I have nothing, much less anything special to trade, but I consider following ideas present in the book as interesting and challenging.
“What those who have owns to those who have not?”
— Nancy Kress
“Contracts are voluntary and mutually beneficial. As opposed to coercion, which is wrong.”
“The strong have no right to take anything from the weak by force,”….”Nor the weak to take anything by force from the strong.”
“Coercion is a cheat. It produces nothing new. Only freedom – the freedom to achieve, the freedom to trade freely the results of achievement – creates the environment proper to the dignity and spirituality of man.”
“Yes, there are beggars in Spain who trade nothing, give nothing, do nothing. But there are more than beggars in Spain. Withdraw from the beggars, you withdraw from the whole damn country. And you withdraw from the possibility of the ecology of help.”
“The will to believe created its own power, its own faith, and ultimately, its own will. Through the practice of faith, whatever its specific rituals, one bought into existence the object of that faith. The believer became the Creator.”
“Equals revolt that they may become superior. Such is one state of mind that creates revolutions.” [Aristotele]
“But if the law itself was not large enough?” [to take in not just the ecology of trade]
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impels them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident to the examining eye: That all men are not created equal. That all are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but that none are guaranteed these at the expense of others’ freedom, others’ labor, of others’ pursuit of their own happiness. That government instituted among men to secure these rights derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
[slighty adjusted text of original Declaration; strongly noticeable Lock’s influence]
“You can’t have both equality and the freedom to pursue individual excellence.”
“…there are no permanent beggars in Spain. Or anywhere else. The beggar you give a dollar to today might change the world tomorrow. Or become a father to the man who will. Or grandfather, or great-grandfather. There is no stable ecology of trade, as I thought once, when I was very young. There is no stable anything, much less stagnant anything, given enough time. And no nonproductive anything, either. Beggars are only gene lines temporarily between communities.”
“No man is good enough to govern other man, without that other’s man consent.”
— Abraham Lincoln
- We-Sleep – parallel to communism
- Sanctuary – parallel to nationalism
- Yagaiism – parallel to meritocracy (mentioned in the book)
Both communism and nationalism, even meritocracy to some extend (it’s still -cracy), have the same basic, as a defined community (like a faith).
A community = a system.
Not, at least, entirely opened, not freedom, and thus not just; coercion.
A state is a typical form of a community => taxation (equality) is wrong.
A system in its inefficiently (equality, not taxation here) hinders the ecology of help, and resources of those who can help (taxation), upon which premise it was originally built.
“It’s all about control.” – insecurity.
These are not explicit in the book, perhaps not even intended so, but seems somehow axionimal.
To the thought, a trade is not linear, I’d argue, there’s only one point possible to follow and that is a profit – a benefit – a Good.
As told in the book, you might not receive your help immediately back, if you give a dollar to a beggar, but given amount of money(help) can multiply sever times over a time dispersed into whole society and these affected members can affect you back.
No matter how long you live (to receive back), or for your children, or just because it is (G/g)ood, you hope, your help (money) will generate a larger amount of pleasure/wellness/Good.
You follow that single point, it’s perhaps multidimensional, but still linear.
That also means, there can be no beggars in Spain, in the meaning of members who have nothing to trade – where’s no trade, there’s nothing new and 0 probability of positive impact into the ecology of help.
A need is also something to trade, for which one is able to do something. The more one have nothing, the more one have the Need.
Love, that somebody cares of you, or a good word to someone unknown, is as well something one can unnoticeably give in a trade.
A potential is what you invest into and that includes probability and that requires inequality (=effectivity).
And it is required those who help are known, so they can receive a help themselves when needed. That requires an information share and perhaps, an open, personal log based on Blockchain technology could be such a potential platform.
This ecology of help is not of such direct back loop when one trade to whole society (many), but the area becomes much larger when doing so a company, whose customers represent a large part of a society. It would be profitable for them to contribute to the ecology of help (/trade) as much as they can to some optimal point on contributing/withdraw curve. What is important, they would contribute by the best way possible for a person to be productive in any way (incl. give a birth to someone “who will…”) to contribute into the ecology of help, into the ecology of trade.
That requires free hand and no monopoly from the side of a state, which is in its current form all about a coercion.