Food, Defence, Economic Organization and Relationships

The podcast can be found here: Food Defence Economics Relationships

When one mentions words like economic organization, one is talking about a society, people who share a common border. That common area within the border is administrated by a government, there are some people in charge of that society. That society is made up of individuals, that is the basic unit of society, of all societies a fact that one can never escape.

This basic unit of society, the individual primarily needs food and water to survive. Water to stay hydrated and food to have energy to enter more meaningful relationships of being an individual than just waiting to die if you are starving. After one has food, they can look for shelter, they have the energy to undertake this task. They would prefer the best shelter they can get given the circumstances. Most people today buy this shelter, rent this shelter or inherit this shelter. They also must buy the food if they do not grow it for themselves, most of the world’s population today lives in an urban setup not growing their own food.

Most must do some activity that they will be compensated for and they can convert that compensation to purchase food and shelter. What has happened to most? They must have food and they receive energy to enter a relationship like work to be paid for that energy expanded in creating that relationship. With that pay they will have money for food and shelter and extra luxuries if the compensation for each calory at the end of the next time period covers more than just food and shelter.

An individual most often must leave their shelter and go and make relationships to be rewarded in spending that energy in making relationships with food and shelter. They go and make relationships within what we have termed society. We have termed these relationships where people are compensated for expanding energy in a relationship to get compensated as the economy of the society. At the end of the day it is the value of the relationship that one is compensated for.

Value of a relationship in economic activity is more than just output. Take two individuals A and B. If they work for themselves and A catches 30 fish and B catches 25 fish, A for their relationship with the activity of fishing is rewarded with 30 fish and B is rewarded with 25 fish. However, when both A and B are employed by C, relationships become more complex. C has his own relationships in his mind from locations in the past. C may very well actually reward B a higher compensation than A who caught more fish. That is just the world, it is all about relationships. When C rewards B a higher compensation than A who has done more work, that means C values other things besides output because of the relationships in their mind.

Economic activity is the exploitation of information for the benefit of society. It is information exploiting information for its own purpose. It is always important to remember at he back of one’s mind that a human being is made up of the same stuff that they are exploiting for survival and to have material progress. The orange farmer picks oranges that are made up of the same stuff as they are, protons, electrons and neutrons. This is the same for every material good that is brought to market, we are information exploiting information for our gain because we can, though made up of same stuff as a watermelon, we have the mind and the ability to exploit the watermelon.

Most economic activity of a society takes place within its borders, within its boundaries. Within these boundaries all information is potentially there to be economically exploited. The exploitability depends on the knowledge that a society possesses, the knowledge base of society.  Outside the boundaries of a society the relationships towards resources and potential resources are different as those materials belong to other societies.

The resources and the exploitation of these resources inside the boundaries determine the material well being of that society to a large extent. Not forgetting that the members of that society are themselves a resource, the most important resource because it is the human mind that determines what information is a resource. Coal is only a resource when the human mind understands how to use it to produce something meaningful like heat. The human mind has determined that sunlight can be turned into electricity, hence solar panels, but the human mind had to identify the process first before turning it into a resource.

The materials inside the boundaries of a society belong to them, but other societies might covert them, and cross the border to take them. Borders have always existed; a society will claim an area and defend it as their ways depend on them defending these resources. How we treat our borders is what changes over time, to cross a border meant entering another societies territory and thus one had to obey the customs of that territory their language, their traditions, their worship, just don’t be insulting.

Another society coveting those resources might decide to take those resources, the only way to repel them is to have border security, this calls for arms and people permanently looking after those borders. These people who permanently look after the borders are removed from being able to participate in the economy, but their very existence ensures that the society has an economy by securing the resources of that society.

However, the well being and the ability to defend the borders are tied directly with the performance of those who participate in the exploitation of resources. This is because through their taxes they provide food and shelter for those protecting their borders as well as equipment. Food shelter and equipment cost resources, cost money. This money is provided by the civilians, that is why power flows from the people.

How then should an economy be organized such that the concept of power flows from the people is fully utilized, the borders are safe as can be and the people are enjoying the maximum benefit of their resources?

Before going any further let us understand what is truly meant by power flows from the people in this little illustration that some might have heard of. It comes from the example of catching fish. A catches 30 fish and B catches 25 fish. There is a 5% tax for the defense of the border. That means A pays 1.5 fish a day towards the defense of the border and B 1.25 fish.

For the defence of the borders if that is a top priority of a society, it would be wrong to disallow A from catching fish because B has some connections. If for any reason there is some reason that A is not allowed to fish for the sake of A, it happens everywhere, then other relationships enter considering the defense of the boundaries, other relationships over and above. It is the production of a society that determines the food, shelter and equipment for the defences of the boundaries.

A society at it’s most simple is just the people living with a common border. The obvious characteristics of both A and B is that they are both from the same society by reality of the boundaries that are there, it does not matter how these boundaries got there they are there.

That A catches more fish with an equal percentage levy, a fair system an equal portion this recognizes it is not just work done but effort. The effort may be the same, but the work done is not the same. A percentage acknowledges it is a random event and all have to it. A proportion could be replaced by you must all pay 1 fish as tax, what about the fishermen who caches only 3 fish. This can never be fair, that is why a percentage is used, a percentage takes into account both the ideas of work done and effort.

In a period when they are both out in the ocean, river, or lake where they get these fish, they would almost relatively spent the same amount of calories fishing, that is the effort, calories is an attempt to measure energy for our consumption. . Same amount almost relatively because we must include things like body size, metabolism, a lot of stuff, but when one gets the idea the effort is similar, they must understand the effort must be rewarded, not everything can be taken. What if somebody only catches one fish. They are just not good at fishing, but they have put in as much effort as B who catches 25 fish. That fisherman who only catches one fish will need energy tomorrow to catch fish, that is why a percentage is taken to reward effort.

Work is rewarded by the more fish one catches and the amount they keep. Work and effort are two different concepts. Effort is trying, work is having the task done. A scientist can have all the right equipment, all the funding, but adding new principles to science is a random event. That scientist in the fanciest of laboratories might discover nothing, but that fancy laboratory increases their chances of finding a scientific principle. Another scientist might have nothing, no fancy laboratory, no fancy grants from fancy institutions, relies on second-hand data and discover principles, though their chances are far much lower than the scientist who has a laboratory.

The question that must be asked by society is how come a scientist with no laboratory and no funding discovered a principle of science, yet a scientist with access to the best laboratories and best funding found nothing. Why is A who catches 30 fish being blocked by society for B who catches 25 fish. There can be many reasons for this but is it just for society.

Obviously if A is blocked for B society will have to increase its efforts to replace the work of A. But the reasons for blocking A or even the worst fisherman unless he has a different choice that will feed them better. Themselves feeding themselves better means more for the protection of the borders that determine physical limits of direct influence of that society.

The society for its very existence should prefer greater work for effort ratio. That means more effort becomes work done meaning more for the defences of the border for the same percentage in taxes levied. Understanding that every relationship is a random event, and the borders must be protected for the very survival of society, who does what in society must accommodate this principle. It can’t be committees formal or informal, because how can they be so sure of fully comprehending the randomness of an event. This must be decided by the society.

When one says something is a principle of information, like the reality that everything is in a relationship and all relationships are random, a culture then can’t say our ways do not align themselves with that reality because they are our ways, that leads to a lower work effort ratio. A principle has no culture, it is just the way things are. It is not just a society that is affected by randomness, it is all societies, all particles, all stars, all planets, everything is affected by the reality of randomness.

The idea of who is favored in society by the removal of realities of randomness in their laws tells one who is favored and who is not favored in that society. It shows in that society who is more of a citizen than who. All this we can see by who is favored by laws that increase their probability of food on the table over others.

The idea of the two fishermen A and B has to apply to every sector of society involved with economic production, ensuring a work over effort ratio that is strong enough to look after society and protect it from extermination or slavery. A slave of course being the noncitizen with no rights, none of their work belongs to them, it is 100% taxed, everything just gifts from the master, they have the least probability of food on the table. Randomness has been twisted to such an extent that the laws decree 100% the slave has no right to participate in any economic activity, in any sector for themselves.

Accepting that everything is random to one extent or another the society will be taking care of the immediate problems and the future problems maximising work effort relationships. The immediate problem is to make sure there are enough taxes as possible to look after the boundaries of society. The future problem is being taken care of because when we allow randomness to take full effect there will always be an attempt to increase the knowledge base thus taking care of the future. Taking of the future resulting in better material goods available with more refined knowledge put into them, and thus the possibility of better weapons to defend society from annihilation.

The question a society must ask itself, what needs to be dropped from their culture to make it comply with the reality that everything is in a relationship and all events are random, all relationships are random. To comply with this at the very least in ensuring that there is enough being produced such that society is not handicapped in providing food, shelter, and weapons to those defending the borders. Understanding principles behind the work effort ratio understanding things are random we get better ratio and thus better utilization of the resources of society. Human beings are resources of that society, how should this resource be treated.

Is a human being in a society free to follow the principles of randomness according to the relationships that have made them who they are at that moment, to go and get food and shelter for themselves and their families. If they are not free who should control them. This is how myths of light and dark start. Note both the light and the dark are after control of the human being. They talk of separation of the humans until all humans fall under that religion, only then can there be peace, that is a recipe for war right there.  Why can’t the human being be in control of itself and make the choice. Of course both light and darkness have emissaries in human form who have first choice to the food, or they did when they held sway over the destinies of human beings, in some societies theologians still have a lot of power and have first choice to the best food available.

Note that both dark and light in the scriptures appeal to the ego of a group, the specialness of that group over other groups. Everything is in a relationship and all relationships are random merely looks at the human being, the scientific qualities of a human being. It’s can’t deal with how changing a religion makes one superior that very moment.

Randomness for those who accept it always leaves the door open for challenges, it accepts it is dangerous to canonize knowledge, one never knows where the next piece of knowledge is coming from. The computer programmer might have the best equipment but one with the cheapest might create better programs if they apply themselves. People contribute most to society when a societies culture accepts reality that everything is random, increasing the work effort ratio understanding these basic principles around food and the defence of society.

Not accepting that everything is random not only means less than otherwise could be for defence, but it creates resentment in society. People often know when they are being cheated even if they can not do anything about it.

If you like what you read, be generous if you can it will be appreciated