So, I know a lot of people might be scared by the idea of not having property, because you think it means that you’ll have less use of resources … but this is not the case, to the contrary it should provide everyone with more, but just less of the environmentally damaging versions of things.

INBUILT OBSOLESCENCE

Take for example the concept of inbuilt obsolescence, this practice makes no sense at all, except under the insanity of the present system.

Inbuilt obsolescence is where we design a product to fail … NOT from the perspective of safety, as in the case of crumple zones of cars, which are designed to absorb the kinetic energy of a collision impact, thus saving the lives of the passengers … but instead, inbuilt obsolescence is the desire to have a product break, or in some other way become obsolete, as quickly as possible, so that you can be manipulated into spending more money.

Meanwhile, in addition to the depletion of your own resources that it causes, inbuilt obsolescence also causes immense environmental damage, both through the growth of raw material harvesting, and the pollution of production, distribution & waste.

You couldn’t design a more wasteful principle if you tried, and this is the direct result of our present currency based economic model.

SUPPLY CHAIN WASTE

In addition to inbuilt obsolescence, there’s another great driving force for waste within our present currency, property & trade based economic paradigm, which goes like this:

• To make an end product, we need to consume goods & services into our production process;
• Businesses typically specialise in one thing or a set of relatable things;
• Every company along this supply chain, wants to maximise the amount of money they receive, for the maximum quantity of goods & services sold, and for the minimum amount of operational costs, as this equates to maximisation of profits;
• So it is inherent in this motivation to sell as much product as possible per unit of time, whether people need those products or not … which in turn leads to the aforementioned inbuilt obsolescence AND MARKETING to generate need or at least desire for said goods & services;
• Simultaneously, it is inherent in this paradigm to be motivated to take the least responsibility possible for the ecological & social consequences of production & consumption, as this is a cost that does not equate to profit;

So in summary: we’re dividing production & consumption into the maximum number of units, each motivated & competing to produce the maximum amount of goods & services … THE PLANET CANNOT SUSTAIN THIS!

How does this affect you?

• Companies lie to your face for profit, they destroy your self esteem, and sell you unnecessary things to fix it again;
• You are worked to the bone, and bled dry of your earnings, unless you’re on of the lucky ones with a decent job;
• For those luckier ones, you’re still placed under higher stress, in order to hold your position against increasing competition, and you’re forced to sacrifice any principles you may once have had, to contribute to this insane machine that destroys the on,y planet we have, exterminated other species, and manufactures unnecessary poverty.

What is the alternative?

In non-currency based economics, we recognise the following:

• If a resource is not scarce, so long as we harvest & utilise that resource with ecological sensitivity, there is no need for anyone to go without, as it is not scarce … so there’s neither need to pay nor trade for that resource;
• If a resource is scarce, then we simply need a system to determine the following:

• What is the most likely usage to reduce the scarcity of this resource?
• What usage provides the greatest other ecological & social benefits?
• Which project(s) &/or person(s) are the most deserving recipients, given a scientifically based assessment of the relative value of ecological & social harm done, versus benefits gained, from all their past history of resource production & utilisation?

So in a nutshell & more simple terms, it means this:

• Our actions are journaled (as automated and simple a process as possible);
• The ecological & social consequences of our actions are also calculated & journaled;
• We take what we require from non-scarce resources without the need for payment or trade;
• We share what we produce that is non-scarce without asking payment or trade;
• We are recognised for the ongoing impacts of what we produce & consume;
• We are thus motivated by the system to cause the least ecological & social harm;
• We are thus motivated by the system to cause the most ecological & social benefit;
• We thus compete for access to scarce resources, knowing that even in the cases where we lose that competition WE WILL ALL STILL BENEFIT FROM WHOEVER WINS IT.

NOW … think about it … assuming for a minute this can be done (which I assure you it can), why oh why would anyone, even the presently well off, want to live under any other system? You’d have to be an idiot or insane, or at the very least, completely mistaken in your interpretation of what this scenario would be like.