The woman looked at me. She looked about us, where there were walls of red. “The prefrontal cortex grew out of your motor cortex. From an evolutionary perspective, the implication is that thought is abstracted action. You figure out a set of actions, their consequences, and evaluate them before implementing them in behavior. That is what you do when you watch movies. Your brain is a region to be populated by information and action-reinforcements coming from your corpus of nerves. (Jordan B Peterson, 2015) In other words, what you practice will inevitably come out as abstracted thoughts – that is what canonicity can be."

That was what I perhaps thought, at a deeper level. The woman went on, “What you can do should not cast doubt upon what others should do. That is what is real."

"Sounds terrific and perfect. Screw yourself."

***

Whenever I wrote a self-conscious analysis, I thought I had to have a neutral, non-accusing, non-supporting character, since it was fiction, but I was perhaps wrong.

I opened my eyes. I woke up. I looked through the window, noticing the azure sky, the faint glow of the sun through the tinted screen of the window. I had a dream.

It made perfect sense to interpret dreams as stories we travel across, towards the future, or as a simulation of the past. Life was a journey, after all. It was a physical journey, with our mind growing to adapt to the physical movements. It was a conceptual journey, with our minds growing to remember abstract facts. And it was an illusory, almost transfigured journey, with our minds growing to adapt to the growth of the illusion. Life would keep going as long as we enjoyed the journey, perceived the journey as meaningful.

***

In-Introduction:

Imagine a world of science. Imagine a world where everyone can be motivated to aspire to perform science and to carry out any number of career they want, even freelance. Imagine the world being at peace, and unified in the pursuit of science.

Now, imagine global villages as discussed by certain scientists in the past. Imagine that ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, as talked about by Garett Hardin can actually be analogised as the tragedy of any kind of scarcity at all, be it clothes, or food or materials or anything at all. That is the tragedy we avoided when we were all about merely surviving.

Imagine a world where money would not conflict with resources available for the pursuit of science. Imagine a minimalist world, where food is bland, clothes are uniform for both genders, and there is a credit system for the rewards of each citizen. A world where money itself did not exist.

Well, Mao Zedong did part of that. It was misery incarnate.

At all times in history, be it with the Arab sailors in the early 15th century, or the Spanish and their discovery of a New World in America, it was free trade which helped the economy prosper. What came with colonialism, regardless, cannot be denied. Slavery is abolished. The stereotypes are given real representation. And with good measure for its time, free competition is established in a more real sense.

In survival, we look for virtue, we avoid rewarding merit. We avoid giving vent to any passion of ours if it does not contribute to the flock. We are not given the leeway to be lazy and to invent anything. Anything we say which threatens that survival is immediately censored. Those only who are deemed excellent and aristocratic enough, with genes enough can access the materials required to perform excellence.

Homogeneity of thought is expected.

The same homogeneity lies in an autocratic society.

The current problem with our society is that automation has gone far and beyond. It is not - and should not be - each according to his needs and each according to his abilities. That premise in itself is enslavement and throws away charity or even meaningful contribution or personal assets out of the way. It’s no different than the entire human race being just a giant bacteria endlessly expanding, and deflating if we rob the individual of the right to create his own means of production, without the tyranny of automation, as to the tyranny of human intervention, ironically, among robots, as among other races in the past.

We negotiate with each other. The essence of capitalism is not money, but the process of negotiation, towards a fair exchange. We do that even in a bartering system. That, right there, is capitalism. As long as anything can be counted, the resulting negotiation of exchanges to make is capitalism; the arbitrary distribution of goods, to whatever individual, reliant on 'intrinsic' need without mutual exchange and with 'ownership by everyone' to no limit, is socialism.

The problem, as I said, is that negotiation is no longer left to the realm of humans, but to that of the labor provided for by robots, and artificial intelligence. The problem with each according to his needs and each according to his abilities is the fallacy that each according to his abilities is actually valid in a society which is more and more automated. Such an approach will necessarily lead to totalitarianism and even dictatorship by companies and governments which can access things much like the big brother of China. Because intelligent robots, and automated work processes are not humans. They barely have needs, and they have abilities which are monitored, regulated, and they are repaired and constantly programmed. Intelligent robots are not humans, I repeat. They provide the keys to living in an autocratic society. And it is not the government which provides such an autocratic society. Such a thing as autocracy itself speaks of all the laws the government can implement to restrict the individual, to kill the free market, and cause stagnation.

Stolen novel; please report.

So, it is best left to individuals to choose which company they want, according to the business automation index, say, in a universal basic income scenario, which is contributed to by companies which can actually afford to pay for such a scheme. It is best left to a future where almost all the companies are largely automated. And left to individuals to choose which company they get to be in, what kind of job they want to complete or compete for.

Artificial intelligence has bias, and it can easily be a Sybil system designed specifically to suppress the rational mind. Humans themselves need to agree to admit all facts and perspectives and really thoroughly examine everything without denying a single aspect of what humans are.

Division of labor and meritocracy go hand in hand. Automation is still going to come. What we are looking at is companies, and learning environments within all companies to prevent statism, alongside a limited government.

Homeschooling is getting popular. We are indeed in another century. (Joshua Steimle)

Just look at the bands in Japan.

Just look at esports in South Korea.

I am not promoting corporatocracy’s rigidity. I am merely admitting that statism exists in the corporate world, as it does in politics. So, we need to elect the right people for making decisions in a company, than a state. I don’t mean an oligarchy. Private-Public Partnership is best characterised by its expediency – getting the best deals comes from the ability to support bids, and there is probably little much better mechanism to that than the COMPOUND Protocol I have seen some degree of potential in.

Simply ensuring all land is private, that squatting is a potential avenue to claim land, and that adequate companies have adequate expertise in place for a person to lay claim to land, in a decentralised way, than through merely money, should be an appropriate approach. PPP can easily come with premium benefits from contracts. The potential is about using competitive routes – routes voted upon – to eminent-domain a won land, and even refuse to accept ceding means of production. That is a partial response to some voluntaryists jumping onto inefficient people’s means of production

I think it is better that cross-capital-cultural terrorism or vulture capitalism or vulture culturalism do no perpetrate themselves. Certainly not capital-on-capital terror, or culture-on-culture terror. I see that as balancing the rational with the ethical, though, it is greatly idealistic. It is for new religions, if ever, and new companies. Suppressing an emerging, non-offensive ideology, is foolishness, than competing ethically with it.

Mining companies and workers gather around a district. Shops cater to these people. In another place, the production of glass takes precedence. In yet another place, informatics is the hype. Such company clusters easily run up to becoming whole places dedicated to specific activities centrally, regardless of statehood. Affiliation, where companies are already overtly politically, is only a natural progression to prevent gaming of a political system. Workers’ rights is a byword for political affiliations, in many urban areas, and private corporations often may miss out if they don’t get in – they finance both parties of any election, but often have their own interests, too, at heart. So too, do employees of such or such companies. The common private individual is more concerned about the politics of his own company. And Socrates is concerned about demagoguery preventing the right person from reaching for the sword and mastering it to open the road ahead.

Dispute resolution organisations – DROs – involved in paramilitary and paralegal operations, bounded across countries, with adequate shares from any overarching company. Company identity is pitched against gender/racial/ethnic identity. From here, do we go classless and raceless, pretending to be blind, or do we respect the free market and religious freedom? We can’t have a free market without religious freedom; we can’t have religious freedom without market freedom. Morally speaking, it does not make sense, rather than as a reality. The government cannot be the bogeyman, in attrition of legislative power to it, nor power by itself. The same dictates that abolish slavery can be used to enforce slavery if given more power. This will need more elaboration in the future, in contrast to anarchy.

Often, employment is basically political, but since that political aspect is already informally conducted, and provided that the chances of a government employing you is already based on political backing, actually decentralising politically-motivated employment, based on competence, is a viable exploration. Making sure religious background is independent in the process, alongside race and gender, is paramount.

It would have to be negotiated company/organisation partnerships. The red herring is negotiation of ethnicity – who can do what task at a minimum. If companies can come together disparately, in a competitive way, religions can only freely exist as schools of thought and spirituality, born and dead in their own time. Originality has a limit, but so do digital rights, and cultural rights, most likely, in a reasonable situation, even though perhaps for a longer period of time/aging. Cult-behavior is not foreign to companies, as it not foreign to religious organiations and even societal communities at large.

Isolated villages radicalise and restrict economic opportunities since there is no unemployment.

…

I thought it did not matter who made it come true. So, I wanted to write books about that.

…

We need to amass the knowledge of humanity, and gain a humane concept of transcendental good, in order for our society to remain free and independent. (Boast).