Found a cool quote in the comment section of a blog that will motivate me for some time to stay self-employed. Though it’s no box of chocolates either. Here it goes:

Employment is slavery! In the really important years of my life I do not want to let others tell me when to get out of bed, how long to work in his house, how long I’m allowed to go on vacattion (if at all). That is slavery beyond doubt! You just have to compare it with the possible self-determined life that you could have if you would be no slave.
You guys, wake up for a moment and rattle at your chains and don’t discuss if there are any.
[comment 37229 on, original in German, emphasis per original]

Currently, the state seeks only money from his citizens to perform its tasks. Which means that people who cannot pay money are a burden for the state. This would change radically if people are also able to pay their taxes by their work time. Or even better, if this is the default case. For example, one would contribute ones amount to the state (ones “community”) by doing a four weeks project in the summer that includes re-building and repairing highways. And IT people, for example, could pay their taxes by a dedicated amount of time they invest in open source software that will be used by the state. Ultimately, state would consists fully of people’s contributed work time, that is, would be indeed made out of its citizens.

Being awake means being aware of your situation.

The more you are awake, the more you realize about your situation.

If you are fully awake, you are able to realize and judge your situation from an external position (“on a meta level”).

With this in mind I need to say, I have long been not fully awake. I work and live day by day, but deal with my situation mostly on just the situational level: reacting to challenges, correcting errors, earning some money. But I am not always aware of the larger goal that all these steps should lead to, I’m not aware of the direction that my life currently has when looked upon from the outside. I am “just driving it straight on”. And I hate this state of being lulled into the societal system … if I do not feel really awake, I do not feel really alive.

Being jobless means being unable to care for ones own needs because one lives in a society where one depends on others (the “market” and the “employers”) to care for ones own needs.

It seems that joblessness is an inherent phenomenon of highly civilized societies: due to the technology used, there simply is not enough work to do for everybody to work full-time. So politicians and manufacturers try to increase the amount of work by inventing new needs, but this also fells: people on average do not have that many needs, because they do not want the stress implied in fulfilling and managing even more needs. So the only real way to cure joblessness would be a better distribution of work; which will not happen, because in a market based economy, everybody will compete for the “better” jobs, with the bad jobs (joblessness) being assigned to the inferior.

In agricultural societies however, there is no joblessness: in times where there is no better option, people always can work as farmers to get what they need. Therefore, joblessness can be seen as a symptom of “overcivilization”, that is, decadence.
This can be used as a solution to joblessness even in highly civilized societies (but probably not where the state pays the jobless, as they have no motivation to work hard just for their basic needs).

The basis thesis is that every group of people, if coordinated, can provide for all or nearly all of their needs. So, jobless people would join as communities, each about 100 people from the same area, and start mastering their life together. By pooling the tools, facilities and knowledge they have, or have access to, a synergy arises that makes successfully caring for ones needs feasible, while it is very hard when totally living on ones own.

In practice: there would be smartphones, or big boards at a central place, or any other coordination device. People can request resources from each other. The principle is to value all contributed time equally, with regards to distributing the results. The community can care for their needs in these areas: housing (using tents, squattering, or being assigned empty houses officially until they are torn down); food (agriculture, gardening, Guerilla gardening, containering); furniture (own carpentery); clothing (refurbishing trashed clothes; sewing own clothes); basic health care (skilled people in the community; using the web to research information).

Also, the cooperative work style of a community allows to found ones own business easily: it is large enough right from the start to profit from synergy and therefore get a good market position; but there is no risk included, as employed people are not paid as employees, but work in a cooperative, and their basic needs are backed by the work of the rest of the community. The business will only be used to get the “foreign exchange” to buy what the community cannot create itself; applied to a whole society, this would therefore not lead to too much companies, so there would be no competition that would drive companies out of business.

Using money is always an indicator that the coupling is high (needing others to fulfill ones needs, rather than working in a collaborative autarchic community). Also, competition is always an indicator that there is oversupply in one area.

In such autarchic communities, there can also be the motivation to get more efficient. Because then, the average daily work time can be lowered, which is the time every member has to contribute to get his basic needs provided for by the community, that is, to survive. In an efficient community, this value should be as low as 3 hours average daily work time (means 4.2 hours daily work time for people who choose 5 days a week). People would be free to use the remaining time just as they want: free time (travelling, sports etc.), working to increase the efficiency in the community, working for personal “luxury needs” (like travelling), helping others free of charge.

These communities would be purely economic communities, not forcing the members to live together etc.. But of course, people who became friends and want to live together as a group may do so.

Perhaps, such a system could be set up in cooperation with the government’s job agency of a country?

Currently, I have the impression that I get drowned or defeated in economic competition, meaning this economic system is not the right one for me. So I thought about another one:

In modern highly civilized societies, we’re several abstraction levels away from the nature level (“implementation level”), which is the level most people in history lived in. Because our higher levels are all buggy, and become buggier, the system gradually becomes unmanageable. For example, the 2009 financial crisis: why should my income depend on mass psychology? Such an overcomplicated system is an insult to every human being and must be simplified, radically. Bugs in these abstraction levels serve some people to enslave others, economically not physically, that is, hidden not obviously.

It’s an interesting observation that, after all, man does not provide for himelf, but nature provides for him. And as God provides for nature, or provided nature, God provides for man. What man does is simply utilizing nature, and the only resource that mankind has for this is manpower, that is, work time. (That’s the correct view at large granularity, where man is “on average” sound and gifted with an “average” amount of gifts.) Now in theory, all men could join into one large cooperative, where everybody would dedicate the same amount of timeto work, and everybody would share the same amount of wealth in result. Valuing all human work time alike should be seen as a prt of human dignity: it’s an insult to value work time because of gifts which are something people have not worked for.

In practice, injustice is introduced by non-cooperation, that is, competition: in capitalism, people use their gifts against each other, to gain as much for themselves as possible. Which results in other people getting less than they deserve for the amount of time they contribute. Especially those in development countries, but also the meek and other oppressed people in industrial nations.

Now, there are some psychological / motivational attributes of man, which will guarantee this theoretically “pure” system to fail. First, man is evil. Second, man can only be motivated to do something well (i.e. work as good as possible in the dedicated work time) if he can see his results as directly as possible (see also “flow state” theory and its meaning for happiness). Therefore, the system will be modified: there should be small, modular autarchic units. That way, we sacrifice efficiency for flexibility and redundancy, to have a counter measure if one part of the system turns evil. Also, groups of 10 (semi-autarchic), combined in groups of 100 (autarchic minimal society) make it possible to be motivated, seeing the results of ones work directly. Nonetheless, social justice should mean that all work time of members in such communities is valued equally. For example, all members would dedicate to work 6 hours a day on community projects, getting the same amount of resources in return (food, shelter, medical treatment, …). Probably, a key lifestyle principle should be to not trade with this private gain, but simply use it up. It’s meant for private use. This also means that members of the community would need no money (to, say, sell perishable goods and save the money for later private use), and would not need to save anything for later calamities. Because all this is done on the community level, including solidary provisions for the members in all situations of life. Without private money, no credit bubbles etc. and no competition will arise. But also, the lifestyle to use up all the resources members get for their work time means, every member shares basically the same life style. But it would be possible to choose ones lifestyle, by choosing a fitting 10-member sub-community in the community (a group with a dedicated task and accompanying lifestyle in the community), or another 100-member community. A global “gift average” range value to meet when exchanging members would ensure that no elitist self-serving communities of highly gifted people can arise.

I realized that I basically do not want to live under the authority of any state whatsoever. Here is my alternative.

Ok, the alternative. Found a power community of approx. 100 to 1000 people. It will utilize high tech to be as efficient as such an amount of people can ever be. Carefully selecting the people that may enter the community, while ruling that members’ children may stay in the community only until 25 or if their application gets accepted means that nearly no juidical system and police will be necessary. The members might retain their original citizenship.

The community then searches for states allowing them to stay as a “non-state sovereign”, meaning a sovereign without its own country. This is comparable to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. In terms of international law, what is searched for is extraterritoriality for the community members (not extraterritoriality of any area, but in analogy to embassy personnel); see these explanations on extraterritoriality. To gain such grants from as many countries as possible, allowing to travel between them without restrictions, the community serves its host countries, probably meaning that poor, very small host countries are the ones most likely to grant extraterritoriality.

Basically, the intention of becoming a “non-state sovereign” is to found a state-less society, which is the anarchist ideal. See the Wikipedia article on stateless society. So it seems that I am anarchist? Yes. More specifically, I’m probably an individualist anarchist. However, I do not want to change the style of government of any state  (it’s strongly prohibited by the states’ laws). Instead, this is about peacefully moving out because I prefer sovereignty to obedience, when it comes to obedience towards humans. I want to found a new, stateless society.

But it’s not all that easy. See here what became of the one and only existing project of hat kind: the history of Laissez Faire City. And see what became of LFC’s experiment with digital money. After all, it seems to be very difficult to set up a working anarchist system, i.e. one not based on coercion as ordinary states are. There is the working example of the Somalia Xeer system, however. But in my proposal here, the problem of “bad people” causing anarchism to malfunction is solved by simply not accepting them into the anarchistic community.

(For inspiration: there are much more options to the form of government than just democracy or dictatorship. See the Wikipedia list of forms of government. See also the Wikipedia list of anarchist communities.)

If you work for money, you also work for war. Let’s calculate how long.

As you cannot decide for what your country will use the taxes you pay, and as money is a quantity, individual money paid does not retain its “individuality”. Meaning you pay a part of all your country’s expenses. And as for example Germany has a 10% defense budget, 10% of your taxes or approx 5% of your gross income resp. work time are used for war machinery. Which means 13 minutes each day, given you have a normal 8 hours/day job on 200 days each year.