From control_principle to control_currency

Regime money is a currency to control, inseparable from employment/wage/job slavery. By the Maxwell demon control_principle from physics, loss of energy at the individual layer creates a caste_system above and entails accumulation of energy above. High energy above is high rate of change above, is regime_chaos, to the detriment of the individuals. Losing control is being a victim: obviously it backfires.

[control_principle]: All living systems and beyond are based on the Maxwell demon control_principle. Their structural complexity is a freezing of control/harvesting dependencies (cooling).

[control_currency] Money the control_currency: The enforced taxation (money_deletion) associated with all economic activities enforces labor for the regime, to acquire the money created by the regime (money_creation). The value of fiat money is based on the Monopoly_on_violence of the regime. Corporations are an unlimited extension of the regime’s limited intelligence to extract value_creation from its subjects. A regime’s ownership of its subjects is licensed to the corporation owner/s. Like the regime itself, corporations are no_limit wealth accumulation/extraction structures, overtaking the regime itself, becoming the regime (plutocracy). The loss of individual control due to enforced harvesting has evolutionary consequences for humanity as a whole.

[limiting_control] The way out of wealth accumulation can only be bottomup limiting_control from individuals. Victim or not is a matter of contract: The contract needs establish control and not money. Money is not fundamental, not important, but control is. limiting_control demands awareness of the majority, and can make a regime stable by statistical mass.

On wording:

locality_principle

Energy has local origin, but can get lost over time, freezing local activity (local structures).

control_principle

The use of energy lost from more local realities.

regime

Polity is a neutral word for a higher layer social control structures. But I prefer the word regime. It emphasizes the control structure. It also better separates those who control (elite) from those controlled (subjects). The word state in English has too many meanings, most outside politics. State as political entity also conflates people living in a state with the regime in that state.

control_currency

Enforcing demand for money allows the regime to control via money. Money is a tactics (softpower) to hide hardpower.

fiat_money

Enforcing taxes with all activities a subject does, the money becomes valuable for the subject.

money_deletion

Tax to delete money via economic activities and inflation to delete inactive money.

money_creation

By enforcing money_deletion the regime’s money becomes necessary, allowing continued control/usage of subjects by money_creation. While there are regulatory restrictions linking taxes/bonds with budget, money_creation and money_deletion conveys the basic idea.

value_creation

value means price. Value_creation from the standpoint of the regime is tax creation: more money_deletion allows for more money_creation.

theory_of_value

In valuation/pricing the control power manifests itself. Labor valuation (LTV) vs market valuation (STV) to harvest the difference (surplus) instead of Same_market_valuation.

surplus

Surplus is a euphemism for wage_slave harvesting. By separating labor valuation from market valuation instead of same_market_valuation, the regime/corporation can harvest the difference. This is the surplus.

same_market_valuation

Taking part in economic life requires both, consumption and contribution, to be valuated by the same market.

work_for_control

Work for control on same_market_valuation, not directly for regime money. You get regime money via your share on the market value of your joint product.

corporation

The popular term company is too general. Corporation being a legal person means that they are part of the regime.

wage_slave

Wage_slave for employee emphasizes the lack of control due to this role, even for long-time cooperations, the loss of the link to the market, and the associated no_limit accumulation of wealth/control.

caste_system

I use this name to emphasize that social layers of control are quite stable over many generations.

devide_and_conquer

Corporations divide people into a local communities, to decouple them from the market. Hiding market valuation and impose lower own valuation, allows the corporations to harvest the difference.

r_vs_g

$r > g$ return of investment (ROI) greater than growth of product and services (GDP, g) is due to labor pricing and value pricing not by the same market. Seeing money as a control_currency, growth g also including capital flow to the rich (like rent of flats owned by rich), this is not seeing the full extend of wealth driven wealth accumulation. It looks like an innocent whitewashing of actual harvesting.

no_limit

Accumulation of wealth via corporations is without limit because one can just add another wage_slave to harvest. This no_limit accumulative characteristic is also there for regimes. Those controlling don’t have any objective other than increase control: power_fixation, roi_fixation

power_fixation

regimes waging war just to increase the power of one or very view individuals

roi_fixation

ROI fixation leads to depletion and destruction of resources without actual need.

limiting_control

Individuals not limiting_control become victims of control (regime/corporations).

check_and_balances

limiting_control

intelligence_is_control

Intelligence is control. Curiosity is the generalist’s way to learn to control during lifetime. But not protected local control (farming, technology in general) will be harvested (warfare technology). limiting_control is as important as controlling.

wealth_inequality

By the control_principle control centralization is wealth accumulation. And vice versa wealth_inequality is control centralization (loss of democracy).

limits_of_control

Regime_chaos

Regime_chaos

Reality is local (locality_principle) and the regime has limited intelligence. Enforcement of money without responsibility or ability to distribute, at the end of the regime’s creativity to harvest individuals, use as cannonfodder is often the easiest way to maintain regime control.

hardpower

Regime’s are established by hardpower, but need softpower to become manageable.

softpower

Psychological tactics to make someone wanted to be controlled: psywar/informationasymmetry/gaslighting/brainwashing/propaganda/curryingfavor. A word not objected can quickly become reality.

keep_them_poor

The regime’s goal is not a good economy, but control. Keeping subjects poor produces a dependent on regime money.

keep_them_busy

Intelligence is control, but also needs time. Taking away the time from the subjects, their intelligence to counter regime control is reduced.

physics of control

Energy is rate of change. Action is accumulated change.

Here some synonyms of action:

Spacetime

Spacetime conveys that space (what changes) and time (the change) are physically one. Splitting spacetime into space and time is a mind thing and not physical.

variable

The values of the variable are changing, implying both the exclusive states and their change. A mind variable is physically happening/real in the mind but might not be mappable to an external world physical equivalent even if intended.

particle

Particle refers to one spacetime (the particle) among many similar (layer). “This spacetime consists of lower layer spacetimes” = “This particle consists by lower layer particles”.

Between layer’s: The lower layer’s action change is this layer’s step/quantum (Hamiltonian $H$) by which this layer’s spacetime emerges (Lagrangian). The Lagrangian is a 2D variable, the components being called potential energy $U$ and kinetic energy $T$

While there are more $q_{i}$ changes observable (collectively named just $q$), they are components of one change in a 2D deterministic spacetime $L = T - U$ line. Nature does not do a $q_{i}$ projecting to 2D, but rather relation between the many lowest layer 2D spacetimes produce the mental 3D world. With many independent localizations, layers of changes, the actual world around us is high-dimensional, with a 3D substrate.

The action $S = \int Ldt$ is the full spacetime extension of a potential-kinetic-cycle. In an independent cycle the action is constant. Constant action leads to the equation of motion (Euler-Lagrange Equation):

$$F = \frac{dp}{dt}$$

$$F ≔ \frac{\partial L}{\partial q}$$

$$p ≔ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{q}}$$

Every spacetime particle is curved by $F \neq 0$. $F = 0$ corresponds to no change, which is synonymous to non-existence.

In the real world of layers, $S$ is not stationary. It changes in $H$-steps lost to the layer above: $\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} = - H$. The local Lagrangian becomes part of another change (dependent on another time) and its 2D curve is not a cycle any more, a spiral possibly, unless the loss is compensated by an equivalent gain from yet further down, keeping a particle busy with turnover from below to above.

The layer above has the same description, but with

• different action $S$
• different time extension $\tau = \frac{S}{H}$
• different space extension $\lambda = \frac{S}{p}$

Hamiltonian $H$ is the layer’s time unit. Momentum $p$ is the layer’s space unit. It follows a layer-specific speed $v = \frac{\lambda}{\tau}$ linking space and time via layer specific $\lambda = v\tau$.

Special relativity is basically the relationship between layers, totalling lowest layer spacetime creation speed to $c$: $\left( \frac{E}{c^{2}} \right)^{2} = \left( \frac{p}{c} \right)^{2} + \left( m_{0} \right)^{2}$. Total mass is $m = \frac{E}{c^{2}}$. $m_{0}$ is the masses from layers below.

$q$ is a parameter, an observable. It could be money/wealth.

• Force $F$ would depend on money $q$.
• Momentum $p$ would be due to money flow $\dot{q}$.
• The Euler-Lagrange equation then say: Change in money flow is (due to) force at that wealth state.

Where is the link to reality? The valuation/pricing. If the valuation is concentrated, there will be no cycles, but fast cooling: harvesting to exhaustion, then move on.

control_principle

The loss of energy/time up the layers is a cooling process, gradually, over many cycles. A Maxwell demon control_principle is the usage of the loss of lower layers. The evolution itself, every cell, every higher organism, the animal/human brain and social structures are Maxwell demons. Control is physically the work to channel change, energy flow, possibly creating cycles spanning layers, creating new layers, forming complex living organisms, possibly just harvesting lower layers to exhaustion.

Intelligence_is_control: By evolution, the intelligence of a control structure is measured by its ability to live longer. This principle is encoded in genes. Specifically for the animal/human intelligence line, changing environments favoured the generalist strategy requiring higher individual intelligence and curiosity to learn in an individual’s lifetime.

While the structures of control are called life, it is actually a process of energy loss and cooling and eventual death. Controlling is living, being controlled is dying. Control concentration (power) is thus the consequence of the individual’s inability to keep its living energy, falling prey to harvesting.

• control_principle: Old intelligence of control says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God …” Ethics is a euphemism of regime propaganda: Centralized, dogmatic, softpower.
• locality_principle: The word is not reality.

Regarding money:

• Propaganda: money measures labor
• Reality: money measures control/leverage/ownership

locality_principle

The control_principle is linked to the locality_principle:

• locality_principle: Action is localized and involves time to produce space. Time and space are inseparable. There is no space existing unless local where some action happens.
• control_principle: harvesting of energy/time from layers below is loss of local energy. Energy lost from layers below creates layers above. Special relativity basically says, time lost is less local time.

locality_principle from a human individual:

• Reality is local.
• Try to verify/falsify a description, as description is not the real thing. verificationfalsification.
• Don’t confuse a word with reality.
• Everybody has its own brain to judge, valuate, plan.
• Evolutionary heritage of individual control: emotions (One feels better in a local world, having things under control).
• Local control for local matters.
• Respect for local matters requires protection for local matters.

Intelligence_is_control: farming, warfare, technology

Transitioning now from physics to human economy, the rise of harvesting techniques lead to the caste_system within human society (the layers above).

The big brain of humans compared to other animals developed before the neolithic revolution, putting them at the top of the food chain, within the larger and older control idea of evolution. In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic some realized that they did not have to follow herds, but could control them locally.

Large language families hint to a localized starts, with first examples about 12k BP (before present). These people lived without regimes for a long time. Without detail to local realities, actual empires emerged only 5k BP. That is 7k of prospering without empires. The age of empires since then is less. Empires prospered on slavery (meaning broadly controlled humans of various degrees): The high energy harvesting is reflected by the high range of change: We have had now 5k high rate change in the empires layer. It also had evolutionary consequences, the Y-chromosome bottleneck: those harvested could not reproduce.

The empires are linked to a new technology: bronze could produce better weapons. The farmers were not able to protect themselves. With empires farmers started to be harvested. There is no such thing as surplus. Farmers were forced to produce more.

The regime was mostly an individual king able to team up with warriors to have enough brute force (hardpower). With more control the regime’s continuation depended on the ability to organize the control, to record what is under control.

• The first scripts were invented
• Money was invented

Intelligence_is_control means all kind of intelligence from control processes within cells, to plant, to animals with brains, emotional control, rational control of animals, including humans. This information processing technology is what a lot understand as intelligence in a more specific comparative sense. Also the purpose of this information processing intelligence is to control (intelligence_is_control).

softpower/propaganda/diplomacy: A regime is a thinktank: word/writing/money is necessary

• to align the understanding within the elite, within the bureaucracy
• and to be consistent over time
• to influence the subjects, especially via religion
• keep_them_busy (wagesslave/games/social media/information distraction/overloading)

New technologies:

• farming
• machines/massproduction
• books/media/computers/internet/artificialintelligence

New harvesting:

• hardpower/warfare/oppression/coercion
• softpower/writing/money/propaganda/diplomacy/media

Neolithic revolution, industrial revolution, information revolution is harvesting by central design. The technology grew locally, by ingenious tech people, scientists, but was then mass-exploited, allowing the controlling class, the elite, to grow, producing layers above, with slow freezing of control/use structures. Nowadays basic value work needs to support a big control hierarchy above (caste_system).

No_limit harvesting as a game: Writing, money, mathematics are optimizations of control, be it technical control or political. It allowed to build on previous generations, becoming accumulative. Politically the power accumulation led to big empires. no_limit refers to the fact that the control does not aim to maintain an individual or local family. The no_limit accumulation characteristic is inherited to corporations, a regime’s control extension ([no_limit]).

regime_chaos

Written history was unstable, disrupting individual matters by catastrophic events like wars, revolutions, famines, economic chaos, in summary, inflicted by control from above: regime_chaos.

The regimes harvest the individuals and thus have a lot of energy, energy being equivalent to change/variability. The energy is used to increase control:

• hardpower/expansion/wars
• softpower/propaganda
• surveillance/consolidation of power

The leader/regime has little risk, because the risk is delegated to the subjects. The subjects fight the wars.

Regime_chaos is not a decision of the regime, it is rather the conflict between control_principle and locality_principle (limits_of_control):

• The regime has its own locality: The Regime does not know about the plans of its subjects. The result is chaos.
• Subjects have their own locality, because not harvested to death. The regime does not harvest to death, but wants to continue harvesting. Fighting the regime is very risky. Subjects might lose the little life they have.
• Subjects being harvested have little energy/time. Subjects are busy serving their regime. Subjects cannot muster unite force to counter the central thinktank.
• Softpower: The majority of subjects can be programmed by propaganda.
• Hardpower/violence: There is also surveillance and violent oppression to nip resistance in the bud.

Softpower

Religion showed how to do softpower:

• carefully select the narrative
• repeat phrases without much meaning every week in the Sunday mass. People will continue cycling the words in their heads as if they were reality, as if they were their own words.

Regimes do the same via Olympic games, or song contests, or national days, to keep an idea of political states in the heads of the subjects. Tribal in-group/out-of-group thinking from the time before the neolithic revolution can be put to use by the regime. This softpower is a lot less effort for the regime than hardpower. Being harvested, people have no time to think things through and are victims of softpower.

The thinktank intelligence power of the intelligence service of a regime is hard to compete with, unless uniting to compete with it. Keeping people busy with games or social media reduces intelligence: less time to learn, less time to plan alternatives.

Tech people want to control tech out of pure curiosity. “Look, what I can do?” “Wow. I’m impressed. Then you can help me” There are those folks, who have developed the intelligence to live on tech folks a long time before the start of civilization. Tech folks, living in a their tech focused mindset, succeeding to harvest lower level very well, were caught by surprise to see themselves being harvested to such extend.

In the meantime those who control have developed their own technology, the psychology of control. Tech folks are harvested to burn-out, became the providers for a huge caste_system above, and all they get is more and more demanding masters, competing with each other for more control. Tech folks, scientists, never intended a social benefit (propaganda term of those controlling). They were harvested for control and power. “Knowledge is power” for those who’s only goal is power, and that power turns out to have no social benefit at all: just a game to harvest more. If someone talks about social benefit, social contract, ethics, it is a central figure’s propaganda to become more powerful.

The laws, in principle applying for all, do allow registering as corporation. By providing corporation as ownable legal entities, you have the choice, whether you like to be controlled or control. Intelligence is control, so it is natural selection

• wanting to be controlled (the slave, the henchmen, the minions)
• controlling (the master, the villain)

So regarding wealth_inequality the regime is saying: it is not us to blame if some want to control and others want to be controlled.

It is not just George Orwell’s 1984 big brother, it is also the happiness of the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley, and the psychohistory of Asimov and, on the controlled side ,the Zombies and the Morlocks. Now the control psychology has its own infrastructure, with the channels to almost all via social media, combined with AI, they target the fast amygdala, suppressing the cerebral cortex (keep_them_busy).

Propaganda is all that is not in your local world. A regime name, i.e. a nationality, is a just a word producing links between unknown people where there is no reason to, or produces discrimination, where there is no reason to. It is all just a central narrative, and all the zombies follow, and even kill unknown people in wars, because of a word.

Money

Money is the most important instrument of control or a regime. That is also why its usage is enforced. One needs the regime money to survive.

Money can be considered softpower due to its technicality: an instrument allowing unfair valuation/pricing discrepancies (informationasymmetry). Money has also the hardpower backing of the regime’s Monopoly_on_violence.

Money goes back to the first regimes at the end of the neolithic revolution, beginning bronze age, as bookkeeping records of the elite. Money is central to control, since the beginning of civilization. Money measures control/leverage. Money is a control_currency.

money_creation, money_deletion; value_creation

After having established and consolidated the control structures, money becomes the perfect means of control by the regime. It is unlike other assets by the fact that the regime can create it so easily, just a command, just a word, just a number. Zero effort to create money but so much control in using it. Money is an order of the regime.

Money has no inherent value. Actual value_creation is by activities, by work, by labor. The regime must make sure it can buy labor with the money it creates. How does the regime motivate/enforce labor with money? The regime associates taxes to all activities individuals depend on. In order to do these activities people need to labor. This way people associate money with value (fiat_money).

These are inseparable:

• regime
• money
• wageslavery

Regarding taxes: A transaction between buyer and seller could use any currency. They could use their own “IOU” note. There would be no need for a third party, the bank, as the agent of the regime. But that is not allowed. The regime enforces the use of its money, by associating a tax based on a price in the regime’s currency. This way every transaction does need the regime’s currency.

If taxes are enforced to impose a valuation via its money, to then provide that money in exchange for work based on central valuation, one sees the shift from hardpower to softpower. If the taxes and the wages are undisputed because of hardpower, what is disputed is the how much: theory_of_value.

• Labor theory of value (LTV): Regime fixes the labor price and other prices will adapt.
• Subjective theory of value (STV): the valuation is local, to keep one’s control or the surviving. Valuation market: decentralized valuation by many, using their local contexts.

Wealth_inequality, no_limit accumulation, is due to not fully transitioning to market economy. Regimes/Corporations still split individuals into local groups

• with imposed lower than market valuation
• with the purpose to harvest them

The regime imposing valuation by wage makes money measure control (control_currency). The actual valuation by the market results in the no_limit accumulation characteristic.

Same_market_valuation: If the product market were to valuate both, the contribution/work and the product, then the individual would be part of the market and not a wage_slave. Such distribution of valuation control would produces a more fair wealth distribution. Control distribution = wealth distribution.

The fact that fair cooperations are rather rare hints to regime softpower suppression. Regimes and subsequently their corporations oppose contracts involving profit sharing, because they want to keep control.

In valuation/pricing the control power manifests itself, money outs itself as currency of control (control_currency). Pricing is not a fair seller-buyer agreement, but rather an enforcement by title/power, and very subjective (STV = subjective theory of value). Boss pricing of labor, pricing local in space and time, price discrimination by buyer, predatory pricing to eliminate competition, informationasymmetry, lock-in leverage, political price making by leverage, without alternative, without competition. Central regime labor valuation (LTV = labor theory of value) is linked to money_creation. The regime tries to control both. STV to LTV is like locality_principle to control_principle.

Officially though in an otherwise non-coercive, non-violence society, the valuation is by agreement, by contract, assuming everybody valuates to keep its local word running.

Understanding topdown control and limiting_control bottomup depends very much on independent thinking and valuation.

A regime controls a big part of the economy with its money, on the average about 50%, especially in sectors that are key for control.

Historically, only a lot of time after the idea of money by regimes, private money lending emerged, e.g. in ancient Rome. Although money is a very essential part of the regime’s power, it demands expertise to avoid hyper-inflation, which would equate to loss of power to the regime. A regime delegates the money guarding to the central or federal bank, with some independence to keep the inflation at about 2%. The central bank controls the commercial banks.

With private loans, money_creation is not any more a regime privilege:

• Vertical/exogenous money is created by the central bank on regime instruction, and deleted by taxes. The deletion of the money is associated with every economic activity, buying food, having a place to live, … The imposed deletion of the money is essential in forcing people to labor for new money.
• Horizontal/endogenous money is created by a commercial bank loans and deleted by repayment. The value/asset is given by the promise of the debtor: the creditor (commercial bank) must verify credit-worthiness. Horizontal money generation is 2 to 5 times the regime budget. The regime uses it, too, to some extend, as liability in addition to bonds.

value_creation vs money_creation: Price arbitraging, while creating money for an individual, is money circulation/value_creation, not money_creation.

The technicalities of money_creation vary. In the Eurozone vertical money_creation is:

• ECB lending to commercial banks with key interest requires bank securities based on assets. Commercial banks create horizontal money, i.e. loans to individuals or corporations (debtors). The promises of repayment of the debtors are assets.
• ECB buying state bonds directly (called quantitative Easing)

Bonds are tradable loans.

• Government bonds: in the secondary market, not directly from the member state.
• Corporate bonds

Inflation

Taxation of economic activities would not delete inactive money, saved money sitting in private accounts. Inflation is the devaluation of money to tax/delete also unused money. This should drive private money usage but more importantly it allows regime money_creation and thus control, even though there is enough money around. An inflation of about 2% is wanted by the regime.

The inflation drives economic activity (keep_them_busy)

• by consumerism, and thus creates more money_deletion than just the 2% of inflation. Money_deletion allows the regime to do more money_creation, to do more control: money_deletion is value_creation.
• by active investment into scarce asset, driving their prices up

Neither product demand no product supply do change that much in a year. Rather inflation is the result of

• regime extra money_creation and
• market pricevolatility

The regime drives inflation by extra money_creation per year (money_creation - money_deletion).

• In calm times the extra money_creation corresponds to the key interest: Having to pay back more than is circulated per year due to the key interest, demands a corresponding extra money_creation per year.
• If inflation is driven by the market, the regime cannot do the extra money_creation, to make the key interest take money out of circulation. So unwanted inflation reduces the control power of the regime.

Key interest is about 2%:

• EU: ECBDFR, lending ceiling and floor
• US: IORB

Inflation beyond the wanted 2% is subdivided into demand-pull and supply-push.

• Supply-push inflation: Regulatory volatility/chaos from many regimes in a global market produce pricevolatility (tax changes, tariff changes, regulation changes for various sectors, etc). To avoid loss in the supply chain the maximum price is used for calculations.
• Demand-pull: Higher employment, more equal distribution, but also inflation driven consumerism and driving asset prices up as alternative to inflationary money

Both are due to too fast changes in supply and/or demand. Fast changes can only happen due to regimes, inter-regime instability, natural catastrophes, as people by themselves, uncoordinated, have too much statistical mass to be unstable.

Wages of the nocontrol wage_slave society normally do not catch up to inflation. So a very large portion of population gradually falls below subsistence even with a job. Inflation increases the harvesting.

Over a longer period gradually the part of the population that cannot take part in the economy gets bigger. The economy shrinks.

Unemployment

Unemployment is inherent to the regime harvesting system, even if a regime aims at full usage / full employment of its subjects. The regime must keep a certain percentage of unemployment. New or growing businesses could not grow without labor availability. Unemployment money is to keep individuals alive to be harvested when needed.

Reasons for unemployment beyond the wanted percentage:

• topdown control means high churn at the corporation layer due to no_limit accumulation
• over-harvesting/under-valuation. A big portion of low income society reduces demand and slows the economy.
• More wealth concentration also reduces investor intelligence, making an economy incapable to innovate

Unemployment is a symptom of regime chaos, of its limit of control, of its lack of responsibility. In some regimes unemployed people get homeless people: that is harvesting to death. Some regimes admit their responsibility and provide a universal basic income (UBI). An UBI can help to keep essential sectors of the economy alive, alleviating the lost demand due to wealth_inequality. An UBI also alleviates social unhappiness due to over-harvesting, which might lead to political turmoil.

Regime_chaos: Since plutocracy is high accumulate power of regime money by private owners and high influence on regime to save the money from taxation, the regime loses control on money_creation and thus becomes unable to maintain people between corporation havesting cycles. The regime might lose its stable cycling and spiral to a collapse.

Accumulation without limit

Regime money can be used by everybody that owns it, to buy labor and the products of labor. By currency exchange, businessmen and even other regimes, can buy labor in other countries. So the money acquired a value for everybody by the control of a regime.

A new world of control emerges, using the regime’s control_currency to control.

The few in the regime could not think of all things that can be done with the wage slaves. That’s where corporations as legal entities step in. The regime delegates control, simply because it could not control so many activities. A corporation embodies a purpose wage slaves can be used for. A corporation is a control-by-wage license from the state.

• The regime owns its subjects.
• A corporation ownership of wage slaves as an extension of the regime’s ownership of its subjects. Regime ownership titles are not all equal. Private corporation ownership has its own regulations to comply to.

Ownership of land was a question of survival since the neolithic revolution, but was probably not that important earlier. Ownership did involve time, that limits the ownership, that limits the control. Ownership of other people’s labor is quite another thing: There is no_limit any more, as everything is forwarded to wage slaves. Coordination work, working out ideas, can all be delegated to wage slaves.

Maxwell demon control_principle is profitable.

• Distributing control would be distributing wealth.
• More control concentration is more wealth accumulation.

By giving to some control and making others controlled (wage slave), corporations are the regime’s design of accumulation to those who control. The accumulation is without limits and thus an instability by design.

Corporation ownership is a title, a tag, that entitles to harvest the wageslaves. Value_creation is by labor, but harvesting profit is by title, controlled/protected by the regime. This produces a caste_system of control, by design of the regime, on top of which sits the regime itself.

More general, ownership on all kind of so called assets, not just corporations, but also on contracts, on mortgages, on insurances, on pieces of art, on apartments, …, indirectly are also harvesting licences.

• Higher castes acquire money by ownership, characterized also by higher yield, higher return of investment (ROI)
• The lowest caste acquires money by work, characterized by menial drudging with low yield. To unite to have leverage on their valuation would help them, because money is leverage, not labor. There is nothing wrong with physical and mental work. The problem is just the loss of control on their valuation to roles by central title (ownership title).

To the regime all money acquisition types are value_creation. Value_creation is defined by pricing/valuation, and not by actual usefulness. To maximize pricing one needs to maximize leverage. For the regime all value_creation is useful, even non-labor money acquisition methods, as they help the regime in money_deletion via taxes, giving the regime more control power because allowing a bigger budget, and thus allowing bigger control on the working class/caste.

Evolutionary consequences

Being a living organism is being a control system with gene mixes corresponding to kinds/species of control. Individual trajectories in the current environment are linked to the gene trajectories via reproductive success. Genes encode an individual as well as the environment.

Control that has local benefit, like the curiosity to learn one’s environment, or sexual desire, allowing a woman to control a man, was encoded in genes. Evolutionary encoding of fairness behavior (limiting_control) was a co-evolution with the tribal environment. Our psychology of control and limiting_control is still tribal, while the reality has shifted to central intelligence, making people being harvested like farmers harvest animals.

Post-neolithic harvesting of farmers led to a Y-chromosome bottleneck, starting about 5k BP and lasting almost 3k. Marriage as top-down reproduction regulation was probably to keep the caste going, as the elite depended on them. Female dispersal and hypergamy combined with male selection by beauty rather than status, allowed for some gene flow up the caste_system, just not those in the Y-chromosome. Force from the elite, e.g. Rape_of_the_Sabine_women, allowed for some gene flow down the caste_system.

Being just harvested, being just an employee/wage_slave has at stake more than personal survival. Wage slaves have an evolutionary disadvantage. Nowadays this also includes women.

• A female wage_slave has no time and energy to engage and to raise kids. The society raising kids leads to hospitalism.
• Why engage with an employee, with low wage, and unstable job.
• Reproduction with rich (hypergamy) is not possible, because marriage restricts polygyny, although sperm banks circumvent that.
• A rich female corporation owner has a hard time for hypergamy, with so many wageslaves.
• And the risk of losing income is high, if victim of the whim of bosses, with the churn between corporations striving for world domination.

Lower fertility of a society is a symptom of economic over-harvesting. Centrally controlled reproduction through marriage is not helping any more, especially not for women.

Control/power concentration has dire implications, of evolutionary scale, for the majority are being controlled, are losing living energy. Y-chromosome bottleneck is evolutionary example. The development started with farming in the neolithic (neolithic revolution) and continues with exponential dynamics. Regimes, corporations, wage slavery, are and were the biggest danger for every generation and its evolutionary lines. High wealth concentration means high dependence. A sudden change in central thinking and the dependence leads to death, via famines or wars. Centralized suppression of individual control equates to suppression of the evolution of human intelligence on the long run. It is true that the highly complex organization led to a lot more evolutionary lines surviving than among other species. But one war can end many lines very quickly. There is no statistical stability over evolutionary time, if a few individuals can control according their whims. The link to actual local genes gets lost in regime_chaos. From the evolutionary perspective, accumulation of control over evolutionary time, is equivalent to end of humankind.

limiting_control

The problem since empires, since regimes, since corporations, is the no_limit growth of structures. Regimes have reached unbelievable scale, world dominations, several times already in written history. Corporations now grow beyond the size of regimes. The no_limit characteristic is there for both, regimes and corporations.

Tribal evolution has instilled mechanisms of limiting_control: Emotions in group animals, like envy and jealousy, serve as limiting_control (inequity aversion, fairness emotion). Those who did not do limiting_control died out. That emphasizes the importance of limiting_control.

topdown

History of regimes and history of economy has shown that no_limit control is unstable.

Wage slavery, being a harvested labor, produces wealth accumulation at corporation owners. Thus the regime aims at wealth accumulation. But wealth accumulation reduces economic activity and thus taxes. Since regimes try to avoid deficit budgets, to keep inflation at 2%, wealth accumulation reduces the budget and thus the control of the regime. Why does the regime want to reduce its control? It does not, if one sees the wealthy as the regime: a plutocracy.

• Political representatives are made by the wealthy, party-internal, or via campaign support.
• Laws are made by the wealthy: lobbying.
• Jurisdiction is expensive, accessible only to the wealthy.

The little bid of democracy that is left (elections) is just a show of public mood. But that mood is also shaped by the wealthy, more so via social media.

Plutocracy is a state toward regime collapse (regime_chaos), because the regime cannot maintain a long-living cycle.

Plutocracy want people at their disposal, to work for their corporations, so keep_them_poor. Plutocracy non-goals: Economic growth by distributing wealth is not an objective, as that would take away control. Rather economic growth means wealth accumulation growth, control growth to those already in control.

To mitigate the inequality’s effect on growth a regime could do:

• Wealth taxes. How would that fit to the regime wealth accumulation by design (employment = wage_slave)? The original goal of the regime money is to control its subjects. Licensing the same harvesting to privately owned corporations takes away control from the regime to some of its subjects. This wealth concentration is like a money issuer right, without the cohesion within the regime, without responsibility to keep the value of the control_currency. If the wealthy started to spend all of their money it would lead to a huge inflation. But wealth taxes mitigate the harvesting license to corporations only if the associated additional regime spending goes to the victims of the harvesting, i.e. wealth taxes to finance UBI. The regime could do higher deficit budget based on wealth_inequality, like Gini index, without wealth taxes. But that would make the wealthy spend and drive inflation further than wanted.
• Control mitigation spending to reduce control, should
  • financing competition in high yield sectors
  • by a universal basic income (UBI) to allow people to care for local things, renovate, care for children, etc. Sectors of economy of basic importance could be kept from shrinking by an UBI.
  • spending in recreational sectors
  • spending for science and science popularization.

Due to the no_limit accumulation characteristic a corporation inherits from the regime, anti-trust, anti-collusion, no-monopoly competition laws have little effect: A corporation controlling by wageslavery bypasses anti-trust laws: It makes sense to buy the competition.

• On the production side, with mass production, not cooperating would just be plain stupid. Why not minimize costs? Let’s make a (new) corporation we own and control together.
• On the selling side, if the purpose of a corporation is to just make different packaging, different pricing for the same product? Customers hate that, see it as fraud.

Further:

• Local monopoly. There is no competition in my shop.
• Wage standards: Control is for profit, no matter what wage cost. Higher wage cost just goes into the product price and my accumulation is adjusted to meet it. Wage standards are not for the wage slaves, but to avoid an advantage of competing corporations.
• There are other regimes with lower wages, where the local regime’s standards do not apply. A corporation does not need to do human trafficking if the regimes are human traffickers already.

Inter-regime competition: Human trafficking is arbitraging regime wageslavery. Many types of labor can be outsourced to other regimes with worse wagesslave standards. The coercion to use wageslaves or to become a wage_slave comes from the use of wageslaves by the regime itself. Wage slavery is by softpower, actual slavery was by hardpower. That is the only difference. But what does it help, if the survival depends on it in both cases. Inter-regime competition are quite hard limits_of_control of the regime.

Money concentrating

• is control concentration
• is harvesting concentration
• is energy concentration
• is central change rate increase
• is instability
• is a path to economic collapse, regime collapse, wars, destructions.

Structural collapse is synonymous to civilization collapse. The sudden loss of complexity means a sudden loss of many individuals due to their dependencies. To avoid collapses one mast avoid sudden changes, one must avoid power concentration, one must avoid wealth concentration, one must avoid regimes. All change must be motivated bottomup. This makes big changes very slow. Very slow global changes are very important to avoid a civilization collapse. To transition from a regime to a stable state, organization must go bottomup.

Words are easy. Are they reality? Wealth_inequality is regularly measured and turns out to be real. Since wealth_inequality is due to controlinequality, continuing with names like “democracy” is like denying reality.

No_limit control/wealth accumulation will eventually reach a limit by collapse, unless corrected. A corrective adjustment to avoid collapse can happen only bottomup, limiting_control. The more becoming aware of the necessity

• to actively safeguard control/money and/or
• to reconquer control/money and/or
• limiting_control

the more control distribution, the better for the society as a whole, producing a natural stability. The more linking cooperation with co-controlling money distribution, the more economic link to local realities.

bottomup

Without bottomup limiting_control individuals are victims of control. Control_principle is basic and essential: basically all work is control. Regarding money, I refer to the valuation power, pricing power, over control work. Pricing by leverage destroys the value of money as a control_currency, because de-localizing money remove necessary local money (local control).

Whether a political structure is democratic or not is not linked to election, but rather on how much limiting_control comes from individuals.

• If a constitution gives power to control to those elected, it is NOT democratic.
• If a constitution restricts elected individuals to just coordinate control coming bottomup, then it is democratic.

Competing structures sometimes demand fast change, because of some new bottomup technology revolutionizing from below. An elected individual needs to observe the competition and make the local base aware. Change still must happen bottomup. Maxwell control_principle has variants:

• Slow bottomup control is placing the benefit of the individual at the center. Bottomup fits to our tribal psychology: we want to be in control, which includes agreeing to necessary changes, adapting bottomup.
• Wage slavery has not the idea of bottomup and is thus destructive to the individuals.

Energy/money lost to layers above creates structures above in many layers, a rise of complexity above, a caste_system, adding load to the value creating individuals, backfiring via the churn in the higher layers. Big inert complex dependency structures demand very stable control structures, very slow changes.

The actual competition must be on the individual level. The individual has limited time, limited intelligence, there is real competition. But individuals competing with wageslaves is making the individual a slave, too. The imposed regime wageslavery sets the standard, a no_limit wealth accumulation standard.

work_for_control tributecompany: redefining wages as tributes

In a free society cooperation offers are subject to competition, which should actually favor fair cooperations. There should be a sharing of contracts and a fairness rating between them. There are online platforms that compare product prices, but there are no such platforms for working contracts. So one can see the regime’s intention to decouple wages from market value. same_market_valuation is not practiced due to regime’s control hierarchy. Valuation is inherently part of controlling: Controll power means valuation power, means wealth_inequality.

A major step out of control accumulation would be to move from centrally controlled pricing of labor, to pricing of labor by the same market that prices the products of labor: work_for_control of profit distribution rather than for wage.

Long-time cooperation contracts should have the work_for_control principle: The control on the distribution on the market valuation (the profit). Work_for_control could also be called workfor_ownership.

Localizing control also means that central proposals of how that could be done need to be regarded as remote ideas not considering local realities.

Nevertheless here a rudimentary fantasy for a for-profit long-time cooperation:

tributecompany

Market valuation attributed to one’s contribution by the principle of same_market_valuation. You acquire ownership share by work. Ownership share is a local control_currency per company, that is exchanged with the profit shares in regime money. An easy transition is to rename and repurpose regular contribution-based payments (tributes), to not be transactional for labor, but to be ownership shares. The tributes in regime money are accounted to the partners. The ownership share is the balance relative to the sum of balances of the partner accounts. The profit in regime money from the market is distributed according ownership share at the end of the fiscal year, to all currently working and all former partners of a company. Ownership share means your share on the profit, not technical or managerial coordination. A tributecompany has a public registry of tributes and profit allowing current and former partners to verify their profit share. A good profit attracts new partners, keeping the business running, even when founders decide to move on. They can move on without suddenly losing their profit share, although over time it will get diluted.

individualism=democracy

Key Points

• democracy = individualism
• central control is abused (power, inequality)
• central control needs checking (mutation and selection)
• locality: work for yourself, local questions to local consensus
• slow and statistical = stability
• direct democracy with minimal law text
• always alternatives, never monopoly
• replace taxes by an economic supply and demand
• country = administrative unit by geographic locality
• the internet is an enabling technology

Introduction

The different meanings of value:

• information: Value of a variable would be a time step or event of the variable. The variable is a time line (Information-time-energy)
• economy: Value is the economic appreciation of a product that is sold.
• ethics: Value of something not sold, but needing protection from society, like good air, friendly people around, fairness, stability, health, life, ...

Sociology studies societies. The topic here is from ethics, which tries to find better ways to live together. Here, ethical value is meant.

There is much awry in society. It goes on for too long. Then suddenly civilization collapses. There is a collapse currently in Ukraine coming form power concentration. How could such power concentration happen? One person deciding over millions: How absurd is that? Why did other countries do economy with a system that is unstable because controlled by one, not statistical? Now it breaks out on Ukraine and Russia and all the countries that have economic links to Russia. History has many such example.

In employment=inequality the topic was that centrally controlled companies lead to inequality. Central control is always abused. A dictator is always a traitor. Power concentration reduces the importance of the individual. Inequality reduces democracy.

Societies are going in the wrong direction because their growth was too fast and is organizationally lagging behind. Every little money, a little power, little CO2 can accumulate to too much. The individual needs to have feedback of its actions. The society needs better information channels, more timely feedback, to allow the individuals to make informed decisions.

The unit of control, of thinking, is a person. Control (coordination) is needed to produce a group action, but all systems have two forces: mutation and selection, which maps to control and checking. You (all) need to check on the coordinator that he acts in your interest. How to do the checking? Start with providing information.

We need to change laws, the programming code of society,

• to avoid accumulation
• to implement transparency and checking
• to follow principles of nature, such as locality and mutation and selection.

Information is the key again. There is the need to think and educate to avoid collapses for the future. The internet is a enabling technology.

Physics

Let's refresh a basic understanding:

• Everything is information (variable consisting of values), even physical matter.
• Information does not exist without time. Actually: time is information.
• There are as many separate time lines as there are independent systems.
• Energy compares two systems: it is information/time or time1/time2.
• The static of the dynamics is the value of the variable. The value has internal dynamics. Systems have subsystems.
• In a system of systems the subsystems develop towards more independent time lines. The interaction between subsystems reduce (T becomes smaller) such that the subsystems have more time for themselves (entropy S rises). For humans that would be more individual freedom.
• High entropy S of a system means that new resources (like energy dQ) gets distributed to all subsystems without much fuss (at low temperature T). For a society, this can be called a fair society.

Psychology

The brain is a dynamic system that reproduces the dynamics of the world around. If we see a car passing by, we can afterwards close the eyes and rerun what we have seen in our brain. This rerun is actually happing in the brain.

What we call information on a system, in the traditional sense, is a copy of the outside system in our brain, or rather, a more or less compressed model or program. To get into existence the program needs to run in our brain. But it is a reality in the brain that runs, not the system it describes.

When we love or get angry about someone or something, we actually get angry about the image in our brain first.

A movie about an actor is not the actor. If we see an actor or blogger every day, it is there in our brain, as if it was a member of the family, but it is a twice indirected image of the person, not the person itself.

A blogger with a million followers in Youtube gets money, e.g. in a live events, as if it was a member of the family. A million thanks, but people: it is not a family member.

Star: I don't know you.
 Fan: You talk to me every day.
 Fan: You are part of my family, now.
 Fan: That's why I give you money for food and gas.
Star: Thanks a million times.
 Fan: I also would fight to protect you.

Our brain is a parallel world and needs regular checkups with the real world. Mass media are an image and if they purportedly describe an actual situation (like news), they need regular checkups via independent channels.

The model in our brain needs constant crosschecks, too, for consistency.

Fans just support a football team or a sports star or a politician and want it to win, although there is no connection whatsoever. It is just an identification with that team or person, as if it was part of the family, because they follow every move and have constructed a parallel image of that team or person.

Politicians among others exploit that people are unable to wrap their head around mass media.

The ethical values of many are foundation of a society, no matter whether good or bad ethical values. A state or dictator controlled TV station can manipulate subtly, e.g. letting a person, the viewer identifies with, say something in the interest of the state. The viewer does not take or is not given the time to access long-term memory for crosscheck. So he just reruns what was just said. He might remember it later and use it for crosschecks, even if it was just an opinion without association to basic principles.

E.g. "It can't be the wages that companies don't find employees, as 1234 is a high wage." Is it really a high wage? What does the company earn? How is it shared? Are wages the right way to share the profit?

The state TV opinion gets told to millions, but the millions have no way to tell a different story, which is fundamentally undemocratic.

The internet (e.g. Youtube, Tiktok, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, ..) allows everybody to make mass media. The 1-n becomes a n-m relation, which makes it harder to control the majority opinion. But those with a lot of money can still gain influence by buying n influencers to spread an opinion. Still the many alternative views make individuals compare and think and come to their own conclusion.

The internet allows so many more possibilities, away from centralization towards more democracy: collaboration (Wikipedia, Gitlab, Github, Google Docs, ...), shared consensus and control, cryptocurrencies, ... The internet allow the information channels that are still lagging behind the fast population growth.

Politics for Democracy

Politics IS NOT following.

Politics IS NOT fandom.

Politics IS defending one's own interests.

Politics IS programming a social code with a chance for consensus.

A dictator is the result of a political attitude of many. People brainwashed from dictatorships understand politics as "following someone" and not so much as defending one's interest in a consensus mechanism.

I once had an interview where he said: "I expect you to be proud to work in this company." What? Do you see the dictator's tactic to instill valuation to his advantage? Compare this to patriotism. If people are proud to make someone super-rich or super-powerful, they are not being democratic.

Democracy is more than a system, it is an attitude. Democracy is something an individual does. A democrat is an individualist that does not follow anybody, but supports and defends its own interest.

The attitude starts with education. The majority must understand their responsibility.

• the danger in any tendency to following. It just produces factions fighting each other.
• the danger to political monopoly.
• the value in alternatives.
• the value of transparency, of information.

History has shown that any centralization has been abused, be it in politics, be it in economy.

The individual must be important, nothing else.

Individualism = Democracy.

Individualism = Democracy

Ethical values are values that secure more tangible values in the society.

Ethical valuation happens by living a time line. Life can only be valuated by the one living it, the individual. Economic and ethical values can only be appreciated by individuals, directly or indirectly. So all values hinge on one value: Individual freedom within the society.

Democracy = Individualism = I AM IMPORTANT = YOU ARE IMPORTANT.

A society's purpose is the individual.

• The individual lives in the society, because it has individual advantages.
• The individual leaves the society (makes crimes, does not follow rules, leaves a company, ...), if the society misses its aim to improve the life of the individual.
• To fulfill the aim of the society, the individual must understand, what is good for the society and act accordingly.

The society is the sum of all interactions. Every local interaction must aim for fairness. For every single interaction this means:

• If I renounce on my fair share, I do no good to society.
• If I keep more to myself, I do no good to society.

---

One starts with one's own individual value. This individual value is important to ourselves, because we planned it, worked on it, we safeguarded it, we depend on it. We want the society around us to protect it, too.

Aggression would secure individual value for a lone predator, but for individuals living together in a society, aggression exposes the individual to the aggression from others. Aggression is therefore not an ethical value. In humans, rage evolved to counter aggression.

Aggression must not be confused with anger. Anger is rather the response to aggression. Aggression is disrespect for the other in case of conflict. It is a stupid direct way to solve a problem, but it was successful until population density became two high.

There is a difference between in-group conflict and out-of-group conflict. The group as a whole attacking and conquering the resources of another group (aggression), was part of our evolution. In-group aggression would be sanctioned while conquering other territory would be supported.

The global disadvantageous consequences of Putin's invasion in Ukraine shows that on our planet humans are all in-group already. The global community needs to sanction such behavior.

---

It is not enough to unite to be stronger against the other. If the majority decides against the minority it is also wrong. The dictatorship of the majority is still dictatorship. Rules must be based on abstract thinking, that leaves the locality of one's own interest, that sees the perspective of all parties.

Alternatives to fighting and loosing on both sides, could be sharing, finding more resources together, creating an economy.

Inability to respect the individual interest in a conflict between parties meant war, deaths and thus an evolutionary disadvantage. Thinking abstractly, producing an inclusive ethics, was necessary due to the population explosion. But this population explosion was so fast, that some still have the small tribe behavior.

Following someone instead of representing one's interests, inability to see the propaganda, giving in to repression, inability to think of alternatives, the lack of initiative, ... all this stifles the development of a society, its economy.

If a dictator demands patriotism, which is just a thought, it is like religion demanding faith in god. Repression of "traitors" is like inquisition in the middle ages. We know that society was not very creative in the middle ages. The middle ages lasted so long because very few individuals opposed the religious repressions.

The unit of thinking in society is the human brain, the individual. Parallel independent thinking is a faster trial-and-error for the evolution of the society. Error in trial-and-error does not mean "I kill you because your opinion differs from mine", because that is evolutionary bad as it reduces the population of people trying and thinking by their own. Error is rather wrong by disproof via counterexample. The second trial-and-error method allows some to learn from the mistakes of others without dying.

A society with tendencies to control (the thinking of) many (religion, dogmas, propaganda, ...) is basically an evolutionary selection to stupidity. More so, any social structure based on central control is selection to stupidity, because the individual does not choose and so there is no evolutionary feedback, no selection, based on the choices people make.

A final consensus on ethics for our entire planet can only be based on abstract principles that value the individual: democracy = individualism.

---

Human's have started a new kind of evolution, that of science and technology. This development needs stability to flourish, not wars. Individuals depend on technology and technology depends on livelong stable interest and learning of individuals. Also geographical regions, countries, depend on technology. A region can prosper technologically only if it adopts democracy.

---

Democracy is something individuals do. If the individual does not care, there is no democracy. If the majority does not do democracy, there is no democracy.

Once a dictator could establish itself, and the individual realizes the repression too late, uncoordinated individual smart resistance, using the same weapons of the dictator, propaganda and violence, can also end the dictatorship again.

The power lies with the majority, not so much by uniting, but by shared a common ethics that is good for all: basically individualism.

Individuals need to use their power of shared values to collapse a society that does not protect them anyway, but subjugates them.

One can stay unpolitical only as long as individualism is common consensus, else one must act to reestablish democracy again (individualism = democracy).

In a dictatorship the total population is always larger than the police or other troops sent out to crush any acts of protest. It is a question of speed: make more protests per time than the system can handle in that time.

What is needed is initiative from everybody who sees its own interests in danger. In a society of individualists, of democrats, dictatorship has no chance.

It all starts with education.

Locality

Individual freedom is the ethical equivalent of a more general principle: Locality. A system moving towards higher entropy is moving towards more locality (to less central control). A system in equilibrium has maximal local freedom and maximal total information (energy), the sum of all independent time lines.

For a society to reach more individual freedom, individuals must strive for it. It is not automatic, because human interactions are not automatic. This "pursuit of happiness" strive is not the same in all. Those who strive will live better.

Fairness distribution cannot be dictated. That would be dictatorship. Communism was dictatorship. Companies where the wages are decided centrally is dictatorship.

How much a person earns should be decided by the individual economic links, according supply and demand.

Even if these deals were all fair, and even if all had the same strive, not all people would earn the same, because they work in different unlinked sectors. Fairness is a local concept. But overall differences will be far less than in societies that don't care about fairness.

Locally fair cooperation (organization) has an advantage for the individual: less individual effort means more individual freedom. Cooperation restricts freedom by choice, by own control, because it restricts freedom less than without cooperation. But to judge what is a fair cooperation, information about the profit is essential. Economic thinking must go beyond personal economics, it must look at the full picture.

The economic advantage is the reason why some animals developed group behavior. Behavior good for the group was encoded via emotional information processing:

• envy if someone got more than was healthy for the group,
• rage to protect the things one depended on
• happiness in sharing and helping, and the like

Much of the programming of humans by evolution happened already before humans. Animal emotions control the interaction in group animals. The human is still animal, just the rational layer has grown.

The prehistory tribes where little companies.

The participation in the control of the cooperation secures the individual interest. The individual effort invested in the cooperation is at stake, if someone tries to gain more return of investment (ROI) than the rest. Equal access to information (symmetric information), ensures that members can sanction unfair behavior.

Economy

Democracy needs economically thinking individuals.

Information processing creates a time line, first in the head, then in reality.

• simulate: plan, do, test in the head
• actuate: map to reality

Time is information. Time is value. Information is value.

To harvest the profit, bookkeeping is central. It allows to compare the result with the original goal, the simulation with the reality.

All economy is based on individual valuation. The collective value is the sum of individual values. The individual interest is central and must be demanded in the collective bookkeeping. The economic approach records numbers and compares them. There is no allegiance or patriotism.

The political system is an economic system. They are intimately linked. Democracy requires good distribution of resources and vice versa, a demand for a fair share in all cooperations preserves democracy, i.e. individual freedom.

There are economic laws against monopoly, but still today, law grants employers control over employees, instead of vice-versa. Ownership on the means of production should not lead to ownership on people. To avoid a local monopoly or a natural monopoly the "owner" must become a service provider. Employees become self-employed or partnerships and rent. The illegality of a monopoly demands such a shift of control to the workers. The cost for the rent needs to be regulated. So basically the "owner" looses control to the benefit of more people. The spreading of control produces more overall economy. This is done for the electric grid or the railway lines and similar natural monopolies, but just recently and not yet everywhere.

Economies are political relationships between people and as manifold as the latter. An economy where the individual is important is ethically good and an economy that is centrally controlled is ethically bad. A company that is centrally controlled by so-called "owners" leads to wealth concentration that the "owners" cannot use and therefore is lost.

Work produces wealth, but work for someone burns a part of it for every individual, because it concentrates it and then gets unused and finally looses its value.

Work that does not have a local aim is lost.

Individuals can preserve their wealth, and thus freedom, only by a cooperation, where they can demand a fair share of profit. Access to information to all members of the venture is essential to fairness.

Educating individuals to hold individual freedom high, and to keep a ledger to secure fairness, is the only way a society can keep democracy.

If wealth concentrates, the system, the economy, as a whole slows down, because less and less can take part in the economy. The entropy of the economy decrease, the locality decreases.

In a democracy, individuals have enough resources to make decisions of relevance to them, to build a house, to buy food, clothes,..., a car. To go on holiday. To build relations. To have a good living standard. Because they know their own needs and can care for them.

Locality means that decisions can be made individually, or, in small groups on consensus.

Stability

Let's call democracy the consensus mechanism, where the individual is important.

Groups of groups also act on consensus. The higher the level the slower a consensus is reached. But the topics of higher level groupings is basically only to secure the freedom of smaller groups and eventually individuals. Fast decision in higher levels are not needed and not wanted, because the many groups and many individuals in lower levels need stability.

The slow process in higher levels needs to be protected against faster decision.

Giving individuals the power of higher levels is always disruptive. An individual thinks faster then the consensus mechanism and therefore decides in a way disruptive to many individuals.

Let's call an individual with power in a higher level a dictator. A dictator has one brain, which cannot grasp the valuation of the many individuals it decides upon. The living condition of an individual is the result of a lot of studying, planning and working, like building a house, raising children, working on relationships, ... This life can only be appreciated and valued by the individual living it. A dictator does not see those values. Allowing a dictator is giving up stability and putting one's own values in jeopardy.

Dictators are not bad people, but a bad system. To keep power, dictators do become real monsters very often, though.

Dictatorship and democracy are opposite.

• Dictatorship is decision by one person over others, fast, for personal profit to the dictator or on a whim, disregarding individuals and entailing instability on the individual level.
• Democracy is slow decision via consensus of many, i.e. stability on the individual level.

If the power is with the individual, the many individual decisions make the society statistical. A statistical society is a stable society. This needs to be extended to sources and reserves of energy. There must be no single point of failure. That is also why many small businesses are much better than a few large ones.

It can happen that in one level we have a dictatorship (e.g. a company) and in the next level we have a democracy (a country), or that they are side by side, like democratic country neighboring a dictatorship. Such adjacent groupings are in conflict, i.e. approach each other.

Only the ethical values and self-esteem of individuals can save freedom against the influence of a neighboring dictatorship. By physical laws more locality should result in the long run, i.e. democracy, because the entropy of a closed system rises. But non-closed systems can change temporarily from democracy to dictatorship, e.g. if a dictator attacks and takes over a democracy.

Law: The Program of Society

Before writing, the memory and the processing was in the head of a person only, which required that person as coordinator for a group action. This explains the human behavior to follow someone, when a group action is required. The coordinator is voted down or up depending on the advantages s/he brings to the members. This kind of representative democracy worked for small groups, but communication failed for larger groups.

With larger societies, where the individual counts, there cannot be any central coordinator any more, there cannot be any super important person, whose ethical values are more important. A large society just needs some minimal guidelines that does not bias, but makes every individual equally important.

Democracies operate according written rules, the law:

• create the law text (legislature): parliament or congress (elected)
• act according law (executive): administration (nominated by parliament or president)
• check abidance to law (judiciary): judges (nominated or elected), prosecutors (nominated or elected), lawyers

Values lead to laws. This means, values are encoded in the law. There is no additional judging, as that would allow arbitrariness. For example: When you apply for unemployment money, there are certain rules, that you have the right to use and there is no additional judging, how much you use it and the like, because that is already encoded in the rules.

The society is a parallel computer like our brain, just bigger, and thus slower. The law is a program that guides the much faster individual interactions.

Written laws are important, because to trust by word is possible only within closely tied communities, like tribes or families, where all members lose, if the community breaks apart in case someone does not hold its word.

Law can only work well

• if it avoids too many indirections
• if it can be understood and applied by individuals
• if it does not have bottlenecks

There is a deficiency in that regard in most current democracies.

The biggest deficiency, though, is that democracy does not yet permeated all levels of society. All levels need democracy.

For democracy to work the people must know the laws. The laws must be minimal. The law education must fit into compulsory school.

The idea of representative democracies is that some are entrusted by election to make laws in the interest of the voters. But since the voters do not know the laws it ends up to be an election for sympathy. What makes it still operable:

• there are many representatives that need to fight with each other
• there are proposals, discussions and finally and selection via voting
• if things go worse, one can change representative

---

Representative democracy has shown to misrepresent the individual freedom, because too much controlled by people that could accumulate wealth and power.

Political representatives are also just individual brains, which make decisions without consensus, basically dictators on time.

Can they be held responsible at the next election, if they hide information? A democracy, where parties can hide information, is a bit a façade democracy.

The answer: more direct democracy.

An important prerequisite for direct democracy is to make the law smaller.

The internet and the methods from open source development can help to crowd-develop law texts.

Laws need to be stable. The consensus mechanism, the testing, should take a long time. It needs to be proven that certain changes in the law produces a better situation for individuals. Votes from the majority for a change is kind of a prove, but might not look ahead into the future far enough. So argumentations, computer-simulations, a public discussion are tools towards consensus.

If the law is small and knowable by anybody, the roles of legislative, executive and jurisdiction can be take over by anybody. The system has bottlenecks if experts are needed to fulfill the law. To take legal action via experts, lawyers and judges, should be needed only in corner cases.

To have too much law text makes it unusable to the individual and therefore is counter-democratic.

Economy Instead of Taxes

Taxes are bad.

Taxes mean concentration of wealth and thus power, especially if the country is still a dictatorship. The current invasion in Ukraine of Russian dictator Putin shows, that taxes are dangerous.

In a representative democracy there is at least some control over the use of tax money, but it is nevertheless not according the principle of evolution: Alternatives and choice or supply and demand.

Countries have historically become too large, beyond the principle of locality. Due to non-locality and lack of transparency of tax usage there is no way individuals can check on their ROI.

Historically taxes grew out of extortion by a feudal system.

Later, with democracies, one can understand taxes as a way to reduce communication effort and still have things cared for.

With the internet one has means to create more democracy again.

• Automatic paying systems allows financing of infrastructure via pay per usage without hassle.
• Local social services like schools, health system, roads, allow more individual control.
• Local transparent public bookkeeping and consensus on pricing can avoid overpricing whenever it is not possible to provide alternative offers.
• The individual can decide by its own economy whether to support a road or a hospital.
• With direct democracy, permeating economy, wealth distribution becomes better, thus not needing taxes for wealth re-distribution any more. Insurance services can handle that, anyway.

This is just to show that there is still much to do to improve the life of individuals, to improve democracy. Initiative starts by giving individuals the understanding that they have possibilities to make their life better, that they have ways to influence things they are not happy with.

Taxes can be replaced by normal economy, by alternative products and customers. But for that the economy must become fair first and must be checked to be fair: basically employment must be replaced with partnerships and cooperations.

The state is basically a monopoly.

Local monopolies sometimes cannot be avoided and are OK if they

• are local
• have transparent bookkeeping
• are controlled by direct consensus

A monopoly is like taxes, if you depend on the product. Vice versa: Taxes are a monopoly. A state is too large for general taxes, too large a monopoly. A monopoly is a single point of failure. A state is a single point of failure for too many people.

A larger organization can still be needed to provide services, that need support from a larger population:

• Military protection (given that there are still dictatorships around)
• Rules against environmental pollution
• Standardizations of laws across administrative regions (schooling, traffic, units, ...)

But then again states are too small for really global questions. So they are basically historical intermediates to publicly supported international organizations for specific purposes, like NATO for military, WHO for health, UN, ... Also non-governmental organizations like WWF, Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty international, ... are publicly supported.

Why the monopoly taxes in between?

Country

I would have thought that countries are administrative entities, by historical chance, out of historical kingdoms, but that these kingdoms, i.e. that these dictatorships have been overcome. They have in my mind, but not in all minds, not even in the western world.

A dictator declared his subjects "his people". And "his people" took over this thought, his propaganda, against their own interest. It is this idea that made a nation. To continue with such an idea would be like having as many nations as there are political leaders or parties. Every football team would have its own nation.

Such ideas should be history. People (as plural to person) should be regarded as important individuals, as members of the human species, indiscriminate of place of birth. Everything else is anti-individual, anti-democratic, or just plain alienation.

But why is there still the nation printed in the passport? Why is voting or active political engagement linked to the passport and not to the place of residence?

---

Current democratic countries historically were dictatorships. They have not yet developed the full extend of democracy, of individualism and they don't protect the individual enough. There is still some way to go. Technology can help to make democracy more democratic.

The first civilizations emerged because people changed from hunter gatherers to farmers. Before that, in small tribes, information exchange and ensuing trust was possible.

With civilization the information flow could not keep up. Central decision without consensus was the result. With an army and scheming, like allegiance, and divide and conquer, individuals (dictators, emperors or imperialists) could control vast regions (empires) and extort the farmers.

The big empires tells a story of peaceful farmers living in abundance due to the new technique of agriculture. There was little resistance against ransacking and stealing. Finally they basically consented to be dominated. An alternative would have been to build their own protection, so protection money would have to be payed either way. This protection money became taxes later on.

Scheming for control also included propaganda and religion. Control the action by controlling thoughts and values.

A dictator would make propaganda to instill bride on its subjects, not to the advantage of the subjects, but as means to secure its own power. Subjects acting according his interests are good people, patriots. The others are enemies or traitors or simply bad people that deserve to be hated. The dictator does actually not know any of the judged people. This judging is propaganda meant to control its subjects. The actual traitor is the dictator. The propaganda jargon is completely misleading.

The traitor is the dictator.

Religion with one god that controls everything, just like the dictator, came very handy. The one god has unbelievable power and sees everything. No escape.

Exploitation via warfare can be seen as a technique. With all the prosperity that came from the new agriculture, raiders had immense resources basically at their disposal, because the effort to conquer was low. Given the little resistance some individuals could harvest large regions (Alexander the Great, Roman emperors, ...).

For emperors to have more language zones under their control was normal. More ethnically confined nationalism can be understood as counter-movement to imperialism. But it did not solve concentration of power and wealth. Capitalism had communism as counter-movement, but it did not solve concentration of power and wealth. These movements just show that people did not live well, that they tried to find alternatives, but were misguided by populists that promised a better life, but actually just wanted more control for themselves.

Unbiased education and own thinking would have helped. Education was what lead societies out of the middle ages. It produced alternative ideas and finally resistance (e.g. French revolution) and after too many wars finally also democracies.

But the world has many time lines. Not all developments are at the same stage. Some countries still follow imperialistic ideas. Some countries are still centrally controlled.

---

Technical advancement, air traffic, internet, container ships, and a Lingua Franca (English) made the world a village, with economic ties all over.

Every economic tie is also a dependency. Economic ties with a dictatorship is an investment with high risk, at the mercy of a dictators whims. Democracy therefore needs to be part of the consensus rules of trading entities. Ultimately not just the country, one trades with, should be democratic, but also the company.

Citizenship means participation in the consensus. Otherwise countries are just an arbitrary tagging of people, which leads to mistakes in thought. Some say this or that country acts or acted this or that way. That is a mistake of thought. A country does not act. People act. A country is many people brought together by historical coincidence, with different characters, different opinions. A dictator of a country and also an administration of a country acts. The people in a country often have no influence on that action, because the decisions are not done in consensus. Few countries have direct democracies, few have installed means to stop the administration in consensus. The major reason is that countries are the result of historical dictatorships (kingdoms), too big for direct consensus. They would need to be split into more levels of consensus regions.

But the shift is towards locality not just by geography.

Local has kind of a mathematical meaning: We have many dimensions. The same people can be local in one subspace, but far away in another. A locality is a grouping of people regarding a certain aspect (subspace). A country is a grouping by geography, a company is a grouping by product, a democrat is a grouping by value.

The questions of local interest must be decided via local consensus, or just individually. Local means by those concerned by the question, and not necessarily geographically local.

It would be wrong to force minorities into the majority decision, if more alternatives allow coexistence.

There are global problems, too. The internet allows to tackle them by a global consensus, beyond countries. One could allow the whole world to vote on the use of coal all over the world, because the whole world breaths the same air and the climate is linked across the globe. Administrative units (countries) would need to comply with such global consensus.

It is time to build political infrastructure for the whole planet earth.