, surprisingly, a lot more freedom and a lot less socialism.

I think we are on the brink of a civil war, thanks to militant socialists. I have a taste to more peaceful ways of spending my time than participating in labor camps.



Being free. This one seem to be my all time favorite.

Your move?

Tell me this is exactly what the wonderful Venus project will give me.

Ah, yes. Of course. Except, I am a bit too sophisticated to believe in sand castles on the beach.

You want to know your near future if Venus project takes off, and succeeds in remaking the world?

You will be shot dead by the Venus leaders. Because, you are an idealist, and you will be very much disappointed to see what that new world will really look like. After disappointment, you will turn to resentment, because you did not as hell planned to end-up in a labor camp. But, the resentment and dissent, can only exist in free society. Camps do not tolerate any of that.

The trick I am playing? I am saying that Venus will end up being a camp, while you think it wont. The difference here, is that I am being practical. I know it won't work, and I know why. I can also show anyone why it will not work.

Can you do the same? Can you answer my questions I have posted earlier? Can you explain how those particular, specific issues will be solved? I don't think so.

Therefore, you are limited to keep trying to inspire myself and others. Inspiration only, no specific details.

The world is flat. Space travel is a dream and the moon is simply an object in the night sky, unobtainable. By the way, the check is in the mail.

I am appalled that people can find it so easy to limit their imaginations, therefore their possibilities.

It is said that "one mans dream is another mans reality", also "we are limited only by our imagination".

Thank heavens most are not so closed minded or Columbus would never have sailed, we would never have walked on the moon, technology would be science fiction, and this forum would not exist.

Just as corporations purchase and limit technologies, many limit possibilities by their own design.

Money doesn't exist? Then let's all quit our jobs because they are not needed. Why worry about something so unimportant that profits us nothing. Pay our taxes with a few toilet seats and hammers, after all, money doesn't exist.

To justify, or request clarification of a profound possibility when reality evades you..... now that I might believe impossible. It appears you have not researched the topic of this post at all.

Plato, Da Vince, Einstien, Edison, and the many more, all were dreamers, but they are to be discredited it seems? After all, there is no way their ideas could possibly ever amount to anything. If we don't have it now, it doesn't and can't exist....right?

Such thinking makes as much sense as starting a war with the biggest guns, but no ammunition.

I can't defend perhaps as well as I could if my research was more complete, or I were somehow involved more with a working model, But even knowing the little I know, it seems there are rocks being thrown at a tank.

Using the very issues that the Venus Project says are passe (and that they rebut in a very probable manner in their concept) to attempt to discredit their concept is a fools parade.

I don't have the answers, that is why I research and the reason for the post. You can't look at a melon and say it is sweet and ripe, there is some "testing" involved. Your chances are better at getting a good one if you do. If your choice is not favorable, do you blame the melon or your knowledge of picking a good one?

It is not my place to "sell" this concept to anyone, but to make it known as an alternative with research from many great minds birthing its possibilities.

We found the world was not flat, and man has walked on the moon, despite those who swore it was inconceivable heresy, therefore impossible.

Soul,

What is this pompous post about? You want to equate a project led by complete idiots, to something equal of Edison or Da Vinci? Since these two were geniuses, then the Venus project might be, right?

You keep bringing your aspiration for a better society. Who does oppose that? I sure don't.

I oppose a particularly stupid version, which is long known as communism.

You say you aren't able to bring in the details. I understand. I have a life too. But then, why are you discounting my opinion (that the Venus project is bullsh!t), against your opinion that it may be worth a look, when you don't have the research to simply beat that of mine?

How is this fair? You're giving a Venus people a pass, even though so far, you haven't heard a single thing from them that is nearly as detailed as what I have already posted on this topic.

That is not what Edison or Da Vinci would do.

Sorry I had to work today.


Thanks for clarifying, but I think did understand what you are saying. That was the reason for my questions pertaining to money being empowering and asking why we still want it. We want because the capitalists have “empowered” money by giving it worth. You say it is worthless, but yet it holds specific value for the purpose of trading for goods and services. Men (humans) have given it that power.

Moving on:

Your question is the reason I created the game, in an effort to show you and others, like you, that question the sanity of such a project. I am doing this with the best of intention so I will be as respectful as others are to me.

I’m sure many would like the same thing and that makes it good for you because the more people that want to settle in an area, the more likely it would be that your dream house could be yours. Remember, people will most likely resettle, because they can, AND their family can move closer together, if that’s what they desire. Your Beach home may be slightly more congested an area than you might envision now. But then again you don’t need a mansion, you only need what makes your life comfortable. So if all mansions were gone, many more homes could be built. RIGHT? So you could have your wish.
Red asked:

Nogames replies:

The whole world is, basically, yours. You don’t have to pay a fee to travel to anywhere, you could wander to your hearts content – but then why would you want that beach front home? And why would you ever need to put up a sign to keep others out? What do you have that they might want? (friendship?)
No one would ever force you to do anything. You could sit and get fat as a cow, but you could be traveling and learning about so many things instead. You could be a hermit, but that would get lonely. You could have a wide range of friends but what would you have to talk about if you felt so totally disconnected from those people who had found productive ways of spending their time? Being productive might mean taking classes, because you want to. Maybe you will be a wise man that your friends seek council from. I think that’s productive.
Red asked:


Nogames replied:

There is no socialism, there are only people who labor, toil, teach and learn in any way they wish. What is there to go to war over? If every person has what they need, and has access to what they want, who the heck would go to war? Would you fight and die, just because so idiot wanted to gain power or kingship? I don’t think so. You’d be too busy counseling your friends with your wisdom – to heck with those who want to be king.
Red asked:


Nogames replied:


I understand – total freedom, no holds barred, nothing stopping you from what you want to do or where you want to go and so on.

If you found yourself the richest man on earth today, do you believe you would have the freedom you are seeking? What would it buy you that the new world could not give you? Imagine being the richest man in the world. Where is your money, how do you know it is safe? How do you know it is invested wisely? Who is in charge of all your billions and what about all those who will seek YOU OUT because of your riches. How do you protect yourself from those who would do you wrong our of greed and hatred? Is that freedom?

But if all you ever wanted was at your disposal just as it would be for everyone, would that not be a better freedom?

In the beginning of such a world order, there will be those who will do nothing. They may even congregate together on beech front property, but I ‘believe’ they would soon become lonely and isolated because they refuse to grow. It would be the succeeding generations that would shame the old farts who once thought they had fooled the ignorant and gotten a free ride. For in their old age they may suddenly realize, I had it all and I squandered it, out of defiance.

If Jacque Fresco wanted to LEAD he wouldn’t be the genius he is. TRY reading about him, listening to the radio interviews on the website. He is A leader, but his kind of leading would be team oriented. People to get things done, to build the machines he has created and envisioned. While OTHER leaders would step up and say “that’s a great machine and would enhance agriculture immensely – let me get some farmers together and test it.” And there would be many millions more, all heading up ‘teams’. Doing what they want, because they want to. They want to see it work, they want to build it up, they want (like you) to be free.



People in power today oppose it. If you don’t believe it, consider the hand holding that goes on between the FDA, the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA and so on and so on. They can ruin a doctor a dentist, a hospital a whole medical staff, just for saying “Cancer treatments are of no more value than a sugar pill” even when the statement is true. Governments don’t want defection, in fact the U.S. federal government and the states that share the power have laws prohibiting the such a community to be undertaken in this country. Many other governments are similarly inclined.

Nogames, with every comment you make about ‘socialism,’ ‘communism,’ or any other governmentalism – you infer that ‘leardership’ by an elite is in control. That is not the ideal of the Venus Project. Certainly ‘team’ leaders will be necessary but they are, in no way, akin to government. The teams work together because they want to and follow a leader or a group of leaders because they have a good idea that will benefit everyone. Governments DO NOT benefit everyone. They are secular and driven by the need to remain so.




It is not your opinion that we are opposed to, it is the lack of understanding you show in giving your opinion that keeps us attempting to give you answers.
What you want to know is in the web sites I gave. How did you learn to read, write and do math? In a one hour session? All knowledge takes some effort and time to learn. Take the time to broaden your horizon and enjoy the interesting inventions that you’ll see on the journey. Then come back and give specific counters as to why you think this can’t possibly work.

No. "Money", in a real meaning of the definition, were made illegal in US in 1933, by FDR. Since then, Americans were not allowed to have money, until late 60-es. From then and on, Americans are not having or using money any longer, because at large, they have no idea what money is. An entire generation, actually two, have grown up demoralized and brainwashed, and so they simply do not know what is money and what is a perception of money.

If we allow two generations to grow up without having Christmas, then they would never know what it is and how to celebrate it. Individually, a return is possible, but humans are not unlike cattle, in that they do not stray away from the herd.

FDR was a communist. This is why he did what he did. Plank 5 of the communist manifesto demands:

- 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

(The meaning of this is to establish a compulsory fiat money system)

this is because communists need to provide a way for the government to feed off the people's sweat, while the people are thinking that they are more free than in capitalism. So, FDR did this.

What you think of as money, is simply a paper, a fraudulent, counterfeit note. It has no worth, it has no wealth, it is nothing.
While you may have to work to afford say, medical insurance, the government and it's various cronies do not need to do the same. They simply print as much money as they wish,
and then feed it to you, note by note, to keep you serving them.

If you can not realize this point, there is nothing else you will ever understand about what is being done to you, how , and in particular, by which group.

As you can see, (I hope), this has been done by a communist, FDR. Just because he hasn't acknowledge that he is a communist, doesn't mean he wasn't one. You can have a murderer, who is in denial, but it doesn't prevent you from knowing that he is a murderer, by judging the action, not the name or appearance. Thus, if you look at FDR, and judge him by his actions (which was to complete a 5th plank of communist manifesto), you will know that he was a communist, regardless of what he called himself. A lot of brainwashed people these days, will argue with blood on their lips, defending the propaganda about the great depression, and how banning the money was obviously a solution. They are wrong. All they know is what the textbook tells them.

So, the money was banned by a communist. Now, how did it change your life? Would you be better of with money or without?

You see, if you were making money, then you'd be able to afford what you need, and more. You're working, making fake money, and not being able to afford what you need.
This is because there is a constant supply of newly printed fake money from the government. Because it is constantly there, it cheapens your work. Government is able to buy anything they want, just push the print button. You, on the other hand, is able to afford very little, even thought you are the one to create all the material goods that both you, and the government uses.

Had the government have to "obtain" the money somewhere, they would not be able to have a bottomless purse as they have today. Every dollar you make, would be able to purchase about 100 times (this estimate is pretty close to real) more, than it does today. So, you would be able to afford a level of life that is about a 100 times of your yearly income can guarantee today.

So, the communist FDR, had made you 100 poorer, by banning money. Do you realize this? Simply by substituting cheat notes, he was capable of removing 99 cents of every dollar you earn, while having you think, that it is the money, that make you poor.

If there are only two people in the whole world, you and I, and you make clothes and fix everything, while I supply you with meat and fish, we could make a living. But what if I cheat you? What is I supply something that is not scarce, something that does not requires me to work at all? Say I will give you the air to breath, while you do EVERYTHING else, in exchange. Then I will simply sit and enjoy, because you are thinking that every breath you take is worth your labor, while it costs nothing to me, nothing at all.

This is the reason why FDR banned money. To make you work endlessly, for something that cost him absolutely nothing.

I am crossing my fingers, that my explanation is clear enough. It is the perception of money, the paper cheat notes, that you should be blaming.
Had you actually worked for real money, having done this much work by your age, you'd be looking for a charity to spend your money on, not for a government-provided health care.

I don't require you to do anything, just thought that you were tearing down the idea before you knew that much about it. I don't know that much about it other than what I have read in the last few months and this OP, which sounds very interesting to me. But frankly I think too many people are too obsessed with power, via the church and government to ever let something like this happen and it certainly won't happen in my life time.

I see your point.

However, the situation is, I know everything about that idea, and I am even aware of specific problems that the idea in question will fail on.

Therefore, I think you'd approve of me putting it down. After all, it's not like I am putting it down without even knowing what's it all about.

Nogames,
I found your latest explanation interesting, I had never considered FDR as a communist nor his actions as a manifesto step toward communism.

Aside from that, you have not told me what I didn't already understand. What you have said is the reason why I call the 'jobs' that poeple hold for 'money', slave labor.

I agree with what you are saying, but money has 'perceived' value non-the-less. It is that 'perceived' value that gives the false sence of a mobile class society. Though many might argue the point, they would do so out of reluctance to admit the freedom of mobility has been securly stabilised by the slave labor that serves to keep the class structure in place.

You see - I agree with what you have said about the 'perception' of money. But let me ask you, do you know the basis behind any other foreign currency? Is ALL money in the world, equally as devalued as American currency? I don't think you will find currency that has a basis in scarce natural resources. Like you are saying, currency works best when slave labor is used to produce, adapt and sell the products back to the same labor force will buy with the pay received for the original labor.

So in your words please explain why money is necessary at all? If it is not necessary, what would drive ethical trade practices?

infowars.com
check it out!
don't forget to google the Georgia guide stones as well. Delusional to think for one microsecond it will be a one world utopia.
May want to check out
wethepeoplewillnotbechipped.com
cashless=microchip
it's coming!

Redykeulous,

Yes, you're right, ALL currencies are fake today. This "worldwide fake money system" is the reason that the system of irredeemable notes lasted as long as it did, 1913-2009.

Soviet union lasted because they shut their border down, therefore preventing their own people from escaping "the paradise". These borders were used as a means of shutting off the alternatives.

This fiat notes of "Federal Reserve" Central Bank, are given the status of "legal tender", meaning that the acceptance of payment in these notes is mandatory, to shut off the alternatives. The legal status is unconstitutional, by the way, as the constitution reserves that only to money, real money, gold or silver. (In other words, the constitution prohibited keeping someone in debt, as long as that person is ready to pay in real money, the payment must be accepted. But, it also prohibited keeping anyone in credit, by specifying that the creditor can refuse all payments, but the one made in real money.)

If there were any alternatives, the system of our irredeemable money would not hold, just as Soviet Union would not stand even a decade without borders shut tightly.

This is why, by the way, the Venus project must reach the worldwide stage, so that there is no alternative, there is no escape for anyone. If worldwide status is not achieved, or the borders are not shut, then the project will fail even faster.

As a rule, all evil things are week for the existence of their alternatives. All good things can exist without borders, anywhere, and only grow from this openness. This could be used as a simple litmus paper test.

As for FDR, why would you considered him being a communist? Absolute majority of us, are trained to judge our leaders by what they say, not what they do, and I wasn't an exception. Someone else had to open my eyes and help me see it logically.

The same goes for Clinton, Bush, Obama. They all are judged by what they are saying. We afford them something we would never afford to a car mechanic. None of us, however well trained, would pay mechanic to receive his car in a worse condition than it was, yet, we do that with politicians all the time. This is because politics is not a science of achieving anything, unlike it's definition might say, but first and foremost a science of lying and deception.

To your question:

Money is necessary to determine how much of any resources should be allocated to any project or any individual. You need to know that, unless you aim at inefficient society that wastes it resources. If you want to have a sustainable society, you must have a way of knowing the answer every time.

You could simply use numbers, and the whole sustainability - efficiency math will work. To this extent, there is no need for any kind of money, anchored in anything valuable. You could use paper notes, or simply abstract numbers.

In fact, in a smaller society of your close friends and relatives, you are using just abstract numbers, to allocate resources. You simply remember, who did what, and who works most, who needs something, and if they truly deserve it. You also know, that if someone previously uses a significant part of family resource and completely failed due to personal character flaws, to not ever allow the family resources to be used by that person again. All this, is presented by quantitative abstracts, similar to number system, and is held in everyone brain, not contested due to family trust. Because you did so good last time you have requested a family resource, and whole family has gotten better for it, you now hold some "money", or simply an evidence of your skills, in for of abstract data held in memories of each family member. You now can spend this abstract credit by taking a resource under your management. Not unlike with money, if you do bad this time, it will be this much less likely that you can request any more of family resources in the future.

Unfortunately, such system can not be used to allocate resources of any larger society than that able to function with prevailing trust of each member to each other member.

Expand it to include me. I don't trust you. You're not my blood, nor my friend. If your family says you should manage recourses because you did so good in the past, I do not trust that. Your currency, manifested in abstracts remembered by your family, no longer has any value, because of my luck of trust.

To make larger than a family or a clan societies more efficient, we need a way to transport the information across "no trust" boundaries.

There are two way to do that. Tyranny and freedom. These two ways represent simply this:

Tyranny, represents the fact that it does not matter if what you saying is true or not, in regards with your past successes. It will be that way, or I will be killed. Everything depends now not on efficiency, but on obedience. Disobey, and everything else will not matter.

An example of such system is any currency worldwide. They all are tyrannic, because they all leave us not to the best alternative, but to only allowed choice, and if we disobey, then nothing will matter to us anyway. If you do not pay specifically in the currency dictated, you will rot in jail until you die. (Note how this is the same thing I have already said earlier, in a previous paragraph).

Freedom, represents a free choice of any instrument of accounting. When free choice is allowed, one instrument is invariably chosen as the most favorite, again, freely, by all the people: current accounting based on (almost) unobtainable representational units. Silver and Gold. These two metals, solve the problem of trust.

If you come from another family, and you want to manage some resource, and you say you have been successful before, you will spend your credit for a previous success, on this new resource. Because everyone is aware that the units you are spending are unobtainable (can not be printed or simply invented), there is a degree of assurance, that what you're saying is true.

In freedom, no one has to use this commonly preferred system, also called "honest money", and can opt for trusting one's word, or to accept other units of account such as sea shells. The system that founding fathers have established, was a free money system, until 1913, when communists succeeded again installing their central bank, and finally in 1933, confiscating preferred gold money accounting units.

In a free world, gold used as units money (we remember that the meaning of money is simply a qualitative evidence of credit with society), precisely because no one, not even the government, can cheat the system by adding units at will, and not as evidence on any work done and added to the system.

Every government since 1913, always wants to keep the accounting of social credits in paper note units, because that way, they get to cheat the people as for their own credits all the time, by simply printing the evidence.

Myths about societies using crap for money, such as sea shells, pepper, grains, stones, are either designed to disinform or simply a results of disinformation. Any an all of such system have failed, precisely because the items used in place of unit of accounting were not unobtainable, and therefore, the system was constantly cheated.

Myths about gold money leading to horrible economic crashed are no different. There were no crashes caused by gold, as there none possible. Such system exist without any society member going unaccounted, or cheating on others. For as long as society exist, such system will provide it with a honest accounting of everything they do for or against the society.



---------------------------------------
Now, if you want to use "no money", you are going to use no accounting. How are you going to insure that everyone receives according to what he brings in?

In your previous "game" question, we talked about a house. Well, I now want the house in Newport Beach, and I want a mansion the size of Newport beach itself. This is how I want it. Why limit oneself to necessary, when I can have desired? I think, that we can achieve that by squeezing all other people of Newport Beach onto a small lot in the desert, or even sending them out to Indiana or some other place.

This is what I will expect from the brave new world.

Will the Venus project be able to give this to me, or not? If not, then waht will stop me from taking it anyway, by force?

if everyone gets what they want and does what they want

where does all the waste product go

who wants to be the sanitation dept guy

is he assigned that job

just curious

good thing i am not a cat