Realization of “Open Money”

The OM system is a synthesis of both state and economic ideas. And it would seem that the system itself does not fit into the existing institutions of state power, due to the fact that it simply replaces it, and into the economic sphere, since it does not imply benefits in its usual sense.

However, it all depends on the desire, but not only. After all, the very conditions of our life to some extent dictate our way of life and life – a convenient form of a shovel, a combine harvester, a grain elevator, paper money, and then electronic money and all the many things that are universal because of their convenience are the same in any part of the world. And if we fly even to another planet, where there is intelligent life, most likely we will encounter the same shovel. Some kind of tool, which also digs the earth of another planet so that the sharp edge of the tool will be directed to the ground, and the flat one directly to the body. And then there will be labor on that planet, there will be the results of labor and some justice in their division.

It seems to me that just like with a shovel, it is the same with everything else that we have come to, both in the field of material and in the field of spirituality, and such concepts as justice are sensually understandable to any person and some recent studies say that even animals, at least some primates. This desire for a just and better order of our human society is an integral part of man.

All sorts of acquisitions of a better structure of society, I and, probably, many call morality, humanism or humanity in the most diverse manifestations. Perhaps the modern development of morality can be supplemented with many things, but I think most will agree that any morality, in order to be called such, one way or another must contain humanity, that is, a human attitude to something. Here we may ask ourselves, what is humanity? And the answer to it will be in the very word man, or better what we usually mean by the expression: “To be a man”, no matter how comical and absurd it may sound today. And in this respect, at least here, I would not like to invent a person, but only to turn to the image of what we usually mean by this.

 The state exists not only as an economic, but also as a moral and ethical formation, a kind of union of forces that is capable of suppressing other more primitive forms of morality. This can also be understood in such a way that the more humane state always prevails over the less humane one. And this does not necessarily happen in a military way, but rather in such a way that a person always strive for a more comfortable state of more humane relationships and less violence, apparently because it is less energy-consuming. Nevertheless, a person, like any living organism, is forced to compete for resources, for the right to continue the race, which again dooms us to the manifestation of our own will in relation to both nature and other people. This means that we are forced to fight with each other and, nevertheless, over time, this struggle takes on more and more human forms, from the physical goes into the informational, characteristic of man.

Cultural and economic forms of influence are gradually replacing physical struggle. Culture itself has become a tool and something to protect, its products are attractive and naturally subordinate our behavior to what we choose to use them.

Including in this way, and not only by direct conquests, the Roman Republic subjugated the European peoples at that time called barbaric, and the United States has recently subjugated the rest of the world.

States with a more perfect organization of society and more perfect products of culture that have a natural attraction win, that is, we are ready to spend our time earning money for the sake of owning it.

But how are these arguments, which are so understandable to anyone, related to the direct implementation of the Open money  system? But, the fact of the matter is that they are probably not understood by everyone, or rather, if they are understandable, not everyone will accept that morality can change for something better or worse, be higher and lower. For some, morality can be a set of traditions, a historical part of a culture. And it will be just as true, but useless for further discourse to understand why some moral principles are better than others and always win sooner or later.uniting most around you productive people

The implementation of a system does not involve the observation of some existing morality, but its production in the form of some more perfect behavior.

You can say that this kind of recognition condemns you to submit to some kind of moral authority, and rightly so. But with the clarification that such an authority here is not a person, but a number of principles, many of which you already most likely share, but probably do not attach much importance to them. Even more important here is the fact that you are in any case under the authority of certain moral authorities, your parents, sometimes your employer, or those whom you democratically elect to power. Even if you are financially independent, your presence in society will inevitably be associated with the risks of all kinds of external social interactions, a war may suddenly start and you will unwittingly find yourself a hostage to this process.

 In order to change society, we need to acquire some kind of state power of our own, and for this we need to adhere to certain common moral principles with those who will share this power with us and help to implement it among themselves. And if you cannot recognize in what I am describing better and more promising moral principles than those that exist now, most likely you will not understand the factors that allow the system to be put into practice. Such a misunderstanding may also be due to the fact that these moral factors themselves are not connected either with tradition or with the Christian religion, much less with any direct personal gain. Moreover, they do not solve the problem of general social justice, they do not provide any simple, unambiguous answers in this respect. And it would seem, where is the moral behind all this? But the fact is that it cannot be described as, for example, a ban on killing expressed and approved by all, this is still not morality, like a series of Christian covenants and parables, they do not in themselves describe real behavior, which is the subject of morality.

In morality, there is inevitably an element of religiosity, a certain belief in common values, and so on. But I do not see anything in ecology, or even in rational thinking and the way of acting, that should be an object of holiness and worship, as is the case in churches. Rather, it is something inevitable that we must come to sooner or later.

 Ultimately, we inevitably come to a decision – either go or stand still, which is not due to anything other than our desire to live better.

 So this is “better”, it must inevitably be, otherwise the meaning of the path is lost, but this is better, it can be different for people. We inevitably come to discord, because you and I may have our own different understanding of the best. And in this regard, one way or another, we must stop at something, since power and our life are limited, and the search for some best general ideas can continue for an arbitrarily long time. And I propose to solve some very real environmental problems, which can be a clear indicator of whether we are doing something really useful or not. At the same time, with regard to society, in my opinion, it is quite enough to implement and gradually improve all those principles that have already been developed by generations of philosophers and legislators working somehow. Therefore, speaking of morality, I do not mean anything that I would come up with, these are all the same principles that are described, including in the Bible, by various popular humanist philosophers, ideas that are one way or another a real and essential part of our current life.

 Until we accept some specific common moral values ​​that would not be reduced primarily to private interest, we will not be able to organize power either among ourselves or in relation to other people. And if you think – here again we are called to ensure that I do not think about myself, about my private interest, this is really so, at the same time, I think you are sympathetic so as not to steal at your workplace, in order to spend more energy to work and do it better, and this is contrary to your current private interest. Here you have the motivation that you will be fired or even worse.In the situation with the initial implementation of the Open Money system, there is no such external motivation, there are almost no risks, except for those that you can say that you will not take advantage of a certain chance.  There is and always has been, or at least should be, that morality cannot be forced, it is a personal choice, as for example, the choice to use more advanced technologies. In both cases, a person may not want or not understand, or, having lived his life somehow, may not see the point in spending new energy on something. Therefore, the very matter of implementing the OA system is not intended for everyone at all, but for those who can discern behind it those very, more advanced and therefore successful moral values.

 As for the implementation of the system in our modern state realities, we can safely say that higher forms of morality, namely such will be created by me and all like-minded people of the OM system, will in no way attract the attention of the state, since the very attention to them will be necessary for the state, which does not want to look more primitive in the most important state-forming aspect for itself.

The state always exists through that which is the highest moral authority. The power in the state that loses or does not have moral authority decays and submits to another more authoritative source of power.

 By a higher form of morality, I mean behavior that will allow the greatest number of people to better survive in the present and future times. This conjecture is only proven over time.

 Regarding the economy, I make the assumption that the OM system will be efficient, at least more efficient than the conventional economy. At the same time, the goals set in the field of ecology are quite specific. Specific and functional, which I describe in advance. If the future itself is unknown to me and to you, then at least we can know the goal and this article written is a step towards the goal. The article does not give any practical result, its only purpose is for you to find out what I offer, believe that it is possible and probably become interested.

This interest itself can be dictated by both moral and economic preferences, perhaps something else before let’s say this is basic. By moral, I mean that you would like to have a better government and a better society in general. Under the economic – the acquisition of personal gain. There is such a benefit, this benefit is directly related to the implementation of the system as a whole, the success of which must be believed, done and then get the result, but there is no guaranteed result in advance, they will strive for it.