The moral foundations of the system

Like any useful state undertaking that has taken place in history, any new one should be a continuation of the movement towards greater justice and freedom and, at the same time, greater responsibility for ourselves in any interactions, as well as the effectiveness of these very interactions. Interactions should become less regulated by fear of punishment, but more open and fair in themselves, based on personal responsibility and interest in the result.

Over time, the role of the punishing state should, if not disappear, then decrease as much as possible, instead of which a state will appear that helps and provides opportunities corresponding to the abilities of each person. A person in such a state, as far as possible, is responsible for his actions and decisions, acts without violating the law, but not so much because of the fear of punishment from the state, but for the sake of maintaining reputation, trust from his fellow citizens.

Reputation of a person in the system

A person’s good reputation suggests that he was always honest and did not deceive anyone, fulfilled all agreements, deception is possible only when you, at least verbally, agree on something and then do not fulfill the terms of the contract. From the violation of the agreement arises one or another debt, which a person is obliged to repay. There are honest people, and I hope they are the majority, but thinking about society as some kind of well-organized mechanism, it is important for us to take into account all kinds of people, including those prone to deceit. And therefore it is reasonable to create conditions when it is impossible to deceive without being convicted of it, which naturally forces one to be honest.

Reputation in the system and specifically the absence of debts under certain agreements helps a person to take on even more responsible and valuable tasks. This is what happens in any limited group. The “Open money” system in this case helps to capture the processes of cooperation that naturally occur in life when people live in a small team directly knowing about the activities from each other.

This kind of natural selection for those who can and cannot be trusted leads not only to the elimination of useless and harmful interactions, but also to an increase in the quality of the result of these interactions. The very responsible performance of this or that work becomes the norm and from this norm it further develops into art, etc. improving the overall quality of life.

Reputation in the system will be primarily in the form of undertaken and fulfilled obligations or unfulfilled obligations and is an internal legal, legal form of a person’s existence as a user and participant in the ML system. More specifically, the system registers the agreement, and in case of non-fulfillment of the agreement, the debt arising from the unfulfilled agreement becomes public, known to all participants in the system.

Freedom and responsibility

At the moment, traditionally, the freedom of interactions is limited to a legal entity that has the right to carry out this interaction under the control of one or another state jurisdiction and, as a result, the interaction itself is taxed. Our interactions take place both in physical and legal terms, existing according to their own laws, regulated by the state.

In the OA system, the law that protects any agreement from the very beginning, where possible and appropriate, it is primarily about economic interactions, is replaced by the reputation of the user of the system, who is both an individual and a legal entity and has the right to any activity, including hiring other people, pay salaries, etc.

His responsibility for his agreements and subsequent actions arises not only to those with whom he agreed, but also to all other participants in the system who are interested in ensuring that the agreements are fulfilled. Acting at their own peril and risk, the participants in the system will themselves develop the norm of behavior that will allow them to successfully exist in the system without any fear of the law.

Adam Smith also wrote about this, implying that the totality of natural interactions in itself creates not only wealth, but also certain moral standards of behavior that imply natural responsibility for one’s actions, which stem not from fear of punishment, but from fear of losing a job or source income in the form of established economic ties. This kind of principle once worked in Europe. The global, modern world in view of numerous states, relatively open borders and high competition allows you to quickly and practically without any risk change your place of work, type of activity, etc., which in no way contributes to the creation of strong long-term relationships of trust and cooperation. As it used to be in the cities of Europe or even in the villages of Russia, where everyone knew each other, could trust each other and work for the common good.

Large companies and communities

Now this kind of conscientious cooperation can only be allowed by large companies, the number of which is objectively limited. And due to their limited number, employees who want to build a career try to maintain their reputation by working more or less honestly.

In this case, the behavior and work in a corporation or in a large state enterprise is regulated from above, by the authorities, who decide how to behave in relation to this or that. This kind of morality, which is not developed naturally from below, but is imposed from above, can, in my opinion, lead to the moral decay of society. Since people themselves cease to understand in their practice of life and living interaction what is the right deed in relation to another person. People are morally alienated from each other relying solely on their employer as the only source of their survival. Which, due to its moral decay from power and money, can impose on them moral norms that are completely alien to them.

Outside of corporations, trust arises only in some small national communities, where people are connected by almost kinship ties, which ultimately dominate economically and economically displace the local population, which remains divided for each other and less economically active. Which ultimately leads to increased ethnic and national hostility towards certain national minorities.

The essence of Open Money

The OM system itself has a practical orientation and does not aim to somehow politically change the moral priorities of certain states or nations.
The essence of OM is to create an alternative form of cooperation with strict public control of all interactions. In addition to achieving well-being for the participants in the system, the goal of the system is to create a new standard of living that meets the desired social progress, moving towards greater personal freedom and responsibility for one’s actions. All this for many may already be valuable in itself, but for me and the participants in the OM system, this is also important because, upon achieving this kind of interaction, we will have the opportunity to apply the same principles in environmental matters, that is, not to violate the more general principles of life affecting not only our personal lives, but also the lives of our descendants, the fate of our planet as a whole. Thus, the honesty and trust sought between all people is an essential step towards creating a harmonious economy.