Zenphamy,

this is getting confusing but I sense that there is common ground between us. I do understand the confusion that may arise between self-interest and self-centeredness. It is in my own view, as in yours I hope (?), that we must thrive and defend our own individual view and path (actions) in life. That is self-interest not selfishness. Selfishness comes when acting in our own self-interest harms others and we consider our self-interest more important than the harm it causes - and that is where 'reason' should come at play: make Society work when several trypes of self-interests must live together.

You mention double-speak, and that is what I try to bring to light as well : maybe you will agree that not all adepts of Objectivism draw the clear line between self-interest and self-centeredness. An example would be those who possess (bankers, lenders) without creating anything and suffocate entrepreneurs. There is a hypocrisy of the fiat money system (as you put it rightly) that ends up undermining those who correspond to 'the good' – those who live by their own actions. That is why some have coined the term Propertarians – do you draw a line between Propertarians and Libertarians ?

Another double-speak, or impossibility, is inherent to the fact of following 'litterally' someone else's idea that professes for all to think by themselves. This can be pushed to the absurd of requesting everyone to think by themselves the very same thing. There is something about Objectivism – or the discourse heard from many adepts - that pushes towards the single-dimension society. What do you think ?

About reason being a notion, I would say this because our understanding of our reasoning changes with the advances of brain studies. It is not a set thing. AR died before major brain science discoveries and the (ongoing) development of new tools opening new perspectives in brain analysis. She died when the cognitive – logical – view of reasoning was the dominant view. We know today that logic is more than tainted by emotions. This means that we cannot envision a single-dimensional view as different persons will reason differently. We must integrate diversity without valueing one type of person more than another.

I am just trying to think of a societal system that gives us all equal chances to take actions – not a system that levels everyone regardless of their actions/creativity. This would correspond to some socialist vision I am strongly against and, I do agree, tends to kill creativity and innovation.

You mention the context of JG's speech – I'd rather look at the context of the time Atlas Shrugged was published. It was before Corporatism took on the world, right at the time of Communism was the great ennemy – today Communism is a ghost, a relic. The worst of Socialism is probably the mirror image of the worst of Propertarianism.Don't worry – I am taking on the Socialists as well when I can. Since Ayn Rand, which I do value, there have been other schools of thought than have change the landscape – especially post-modernism. Not saying Objectivism is obsolete, but it naturally deserves a critical look and a repositioning in function of today's landscape.

I guess we do not agree on all things, but I hope you see somewhere between us some common ground. Thank you for pushing me to clarify my views. I am looking forward to your reactions.

Billy; You either don't understand the context of John Galt's speech from his experiences at his family owned business employment or you're purposefully conflating. Galt's meaning within the context of the book is clearly detailed as addressing the attempt of his company to operate as a mini-socialist and statist business and as he looked at the rest of society, he saw the same approach tearing down the world. It had nothing whatsoever to do with 'corporatism', whatever that term means.

You also make the same mistake that many attacking or just questioning Objectivism consistently make, that is to conflate self-interest with self centeredness. AR's description and use of the term selfishness relies on the application of self-interest--not self centeredness. They are not the same.

You continue on with that self same conflation of terminology and identity in your discussion of money and true corporate capital and ownership structure. Sound money, which doesn't include the fiat system we live under today, is simply a tool of value measurement and facilitation of commodity/service trading.

The rest of your commentary appears an attempt to redefine, conflate, and confuse while criticizing AS and Objectivism as outdated and no longer relevant. Then you add: "Besides the notion of reason has changed completely since Ayn Rand's time. We know that emotions are central to reasoning-" Reason is not a 'notion', it is the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

I find your commentary in total, to be be specious, at best and double-speak at worst.

Hi Khalling and Zenphamy, and others :-),

thanks for selecting that part. There is a lot I adhere to – but I wonder if we all agree on the meaning of the words. Let me tell you how this text fits with my views and how it shows what Aynd Rand / Objectivism shouldn't be taken litterally today.


« Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. »

I read by that : Men and nations are being destroyed by the invading corporatism that instrumentalizes the persons and corrupts and nullifies the governments.
Yes, each of us should use our brains to think for ourselves and live our life reaping the rewards of our own actions. But I have a feeling that many libertarians/objectivists of today are happy to indulge in corporatism and use Objectivism as a justification for their selfishness. Having exclusively a self-centered view is not a sign of great use of reasoning – as reality also includes others.
But I do agree that each of us should decide for themselves how to use its own resources.


« I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. »

I do agree that the enemy is an inverted morality. It is materialized in the hoax that is the symbolic value of Money. Corporatism attracts everyone on the promise that with money you will not only be able to afford and (thus) BE all you desire but also contribute to the smooth running of the engine of the World.
But all this is just inverted morality, the perversion of the reality Objectivism holds dear.
Indeed the people on the quest for Money must strictly follow the lines traced by Corporatism and never look back. They must abandon their reasoning, their own free-will to decide for themselves which path to take. The only choice they got is a choice between paths traced by others. Never can they trace their own path in unknown terrain – or else they get ostracized and sent to social death row.
Besides, by spending to assure the smooth running of the motor of the World, the individual lets go of the basic resource that would allow him to act for himself and trace his own path. And in so-doing, bring the money back to the Corporations as independent entrepreneurs are either swallowed up or destroyed.
Not all of us have a personal vision of a new path in unknown terrain, but how many of those who have this ability fall for the Corporatist trap and aim for Money rather than reaping the rewards of their own actions ? In other words : 'the willingness of the good to serve it'.


« Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan ...»

Here is where Ayn Rand fails to win the World – but succeeds in being controversial. The sentence has truth in it – as new, creative ideas are stolen by do-nothings and Corporatists alike without looking back at the independent creator.
But she fails on one single word : parasites. By using this word she focuses the mind of the reader to look down, towards the social death row, those who don't participate in the smooth running of the motor of the World.
This sentence betrays Objectivism as a theory of liberation – it sets it as (another) tool of domination. Not even a new domination, but just an excuse to muscle the current rejection of those who don't want to participate in the running of the Corporatist engine.

« —so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.” »

Agreed. Say No. Refuse the Corporatist deal, the magic (holly?) self-replication of Money, that prevents any participants to design his own course in life. Create an educational system that teaches how to make new paths rather than following the lines. Make a society with no lines. And I think I already hear those saying : without lines most wouldn't know where to go. And those saying that will probably be Objectivists – you know the guys who advocate the use of reason above all. The ultimate use of reason does not require pre-traced lines. It is just a matter of giving – unconditionnally - each of us the means of tracing its own path. Be it a long or a small one, a wide or a narrow one. Live and let live.

I would like to end on the idea that Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism should not be taken litterally. It is a work of a different time. In today's Corporatist era, the use of reason is really in danger. Besides the notion of reason has changed completely since Ayn Rand's time. We know that emotions are central to reasoning – not quite the cold view of reasoning that Objectivism advocates.

It seems to resonate today as ever before, but it is because it represents today only an empty box. It has lost its original content and anyone can use Ayn Rand's words in his own view – even inverting it to advocate domination rather than liberation.

What meaning do you see in the extract of Galt's speech you have selected ?

Hi Mimi,

thanks for bringing the story up – it will help illustrate the subject :-)

The 'Little Red Hen' is a 19th century story. It requires an update. The story today would bring in a new character. Let's make it a Big Dark Hen who does not do anyting but pretends to have a magic glowing stone. The stone is magic because it appears to be self-replicating – whiel in reality teh Big Dark Hen knows how to manufacture them. He has advertised it as a stone that does wonders and makes your wishes come true. Every body wants such a stone. Of course apart from falsely being self-replicating it does not make wishes come true. It is just a stone.

Enters the Little Red Hen who works hard to grow his crops in order to make his cake. His friends still do not help him. When the crops have grown and the harvest is done, instead of baking his own cake for himself, the Big Dark Hen comes and buys his harvest for a little piece of magic stone. The Little Red Hen is left with very little of his harvest, just enough for baking a very tiny cake that still leaves him hungry and in need of growing more crops.

The Big Dark Hen buys in this fashion the harvest of many other Little Red Hens. He can now bake for himself a giant cake. He can even sell the left overs back to the hugry Little Red Hens of everywhere in the world – in exchange for the little pieces of stone that bought the harvest and the fruit of the Little Red Hen's hard work.

The Little Red Hen ends up hungry, without anything but the need to work even harder. But even more striking is the fact that the Big Dark Hen is still doing nothing at all and bringing nothing valuable to the world. He is a con-man. He does not deserve anything more than the friends who didnt help in the original story.

So what would be the best ? I will tell what the system I propose,transposed in this Little Red Hen universe:) would be. But in order to do that I need to answer to different things you brought up in your post :

You say : 'We are mammals. We still have a basic instinct for survival. [...] We simply strive to survive. It IS who we are.' Well, Mimi, we are mammals ok, but with a neo-cortex developed in a unique way among mammals.
This gives us the ability to go well beyond our natural fears by understanding them, controlling them and learning to use our brains to be creative or to participate in our best ability. This is who we are. This is no science-fiction.
But the current system kills creativity and promotes fear – thus I would agree with you if you say we are seeing more fear than creativity around us. But it is not because of the way we are. It is because that's what the system needs to create in order to maintain itself.

You say : 'explain how or where the ‘system’ finds and acquires Unconditional Basic Income resources' : There are two parts to this answer.

Part 1 : that's the paradigm shift, the mental stretch, I am asking from anyone in order to envision the difference of my system with the current « magic » money systems. The system makes available, unconditionnally, an equal amount of tokens for each member of society – created from scratch. Not from a correspondance to a gold reserve or anything, or taken from anyone else. That's the foundation. It is not an idea that I daydreamed about, there is a history of that idea.

Part 2 : such a change in paradigm brings changes in all aspects of society – from education aiming at self-realization rather than preparing children for being instrumentalized, to the 'hard to fathom' loss of competition feeling that the current system brings (and strive on) and also, among others, a truly participative local and global political management. This is part of the 'sublimated human' that can be brought by the best use of our mental ability. There are many aspects to this that can be imagined. It is not in a post on a website forum that I or anyone can cover all aspects. But houses have been built in all periods of time and there have always been materials made available by some. Some will take better care of their houses than others but I am not saying that everyone must be live in the same level of comfort. It's up to the every individual to make choices about his own participation, activity and use of means available to him. If you think that no one will be interested about providing materials

Here is a link to a very interesting presentation of some real-world facts about the idea. It is a presentation and anaylsis of the Unconditional Basic Income : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E3......

In the best Little Red Hen story, the friends even if they don't want to participate in growing the crops can still buy a share of the cake. This may allow the Little Red Hen to grow more crops if he finds more people to buy a shre of his cakes. And this without owing or having anything taken from him by anyone.

Now if you are anxious about the cake being stolen, the whole system crashing into the extinction of humanity (as you mention), well, it is thinking without taking into account our ability to use our neo-cortex to organize ourselves individually and as a group. Our brains can also be used to control our anxiety, and develop a society that works towards a greater sense of mutual trust. You won't find that in Capitalism for sure.

Hear,hear.

sanction of the victim is a negative.
"Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”-Galt's Speech

Hi Khalling,
thanks for the reply.
I am not asking for anyone to produce freely for the others. Can I ask what you mean by ' a sanction in the positive' - you mean reward in a way the people for not participating by giving them a 'free lunch' ? Well, experience tends to show that the UBI is not absorbed but transformed by the recipient in a creative / positive manner. But well yes there are guys who will choose not to do much. But receiving a grant to take care of the bare necessities will never make them rich if they don't get active. But 'free lunch' addicts remain an exception - most of us want to act towards a better tomorrow and not just lie there.
About a new delivery method, it is being done in places. Any new system can be created and organized. Basic economics are no fact of nature, like we need water to survive or leaves grow on trees. Economy is man-made, artificial, and can be engineered completely otherwise than what it is today. It changed drastically in steps from what it was before to what we are having now. And it will change again. In steps or in a major sudden change. But don't worry - I won't be the one to trigger the change on my own - I am just confronting ideas :-)
Also you say currency is a tool - I agree with that. But it should be only a commodity/service exchange tool while today it has been transformed by those having most of it (and having the right to create it) as a domination tool. That purpose is not what currency as a tool should be used for.

I'd be the wrong one to ask on that. you see, our business is dealing with inventors and creators-tehy aren't thinking about hoarding assets-they invest their assets-often everything to pursue their inventions and build startups. They well understand wealth creation often comes solely from ideas. But nowhere in Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead would you see any sanction of the victim in a positive, which is what you are promoting above. You are asking the Dagny's to continue to produce for the benefits of others. You say you are not, but you cannot change basic economics b suggesting a new delivery method for currency, which is simply a tool.

Hi Khalling, here is one for you or anyone who fancy to answer/comment:

I have a feeling that John Galt has become an icon for those who are possessing something rather than for those who are actually creating and bringing something new to the world. John Galt is primarily a creator, not an asset manager.
Most of the people I see adhering to Objectivism / Libertarianism seem to be protecting their assets, not the fruit of their own creation. Only few adepts of Objectivism / Libertarianism seem be actually creative. I hope to be shown otherwise on that one. I would love to know more on your background and/or the reasons that make you a proponent of the ideas of Objectivism.

Hi Edweaver,

you are saying 'We are entitled to what we can make of our life, nothing more' - I agree with you.
Creativity is an individual characteristic and is not determined by the social layer in which you happen to start your life. Many wealthy people actually bring nothing to the world besides the automatic self-replication of their wealth. But the current situation actually favors inactive wealthy people vs active less wealthy ones - it is the start situation (wealth) that determines how far you can reach in your life, not your actual actions.
That is why a Unconditional Basic Income for all can help by easing the start situation of each of us.
But again what I am proposing here does not fit in he current scheme - it requires another societal organisation. Thus please make the mental stretch to see this income as a distribution of newly-created tokens, not the arbitrary redistribution of anyone's tokens to someone else. This would be contrary to what I am saying.

Hi Zenphamy,

you are right that Socialism - just as Capitalism or Totalitorism or any variation of the current money system - implies that Humanity is in a cage and that the cage has an owner. To remove the cage you must remove the possibility to have an owner. Please read the reply I gave to O.A. above if you are interested in having more explanation of my views. I am not about socialism - I am about each of us getting the fruit of our own personal work. With a stress on personal - not working towards rising the value of the cage we are kept into. This require a completely other mindset - an societal tabula rasa. But I understand this kind of idea is difficult to debate with those governed by the 'principle of reality'. But it doesn't prevent me to try. :-)

Hi O.A.,

thanks for the reply. Here is a piece of Friedman that gives us both something to chew : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tm... (or look for Milton Friedman Redistribution of Wealth on Youtube).

About this clip : I am not interested in Redistribution of Wealth as some can think of it in the Capitalist system, nor in the questions brought forward by the young man. Please just pay attention to what Friedman says.

Most of what he says goes along your lines, of course, justifying the way things are being run now.

And still, his very first sentence is a rare moment where he contemplates another way of doing things.

Because the trouble about our dialogue is that we don't start on the same premises – you start from 'the way things are' and I start from 'the way it might be'.

That's what Friedman's first sentence is about. He says : 'The only way to effectively redistribute wealth is to destroy the incentive to have one.' And that's the route I would like to see taken. A truly free society is a society where we start equal and obtain more or less in correspondance with our personal efforts/actions – not because we simply own more. Owning has no value . Only actions bring value. In my view, the society itself should be organised around such premises.

The main pre-requisite for this, and that is another way in which we are diametrically apart, is a high-level of trust in people. You will probably say that most people will just hang around and do nothing unless they are given incentives to do so. I will say incentives lead people to aim for them and not create what is really needed. Because I do believe that people are likely to be creative and be naturally participative, and that the incentives lead people to stop thinking for themselves – but to aim at the incentives alone.

I do believe incentives lead people NOT to think for themselves and act accordingly, out of their free will, but to mainly aim at the incentives. Those who are just happy with the incentives are those who don't have the imagination, creative spark – the 'out-of-the-box' thinkers. While those who have the craving for creativity may not ultimately want to aim at the proposed incentives – these may end up refusing the proposed system. So the incentives actually undermine creativity while rising the incentive symbolic value.

About books, I see you have a great collection of 'think-inside-the-box' works. There are others. Did you read Schumpeter ? He is not a socialist, more of a capitalist even though he has a critical view of it – and most of all he is the champion in promoting innovation. Because Galt is first of all an innovator and a free-thinker. He is a 'think-outside-the-box' guy. Friedman is not that well considered by everyone today.

About John Galt, the problem lies with the fact that people see in him what they are looking for at first. Please keep in mind that I am a truly creative person, developing my own systems (photography) and making a decent living that way. John Galt is before anything else a creative person who wants to think for himself, don't want his work and the fruits of his work being taken away from him.

I suppose you won't agree on many of this but I don't think it is important to expect to agree. The reactions I get are illuminating about what sets us apart. That's something important too.

Looking forward to reading you.

Sincerely,

JL

I suggest you read the story the “Little Red Hen”. There is no money in the story, but there is a moral for those who don’t want to pull their own weight. *Big Grin*
I’m sorry, but your system cannot work because you have yet to explain how or where the ‘system’ finds and acquires Unconditional Basic Income resources for those who don’t want to work or work poorly. You want to give them food? Farmers have to work harder to grow more at less value because their crops aren't paid for. You want to give them free housing?Who supplies the materials to build their homes? Who gives up land to the system without being compensated? If the landowners are compensated and the builders and farmers paid, where did the ’system’ get the funds or resources?
I disagree that we would all be better off or could claim we are more ‘evolved’ if we “sublimate our natural instincts” as you put it. We are mammals. We still have a basic instinct for survival. Let’s suppose you could get every man, woman, and child on the planet to accept and follow one system.Let’s follow your system. What happens if that system for unforeseeable circumstances fails and leads to extinction? It is more likely to happen, if there is no diversity in the system, no competing theories or no separate leaders to follow. I think this is why we seek to strive to be better than the guy next to us. We simply strive to survive. It IS who we are.

It sounds like you are assuming that everyone born is entitled to live. IMHO that is not the case. If we are lucky enough to live through childhood, which due to modern medicine most do, we are now entitled to earn a living or more if we are lucky enough to survive. No one is entitled to anything more than a chance to find a way to survive and that is not a given. We are entitled to what we can make of our life, nothing more. No handouts beyond what a parent does to get their child to adulthood. My 2 cents. :)

haha, good, thanks - I have my moments I guess :-D I just hope my ideas get accross clearly enough :-)

no, it got better..much better.

:-) What do you mean ? Did it get really bad ? Didnt have much time on last post :-)

hey billy-what happened to English as a second language?

Your reply leads me to write a remark on three things:

1. 'someone has to pay for the welfare' : that is so in the current, limited currency availability system. I am not talking about such a system. The exchange currency that is being used is produced by the system each chosen term (month / year...) . What I mention must be envisioned from a prespective completely different of the current way of creating and controlling/limiting currency availability. But it may be clearer as I explain some morebelow.


2. You say: 'When people accept a basic living from the state and just hang out it is proven again and again they get up to no good end up resenting those who choose to be productive'. This is an assumption that has been proven wrong by well researched and terrain-tested experiments: http://isa-global-dialogue.net/indias-gr...

People use in a positive way the resources made available to them. The important thing is that those resources made available - in the paradigm I am explaining - is created from scratch by the system, not taken away from anyone else. Again this requires you to forget about trying to make what I say in the Capitalist scheme - see point 3.


3. You are trying to see how what I explain fits with Capitalism when you write 'Capitalism does not support a welfare system', . But the paradigm shift I am talking about starts with the abandonment of the current economic / political options.

The current limited availability of money is artificially created and maintained for the profit of the very few possessing the larger part of the cake.

Capitalism / Socialism (incl. communism) / Anarchy / Totalitarism are just variants of the same system - it is a way to share an overall wealth value that is artificially set and controlled by those who possess the most.

None of those variants can work because the system is artificial, not meant for good balance but for the profit of a very small minority and the instrumentalization of the rest. With discontentment inevitably growing, it cannot be maintained - or only through a constantly rising level of fear and violence.

The darkest problem lies in the symbolic value given to money - a notion that is only a social construction engineered as the ultimate domination tool. I am personnally completely with you on taking personal action. In that sense we must remove the possibility for those who own money to generate more money without taking action. Speculation, putting people in debt and generating money out of it, is not 'taking action' in the entrepreneurial sense. It is exerting dominance.

We need a system that generate money for every one PLUS the possibility for each of us who wants to propose services or commodities to do so. These people should absolutely, totally, benefit of 100% of the result of their action. A money generating system does not require tax. In such a system money itself does not have value - in my system you can not earn more by selling money (that's what the banks are doing now).

Changing our perception of the value of money leads to drastic changes in political organization too. But everything starts with determinign eth 'motor of the World' : the tokens we use for exchanging our commodities / services.

All this to say - try to see what I am explaining absolutely outside of the current capitalist system. This not a reform. Not even a revolution. It is a full paradigm shift, a completely different slate. It requires a completely different organisation of society - value and protecting the realization of the self for each of us, in the mutual respect of our differences. But - again - it begins with changing what I see as the 'motor of the world' - i.e. the true value of the currency we use to exchange commodities and services.

Hello Billypot,

Money used to make money is Capital. Without capital there can be no capitalism... no seed money for entrepreneurs or start-ups. Money men are no different than banks, each must do their part.

Systems that guarantee a basic living without responsibility or stigma destroy initiative from all but the most determined... progress and prosperity for all is diminished when fewer are pulling the cart. This is the lesson many of us are painfully experiencing.

Wow... where to start... What studies/books on economics have you read?

Let me suggest a few right off the bat to investigate. Capitalism: The unknown Ideal- Rand, Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics - Hazlitt, Capitalism And Freedom- Milton Friedman, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy -Thomas Sowell... That should keep you busy for a while. I have many more.

Rand's, book Atlas Shrugged and her philosophy is anathema to your premise. I hope you are in earnest in your desire to examine your premises. If so, many here will be very happy to help and exchange their perspectives.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Socialism by any other name or reasoning still takes from those that produce and give it to those that don't or won't. That's not humanity--that's rats in a cage being fed by the cage owner.

In order to own yourself you need to take action. When people accept a basic living from the state and just hang out it is proven again and again they get up to no good end up resenting those who choose to be productive. Capitalism does 't support a welfare system. Besides someone has to pay for the welfare. It 's not the recipients so therefore it 's the productive

The problem Rand/Galt want to deal with is that Government/State/Authority takes away a part of the results of a creator/entrepreneur to share it with others who don't have or have less. This can arise in the current scenario where the overall amount of money appears set by a financial authority who controls and rules over its creation. By limiting its creation, the authority gives a symbolic value to money; a value that is completely artificial, i.e. man-made to the advantage of those in possession of money.

It is not the situation I am talking about.

Each of us should keep 100% of the results of our own individual effort / work. But saying this does not mean that we should let any one down in misery - the system should provide for each the us what we need to live by. I sometimes sense that for some people the Rand option includes the possibility to punish the non-active - but not every one can or wants to earn a lot or be super-productive. Difference is hard-wired. We have to consider and make room for diversity.

The problem is not the non-active, the problem is arbitrarily taking away from the active.

In order to do that we need a new paradigm in the way we value our exchange of services / commodities. A paradigm that drives us towards our own individual realization and away from any engineered hierarchical/pyramidal societal structure. Valueing each other self-realization draws us closer ; evaluating ourselves against the rest draws us all apart.

The paradigme shift I am talking about is a situation where the tokens used as currency are stripped from their symbolic value. Unconditional Basic Income is an old idea that would give everyone the possibility to pay for the bare necessities.

This does not prevent the one who works more to earn more than the others - and it certainly does NOT entail the possibility to arbitrarily take anything away from anyone to give it to another person or group. That is what socialism is about.

I don’t know Billypot, how does your vision differ from the vision of a socialist's utopia or for that matter differ from the type of world Ayn Rand was warning about in Atlas Shrugged? Isn’t this exactly the reason John Galt shrugged? He didn’t want to work harder for those who wouldn’t or couldn’t?

Thanks for asking for clarity. I guess it is redundant but it stresses the idea of dominance. It simply means that there is no valid justification of having some being on
top of others in an evolved society.

Humans have the ability to sublimate their natural instincts and learn to live respectfully together, beyond the fears and through the acceptance of our diversity. Any kind of natural order in humanity is fabricated to favor one group against the rest.

There is room for those who do not have the craving, need or ability to actively participate. Let the creators and entrepreneurs act their way and fully benefit from their efforts. One is not better than the other, just different.
The system must unconditionnally create and make available the resources for all, without taking anything away from the results of one's creative action.