Free energy makes accounting for it moot, and robots remove the need to force, coerce or bribe (pay) People to get needed work done.

These are all functions and mechanics of foundational economics. What’s attitude got to do with it?

Don’t get me wrong; I am certainly not against you. In a world without attitude, your suggestions/recommendations are entirely plausible. But this is a world driven by attitudes and attitudes, for the most part, are impossible to change. That is where your “solution” collapses.

Watch out for my blog post after next (“Beliefs and UFO’s”). It will simply be titled “Attitude”.

In abundance, You don’t need anyOne to acquire things from You. You can live as richly as You choose without having to exchange anything.

No. No barter (again, an accounting mechanism of the energy We input). Rather than buying and selling, robots and Those who love to do necessary/needed work. Products can be ordered over the interweb and delivered, no exchange needed.

I am very different from Venus, which has a central governing body of programmer-priests (though Jacque does not call them that). Rather, I offer emergence, stigmergy, as the governing factor. No One doles anything.

I agree that Venus sucks. They want to relegate Human input to preferences.

And very little funding will be needed once free energy is flowing, removing most of the cost of things.

Perhaps You might want to read some of My articles?

http://stateofglobe.com/2014/03/07/liberty-and-the-american-way/

http://stateofglobe.com/2014/07/06/what-would-it-be-like-living-on-this-planet/

http://stateofglobe.com/2014/07/22/the-playing-field-of-consciousness/

♥♥♥

“ALL money systems promote the most psychopathic to the top of the money/power heap – THEY will do ANYTHING to get there.”
“The love of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
“If the universe is made of mostly “dark” energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
“If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-genius.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=1

It’s worth reading. Even copyright comes in.

“WHERE does creativity come from? For centuries, we’ve had a clear answer: the lone genius.”

A little further down the author continues:

“But the lone genius is a myth that has outlived its usefulness. (!!!!! – Exclamation marks by M.G.) Fortunately, a more truthful model is emerging: the creative network, as with the crowd-sourced Wikipedia or the writer’s room at “The Daily Show” or — the real heart of creativity — the intimate exchange of the creative pair, such as John Lennon and Paul McCartney and myriad other examples with which we’ve yet to fully reckon.”

And then, after quite some intelligent remarks, towards the end:

“At its heart, the creative process itself is about a push and pull between two entities, two cultures or traditions, or two people, or even a single person and the voice inside her head. Indeed, thinking itself is a kind of download of dialogue between ourselves and others. And when we listen to creative people describe breakthrough moments that occur when they are alone, they often mention the sensation of having a conversation in their own minds.”

Now this is really interesting. Even a single man or women is two, simply because in the creative process he or she talks to him- or herself or some mysterious alter ego, we download dialogues with (of?) all kinds of Jacks and Janes.

Ah, yeah, a painter who looks at the picture of others is sort of a thief, and every reader who writes himself a robber. At least if they sell “their” work, which logically can’t be their own, not giving the dough away to all quarters of the planet.

Now, I don’t know (I doubt it) if the author of the article plans to give away his forthcoming book for free, just deducing the cost for printing, binding and shipping. This would indeed be an alternative for solving the problem honorably and practically, wouldn’t it?

This bit of joking aside, I really don’t understand why Mr None Genius at the end praises pairs as best, after hailing (Internet-)crowds and large networks at the bginning.

Power was decentralised – to thousands of monolingual collectives! Thousands of smaller central powers!

The guy who earlier said you’ve created a false dichotomy is right. The universal ‘we’ has never existed, it conceivably never will, and there has never been an ‘I’ that hasn’t cared a lot about other I-s, various Kaspar Hausers and Jack the Rippers excepted.

There is independence of mind, and there is infantility. When people respond to the call to “Decentralise”, the separated individuals are always an easy prey for the gangs composed of those who ignored the call.

Correct. I write for “free”. Work for money but only work under the contract of “dual contributism”. I must get out precisely what I put in. Money is merely an inconvenience imposed on me by this stupid system. Those that don’t like my terms will not engage me. If no one engages me, I die. Simple. Personal development is the only purpose of life even though we are “units of experience” or “experiencers”.

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
This is sheer rubbish. Some may have inherited or bought or stolen their business, others DID build it indeed.
I think You misunterstood Jon completely. Or You are distorting his words. Where does he say that man – especially the writer – is completely a lone wolf, born in the prairie, raising and educating himself, just by looking at the grass and the fowl, after having been (untimely?) ripped from his mothers womb?
Of course everybody is inculturated, learns from his forefathers, his peers, his parents, his teachers. His work is his anyway. I do not see where Jon foments the “false choice” You’re talking of.