Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Eliminate RENT and DEBT

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 10:11 a.m. EST by Reaillusion (43)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://newpracticesnewworld.blogspot.com/

Please visit the link above for more detail of the proposed concepts.

142 Comments

142 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ChicagoT (54) 3 years ago

really incredibly uneducated idea.... the person who wrote this has no real life experience... if they did they would understand that over the centuries several nations have tried slimmed down versions of this and fail miserably. Russia being the most notable and now China is opening up their economy to capitalism to better compete on the world wide stage. What you advocate is the releasing of all incentive to work. We do not live in an altruistic world were people are dedicated to the improvement of society at large.

It's just a completely naive and immature concept ...

[-] 2 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I have plenty of life experience and I have plenty of knowledge in that which I am discussing with you. I would have to considering I have been talking about this with people for over 10 years and in that time I have had every sort of curve ball thrown at me in how people don't fully understand it and by default say that it would not work. And I will tell you that in all of that time, throughout all of those discussions I have never once heard an argument from anyone that has convinced me that the system I propose is anything less than the worldwide solution to poverty, hunger and war. And no, not a single country or group has ever tried anything remotely like the practices that I am conveying to you. You live in a system that is the continuation of kings and queens taxing the working people of the land while they siphon their existences off of those efforts while putting in no real effort of their own. You live in the continuation of a system that has become conditioned over thousands of years to accept that powers will come into your space, take from you, and potentially take from you the very foundation upon which you survive essentially killing you in a round about way. Through the ages the system you support has been indirectly murdering its own people by throwing them out of their homes where they eventually meet misfortune, lack of safety and death. And your're right not everyone is thinking of how to improve the world or willing to work just because work needs to be done. I am not saying to do away with incentive. However, when that which needs to be done is defined and separated from that which is being done just to make money there will be less work required. Of that there will be plenty of people who are not lazy and who will want to work as they recognize as they are taught what is required of all of us in order to maintain what we have. I doubt there are many who will allow their families or their selves to starve to death when they are given simple instructions on how to participate to produce the basic essentials that their people require. As far as anyone who does not want to lift a finger ever, well they serve a purpose too. They are party people. God likes to party as is evident in that there are party people and they are doing what God intended for them to do and could do it a whole lot better without being interfered with by annoyances such as schedules to keep up with your rent and debt. Also those people, given enough time to exasperate themselves in a single direction would probably tire of even that routine and would probably calm down to the point that they want to throw in a little assistance. And in so doing they would be given credit which to their astonishment would be then possibly seen as an incentive to do more for others.

[-] 1 points by JClampet (6) 3 years ago

"As far as anyone who does not want to lift a finger ever, well they serve a purpose too. They are party people. God likes to party as is evident in that there are party people and they are doing what God intended for them to do and could do it a whole lot better without being interfered with by annoyances such as schedules to keep up with your rent and debt." I believe you've hit the nail on the head with this golden morsel...keep them coming.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I said it, you mocked me for it, and I still believe it. Where does that leave us? Yes I believe that because party people exist that God itself enjoys the existence of party people. Or maybe I should use different words. I believe some people are here only to celebrate. Some people are here to absorb experience like a sponge and fulfill that true purpose which has nothing to do with any silly little job that you have for them, or a silly little schedule, or cubicle or any other type of leash that you have for them and make them wear. I believe there are free spirits who are only hampered down and weighted by what it is you pin on them and force them to call their lives.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

God may like party people, but if he does, he should be wiling to support them. I personally am unwilling to support people who are unwilling themselves to contribute to the common welfare. If you are correct, they are God's problem, and should look to him for sustenance.

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

God has already supported them and in great abundance. Fruit and the fruits of life literally come from the ground and are offered automatically to all the people as their birth right. God has taken care of all the people by providing the land and the fruit of the land which would be there and in abundant supply if it were not for human beings violating the only true law: one should never Take from another without permission. Your present systems are designed around the violation of the only universal law. Your systems 'Take' on a constant basis from people for the lack of resources that that very system creates. It is absurd! Your present systems Take people from their homes. It Takes the land from the rights of the people. It Takes of your right to occupy your space without being interfered with. It Takes the food and the fruit of life out of the environment and then charges you for what is naturally yours as it puts on a spectacle of a feeble attempt to create in small amounts that which is abundant and all over if only the stagnation of this leaching capitalist system were not in place stiffening all endeavors with their slow recreation of that which would naturally flourish in abundance without the block on all progression through the capitalist system. The solution is clear: I called it Equalibrium when I designed a system that at its core was essentially what has been concluded upon by others as well and called a Resource Based Economy. This will give each individual the rights to their birthright in environment and resources. You did not invent the light bulb and yet you still use it. Thus that world and what it has available are your birth right and you and everyone should have a reasonable amount of access to that which is Theirs To Begin With, that your present systems Take from them and then attempt to sell back to them. The solution is clear and the time is critical. Just look at how weak and unprepared a structure and system like new york is when the little wind Sandy hit it. Pathetic. I will from here out continuously point out the influences that are at the forefront of the direction we need to head in immediately if we are going to be prepared for the future. And they can be found at: www.thevenusproject.com , www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

If your reasoning is thus: The fact that there are "party people" is evidence that God likes to party-

Then- The fact that there are TAKERS is evidence that God likes Takers too.

If God didn't think that humans would "violate the only true law-one should never take from another without permission" then He was wrong and therefor can't possibly be a very smart God.

If you think that you can change human nature or get humanity to act more appropriately than God does....you're not a very smart God either.

If you think you can "take" away the systems that humans created "without their permission"...then you're violating your only true law and are a hypocrite from the get go.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Pontificating again Fred/Bitsy? As of coarse your being little miss know it all - you must just be compelled to share your knowledge and wisdom of the ages on all things. In your knowledge gathering you must have just overlooked the part in the story where God kicked everyone out of the garden and said Fine Prove That You Did Not Make A Mistake Show That You Can Govern Yourselves

That bit was way back in the beginning of the story.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Do you ever get confused going back and forth between your DKAtoday persona and your VQuack one?

Please show me the part where God said "Prove that you did not make a mistake, show that you can govern yourselves". I've got four different copies of the bible in the room I'm in. I've never read that part. Please point out the reference for us Mr. Know Nothing?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OMG - now you want a literal word for word reading from scripture? Do it yourself - this time "you" can verify the story instead of trying to toss it off to 1seamammal or someone else.

Be a seeker of truth Fred.

BTW - you think I am VQ? "NOT" and you can verify that with the forum.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

OMG you can't show me a literal word for word reference? It's almost like I KNEW you wouldn't be able to because it DOESN'T EXIST.

Nor can you in any rational way tie this argument you're making BACK to my original point about God making "party people" and "takers", much less prove my point invalid.

But by all means just keep acting like a spoiled schoolyard bully just two days after YOU chastised someone else for acting the same way! I'll even put your most recent responses to me in () so you can't miss how they demonstrate the exact same behavior.

"You can not enter into a discussion and keep on topic (Pontificating again Fred/Bitsy? As of coarse your being little miss know it all - you must just be compelled to share your knowledge and wisdom of the ages on all things.) you make a statement - then - when someone asks you to elaborate - (Please show me the part where God said "Prove that you did not make a mistake, show that you can govern yourselves". I've got four different copies of the bible in the room I'm in. I've never read that part. Please point out the reference for us Mr. Know Nothing) you quite often regard that as an attack - your ability to communicate shuts down and you go on the defensive (OMG - now you want a literal word for word reading from scripture? Do it yourself - this time "you" can verify the story instead of trying to toss it off to 1seamammal or someone else) - you won't expand on your position - and you won't listen to the other persons position."

"What happens from there is that you keep accusing that individual of being a right wing plant -(Be a seeker of truth Fred) instead of stopping and continuing a discussion."

"What happens then - is - that people get tired of the BS of trying to have a conversation with you and will start slapping you down."

Hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Copy and paste my incorrect comment - point out where I made the mistake. By the way I do believe that I may not be the 1st who has shown you that article on CO and CO2.


[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-307) 0 minutes ago

I read the damn report. It only solidifies my suspicion that YOU made that mistake yourself, here, today, and are trying to cover it up with cow manure. Why are you doing this? Why does it matter SO MUCH to you that you can't even admit to a small mistake, or a short term memory issue of your own, rather than creating the mess you're creating? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You're cross posting in two different threads just to argue with me.

And you're making a fool out of yourself in both of them.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You wish - I am just responding to you where there are open reply buttons. This is the same post - that is why I copy your comments - so that you will know what I am responding to. Still in your blind rage?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Read the old testament the story of Adam and Eve. I gave you the gist of it. You want it word for word - go read it for yourself.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Still "not listening to the other person's position" are you?

I've read the story. Repeatedly. "Fine Prove That Your Did Not Make A Mistake Show That You Can Govern Yourselves" is not the gist of it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Shut up and read the report I sent you - not my fault if you have short term memory issues.


[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-304) 0 minutes ago

Oh no....nooooooooooooooo sweetie. No one else on this forum has ever, EVER tried to convince me that CO is the culprit instead of Co2. And most people, upon making such a mistake would admit to being wrong about it when presented with the OVERWHELMING scientific statements, books, papers, and MECHANICS magazines that explain what catalytic converters do.

But not you. Oh no. You've got a grudge of some kind. For some reason you're going to stick to the most ridiculous statement you've ever made here-with ZERO evidence to back it up and EVERY scientific outlet against it-for what? Pride? Ego? Stupidity?

I hope your credibility is worth the price you're paying for not saying "I made a mistake". ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I read the damn report. It only solidifies my suspicion that YOU made that mistake yourself, here, today, and are trying to cover it up with cow manure. Why are you doing this? Why does it matter SO MUCH to you that you can't even admit to a small mistake, or a short term memory issue of your own, rather than creating the mess you're creating?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Who ever said that you knew it all? I just said that "little miss know it all" was likely your childhood nickname - as you act like you know it all. I can not help your lack of biblical education - except to say - do some refresher study - that is if you ever had a formal study of any kind. As you should seek the truth for yourself - do not rely on another to give you the truth ( this is also an admonishment from the - bible - though again not word for word ).


[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-304) 3 minutes ago

I'm sorry....what Bible are you reading in which Satan=Lucifer=appointed guardian of the garden who was banished because of the apple incident?

I'm just kneeling at your all wise feet and asking you to enlighten my "information" and "understanding". I'm clearly not the Little Miss Know it all you accused me of being am I? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your formal study apparently taught you that CO is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas, that it's melting Arctic Ice and perma frost without somehow causing the air around the earth to burst into flames (because it's a flammable gas) and that for SOME reason such "massive human amounts" of it haven't poisoned and killed us all.

I've studied the bible in two languages and spent what amounts to years cross referencing the greek and hebrew to the english. You wanna throw down...I'm all for it.

But your ability to comprehend and understand scientific elements with any accuracy indicates it won't be much of a contest.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

CO can be naturally occurring - forest fires and such.

But of CO2 and CO man contributes mostly CO.

Not concerned about CO killing you? Get yourself caught in a house with a faulty furnace - they kill people all the time carbon monoxide poisoning ( CO ). CO2 in high concentrations can also kill you.

BitseyFred we have been all over this. Not just you and I but you and many others and you keep regurgitating the same crap. Go away - you bore me. Your idiotic novelty is long gone.


[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-304) 1 minute ago

Your formal study apparently taught you that CO is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas, that it's melting Arctic Ice and perma frost without somehow causing the air around the earth to burst into flames (because it's a flammable gas) and that for SOME reason such "massive human amounts" of it haven't poisoned and killed us all.

I've studied the bible in two languages and spent what amounts to years cross referencing the greek and hebrew to the english. You wanna throw down...I'm all for it.

But your ability to comprehend and understand scientific elements with any accuracy indicates it won't be much of a contest. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Oh no....nooooooooooooooo sweetie. No one else on this forum has ever, EVER tried to convince me that CO is the culprit instead of Co2. And most people, upon making such a mistake would admit to being wrong about it when presented with the OVERWHELMING scientific statements, books, papers, and MECHANICS magazines that explain what catalytic converters do.

But not you. Oh no. You've got a grudge of some kind. For some reason you're going to stick to the most ridiculous statement you've ever made here-with ZERO evidence to back it up and EVERY scientific outlet against it-for what? Pride? Ego? Stupidity?

I hope your credibility is worth the price you're paying for not saying "I made a mistake".

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope sorry - Satan = lucifer = appointed guardian of the garden was banished because of the apple incident ( no not in China - different apple ). Man you really do have a problem with gathering and understanding information. Sucks to be you.


[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-311) 1 minute ago

Another fine example of how you have to insert your petty insults and completely wrong assumptions about a person into a post before you get around to "continuing the discussion". Hypocrite.

I'm with you until #6 and on-

First-the idea that Satan was "God's chosen son at that time". Satan had been banished to the Earth before Adam and Eve where placed in the garden.

Second-the idea that God wouldn't have been aware of what Lucifer was planning to do.

Third-that God would be worried about what the "other angels" might think.

Fourth-NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with disproving my comment to the author of the OP. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry....what Bible are you reading in which Satan=Lucifer=appointed guardian of the garden who was banished because of the apple incident?

I'm just kneeling at your all wise feet and asking you to enlighten my "information" and "understanding". I'm clearly not the Little Miss Know it all you accused me of being am I?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25072) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sorry if you can't comprehend that - from the information delivered in the story ( but hell I really should not be surprised - as you also go around spouting Fred S and heritage talking points on GW ).

Real quick then.

1) God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

2) Satan tempted Eve to eat of the tree.

3) Eve got Adam to Eat of the Tree.

4) God threw them out of the garden for eating of the tree but also for disobeying.

5) what was the tree again(?) the tree of knowledge - so whats the big deal(?) well they were told not to eat it ( seems pretty petty hey? ) - the reason for that could very well be that they would eat of it one day ( why else would God plant it there ) - but the time was not yet for that. Perhaps because Adam and Eve ( humanity ) was not yet ready - was not yet mature.

6) So you ask - why didn't he ( God ) just wipe em out and start fresh?

7) Do you think because Satan ( Gods chosen Son at that time ) put Adam and Eve up to it? And so Gods other 1st children ( the other angels ) might wonder if Satan had been correct and God was just being petty?

8) So to answer the question of the right and or wrong of it God set Adam and Eve outside the garden to live their own lives making their own decisions - to show His ( God's ) 1st creations what would happen if they were left to do as they wished - to use the knowledge they were not ready for.

9) and now if you can not understand that - I really do not care.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Another fine example of how you have to insert your petty insults and completely wrong assumptions about a person into a post before you get around to "continuing the discussion". Hypocrite.

I'm with you until #6 and on-

First-the idea that Satan was "God's chosen son at that time". Satan had been banished to the Earth before Adam and Eve where placed in the garden.

Second-the idea that God wouldn't have been aware of what Lucifer was planning to do...or how easily His "first children" would fall for Lucifer's crap instead of believing in Him and His plan.

Third-that God would be worried about what the "other angels" might think.

Fourth-NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with disproving my comment to the author of the OP.

[-] -1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

dickie and vacuous are the same person? that explains much.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I don't know if they are or not. But they are equally annoying and most often show up in discussions together. DKA likes to accuse others of being tied to anyone that suits his fancy, so turn about is fair play right?

[-] -1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

absolutely !!!!!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mitt-and-the-private-sector-beats-fema-in-fixing-s/#comment-869650

Just read the thread...Please? Tell me if I'm really seeing what I think I'm seeing....I'm just blown away....I'm so shocked that I'm hoping I'm wrong JUST because I feel so sorry for him.....

You'll have to note the time stamps because he keeps replying out of sequence or running out of "reply" buttons.

[-] 0 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

i read the thread. both dickhead and vacuous have been on ows from the beginning. vacuous is a foaming, drooling mouth breather. the dickhead persona throws in facts and backward " arguments". either way, they are both shills for liberal fascism.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

It is not so much that God likes them but that God allows the existence of all concepts which are to be.

You will have some control over which of those concepts you want to see more of in your world and will literally be left to choose and bring forth that which you choose to have more of in your world.

I never said that God does not expect people to violate the only true law. That it can be violated means that God expects it to or allows for it to be. I should have been a little more specific with my words. It is not the only true law. It is the only true law of Civility. The only true law of civility is that one should never take from another without their permission. It is a universal law of civility and only exists if we respect it.

I would rather choose to see more party people in the environment than takers. Or to be more precise, 'people who are free to choose and determine their own life course, including whom they empower and spend their time with and with the allotment of time available to them will be encouraged to enjoy their selves and to help to nurture the land and help others to be happier and enjoy their selves.' ... or in other words party people.

I would choose to see more people that are truly free in a system that makes them truly free than to see more people who feel they have a need to have to take from others. It is not a matter of changing human behavior, it is a matter of how humans behave when dealt with various circumstances. The outcome will be mostly the same with any sets of people in a given circumstance.

The goal then is not to change the people but to change the environment and the rules of the environment to produce a new set of results. Behavior is the result of environment and the rules and practices conducted within that environment.

And it would not require the taking of people from their chosen systems, but will ask for the allowance for the space in which this new way of being can be. In time most will simply opt out of this old, abusive, corrupt, and failing system they are presently in and choose to live in a more harmonious manner.

For more information please see: www.thevenusproject.com & www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

...throughout all of those discussions I have never once heard an argument from anyone that has convinced me that the system I propose is anything less than the worldwide solution to poverty, hunger and war.

This won't convince you either, but this is why your idea isn't the solution to war: you're proposing abolishing financing anything. A country will never be able to finance anything, so it will have to invade other countries to acquire resources in order to grow its economy. Your idea would lead to MORE war.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

No, most war is brought about by the fact that people cannot Diffuse the Bomb. Or diffuse the situation. That is because they cannot move away from it. They are forced to remain in the vicinity of it and support its various causes as there is no other way out and they cannot think for themselves. However the system I propose allows individuals to think for themselves and have the power to move toward or away from any influential source at will. Then if power mongers are running amok even the smallest person has the right to stand up and say, "I don't believe in this, I will not lend my voice to it, I am leaving." And they have the power to do so. Thus the power of the power hungry is undermined and dissolved as their is no one around to instill their quest for power upon.

And if you say that people cannot finance anything; again I ask you to look at what money is. Are you saying that as a people they cannot make a decision without money giving them the yes or no? I don't believe that to be accurate. It is human power, human hands, human work that decides if a thing will be built. Do you have the willing hands to build it? That is the question. If those people are compensated then yes you do.

What then if you absolutely needed some material in another country because you can't build the thing you want without it. Then you can do the very same thing on a larger scale. A country would then be working for credit with another country to earn enough to be given that material. They can do so in work. In on the ground actual work or the work in producing something of equal value in trade. You do this anyway, just in such an enormously round about fashion that you can't see it directly. But that is exactly what you are now doing only with the middle man of money. You have money that is losing its value being passed from country to country so your countrymen can get their hands on something that the country purportedly needs but doesn't have available to it. That money is passed along in the form of least value. In the promise of that one day something of value will come out of it. What I am proposing is the trade of actual value. Work for work. And that is assuming that one country actually needs something from another country which actually they don't.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

We use money to get things that we can't build with our own hands. Or don't want to. You're going to personally build everything that you use, or trade it with the next guy in the next yurt? This is supposed to be progress? Why would anybody who has been successful in the real world want to adopt this fantasy world? For most people it would be a lot more work to have to make your own clothes or trade them for skins to trade for coffee to trade for rum to trade for raisins or whatever you really want. I like being able to go and put raisins on my credit card, and the elasticity of a system that trusts me to come up with a way to pay for those raisins. I don't want to spend my whole day shaving a yak to trade the wool for a cat to trade for a goat to get some milk to trade for some raisins.

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Clearly you did not go over enough of what I wrote about the system proposed to be able to intelligently argue why it would not work. You don't understand it but look how hostile you become in attacking it. The classic cliche'. You sound like most of the people here, hostile. I was only trying to help. I've been trying to help for many years now but when talking to you it makes me not want to help. After interacting with you all here, I think your catch phrase should be 'Harumph!'

Clearly you did not bother to check out the documentary I recommended to you:'Future By Design' by Jacque Fresco

If you did you would see just how backwards your argument is. I am not talking about taking a step back in any way but advancing. But advancement with different priorities in mind. Priorities for the individual such as ensuring food and water, shelter and health care at all times. Providing those basic 3 things while at the same time advancing in technology and survival practice.

Based on the way you people speak I recognize that you are not speaking the 'language' of what is going to be required in order to achieve the changes required in the world. Not only do you not speak it you are hostile.

In over a decade of searching I have not heard an argument yet that has convinced me that the system I have proposed does not contain the solution. It includes the key concepts which are the systemic solutions to systemic problems.

It is in a change of practice. Which comes from a change in the rules. People will not begin a new practice until the rules provide them the space to do so. Then there should be a guiding force that assists people in maintaining and progressing in that environment.

To this day I have not heard a single argument that proves the systems presented would not only work but be beneficial to all. I am still waiting to hear that argument. I have not heard it here among any of your responses.

It is true that I have not even presented every aspect of this practice theory to you here but it seems like you aren't really looking for ideas anyway. Nor do you have any process by which an idea can progress among you. But what you do have is a lot of hostility even toward people who are trying to help you. That is what I have been doing for a long time now and when I hear the way you speak it makes me realize that you are more than likely not the people who will make this kind of change.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 3 years ago

While we do need a major land reform in this country, it is impossible to give everyone a piece of land without having a plan to cover the costs. Do you know how much land is out there and how much it all costs. And the governent only owns about 30% of the land. They can't just take the existing land from people. I do like your idea and I described a plan below for land reform by replacing our tax system to a land tax to capture economic rent. It is a realistic way to move in the direction you want to head to.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.

What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.

This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.

This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

You did not recommend "Future By Design" before, and for you to think that you did appears to me to be evidence of sock puppetry. And I didn't realize that you were a member of the Zeitgeist cult until your latest post. You guys really have taken over this thing, haven't you?

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

If you look under the title of this post, the only thing I have written there is a link to http://newpracticesnewworld.blogspot.com/. As what I was trying to say was apparently too long for this message board. If you actually read what I was trying to propose to you, which obviously you didn't, you would see at the bottom of that post that I did in fact recommend that documentary. So what does this appear to you as now? To me it appears to be a bunch of hostile people who literally attack new ideas. Even before you actually know what they are.

And no I am not part of your silly little cult.

[-] 1 points by wallstreettrader (8) 3 years ago

No rent..?? No debt..??

Gary Sage, is that your idea..?? You lurking here, you deadbeat..??

Let me guess, the author has no money and huge debt.

OWS=gimme....gimme....gimme.....gimme....

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Well you guessed wrong. And let me guess, from your name you trade stocks for a living? Isn't that a real deadbeat? You perform a function that benefits only you and has no real world benefit to anyone else. You gamble for a living.

[-] 1 points by keller2012 (10) 3 years ago

Not really. I think that where there's a will, there's a way. If we start asking questions about HOW it could be done, then what I believe we'll get will be solutions.

I can think of a number of alternate incentive systems myself. I'm sure if we open up the floor to the 7 billion people in the world, there would be tons of possible alternate incentive systems.

Maybe YOU'RE not dedicated to the advancement of humanity, but there are quite a few who are.

If you're not interested in participating in the finding of solutions, then why are you here?

[-] 1 points by wallstreettrader (8) 3 years ago

How it can be done..?? Solutions..?? The starting place I like is to be completely out of debt and physically fit. Start there and every task looks easy.

One thing I would like to see here is a discussion about where everyone is with their personal situations, starting with debt. How much credit card debt...how much student loan debt...etc...

The only way you can fix a problem is to master it close to home.

I have a feeling that those who are ranting the loudest here have the biggest debt load they would like to see disappear...

Prove me wrong, please...

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 3 years ago

Actually I belong to several volunteer movements that are dedicated to the overall improvement of humanity. That is why I'm in a position to say what I said. I have experience along this line that covers many decades.

Brighter minds than both of us have tried in vain to figure a better approach to solving this problem. There are libraries dedicated to it. Think of the fact that the greatest minds in all of Russia were dedicated to making this work over several decades. This were not Machiavellians dedicated to destruction of the mother country. They were idealist who really wanted a better system. In the end they found out that the majority of the people will respond only when they are required. The struggle we all face in moving from discomfort to comfort. It's ingrained in our DNA. It's call survival. Take away the discomfort and I've lost my incentive to change.

What you are talking about is a fundamental change in the way we are built.

Why I'm here is to find a real life solution. I see the problem not being more entitlement programs, but government intervention into the natural order of things. There is an answer, but it is very complex and requires a different approach than what we are currently using.... your approach is old and has repeatedly failed....

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

The entirety of the approach I am proposing has never been tried nor considered. It may have parts that are similar to parts in other systems. But the complete system itself has never been tried. In fact a great many people cannot even grasp the concept as they have no prior conceptions of it with which to envision it with. It's as though we come from different worlds.

[-] 1 points by ChicagoT (54) 3 years ago

man I hope your right and you do have the answer... we all do...

[-] 1 points by professor101 (27) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

If you fail to learn from History, then as they say ......

Communism only works on a small-scale when peer pressure is effective. It doesn't work once people lose the capability to invoke peer-pressure, as Russia and others have shown, because then you start to require hierarchy and that's when human-nature kicks-in and you have dealings. So maybe if you could explain how you scale your idea to 350M people and beyond?

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

The system I propose creates a solid foundation beneath us. We would be operating under recognition of the natural world around us and the principles of cause and effect. Primarily it is simply a matter of first telling governments that they will now no longer take anything from anyone ever, nor will they allow others to take from each other. They would be told that they may go about trying to provide their purpose, which is to guide and take care of its citizens while now incorporating those undeniable rights. That would be the first change. The second change is the clarification of the governments role: To ensure the safety and well being of ALL. To do that their job would be clarified so that they understand that their primary focus is guidance for people to be able to produce the 3 essential basics to all citizens at all times: Food and water, Shelter, and Health care. Next would be the practice itself, the daily routine which is the most consequential component. As each smaller unit becomes close to self-sufficient and as each nearly self-sufficient unit integrates with other strong self-sufficient units to provide a communal level of efficiency and production the definition of what we experience here begins to change. It is no longer a defunct government making up excuses to prolong the profiteering and victimization of a faulty system. It is then a matter of maintenance and of enjoying the abundance that is now over flowing for all to enjoy as the entire structure is strong in reality down to each smaller unit which can stand on its own in solidarity if need be without anyone trying to take anything from them. With each smaller unit being solid and independent if needed, the exchange between us all would change. These solid independent units would not have to be independent but can be. With this strength coming from each part a collection of abundance can be produced from the various parts and dispersed among the people. So this would be units of solidarity acting in independent practice, while integrating with a collective that creates a cooperative of goods and services that overflow from one unit to the next. Essentially it would look like working independently to produce for yourself and others, while they do the same for you. And what would be produced would be units of practice that can fall back on their own self-sustaining unit, which can then add to the abundance created from still more strong self-sustaining units to create a truly strong production system. One that is actually prepared on so many levels to ensure the safety and well being of all.

[-] 1 points by Futurevision1 (-75) 1 year ago

Same old utopian bullshit.... Grow up.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

Progress is not utopia and it is a lot better than sitting in the filth of this absolutely pathetic system and environment produced by that system. And if we are giving suggestions than I have one for your kind as well... Die off.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

www.thevenusproject.com , www.zeitgeistmovie.com

All efforts should be in support of the immediate implementation of The Venus Project and the transition to a Resource Based Economy. We must demand a representative representing a Resource Based Economy run for every election in every state and country for every election possible until it is achieved globally.

www.thevenusproject.com , www.zeitgeistmovie.com

[-] 1 points by salvador (4) 3 years ago

Do not measure poorness or richness by economic means. Being poor or rich has got to do with opportunities and choices. That is waht is wrong right now, its the fact that choices and opportunities have been diminished by the choices that have been taken for us by the "ruling classes" and by that I mean the economic ruling classes, not the political ones. I beleive the movement is not fighing for CASH, its fighting for fair opportunities and the power of choice. The world has becomed globalized, and instead of bringing us together, its tearing us apart. That is what this is all about, fairness.

[-] 1 points by salvador (4) 3 years ago

Do not measure poorness or richness by economic means. Being poor or rich has got to do with opportunities and choices. That is waht is wrong right now, its the fact that choices and opportunities have been diminished by the choices that have been taken for us by the "ruling classes" and by that I mean the economic ruling classes, not the political ones. I beleive the movement is not fighing for CASH, its fighting for fair opportunities and the power of choice. The world has becomed globalized, and instead of bringing us together, its tearing us apart. That is what this is all about, fairness.

[-] 1 points by salvador (4) 3 years ago

Do not measure poorness or richness by economic means. Being poor or rich has got to do with opportunities and choices. That is waht is wrong right now, its the fact that choices and opportunities have been diminished by the choices that have been taken for us by the "ruling classes" and by that I mean the economic ruling classes, not the political ones. I beleive the movement is not fighing for CASH, its fighting for fair opportunities and the power of choice. The world has becomed globalized, and instead of bringing us together, its tearing us apart. That is what this is all about, fairness.

[-] 1 points by salvador (4) 3 years ago

Do not measure poorness or richness by economic means. Being poor or rich has got to do with opportunities and choices. That is waht is wrong right now, its the fact that choices and opportunities have been diminished by the choices that have been taken for us by the "ruling classes" and by that I mean the economic ruling classes, not the political ones. I beleive the movement is not fighing for CASH, its fighting for fair opportunities and the power of choice. The world has becomed globalized, and instead of bringing us together, its tearing us apart. That is what this is all about, fairness.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 3 years ago

First of all, no one has a "right" to anything. Let's just get that straight as a premise right now. You want to eat and have shelter, you need to trade your labor in return for it. Can't or won't? Too bad. Resources by their very nature are "scarce" and therefore not everyone can have everything they want. And it is better that way. For if we were born with the right to everything we want, why would we bother working? Where's the incentive?

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 3 years ago

?? Why shouldn't people be paid for giving services. I'm a liberal but this is pure communism. This will fail too

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I never said anything about people not being compensated for their services. I'm proposing alternative methods of incentive and alternative processes that seek to eliminate the practices of eviction and homelessness.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 3 years ago

Oh yeah I'm sorry thought you were just saying free housing. My bad

[-] 1 points by OLLAG (84) 3 years ago

You got yourself into debt not me so why should I fix it?

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 3 years ago

You can only own the space you #occupy.

And money should not be debt.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Right on, and no one else can own the space you occupy.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 3 years ago

And no one can charge you a fee for the space you occupy.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 3 years ago

You might be interested in the idea of a land tax. While what you have written is well intentioned, you don't provide a realistic way to implement it. Your goal of giving everyone the right to a home would be achieved through capturing economic rent from a land tax. Under this system nobody would be entitled to the rental value of land but instead the rental value would be taxed 100% and replace the current tax system. Instead of the rent going to one individual, it will be used to fund social projects such as transportion, energy, health care, etc.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.

What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.

This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.

This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Thank you for providing one of the few intelligible posts that I have seen.

I am still only at the point of just trying to crack open the door of this concept to people, I haven't even gotten into the details of it but people seem very closed minded. It's a shame too as the key concepts that can bring about beneficial changes are incorporated here.

These concepts may assist in whole or in part and may be variations or collective progressions of things mentioned. The idea is to get the ball rolling on what is causing calamity and how to solve it.

I have heard the idea of a community tax and aspects of that may be worth considering. For example a variation on that idea may be something like a tax that is paid in the form of crop production by a community. The excess or target amount of a community crop could be exported as a form of community tax.

That's an idea that may assist in whole or part, maybe a version or progression of similar concepts would be a helpful thing to consider.

This hardly seems like a medium through which to share and discuss these concepts though. It's a very odd group here. They seem to want to defend the ways they have been doing things much more than change them.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 3 years ago

I have learned over time that being closed minded will only inhibit your learning process. I've learned a lot over the years by listening to ideas that aren't exactly part of the status quo. Good luck and I hope you can get your ideas out there!

[-] 1 points by kennyrw (92) from Salem, OR 3 years ago

Parts of your idea have been tryed before. Government housing has been made availible for a long time mostly at dramatically reduced rates.

What happens is nobody takes care of the complex or houses, what is the incentive? When one place is torn up just move to the next place.

[-] 1 points by DocWatson (109) 3 years ago

Seems more prudent to eliminate rent first, gauge the results, then start eliminating other forms of debt.

[-] 1 points by Jelm430 (87) 3 years ago

People looking out for each other is called society,getting credits (Money) for your work is called a pay check.this society of farming does exist its called communes there all over the country. I don't think this is government working for the people but an out and out revolution where its end point is your utopia will be others dystopia.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 3 years ago

Huh... "By providing the Basic Three people will become independant"... me thinks there's a logic flaw in that.

[-] 1 points by 1111observer1111 (1) 3 years ago

To begin with I will say that I am against violence and any actions that end in the breaking of the rule of law, protests can be successful without such behavior. However with that note now behind me I would like to say that one of the most important points that this protest has made is in the form of the right to a gaurenteed income for those making fewer than forty thousand dollars a year. If one were to dismantle the current welfare system and replace it with a basic stipend for all within such parameters then those who are either in poverty or completely homeless can be afforded their right to live. Unlike what the opposition spouts, the idea that such a benefit would eliminate the desire to work is laughable. With our basic needs met we can then be left to pursue work for what we want rather than the endless cycle of working only as a means to survive. With the incentive to work only for the right to live extinguished we can then achieve the goals that have been shattered by reality, left to put what funds we obtain not into the ever inflating expenditures of food and rent but in the dreams we all share. Also to those who claim that they rose to reach the American dream, coming from nothing and somehow now emerging as millionaires I will say that is not thanks to your own doings but rather a serious of fortunate events. Equal work does not mean equal pay in this country. We can work eighty hours a week at three jobs and emerge with nothing but a portion of food and an eviction notice on our door while the stock broker next door works four hours a day and makes one thousand times more. This is the truth, a sorry state of affairs for a country that guarantees the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness when as things stand the bulk of the country can barely meet the first so called inalienable right.

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 3 years ago

You missed the point - I have no problem with people making lots of money as long as they do it in a way that do it in a way that does not compromise our political system. What we really need is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM if we are to break the cycle of legalized bribery we have today. It needs to be THE main goal of these protests. Right now our "representatives" are the lap dogs of the corporations and special interests.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 3 years ago

Ok hope you never plan on buying a house. Because if you plan on buying a house without rent or debt, you're most likely in the 1%.

What a horrible suggestion.

[-] 1 points by Cyclops08 (31) from Carlisle, IA 3 years ago

Another way of asking for a free pony.

Lesson. What the govt gives, the govt can take away. I do not want to give the govt power to take away my property.

free rent? Forgive all debt? Who's gonna pay for all that? The working man thats who. There are not enough rich people to pay for everyone's My Little Pony.

NO. You can't have a pony. NO free rent. If you incur debt, pay it off like everyone else!

I am sympathetic to the cause but demands like this are just...ignorant.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

If Vermin Supreme gets elected than it will prove your no free pony theory false after all. You don't want to give the government power to take away your property? Have you ever heard of Foreclosure? Rent and Debt are ideas, they are not real so no one has to pay for anything. Paying for Rent and Debt are all intangible make believe things that are not real unless you perform actions which state that they are. The only thing that needs to be real are systems which produce the essentials of life and makes those things abundant for all. Make that real and the arguments over those not real things you make real can cease. I do not want a free pony. I want the ponies to be free.

[-] 1 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 3 years ago

I don't really agree with this entirely - but, to those who would say, "take an economics class", or something along those lines. Maybe you should take biology, with a little ecology and climatology. I just love how people use economics to assert fundamental reasons for why something is impractical. Yet, economics is really a dismal science - and its fundamental flaw is that in its current form, it's diametrically opposed to natural systems. This type of behavior is self defeating, and has no long term viability.

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 3 years ago

Uhhhhhh, okay. Either dumbest or most self-serving post of the week. I guess you pay rent and have acquired debt. Guess what, if we eliminate both aren't you screwing over the owners of you apt and those who lent you money? Unless this movement is just all about you.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

The only way this would have anything to do with just me is if I were the only one with rent and debt. This system is rigged so that we are supposed to be owned by those things throughout our lives. No, not having my existence leached upon by building owners would not be screwing them over as they themselves are alleviated from that same game. They too are free of the shackles of the ideas of rent and debt.

By providing a system that does not allow for the conditions in which rent and debt can be practiced. A system that allows the individual to be stable at every level of it.

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 3 years ago

OMG....that makes no sense. Debt is good, it is the seeds that grow into business and careers.

[-] 1 points by Frederick (37) 3 years ago

Yes, No more Rent no more Dept...

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

another way of saying that is "What is yours is mine". Well, it's not!!!

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Than you missed a primary point: This is a system designed around the only true universal law of morality: No one should ever TAKE from another. The only thing that is yours that is mine: have you ever heard the phrase this land is your land, this land is my land? We share the same needs and the same sources for those needs. Food and water, shelter and medical care. Only in your system even if you work as hard as you can those things are not insured and may very well be taken from you even as you struggle to keep them.

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

utopia, utopia utopia, utopia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lmao

[-] 0 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

starving children, homelessness, corporate crime, war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao, but not really

No, you will always have suffering. It is part of the human condition and part of the universal balance of pleasure and pain. You should be gracious and respectful to those in pain as they are providing a service to all in the conceptual maintenance of perceptual boundaries. We all help with this work eventually and in various ways. Without pain there is no pleasure just as without dark there is no light, etc.

You will never have a complete utopia for everyone at all times without any form of suffering or else the structure which supports the existence of those perceptions would cease to exist.

You can however do all that you can to solve for and alleviate that suffering as despite your best efforts to do so there will still be suffering in the world. It would not hurt to make that suffering less if you have the power to do so.

[-] 1 points by RepetitiousHistory (9) 3 years ago

What I fail to understand is this: if everybody is so worried about our country why do half the people in this movement advocate views that are so blatantly Socialist? We are a Democratic Republic. We always have been. Socialism and Communism are two of the fastest ways to destroy a country yet all these demands are pretty much begging for those forms of government. And please, be realistic...eliminate rent and debt? While you're at it why don't you abolish any monetary system whatsoever? If debt is eliminated currency is completely pointless. Everybody shares everything so nobody ever owes money and that ladies and gentlemen is Socialism at its finest.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Wow, in interacting with you people I am beginning to recognize something. You will not have any meaningful change in your world in your lifetime. You are like a president. You talk and talk but in the end you don't say anything. By saying eliminate RENT and DEBT I am giving you the most stripped down version of the concept as a catch phrase. If I were in a position to have demands, these would be my demands in their most basic form. There are systems of regulation that go along with them but they are not presented here in this basic form. To get a brief glimpse of systemic practices that go along with that system please read the bottom of the first post at http://newpracticesnewworld.blogspot.com/ . But I suppose after this many years of snapping my fingers in front of dull eyes I am getting tired of trying to interact with such people. Whatever you call yourself, Democratic Republic, Capitalist, Socialist, Communist; whatever 'ism' that governs your perceptions because it existed before and is thus all you can conceive: they are all failures. The governing body set forth in the rules of your Democratic Republic has produced a life experience for the individual that I would describe as nothing less than an 'evil' thing to do to human beings. To say that the system that I propose would not work is to say that your food is not provided to you daily by God from the land. It is and your systems of Rent and Debt are nothing more than your rejection of the simple gift that has been given to you. I don't believe everyone should have to share everything all the time. However you already do share many things, like your homes as in when you move out and someone else moves in. And I am not saying everything should be free. I am saying to rethink incentive and to provide rules where people cannot get themselves into trouble. How do people wind up with debt? By being given things they cannot afford now that they will pay for later, namely mortgage, credit cards, and automobiles. I am saying to incorporate a system of incentive that does away with the practice of getting a thing you cannot afford. Without RENT or DEBT the pace of life changes. You are not put in a do or die position every day and you can wait on those items as your shelter is guaranteed and so is your food, water and health care. No one in this system owes anything unless you want something, then you purchase only what you can afford while at the same time if you can't afford anything you always come back to a solid foundation where no one is trying to take from you what you have.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

Rep.......the abolishment of the monetary system is elsewhere on this site!!! And we can sit in circles and sing!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by keller2012 (10) 3 years ago

This kind of thing needs to be done on a small scale first probably. One idea I have had for a while is the establishment and build-out of NEW cities/towns that are designed from the ground up with new economic and social and incentive models in place. Causing an entire existing city or town to go to a rent-free model will be tough without at least having a working model in place.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Sure, this would take the guidance of many very smart people. Please check out the documentary 'Future By Design' by Jacque Fresco. Your present leaders would be practically useless in such an undertaking. That which I am trying to describe to you can happen in a single day. It is simply a matter of incorporating the one universal law of morality in the universe: One should never TAKE from another against their will. One should never take of another's body without permission, their property, or their right to choose. Your systems operate fully on the foundation of taking from others constantly. To not take of others is the only true law that exists and you all live saturated in true sin. The only thing I am really saying is to create a system that never takes of others. I am saying to create a system that abides by the one universal law of morality in every way. In one day the rules can be changed to state clearly, "You will not take anything from anyone under any circumstance." Since your systems operate on forcefully taking from people you would have to come up with systems to regulate how to provide all of the things you want and need without taking from anyone. That can happen in a single day, the systems can be worked on and smoothed out in time. It is simply a matter of abiding by the one universal law and incorporating it into the rules of governance so that even governments must abide by that law. They then will be forced to come up with alternatives for incentive and punishment other than taking away your basic rights.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 3 years ago

I have said this about libertarian-ism/anarchy for a while now.

[-] 1 points by TheKing (93) 3 years ago

Things you OWSers should occupy:

  • An basic economics classroom
  • A library; read the Constitution
  • Rehab: get off the drugs and pot
  • A Brooks Brothers outlet: you can't get a job unless you cover your tats, piercings, etc. with a nice interview suit
  • A shower stall; you stink. I was down there. Yech!
[-] 2 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Listen to you! You try to make yourself out to appear as 'smart' while at the same time assuming that because my beliefs are different than yours that I must fall into the categories you've described. What is hilarious is that you try to make yourself appear 'superior' to me because you are in full defense of what is in actuality a dead dinosaur. Your economics class why to learn the mechanics of a failed system? Your constitution why to learn the rules of a failed system? Rehab? No I am in control of myself. Brooks Brothers? I don't have any tats or piercings and have many suits as I've worked for an investment firm for years. And a shower stall? Again if any of your people are living in poor standards it is all your fault for supporting a system that would ever allow such a level of degradation to be available in the human experience. Truly it is you that has failed in what you have supported, your lack of creative intelligence, and what you have allowed as the standards in which your fellow human beings will live.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

I refuse to believe that a person who worked at an investment firm for years would come up with a proposal to abolish debt and rent. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Well I didn't start out that way. I started out with my beliefs and vowed to hold to them. It wasn't until I lost everything including my family and spent years being forced to wander in conditions like living in my car, to going from apartment to apartment which to me is a form of homelessness did I decide to go against my beliefs and then I let your system have its way with me. Then after years of chasing the green dragon I realized that yes I was right in the first place. Believing in trying to succeed in your world is a pipe dream.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

This is the clearest admission that I've seen so far from one of the people with a radical idea for replacing the entire system, that they want a new system because they haven't been successful under the current system. To me, it's always implicit. But to hear it stated so explicitly is interesting.

If we abolish debt then you'll never be able to afford a house, since financing things won't be possible. So you'll always live in apartments. Ahh and so that's why you want to abolish rent too, eh? So then why would anybody ever build a new building?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

LULZ techjunkie, you still come on this site just to stir trouble? Hahahaha love it. You must be really busy at the job you supposedly have. You have enough time just to come to a site to argue with people?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

Yes, arguing with idiots on the Internet has always been a part of my daily routine.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

Get a job you hippie!

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 3 years ago

I have a job it is sitting here fighting the EEvul rich people who stole my money somehow the mortgage industry. Damn you Bill Gates

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

That comment was aimed at techjunkie... but Bill Gates?

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 3 years ago

After he funded 9/11 he bought George Bush

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

hmmmm... credible sources?

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Yawn... how do you measure success? How can you tell me whether or not I have been or am presently successful? How successful are you? How can that be measured? I have been successful. I have lived in multiple large homes that I payed for. Maybe I am successful now, how would you be able to tell? I have shelter, I have food. I am not constantly suffering. But it does keep coming back to that. I can only get so far and then the smallest hiccup can send the entire thing into a tailspin. I recover from it and am I then successful again in your definition? Because I fight my way back from what your system tries to do to me in those times? I worked for an investment firm at one point and then the firm went under. Is that my fault? Was I successful when it was doing good but now I am not successful because a company then did bad? Is that me? Is that what I am? Is the company's success my value as a person and should I be treated poorly if it fails? According to you the answer is yes.

After that company failed suddenly I suddenly lost my home, I then had to fight my way back from living out of a car through the winter while waking up in parking lots to see someone standing next to the car door trying to get in. I could have been killed. And is that what I get because a company I worked so hard for failed?

So essentially to you I am just a micro bit of the company I work for and as the company goes so to is the standard of treatment I should expect.

I don't think so. I am not a company nor can you properly measure my intentions or deeds. Since you cannot measure those things I advise that you write into your systems a measure by which a standard is put in place that ensures the Horrible experiences I have had in your world do not happen to anyone else.

You are in no way safe from those experiences yourself in your system.

And you obviously don't understand what I am presenting to you here as there is nothing stopping you from having a house. And there is plenty of incentive in building a new building. What there isn't are a bunch of vultures at the dinner table who will benefit off of the creation of that building just because it will now support a life.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 3 years ago

That was a whole lot of self-defense and very little consideration of the questions: how could anybody build or buy a house in a world without financing? And why would anybody build a house for anybody but themselves?

My grandmother tells stories about how after WWII, my grandfather bought lumber and building supplies in small purchases, paycheck to paycheck, and they slowly built a house. And that all of the post-war houses in that town are so small because that's how everybody did it. Nobody used a mortgage. That sounds wonderful and sensible, but in a world like that, with no rent and no financing, everybody would have to build their own house. Can you build a house?

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I never said anything about everyone having to build their own houses. There is not a single service nor product that now exists that would not exist in the system I have proposed. Mostly I am saying to leave people alone when it is that your system is not providing adequate means for them to participate in society. To not come after them and take what little they have when you have already not provided enough in the first place! And to go one further and build into the rules of your systems laws that ensure that all individuals will have the basics of survival under any circumstance. It is that system and the people whom that system would protect that I am defending. But you clearly aren't even close to comprehending what I have hinted to you here.

[-] 1 points by keller2012 (10) 3 years ago

You obviously have never learned to think beyond your own little mind-prison.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

If you are referring to me than that is a poor statement. I fully understand your faulty system. I fully understand where most of everyone's thoughts come from in these discussions, those being other faulty systems that have already been tried, and I fully understand those systems. And look at your world. Daily war, starvation, homelessness, murder, and misery. I understand your system. I am trapped in the literal and physical prison of the ignorance of your systems. Now do you understand the system I am proposing? If so please state one aspect of the concepts I propose and why. The thing is I had to step outside of the box of all of your regurgitated perceptions of the world in order to attain that information. My mind is anything but a prison, but your world is.

[-] 1 points by RepetitiousHistory (9) 3 years ago

Keller2012 quick question, if you're against the earning of money and our economic system, how do you expect to fund your Presidential campaign? And if by some miracle you were elected, what happens with your $400,000+ yearly salary? Since you "earned" that money and are against that practice will you just give it away??

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

This goes to show you just how extremely far apart we are in our perceptions of things. If I were president? Now that's a hoot. First of all if I were president there would be no more presidents. Not because I would remain in power, but because power would be dispersed into the enormous think tank that is the people. The president is like a faulty switch in an otherwise highly functional machine. If I were president the first thing I would do is come down off my high horse and bring on about 10 other people to form the first Council. This Council does not go home until the job is done. This Council does not sleep until every man, woman and child has food and water, shelter and medical care. This Council is a diffusal of the egocentricism that is your presidency. Every year when I watch you elect a president I get dizzy and fall over because I can't stop rolling my eyes. You get a bunch of people up there who don't have to say anything substantial at all but the masses of people clap so hard and long after nearly every sentence they say. And then when elected they don't change a single thing in the real world. It's just ridiculous. I am not against 'earning' something for your efforts. I am against others taking from you. I still believe people should be recognized for their efforts and earn a type of compensation for the good things they do. However this is a form of credit that is given as an allowance to you to have the rights to purchase or do certain things. Your money is a life threat that promises to strip you of your very dignity at every possible turn. As far as the money being paid to a president, if you incorporated the rules of eliminating RENT and DEBT into your systems I would not need that money. No one could tell me my value or worth as no one could judge me for not having a thing like shelter or food. I would always have shelter and no one would be coming after me to pay up because they too are not going without anything. That would be the only form of compensation that I would require. You can keep your money.

[-] 1 points by misunderstood101 (68) from Los Angeles, CA 3 years ago

maybe the title means ...all people have the right to housing regardless of income... and eliminate all current debt...wipe the slate clean and start this over right??

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

No! Wrong! Do not start this over it has failed! Yes it means all people have the right to housing regardless of income and it means to stop incorporating the concept of debt into your systems permanently. Eliminate RENT and DEBT. The way to do this is to alter the way in which currency and credit are used. When I use the word 'credit' I use it in place of the word money. We are given credit in recognition for our work or our good deeds. When you use the word 'credit' you use it as a precursor to debt. I am saying that the concept of money is changed so that you are never put into a position where you have the ability to accumulate any form of debt. As stated above in another post: That which gets you into the most debt are your mortgage, your credit cards, and your automobiles. You can throw other things in there too like your education, etc. This practice is just sick. Having your lives owned because of these silly, stupid little objects. You can rise up as dignified co-inhabitants; citizens of an appreciative culture that you can have appreciation for. Instead you spend all of your time trying to make up for something. Wasting your time burning circles of repetition trying to come up with something to give to others to keep them at bay. I am saying to eliminate those interactions by eliminating the practices that caused them to be. In the system I propose you are always on solid ground. You always have your primary rights and no one can take them from you. You always have the basics required for survival as they are your rights as a citizen. Shelter, food and water, medical care. If you want a new car or a bigger home or some other new toy but do not have the credit for it than you would have to wait a little bit and work toward it. You would not get it right away and be put into debt. Instant gratification may have to take a back seat and in its place may have to be working toward goals. Essentially in this system your basic rights are never threatened so you have the time to work towards those things in safety. And you are never in debt as you cannot purchase a thing you do not have the credit for but that relationship to not immediately getting a thing you want will never be occurring in the arena of your basic needs like they are now.

[-] 1 points by RepetitiousHistory (9) 3 years ago

Follow the link and read it...not a clean slate, a new economic system without rent or debt. The abolishment of Capitalism. Because thats going to help.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 3 years ago

Remember Animal Farm?????? All Animals are Equal Some Animals are More Equal Than Others Until you figure out how to make every. person. on. this. earth. think exactly the same way, your utopia will not work. Maybe drugs like Soma would work, like in Brave New World. There will always be people trying to get ahead, wanting more than others, being HUMAN. In every society through history, you see the trading of shells, beads, wampum, sheckels, whatever you want to trade, for other goods or services. You ain't gonna change human nature.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

Well this is becoming absurd. I expect discussion and even opposition. I expect a new theory to be put to the test and for many points of opposition to arise. I would expect that and even welcome it as a means by which to bring up new topics to consider and other points to discuss. This is an extensive topic and no solution will come to be that affects one part that does not affect every other part of the system. That is why what is required becomes a complete practice, a complete system change as to change one part every other part will be affected.

But in talking to you here it appears this method of communication is ineffectual. Not only have I not written in detail each aspect of this system but even the aspects which have been briefly gone into on this very page are overlooked by people who then come in and argue a point that I have already addressed in a manner which shows that they have not taken the time to read those posts or even the posts which describe aspects of the system I proposed.

It is obvious that you must be taking a quick glance, you hear an element which may be similar to another system you have heard of, and then you throw the whole thing into that category and begin assailing it as such.

For example the post above about people wanting more than others. Elsewhere on this very page I discussed how a doctor should have more than someone who doesn't do much for others. An incentive program that provides more to those who do more.

Yet with come backs like the animal farm one above it is clear that you don't have a grasp on the processes of what has been proposed to you here. But that doesn't stop you from categorizing it into something you already have a category for and bashing it.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 3 years ago

What I'm telling you is, humans are humans. Because we have brains and can think, you will never be able to make everyone think the same way. You can have a dictatorship and force everyone to act the same way, but the wheels are turning inside those brains and they are figuring out how to get out from under the dictatorship. How many times has government been re-written & re-invented through the ages, and yet it turns out the same every time. Some have more, some have less, some have none, because we are humans. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to be better, to serve others, to help those who have less. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, all those ism's have tried to direct humans in a more sympathetic behavior pattern for centuries and they help. But that's a one-person-at-a-time change and about the time progress is made, a new generation is born and you have to start over. I think it is naive & unrealistic to think you are going to change human behavior. Sorry if you consider that bashing your idea, that was not my intent.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

No I don't consider it bashing my idea, you are discussing a valid point and I can appreciate that. I am not trying to change human behavior either. What I was trying to do was help you to see how your environment is the result of cause and affect. It is the result of what people are doing based upon what they think they have to do per the rules of the system. What I am saying is that you can alleviate most human suffering and stop rampant irresponsibility towards the environment by simply adjusting some of those rules.

The system I propose has enough parts similar to Capitalism to make it seem much like it. What has changed is the rules that dictate what human behavior will be towards other humans when it is that they encounter those rules. Right now you practice death threats by proxy. You say, 'we won't kill you directly.' But if you fail in our system we will take everything you have away from you and kick you out onto the streets where you will quite possibly die. At the same time that system has no accountability towards the means by which it will ensure the provision of those sources that are required to remain stable within it. Basically it does not provide or ensure jobs but says that you had better have one. What happens in those rules with an increasing population and fewer jobs to go around? Is your solution more homelessness? Are people left to just die off in the street at that time? Is that going to be your solution when this system encounters that scenario?

Essentially I'm saying that with a different environment and different rules and a different communal and survival practice, human behavior will be allowed to change and just might become something more at peace with itself and its environment.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 3 years ago

That is my point about Animal Farm. The rules were changed to be fair to everyone....except there were a few who didn't want to follow the rules, and they became the ones with power. I just read a book about China after the Peoples Revolution. The rules were changed to benefit everyone...except for those who didn't want to follow the rules & wanted more power. People in the communes were working their fingers to the bone & literally starving, while the leaders of the commune ate well every day & slept in comfortable beds. HOW do you orchestrate a complete change of human behavior to come about so that no one wants (or is able) to gain that power? And how do you pass that change to the next generations, how do you keep natural human behavior from taking over? It has been seen century after century, power-revolution-equalization-power-revoluation-equalization. Honestly, how do you do that?

Can you give me a practical example of what you are thinking? For instance, I own three sections of land. 640 acres x 3. My family has worked for years to own it, bought it acre by acre, paid taxes, worked the land, built fences, cleared brush, etc. In your world, would I be allowed to keep that? Would your world say I have to give part of it away because I have too much? Or would you say I have to let people live on it rent/debt free? How would this work in your vision?

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

In the system I propose one of the fundamental principles is in the creation of rules that adhere to the one universal law of morality: To not Take from another. Governments themselves would have to abide by that rule and learn how to accomplish their tasks while not taking from others nor instructing or allowing people to forcefully take from one another.

So to answer your question: No you would not have to give up your land or anything that you own. Nor would you have to have someone else tell you what to do with your land.

But I'm also not saying that everyone gets their own plot of land as I saw someone saying in another post on this page. I did say that everyone gets their own room. As in, as a citizen everyone is entitled to start out with and fall back on a minimum allowance of that which is needed to survive that no one can take away from them.

The system that I propose is easily convertible into from present systems. It can happen in a single day. It is simply a matter of adjusting the rules to alter the incentive and consequential behaviors of what those who assume control are allowed to do.

Outwardly it would appear that nothing has changed as each product and service you now have is still available. The key change is the consequence and incentive program for participating in available work or not participating. In the system I propose if at any point you choose not to participate in the work that is available no one will be coming after you or your family to take you from your home or disrupt you in any way.

You are not committing a crime just because you may feel tired for a time and not wish to participate. If there are people who never want to participate that is fine. They will not be given anything for free other than the basics of food and water, shelter and health care.

If their shelter is beyond basic than they got there by earning that room level and if they stop at a certain level no one can move them down from that level and no one can tell them to leave or give up their room. Additionally that room can go with them wherever they choose to go by them giving up their room to have access to that same room level elsewhere.

As far as conversion from this system to that it would be recognized that there would be a transitional generation and that special rules would need to be applied in order to orchestrate that conversion.

For example your home and your land are yours. You can keep that home and land in your family line as long as your descendants choose to stay there. The rooms in your house can be handed down generation to generation to family members by incorporating into the rules of housing a priority given to the former room owner to choose who they would like to have the room if in fact that person wants that room.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

So the order in which a rooms occupant would be determined would be 1. Generational choice 2. Next in queue on a waiting list 3. Open room

When I speak of shelter in this system I refer to each standard unit of housing as a 'room'. Each 'room' should have access to all amenities of life either within the room or in local access to it.

This definition allows 'rooms' to be classified wherever they are. Whether they are stand alone studios, units in an apartment building, or rooms in a house. You can still own your home just as you always have, by purchasing and upgrading multiple 'local room' accounts you can buy every room in a house and have 100% ownership of it.

In other scenarios, similar to the room mate concept which is common in present systems, a person could choose to inhabit a room in a house with other rooms inhabited by perhaps friends. Each room is 'owned' by the person who inhabits it. Shared spaces like living rooms are 'owned' equally by the room inhabitants.

So those are two ways of looking at housing, in one scenario you have a home and every room in the home are yours. In another scenario you have a room in a home and you share that home equally with other inhabitants. This is of course a matter of choice. Some people choose to live with other people for various reasons.

So in a transitional generation it would possibly look like nothing has changed at first. Everyone would immediately be upgraded to match what it is they now have so that they can keep that without question. Large apartment complexes and unique housing structures can then be erected which can be composed of mostly level 1 rooms so that anyone who is now homeless or without a room can move into a level 1 room. All other rooms in all structures could then be classified and categorized and entered into a system that tracks rooms like addresses on houses. Again no one is ever told to leave their room or asked to give up what they have. This categorization would be for future generations who may look at your structures a little bit differently than you do now.

Your generations are weighted, literally held down by your structures or your relationship to the concept of shelter. Future generations who have a practice similar to those I've described may be less attached to any one room in particular and may choose to intentionally move to different locations throughout their lives.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

So to summarize, your home would still be your home and can stay in your family as long as you like. However somewhere down the line a more advanced culture may arise and those future descendants of yours may choose not to occupy those rooms any longer. That would be okay and they would be free to move from that place at will. They would also be free to move back if it is available or if they then put their name on a queue. Can you see how different practices can create a different relationship to the things in the environment?

And as you say about the metaphors in Animal Farm, 'how do we curb corruption?' I would say that it is a matter of creating clear definitions of roles. The governments of the world have their role confused. Somehow they were allowed to become corrupted again and again by the ulterior motives of maintaining control by controlling wealth. This has been allowed by the generational ignorance of the people in going along with various groups definition of what wealth is and where it comes from. One day a generation of people will rise up with the lessons of history behind them and the cognizance to clearly recognize just what is of value and where actual wealth comes from. It comes from TIME and the GROUND. It does not come from government intervention or anything that the government supposedly provides. It comes from natural resources and the only thing required of a thing like government is the regulation and maintenance of the systems required to do the most good for all with the resources available.

Again and again governments become corrupt because again and again they are allowed to confuse their role. Eventually enough recognition and foresight will be available to the human race as to no longer allow for that to happen without it being blatantly obvious. When the government is doing its job it will be a teacher, a guide, and orchestrator of a daily symphony that allows this Abundance Machine to properly overflow. In that environment there is not a daily argument over debt as it is a system of allowance in an environment of abundance.

There's more to it of course, other suggestions that I would have for you. From setting up a Council which is comprised of elected 'thinkers' who serve the purposes of conflict resolution and as guides. But they are linked to the people through an incentive based 'think tank' program that is given goals and initiatives to compete for in the advancement of any specific field that needs to be improved. The think tank is comprised of everyone and it is fed topics and based upon approval percentages, ideas can rise to the surface to be given more attention and can eventually be voted on.

This is an ongoing topic and I'll wrap it up for now but essentially the people would be the government in the form of their progressive thoughts as they work collectively to advance concepts and fields of study to determine the future application of various sciences.

[-] 0 points by NonParticipant (151) 3 years ago

Thank you for your discussion. I would have to see this working in action to believe it could happen, as I can't see human beings ever thinking along the same lines enough to make it work. Meds or sheer force are the only ways I see getting people to all think in the same direction. I wish you well, and you can come live with us on my 3 sections of land if it comes to pass!!

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

Sorry, not buying it. One off the fundamental truths this country was founded upon was property rights. I don't get my philosophies from a song. This country may be both yours and mine, but my land is my land.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I mean that metaphorically. As in the machine that produces the elements you need for survival is the land itself. We have that in common. The need for this 'otherwise' Abundance Engine to produce its abundance so that we have what we need to survive. I am all for you and everyone having their own space, if you have earned the right to your own land than in that case your own land. The difference is, in present systems your land can be repossessed if you don't keep up with property taxes. In another system you cannot lose what you have earned as no one has the right or the power to take it from you for any reason. So in actuality you would have more rights to what is yours in the system proposed than you do now.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 3 years ago

But you would live in a system of no laws other than complete property rights. I am a conservative who believes in a smaller government, but I recognize that taxes need to be paid for those services the government needs to provide. If you don't pay your taxes, then like any debt, you may lose some or all of what you have.

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 3 years ago

I never said anything about not having laws. I believe an individuals rights are the most important thing and the whole purpose of civilization has been a collective attempt at ensuring the well being of all of its citizens.

The concept of taxes seem to continue to propagate this idea that the government is somehow separate from us. They are people just like everyone else attempting to do a job. How well they do that job is anyone's opinion.

However they are not separate from us nor are any of the services they provide no matter how much they would like to think so or try to be. To say you don't pay taxes seems to simultaneously mean you think that a thing will not be done. But who is doing it? People are doing it. People are providing those services and it is people getting it done. Not taxes, not tax money but people.

If you have the hands than it is your will that it be done. People will do those things if they are compensated for doing so. It is a systemic decision that determines whether compensation will flow to people who provide a service. You simply do as you are now and employ people to perform those services.

The only difference is in 'where' you think that energy which says, 'we will support you in doing a thing, in supporting your survival with compensation' comes from.

Either money in a debt based system or credit in an allowance based system. What is the difference? Money relates to an object. It began as the measurement of an amount of a solid object. A rock perhaps or a shiny stone. It is common belief that there is only so much of it just as there is only so much in resources.

Yet that which we truly need is abundant and can manifest everywhere if you let it. That which we truly need like food and water and the concept of shelter are plentiful and plenty should be available for all. When a thing is in such abundance how then do you measure its value? Does it need to be measured?

Credit in another system is given to people for doing various things in a sort of recognition that most of what an individual wants does not use up that much in the environment. Most of what people want should either be plentiful or virtual. In this context money which is based on an object, and supposes that a person is a wasteful thing using up resources by just existing but conceived that perception while forcing all people to exist under faulty practice, can give way to a form of credit which is based upon a virtual principle of energy exchange which says to the individual that they may have access to more of the things they enjoy and in recognition that the individual is not wasteful but productive and they generally do not use up that much resources.

This perception is coming from that of practices. Right now we live in debt with money that is based upon an object and surmises that our reusable resources like food are not coming from replenishing sources. Another practice divides the concepts of physical resources and virtual or plentiful resources into two categories. Physical resources would operate on a value scale similar to your stock market but based upon actual supply and demand instead of falsifying value to gamble or whatever the heck you're up to. And virtual resources which are where the value of credit comes from in the first place. It is all mostly virtual!

It's like saying can you put a price on a smile? Or pure happiness? Or time with your family? You can't and giving someone credit for the things they do can be as simple as saying, 'your service when you provide it is worth enough to me to respect you enough to let you have your time and the things you enjoy'. As it is recognized that most people aren't using up that much stuff most of the time. The things that 'consumers' are supposedly consuming most of the time is either virtual or plentiful (or should be).

[-] -1 points by wango (-6) 1 year ago

This is exactly the incredibly juvenile and ignorant ideas we expect from OWS each day. Yes eliminate all debt. That car you bought for 10% down...it's yours..FREE...same goes for your house...It's FREE too...and education....FREE...

Oh wait asshole..That m,eans YOU work for FREE too.

You're all a bunch of fucking morons

[-] 1 points by Reaillusion (43) 1 year ago

See to me it is you that sounds really stupid. Please see: www.thevenusproject.com & www.zeitgeistmovie.com I don't have the time to personally educate you as to what the human race is capable of. Or should we follow you like a lump as you sit there and wait for the next little breeze to come and knock all of our houses down?

[Removed]