Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What if all US occupiers moved to Wyoming?

Posted 2 years ago on May 22, 2012, 8:45 p.m. EST by technocrat626 (0) from Fayetteville, AR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are probably at least a million of us in the US, if not more. If we all moved to a single, non-densely populated state like Wyoming or North Dakota, we would suddenly be 2/3 of the state's electorate. We could implement our policies at the state level and see how they pan out.

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

And the rest of the people who actually lived in Wyoming before you all would hate you all so much, they'd probably chase many of you right out of the state.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Wyoming's pretty friendly

met someone following the Oregon trail in a camper while riding my bicycle through

we had lunch

[-] -1 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

Try spelling Oregon correctly first.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

no t if everyone moved there with their money... and buy the land... and formed a religious order... such as.... http://empiricalchurch.org/home/ as such... it would serve the community...

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

If all Occupiers moved to Wyoming they would all die of cancer from all the fracking taking place in N.Dakota and Wyoming. The water in those areas is poison.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The Maharishi believed that the White House was wrongly situated. He believed that a more suitable location for the capital of the United States was the small town of Smith Center, Kansas.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15606/plan-for-transcendental-meditation-capital-has-kansas-farm-town-on-edge

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Well were not to far look us up.We have plent of horse sh-t for all of you.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2738) 2 years ago

We Need Young People in Office We need to promote someone from our own generation who is focused on these things which so greatly effect us - jobs and outsourcing, affordable housing, social security, the retirement age being pushed off until 74! - most importantly rights of the individual over rights of monopolies - I urge in every people from every state to put forth young candidates people from this protest to represent us on the things which matter most - we can use this forum to promote them get their name out there - get people to rally behind them - time to step up occupy - OCCUPY THE ELECTIONS!!! People under forty literally have no representation at all. We are generation screwed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (24945) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Retirement pushed off till 74 ? They want people dying on the job - instead of letting them have a few years in peace. F'n assholes.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2738) 2 years ago

yep just got pushed up to 67 currently and there has been debate going to raise it to 72-74 (mind you we are also the generation with absolutely zero pension and who's 401k's are being gambled away by banks) Perhaps they will just start to exterminate us when we're elderly and no longer productive enough for Corporate America http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (24945) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

All the more reason for people to unite in common cause. I mean my days in the sun are over - but what in the hell do those of you coming along after me have to look forward to?

White collar greed crime corruption and raping of the world must end.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21611) 2 years ago

All this while the greedy grubbers run off with all the profits earned on the backs of the American workers, half of whom earn less than $26,000 per year.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (24945) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To the tune of the Beach Boys song - Beach Baby.

Oh Trashy bot trashy bot play with yourself ...as there is no one here who believes you..........

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2738) 2 years ago

The government will find an excuse to nuke Wyoming out of existence - duh?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

We'd freeze our asses off surrounded by a lot of hostile shitkickers.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Interesting locational choice. The home of President Cheney, war monger and torturer, CEO of a beneficiary of the massive corruption of the war he created, who is the pioneer of fracking, proud member of the 0.01%.

And a state that is as philosophically aligned with the extractive interests, oil and gas, as you could possibly find, that is hard core GOP territory.

Consider what is likely to happen when you flood the state with the polar opposite of who is there. Remember, if you will, bleeding Kansas flooded with absolitionists next door to a slave state. The idea of putting them all in one state.

Think of Johnson county war when the farmers and sheepherders showed up planning to fence the open range with barbed wire and/or letting the sheep mingle with herds of cattle.

Now, you want Occupy folks to show up in Wyoming or North Dakota which are currently owned and populated by oil and gas or mining people, and have them pass a set of laws that are the exact opposite of what they have now and you don't think they will take notice?

Well you are are from a state who elected a couple of Democratic senators that were more Republican than most Republicans.

I'll bet you have even better ideas than this one?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Others like Tony Brown have had the same idea and have never followed through on it. For a movement like OWS, it would be a great experiment to observe before it fails. Everyone would go all bright-eyed with their great ideas only to see the reality of human nature unfold when faced with only themselves. It's easy to protest problems. It's quite another thing to come to an agreement on how to solve those problems when you finally have the responsibility of enacting laws and living with the consequences.

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

Well, seeing how many of OWS are anti-gun, softy liberals, I don't think you would last long in Wyoming. Besides, if you want to see how American far-left policies work, you can just look to California to see for yourself.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

How about Arizona, home nest of the right-wing nutjobs? It has a greater per capita deficit than California. That must mean the right-wing economic bullshit doesn't really work.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

great ideal, just that 2/3 of us would need a piece of land to call our own also.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Ownership of land is a farce initiated and perpetuated by the bourgeousie and their government puppets. The land belongs to the earth, not to men.

No natural law gives governments the right to patent then sell land to the highest bidder. The time has come for workers around the world to reclaim the land that belongs to them.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I hear a lot of talk about no land ownership, but I don't understand how it works in a practical sense. If there is no ownership, how do I find a spot and build a house for my family? Once I build that house, is there anything to stop someone from building right next door or building where I have my garden? Unfortunately, I think a lot of these communal theories require a level of common respect and civility between people that is quite uncommon these days.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

It works now on many Native American reservations. The land is held by the tribes and use rights are granted, which can be hereditary, based on need and income, which also usually determines housing payments.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

So the government grants use rights, then they can also take them away I assume. The government has control over how land is used - how does this sound like a more stable proposition than land ownership?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

On most reservations, at least the ones with which I'm familiar here in the Southwest, the tribes hold the land. No individual owns the property or the rights, and housing, for the most part, is guaranteed though stable.

The US Government, thankfully, does not own the land, and the BIA has less and less authority on reservations, not by choice; the tribes have fought long and hard in the courts to achieve their present level of autonomy.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

No, we all need a modest apartment or home, depending on how many family members we have... meaning single people do not need huge homes or land, a decent apt would be fine, but a family of 4 with many children would need something larger and access to open spaces to play in...

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Exactly, everyone should be alloted sufficent housing for his or her needs. Survival should not be something, in our society, for which people throw the dice. Basic necessities should be guaranteed to all; luxuries for those willing to expend the extra effort.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

exactly... and with an ARDD system, you can have all the benefits of communism without the oppression, since in an ARDD system, the people rule by direct democracy with elected leaders to run the logistics and advise the people... The problem with Communism, has always been that it still used money. The money aspect, meant that everyone was poor. Money... was invented for control, and if we give it up, those who want power lose all control, and an ARDD system would protect the people on a local level to control their own lives instead of a central dictating government. Please.. adopt this and push it globally.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I don't have a problem with directly elected representatives, if they are rotated through every member of every core unit, or union and to every level above. That means no career politicians or lobbyists. Also, I believe each representative must be subject to speedy recall if he or she violates the trust of the constituents.

I also agree with the money aspect. In that way I lean pretty well toward anarcho-communism.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Well in an ARDD system, the elected politicians DO NOT HAVE POWER.... their job... is to present all the info, both sides of every issue evenly, honestly... and then organize the Direct Democracy voting sessions.... so that the people deside every issue, large and small... but to do it, they must be informed.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Buy the land.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

we the people already own the land, its in the original land treaty, no bank, nor corporation, nor government can own land. research land patents and why we dont use land patents anymore, its to give our land over to banks, government, and corporatists.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

How can the land belong to everybody? I have a house, built on .87 acres of land. It is my land, and no one else can build on it or be on it without my permission. I am very confident there is land for sale in Wyoming.

I understand eminent domain seizure of land and right of ways. I don't agree with it, but it seems to fall in line with what you are in favor of. The land is seized (with compensation) for the greater good. I don't know much about land grants. I read that a land grant is an "absolute title" to a piece of land and that it secures you against it being taken as an asset if you go into debt. It seems like that runs in contrary to your first statement "we the people already own the land?"

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

there is more land available than there are people to occupy it. If you had a land patent on the land, you wouldnt have to pay anyone a dime more for your land, the land would forever belong to you and your children. We dont need to take other peoples land. You see how much society has corrupted our thinking?

I dont suscribe to all the land belonging to others, when there should be .87 acre available to everyone. Case in point, suppose I lived 10,000 years old, and I was the first man on earth, is it fair that everyone should be paying me rent on my earth? cause that seems to be the principle we operate on. In the old days, wherever you build was your home, and you filed for land patent, and the land was yours. Even today landowners who have a land patent, even the city has to build their roads around land patent owners. Land Patent owners land is not seized by the government, as the patent is a contract between the government and the citizen, that they have given up all interest in the land.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Right or wrong, we can't change the past. Instead of going back in history and looking at how land became owned, lets think practically about how we can achieve what it is that you want to achieve. How do you propose that this land in Wyoming be obtained? Are you suggesting that it should just be redistributed? Should I find a plot of land that is not occupied and apply to the government for a land patent? Is there a limit to the amount of land that I can ask for in a land patent?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I say, send the right wingers to Texas and let them have that shit hole that they have managed to destroy. The rest of us will all be fine.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by chile73 (-88) 2 years ago

now now let's not be nasty

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

if they did that... they would need some purpose.. goal in doing so.... i suggest....

The issue comes down to a social agreement to live modestly... with what you need... not.. what you want.. as what we want.. can have no limits...

basically.

1) you can have whatever you want.. and the materials will be free... as produced by others.. but anything which is complex or requires a lot of work... would have TO BE DONE BY YOU.

MEANING... each of us... in society... have a need for a car... sure... ONE CAR... basic.. but.. if you.. want it to be a hot rod.. or if you want 2 cars... YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT YOURSELF... and.. you cannot sell it for a profit.. but you could give it away to someone who needs a car... like family members.

in this way... we all can have cars.. and we can even have awesome cars.. if we are willing to do that extra work ourselves...

2) the same applies to homes... we all need a basic home... but if you want a big house... ok.. but you have to build it yourself.... otherwise... simply accept the standard modest model made in bulk by those who build them.

3) production of goods... is simple made by those who WANT TO MAKE THEM... i.e.. some want to build cars.. some want to build space ships.. some want to build boats... some want to make music... some want to make art.. some.. want to engineer and invent new things.... new items... let them... but they do not get paid.

their reward... is in having done a good job... having worth.. to the world...

4) many... may have no idea what they want to do... but want to help... and so, we would organize based on needs... what we need done... is posted... we need people to make TV's... and so.. the mass rank and file.. would simply line up to take those tasks...

we may need more food... more farms... we need more farmers.. so the call goes out.. and those who want to farm.. or are willing too.. would then do so...

5) when not working.. we all enjoy the benefits of those around us.. who provide those benefits.. such as wine makers... beer brewers... amusment parks... everything... can be had.. if people will do the work .

6) There is no need for money... and the incentive to work... is based on the fact that people have NO EXCUSES.... and if they... in their community.. refuse to work... then it will be known.. and they would be blocked from those resturants.. those bars.... and denied booze... as they are proven to be lazy.... simple as that.

If you.. and your family... of 10.. got trapped on an island... you would NOT START TRADING... you would simply organize to get the jobs done which need to be done... and try and advance... together... as one team.. no in competition.

7) competition... was invented by those who want us to compete and fight.. so they can use trade to control the masses INTO DOING... DOING.. DOING... WHAT THEY... THEY... THEY... WANT THE MASSES TO DO.

8) THE WORLD... HAS BEEN DECIEVED BY THOSE... who invented money... for as long as we have used it. and they are still manipulating the world... controlling it... by money.

9) you.. are a perfect example... you.. have been tricked into thinking we must have trade... when in fact.. all we need do, is work together as family and share.. and work ... work... work.. to build our future.. together.

How does that sound?

(This is how the first church of Jesus, started by Peter.. worked... one big faimly.. sharing.. and caring... not trading.)

-To do this....

You need... an ARDD system... to go with no money.... and prevent communism.

An Anarchistic Representative Direct Democracy.

With city wide... county wide... state wide.. and nation wide voting... by direct democracy... to allow the people to completely control all aspects of their lives... locally... and overrule... anything on higher levels.

Right now... government rules from the top... by force of arms.....

in an ARDD system... the people... rule from the bottom... by direct democracy to be able to overrule anything they do not like.... and have complete local control over all aspects of their lives.

This maybe over your head... so ask questions if you like.

-Mosheh Thezion

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I think all of this is fine if you have a group of people who are willing to live in colonialesque times. And for those that do, I fully support their desire to live simply and encourage them to set up a commune and enjoy their lives. I think you will find that most people enjoy the creature comforts of technology, improvements in quality of life afforded through advanced medical treatment, and the other things that the modern world has to offer.

Also, how did that "direct democracy" work out in North Carolina during the recent vote on same-sex marriage?

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Direct democracy worked as it should in North Carolina regardless of whether I, you, or anyone else agreed with the results.

If a majority rules, obviously the opposing minority must accede to the results or leave. On the other hand if enough people believe they can overturn the results, they are free to reverse the amendment using the same process.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I agree that it worked perfectly. The people that cared came out and voted, and were heard. It is a example, however, of how the majority can bully the minority. It can be a dangerous proposition.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I read in newsweek how 1 in 10 would use violence to achieve their end

I would despair to think the number so high

how 1 might control 10 with violence

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

We often hear the phrase tyranny of the majority, but what concerns me more is what we have now in this country and much of the world: tyranny of the minority.

[-] 3 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I agree with you whole-heartedly. What we need are a band of politicians who are educated, insightful, decisive and that truly have the best interest of the citizens and the republic in mind.

I'm also looking for a two-headed unicorn and an orange leprechaun.

Oh well...

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Which is why we shouldn't have politicians.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

they can have all the tech they want, if they organize to build it, such as if we need TV's, then we need only get people to build them, and give them away as produced, where the goal is to build TV's to last as long as possible, and be recyclable. There is no limit to this kind of society, as it is only limited by resources, technology and a willingness to do the work.

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"There is no limit to this kind of society, as it is only limited by resources, technology and a willingness to do the work."

Three things that limit EVERY society.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

exactly... which is why size matters... ideally.. we need a nation.. a big one... to make it work completely.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

What about all the parts necessary to build a television? I cannot imagine someone have the knowledge, time or even the patience to build a television or computer from scratch...with no parts. Like I said, if someone wants to build a log cabin, spin cotton, and make wax candles as an alternative to modern society - I say go for it. But to think you could advance beyond the mid 1800s without some manufacturing capability - I don't see how.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

I was speaking of a nation... doing it... a local small community would not have the time. But technically speaking the parts are not that difficult to build and it would just require the building up of the infrastructure to do so. This could be done in say a community the size of los angeles county, but you are correct that a small community like a small town would not be able too, but.... that small community could barter goods produced to get those things... if... we are discussing a small community surrounded by the rest of the nation.... To make this work, it would need to be large scale otherwise these communties would be isolated like a small religious sect. either way... it could be done.. started in small forms... and grown until each small unit combines with others over time.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

That is contrary to your first point "1) you can have whatever you want.. and the materials will be free... as produced by others.. but anything which is complex or requires a lot of work... would have TO BE DONE BY YOU." Wouldn't you consider a TV to be complex?

This plan has a miniscule chance of being successful in a small commune and absolute zero chance of being successful for an entire nation.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Actually... no... it has been done, its called Communism,, but, the flaw in communism is it still used money, and it used a central government to force everything by power of arms....
I am suggesting... a direct democracy ARDD system, which puts the people in charge at a local level, and the complete elimination of money, and only the supply of basic parts, based on need... so that people who want more... can have more if they take the time to do the work themselves.... themselves is the key word.... by their labor.. their free time... their effort... in this way, a person could add a room to their home, or build another car, if they take the time and make the effort, and since they cannot drive two cars, over time, all those extra assets created by extra effort would be distributed to family and friends. the only limit.. would be that wach of us.. work.. for the common good 40 hours a weak... and do all this self effort in our free time. It would be best done... on a large scale, but could be started on a small scale, if land was bought that had good resources to barter with the world as one group... one commune of people dedicated to work as one, and share and care instead of trading amoungst each other... like the amish... or similar....

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Please don't tell me this has been done, because it hasn't. There are no communist countries that have ever run like you mention above. No country has given their citizen a car, and then said - If you want another one, make it yourself. They also did not post the jobs and expect people to volunteer - the government assigned work to workers because that is the only way this system works. If people just get to pick what job they did, no one would pick sanitation services expecting that someone else will do it.

You can't run an economy in Los Angeles County on bartering, so to present that you could barter with the world is ludicrous. I think you are right on the mark using the Amish as a good example. Like i said - if you want to live in 1800s, this could certainly work on a very small scale. Otherwise, this is just another utopian theory that has no practical merit.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

no you mis-understand.... a small community .. of say farmers... can and could collectively.... barter with the rest of the world, for TV's... etc.... but as is clear... it would be a problem. which is why this would need to be done in a nation or atleast a state with resources. It would never be utopian because there would be humans involved. The Amish are a good example, and all we need fo is expand on it. I discuss this as a model, to work on... over time, but in my view it would take centuries to make it happen, as people must be educated to understand and desire to do so, and get the power to do so... which means... WE START WITH promoting an ARDD system. Direct democracy is the first step. Education and understanding would be the second. Establishing free zones would be third. We have yet to start the first steps... but they are worth taking.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm trying to decide if you really believe all this or if you are just jerking me around for giggles. It wouldn't be the first time.

Either way, don't let me stand in your way of chasing your dream society. Best of luck to you.

[-] -1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

I am not jerking you around... I am serious, but I understand how very difficult it would be to do... which is why I said it would take several centuries..... to change the world in this way.... It starts... with an ARDD system... lets talk about that, as that is what matters... it can be done today... on various levels, but as you know, I cannot do this alone.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

What is Anarchist Representative Direct Democracy? Representative and Direct seem to contradict each other in the name of the system

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

This is written above... I will repeat....

an ARDD system... to go with no money.... and prevent communism. An Anarchistic Representative Direct Democracy. With city wide... county wide... state wide.. and nation wide voting... by direct democracy... to allow the people to completely control all aspects of their lives... locally... and overrule... anything on higher levels. with elected representatives.... who run the direct democracy, but do not have real power... they work for us.

Right now... government rules from the top... by force of arms..... in an ARDD system... the people... rule from the bottom... by direct democracy to be able to overrule anything they do not like.... and have complete local control over all aspects of their lives. Ask questions if you like. -Mosheh Thezion

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

It still isn't clear- there are elected representatives who run the voting process? So the people vote on everything...It simply isn't practical in any group larger than a small community. There are way too many decisions that need to be made every day in a community - and having to wait a week (which is still very aggressive) is impractical. And of course, that doesn't account for general voter apathy.

Again, this is a theory that has never been tested in any significant size.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

It is very simple... each neighborhood would meet monthly to make direct democracy decisions... instead of letting a city council do it. the elected people, are to run the process, and provide both sides of each issue, unbiased so the people can vote. The only people who show up, would be those who care about voting.... it would not be forced... its a free system. The elected people are those who run and care enough to be able to take the time to study every detail of each issue and present the facts. .. also... anyone present can speak on issues to offset any potential bias which maybe present in elected people...
Right now.. the city council desides every lame detail.. such as whether to water a street.. cut down trees, increase parking fees, zoning permits etc..... these are generally simple things which the people in a neighborhood should deside themselves... and when bad decisions are made, people are free to rally the bulk population into the next voting session so that things can be reversed if they are bad ideas... i.e.. if someone wants to build a lame project and it gets approved, at a low number vote.. and the people get upset, then they just show up in force to reverse it. These votes.. would be neighborhood wide, city wide... county wide... state wide and national.... the bigger the area... the more time is allowed in between votes... to give people time to study the details..... and then.. the people decide directly. So.. it is a representative direct democracy, and it is anarchistic because it is based on having NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHICH CAN CONTROL THE PEOPLE.... it prevents a central government from controlling a neighborhood. The only controls over local regions would be by national votes on standards which can be put forth as a constitution just as today, which limits people from forming any extreme wierdness like incest, polygamy, or animal abuse etc.... so we establish social norms... nationally and locally... giving MOST OF THE LEA WAY... power... to the local level, so that some places may want to legalize marijuana, and some may not... just as done today at state and county levels.... except the people would make the decision instead of the elected government. it is a novel change to the existing system. An expansion of democracy to give us more control of our own lives based on common sense agreements.

but yes.. you are right.. it has not been tested.. I am proposing it.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

".. that small community could barter goods produced to get those things... if... we are discussing a small community surrounded by the rest of the nation.."

But you previously said: "you.. have been tricked into thinking we must have trade... when in fact.. all we need do, is work together as family and share.. and work ... work... work.. to build our future.. together."

Bartering, by definition is trading or exchanging one product or service for another. So which is it? You can trade or you cannot trade?

And suppose for example a couple who knows how to construct big, beautiful houses, and loves to do it, do all the work themselves, on their own time, to improve their "basic, standard model home" into a big beautiful house. And let's say that they also know how to landscape and produce a beautiful yard and property. And suppose when that is done one of them learns to make beautiful clothes and the other learns to craft beautiful furniture as well.

How does your society handle/receive/deal with the realistic facts that A) some people have more talent and aptitudes that others and B) some people will always be jealous/envious of those who distinguish themselves as different than the "standard, basic" types?

How does your society prevent the normal, natural distinctions human beings make between themselves from becoming a "class" issue?

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

LETS BE CLEAR... we need to get from here to there.... what i speak of... is how we could start... and slowly move that way... so that over time, via expansion this kind of free zone would take over. It cannot be done over night, except by force of arms. as to your last question. This kind of money free system... is where people who are good at things... would just do it... if you love making homes... then do so... and give them away as needed... work with others who love the same thing... we work together.. we act out of love... we do and build what we can... and share. Share, care, love and work together... instead of trading amoungst ourselves.. it is a model to strive for. I did not say it would easy to build. I do believe it could be built over time.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

What if no one wants to farm? Or there aren't enough people who want to farm to support the community? Or no one knows how to make good cars? Or the majority of the members want to make music and art or boats and televisions and there aren't enough people to want to make food and clothing and necessities?

What if the people vote to overrule letting the lazy starve to death? Or to start trading with other communities because they produce things that their own community cannot or does not? Would they be allowed to control THOSE aspects of their lives as well?

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

That is why we would need an ARDD system, with elected leaders to run the logistics and put forth the calls for people to get involved... as I described, most people would not always have specific jobs or passions, but would be willing to work, those majority workers would simply be sent to do the things which need to get done... meaning if we need farmers, then all those who are free lance (most) would be guided in that direction, and basically if no one wants to farm,, then we all starve and die, which is great incentive to help out the team.

[-] 0 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Your post is right on the money with no double entendre meant; you have described the goals of a truly just society. Luxuries could also be exchanged tit-for-tat.

The only problem I foresee is converting those who have been totally indoctrinated by the wage system and believe personal possessions equal contentment in spite of innumerable examples to the contrary.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Thank you, it only requires modest living with modest needs, and an agreed social trust, with leaders who commit to organizing the work efforts and run the logistics.

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

"We could implement our policies at the state level and see how they pan out."

Didn't you already try that in California?

What if Wyoming or North Dakota doesn't want you?