Benefits for the state

By implementing the open money (OM) system, we do not increase the volume and efficiency of the existing economy, we create the economy anew. But why? Then, that the modern economy is arranged incorrectly. What is wrong with her?

The first is that it harms the environment. Or you can say that it is not rational, or excessive and does not renew properly uses the resources of nature.

Second, by reinventing the economy, one can definitely improve the overall quality of life by organizing it in a more efficient way than reforming the ossified state institutions that traditionally regulate the economy with varying success.

The task of OM is to create an economy that would not need the existing bureaucratic state regulation and at the same time be more efficient than the rest of the existing external economy.

The OM economy – pursues the general state goals of improving living conditions, but unlike the conventional economy, it does not achieve solely based on the criterion of profitability, but by organizing life in the best way, initially setting high standards for how goods should be produced, services should be provided, etc. In a sense, there will be more regulation in the OM economy, but it will come not from bureaucratic delays, but from the common interests to live better.

Therefore, the OM economy is a voluntary closed economy, it is not for everyone, but for those who themselves want to live better and take care of the healthy future of mankind.

Perhaps all this seems only beautiful and sublime words. In part, it is, but behind these words there are quite understandable algorithms of what needs to be done in order to realize these words.

What is a state

Speaking about the benefits for the state, one should first come to a common understanding of what the state is. For this I will give The next definition of a state is an idea serving the common good of its citizens to which we are subject as citizens of this state.In my opinion, guided by this definition, we will not miss and achieve the goal. But in fact, you may have your own understanding of the state, for example, someone may consider as such only specific familiar countries of the state. And he will also be right. And I see the solution in the fact that the concept of a state can also have a specific historical meaning when we are talking about a real-life state, for example, Russia and an abstract meaning of some ideal state, which I defined above. Even under the state often means the homeland, which consists of the language and the place of birth or childhood, or the place of life of the parents.

 

In addition, we call a state with a certain historical tradition. Under the state, we have several entities – this is the real state power, which we obey for the sake of the common good, the language that we use to realize this good, and the place where we realize it. To this it would be worth adding our idea of ​​the state, what it supposedly should be. For example, we can dream of a former Soviet state that no longer exists, nevertheless, in our decisions, we can act as if it should be, and thereby, probably, create its general structure. And if we all act like communists now, we will live in such a communist state.

Change or creation of the state

Considering the state itself as an idea, we can see in it either a historical tradition, which we must for the most part obey and influence what this tradition is supposed to influence. For example, if we take modern Russia, we can change the president, deputies, and the ruling party in elections. Or approach this issue from the point of view of your own ideas about its ideal structure, regardless of how it was arranged before. In this case, we can say that we are creating a state, as the Soviet Union was once created.

In this matter, we can give preference to one degree or another to either the first or the second. In my opinion, this preference is dictated by their own benefit. For example, people who own significant property, access to power or abilities that are well implemented in the current situation will benefit from keeping everything as a whole as before, and in this case they will prefer tradition.

Many others will benefit from seeing the state as something new, organized in a form more accessible to their influence.

Certain preferences can be dictated by some irrational conviction, fear of change, or vice versa, belief in some radical ideology, and, even more often, a lack of a common understanding of the role of the state and oneself in it.

From all this it follows that under the state everyone can mean something of their own. And if someone understands by the state a specific traditional national state, such as Russia, and wants it to be strong, have a great military potential, then the other, even living in Russia, can see the future of the state in global international organizations, and the success of Russia not in military power, but in economic cooperation with other countries. And most likely the first will work in the military industry, or somehow depend on it, and the second in some international company. Their benefit will be organized by various organizations, which will basically or in fact determine for them the idea of ​​the state.

My understanding of the state

Before I answer my understanding of the state, I will ask a question. What would you like – a better form of economy and statehood for yourself and your children, or to learn something that you somehow associate yourself with, suddenly became successful? The same question can be rephrased into a well-known Soviet anecdote, do you have checkers or get there? To which there is an equally well-known answer about a cat that should be able to catch mice, no matter what color it is.

Under the state, I primarily mean – a place where to go and the absence of mice there. Let’s call this place a fair world in harmony with nature.

If traditional power arose through violence, then why should anything be different now? Isn’t it logical that if power was established in a traditional state by force, by subordinating the peoples to some royal dynasty, then it should also change traditionally, in the same way that it was established. If it was established democratically, then it can change in the same way, but only if it really was so. And if we are talking, for example, about the United States, then it is not a fact that real power was established there solely thanks to democracy, and not, for example, thanks to various kinds of closed communities pursuing their own, primarily economic interests.

 

I mean, if you change power for something better and given the tradition, its change will be exactly the same as it was traditionally established. If the president has been appointed, then we should also traditionally wait for the successful appointment of the next one, and so on. So, judge for yourself – how much such an expectation is rational, or acceptable to you.

If we define the state as the goal of a just world, then both the means and the basis for this must correspond to the goals. We cannot create a just state using unjust methods. You will say that justice does not exist, but no, it exists, it is an honest fulfillment of obligations and agreements. And openness in the OM system promotes such honesty.

Therefore, I discard the existing economic structure, since it was created on the previous centuries-old state violence, which in itself is not compatible with the future world. But I do not discard the results of labor, but only a lot of conventions that organize the modern economy, traditionally accepted by us, at the top, as if it should always be so.

The majority of progressive society, not in words but in deeds, has long since overcome the conditionality of the state. So, the most wealthy people live where they want. In the meantime, they are not able to overcome the conditionality of the money they use, since this money both creates and gives them the opportunity to live where and how they want. And everything would be fine until money became the right to always own it, which the supranational financial elite now has. All, including state power, today are actually supranational, independent of their own state if they can withdraw funds to another country.

For those who already understand the whole conditionality of the state, I propose to understand the conditionality of money and the fact that it is the real state power, by the fact that it subjugates your activity, appropriates the results of your work and, more importantly, the results of technological progress, unlimited development of which directly threatens the environment.

Remaining in the current economic paradigm, in order to overcome inflation, that the state elites “print” money for themselves, they are forced to develop the economy without looking back, increase trade, providing the money supply with real goods. At the same time, such development directly harms our nature.

Such a consumer society is a modern state in which our task is to constantly increase sales and productivity, create and consume more.

Suppose we somehow manage all these commodity-money relations, but it is obvious that such an attitude towards natural resources will not lead us to natural harmony. And the point is not in any point restrictions, they will not change the very principle for which the economy exists, and specifically any state and enterprise.

By introducing ecological principles into the modern economy, we leave people without work or complicate their lives, but do not change the system in any way. The problem is what forces people to violate these principles, and this is the modern economic system. And it is impossible to change this device, since no one will simply give up power, will not allow you to manage the distribution of money that is already being distributed among those who need it. At this level, the main role is apparently played not only by social processes, but by kinship and fear of direct violence and deprivation of a specific state of those who violate the rules of interaction developed by tradition. At some higher level, power is the relationship of a fairly small group of specific people.

I think that they are, to the same extent, hostages of the current situation, which cannot be changed from within. For this reason, I propose to create an independent alternative economy.

 Afterword with questions

Why do we need to recreate it? All for the same reason – to survive and create something better than it is now. A person can survive throughout history, survived in even worse conditions. I mean, first of all, about physical comfort and security from all sorts of troubles. And the risks of dying from the disease or violently in the old days were much greater. What else causes more fear and discomfort in us than death?

 

In this seemingly rhetorical question, I would like to again digress from the topic and say that one way or another, even some spiritual feelings, such as patriotism, faith, morality and love of neighbor, etc. already explained genetically. If you are ready to give your life for something, for example, defending your state, the faith of your people, then first of all, in order to survive and leave offspring, very specific people close to you. By this I want to say, no matter what values ​​you or someone defends, whether it is the state, education, science, law, etc. everything comes down to life.But another question arises – what kind of life? What kind of life would we like for our descendants? What kind of state are we creating for them and creating ourselves?