RE: The Social Experimentalist - Danny Shine On Waking People Up In The UK and the World
Thanks Jeff & Danny. Danny's question about money is one that I have addressed in groups online for the last few years and I think I've probably heard every iteration of the various positions we can possibly take on it by now (including having debated staunch advocates of Austrian economics and also the professor who created quantitative easing - among others). I appreciate that the alternative to private ownership sounds 'communistic' and unworkable (thanks to our limited perspectives 'gifted' to us by our closed minded society), but if we consider that part of the bad side to private ownership (which is that with unhindered property ownership the empire builders can dominate the land and resources to the point where some people starve or are forced to go against their own free will just to get some money) is the flipside to this 'communistic' problem, maybe we can see that neither capitalism, nor communism are perfect and actually that both of them have the potential to be disastrous overall.
My current understanding is that the 'higher consciousness' option is the only one that can bring balance and that anything else is basically going to cause suffering - as 'Buddha' said (and is often misquoted) "Unenlightened life is suffering" - which I absolutely agree with since 'enlightenment' only means 'understanding', so by that 'token' (pun intended) 'unconsciousness is suffering'.
Balance is accurately defined as 'no part or aspect is overpowering any other part of aspect'.
If the planet is 'configured' to freely provide food for all (provided our empire building mentality doesn't overpower it's ability to do so by having us mismanage the land - as modern farming practices and our disconnection from the planet has already resulted in) then just using simple logic, any attempt to fence off land from others IS a form of imbalance and cause of suffering. Various battles were fought in Britain historically to attempt to reverse the enclosures act, which was one of the early moves to fence off previously 'common land', whereby for aeons people had looked after the land as custodians for God (from their perspective) and they worked together, often, with a sense of shared purpose and understanding about what they were doing (brothers and sisters). Yes, there was also heartlessness, just as there is now, but ultimately, it was potentially, ideologically to some extent MORE free than a 'free market' due to the spiritual root involved. There is a great irony in the sense of the idea of ownership and free market capitalism, in that money systems are in some senses thought to make things more 'fair' and accessible since everyone can theoretically work to gain money, but one of the denials involved here is that children can be born into the system and forced to start with nothing, while private ownership of land and resources ensures that they are forced to conform to the system of fences and control that defines whether or not those children can have FREE access to the plants and food that grows here freely FOR them. In other words, a 'free market' is 'more free for some than for others' - just as was the result of communism, made clear in the famous book 'animal farm' - capitalism and communism are FAR more similar than most capitalists (or communists) want to look at.
I think there is a high probability that just like how some more anarchistically minded people today look at all the security cameras in London and see an authoritarian nightmare, so too will people in future generations look back at all our fences and property line enforcement and see the same thing. I invite all to run their own thought experiments to determine what the key features are of a way of life that doesn't involve CONTROL at all. Isn't it true that the only way to live full free will is to remove all control? What if by doing so we actually gain balance and thus our fears about what might happen with an absence of control would be found to be errors?
Finally, the issue of 'self ownership' is an oxymoron to me. I AM 'self' and thus it is a logical error to say that I can 'own' my 'self' - there is NO 'my self' because the 'owner' IS 'self'. This might seem a subtle differentiation, but it is absolute and our position on it has huge ramifications for the rest of our perception on self and reality. Just because someone 'else' thinks and acts as if they can own me does not mean that the counter to that is that 'I own me'. How about 'no-one owns me, including that I don't own me'? Why do I need to be Owned, when I AM?
Thanks for discussing some of the most important topics that exist and for being you!