The Model

For any individual, family, or group which wishes to employ it, they renounce all ownership of all those resources that every member of society is expected to have access to in order to fulfill the law (dwelling, clothing, food, implements, education etc) and instead holds and manages them as a trustee or custodian in trust for the whole community; thereby rendering the need for money completely unnecessary.

The model in more detail.

non-capitalist model.png


For the purposes of this explanation, I will employ the word ‘user’ to mean any individual, family, or group which would employ and operate this model, who acts as, as the image describes, a trustee.

The private sector (they are the capitalists, the other 99 families in your street etc) provides what the user needs, the user provides what the government needs, and the govt supplies what the private sector needs.

What is it that we give to government that government needs?

We don’t pursue money. That is the answer. Have you ever asked yourself why, the only activities which anyone does which are taxed are those based on profit? Earning money whether actively (by selling labours or selling products/services), or passively (by investing, owning real estate etc) are the only activities which attract taxation. This means, that the only activities which burden ‘government’ are those activities which are aimed at deriving profit, or in other words, earning money. I bet you never ever thought of it this way did you, and all this time you have been conditioned to believe that the only way to benefit society is to earn money?

If any activity you do attracts taxation it means your activity is a burden on the community one way or another, hence the reason you pay tax because the tax is the only means by which to attempt to offset that burden you have created. Put another way, the more people who pursue money and property, the larger government needs to be to regulate that whole system.

So, with this said:

This model works on a very simple principle; just like any government which holds resources in trust for its community and acts as custodian over them, the user of this model does exactly the same thing, with the simple difference being, the user only need hold those resources which make up all those needs any human would need based on the society they live in.

If the society they live in demands that all of its people be housed (whether legally or because society shuns the homeless), then housing is a necessary resource, and the user then:

– holds the house in trust for the community;
– uses it for the purpose for which it was designed (for shelter, privacy, to raise a family etc);
– does not own it nor attempt to profit from it (this would be a breach of trust);
– manages, protects, and takes care of it like any other honorary custodian or trustee would;
– and when they die the possession of the house reverts back to the community.

If the user is the farming type (I do not mean for commercial purposes obviously), then they would also manage enough land to be able to grow their own food and even provide extra to go back to the community.

If however the user is more of a literary, artist, preacher, educator, artisan etc, then land would not be necessary, or at least not as much as a food grower would need.

If the society they live in demands that all of its people be clothed in public, because being naked would breach some law, then clothing is a necessary resource.

If the society they live in demands that all of its people have access to food and water, because begging, dumpster diving, stealing, trespassing etc is illegal or shunned, then food and water is a necessary resource.

If the society they live in demands that all of its people provide education for their children, because not schooling a child is illegal, then education and all the necessary resources which enable children to both attend school (transport, uniforms, books etc) and complete homework (which today includes electricity, internet, computers, etc) are necessary resources.

In other words, all those resources that members of society are required to have access to in order to fulfill their legal and moral obligations to society, will form the nucleus of resources which the user will hold, manage, and utilize, as a custodian, for the term of their natural life, with all possession reverting back to the community upon the users death.

What does the user do with their time if they are not out earning money?

That is completely up to the user, but bear in mind, most people are active in the sense that they can’t sit down for too long, and most people have skills or talents. With this model, it enables the user to employ their skills and talents in a more liberal way, instead of restricting them to legally binding relations requiring consideration in return.

To add to this, one must ask the question, why do people want to earn money to begin with?

I must point out, that I am not against the exchange economy, private property, or earning money, these are all models or modes of operation like any other model or mode of operation, what I am against is trying to enforce these ideals on every member of society based on some notion that it’s the best or the only way.

The fundamental reasons why I do not want to earn money, but would rather earn my right to live by being a custodian instead, is because in order to earn money I must create private property, and the creation and exploitation of private property not only burdens government, and thus the community, it forces me to hold others legally accountable to me – I do not want to do this.

This is not to say that private property will always be a huge burden on the community, but in today’s world, it obviously is, and the reason for this is because earning money and owning private property etc has become over-crowded; in other words there are simply way too many people now on the band wagon trying to create wealth, and it is simply not mathematically possible for everyone to be pursuing the same thing without driving the wedge between the have’s and have-not’s even further down.

What is ironic, is that if more people employed the model I am suggesting, then all those who do wish to continue to pursue wealth would actually be better off because there would be less people competing over the resources, but this is so far opposed to most people’s belief systems, that it is going to take quite an effort to prove this point.

Continuing on….the user not only employs their talents or skills in more liberal way, they are able to utilize the resources under their trusteeship for the community also. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Let’s assume we have an artist, who is also single, who employs this model – they would probably only need a smallish house, with very little land (maybe a small garden). As for their artistic pursuits, what they do with their art is completely up to them, except they can’t profit from it, for obvious reasons. Now, with our society the way it is, most people would feel that an artist doesn’t really benefit society much (even though I would disagree with this), but let’s think outside the box a bit.

The artist, by being single, is not going to be using as much energy (power etc) as say a family. The community (the government) fits the artists house with solar panels, and whatever surplus energy is left over after the artists use, is redirected back into the grid. This is just one example of utilizing a resource for the communities benefit which is not profit based.

Another example, would be a large family who wish to grow their own food etc. Again, the community can fit solar panels (and many more on a larger house plus any sheds) and benefit from any surplus energy, but also, whatever surplus food is grown or raised can go back to the community.

Another benefit derived from either of these examples, is the fact that because the users are not pursuing wealth, and thus not busy earning money, they have more time to become educators to children and others of their talents and skills which does not require money. In other words, the greatest asset being passed down is knowledge, not property.

The question at this point which will inevitably arise is ‘how are these resources paid for and who pays for them?’ Especially considering that resources such as land and housing are more like one-off purchases which can appreciate in value (which benefits the community as they are the owner), all else like food, energy, education etc are all on-going, and as such this is a very important question, because to answer it means to debunk some very deep entrenched beliefs.

Put simply, the user is furnished with a purchase card which enables them to purchase consumables, and at the end of every cycle, the amount owing is extinguished via a simple process which I’ll explain further down.

Right here most people will hit a brick wall and think I have lost my marbles.

As I have demonstrated in the previous section who funds who, the tax-payers do not fund anything other than more of the same, i.e. they only fund themselves because what they are essentially paying for is the ability to make more money. The question is never asked, what made it possible for a tax-payer to earn money to begin with?

For those who simply cannot get their mind around the fact that tax-payers do not fund government spending (or put another way, are not the original or real source of it), let me suggest this in a way that is more palatable.

It is an investment. If the community owns all the resources instead of me owning them, I can not profit from them and thus benefit from them, only the community can. But like any resource which requires inputs in order to produce outputs, I can not harness land, or any other resource including my own body, without basics like food, water, energy, etc, not to mention any other resources needed to exist and function properly. If the cost of the house I live in to the community is say $500,000, and after managing it for 40-50 years, it has appreciated in value over that same period, has not the community benefited? And why wouldn’t it appreciate in value over that time? In this scenario, the real estate appreciates due to both, normal market conditions, plus because of the fact it is being looked after and made more productive by me, and all the while I have not contributed to inflation because I am not earning money. This becomes a double whammy for the community.

In addition to this, imagine where exactly any consumables the user needs would come from. Would they need to get anything from overseas? No! Everything they need will be made locally which also benefits the local economy. There is no need to a user of this model to import anything.

How exactly is the model funded? Or to elaborate on what I mentioned earlier regarding extinguishing the amounts owed from use of the purchase card.

The model user will use a purchase card which they take to any store and use it to buy what they need. This purchase card is attached to a bank account.

To extinguish the amounts spent requires a simple technique which central banks around the world employ every day. Central banks, in order to create liquidity (i.e. money) purchase, or swap, money for bonds. In this way, the user of this model, being a trustee, has in effect created a bond, a promise to the community not to profit in any way from any act or thing, and this bond/promise, and this bond is what is swapped for the money necessary to fund the purchases of the consumables. The central bank does not give the money to the user, it would simply give it to the bank which has the account attached to the card and the bank pays the merchants. When that money returns to the government by way of taxes it is then destroyed.

No inflation, no tax-payer funding, no expense to anyone.



Who funds who?