PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of PEOPLE                                          www.nokilleye.com

COOPERATIVE APPORTIONMENT

Expanded articles

Families, Militias & Shipwreck Survivors:

We do not orchestrate dependent children in rigidly scheduled labor regimens that produce value greater than that from which the children benefit and then appropriate surplus value as ‘profit’. If dependent children were capable of satisfying such obligatory terms, they would not need parents and would simply practice an independent lifestyle commencing at perhaps the age of four.

In an indigenous militia, duties might divide along lines that qualify the majority as basic ‘noncommissioned’ personnel while a minority performs administrative or supervisory functions as ‘officers’ but the officer does not profit from the actions of the others, and that qualifies the duty of the officer as proportionate contributory specialization, not a privileged entitlement to disproportionate benefit.

In a scenario in which a party of a dozen survives a shipwreck on an otherwise deserted island, one individual claims ‘ownership’ of the primary food supply by virtue of having discovered it first then proposes the others ought to toil ceaselessly and surrender the majority of all value they produce to that individual as an entitlement of ownership. In this scenario, enforcement of such arbitrary authority and privilege by a minority of one or perhaps even multiple individuals is extremely unlikely to occur, and in all probability, if proposed with sufficient insistence is more likely to produce a forceful or perhaps even violent rebuke.

The nuclear family, the militia and the shipwreck survivors are examples of normal cooperative human society. They identify needs and goals then organize, plan, prepare and cooperate. Parents do not charge dependent children rent and evict them for failure to pay, militia officers do not profit from the actions of noncommissioned personnel, and a dozen shipwreck survivors do not practice secular liberal economics or establish competitive marketplaces.

These are models of cooperative apportionment. The cooperative apportioned society conducts itself like a family, like a militia, like a dozen shipwreck survivors stranded on an island. In the cooperative apportioned society, the individual behaves, even if only out of obligatory formality, as if the individual actually cares about the conditions of others, as if the individual shares common conditions, common circumstances and common concerns, and expects consequences for actions that cause deprivation or hardship for others.

THE THEORY OF SUBJECTIVE VALUE:

The opposing elemental forces at work are not ‘capitalism’ versus ‘communism’. The essence of all theoretical ‘economic’ argument is subjective value versus objective value. Liberal economics is a belief system of subjective value. The subjective value theorist contends value is indeterminable because each individual subject determines value individually based on unique individual experience, circumstance and personal interpretation. In a highly revered frequently referenced textbook example, the liberal economic theorist explains that if an apple farmer and an orange farmer trade two apples for two oranges respectively, both farmers gain value in the trade because both farmers contribute something common and gain something relatively exotic they value more highly than the common. In the controlled sterile environment of the textbook example, the applied theory produces sentimentally attractive results but in an alternative example that never appears in the textbook, the laborer that trades a day of labor for four apples today trades a day of labor for two apples tomorrow if he is hungrier tomorrow than he is today. In ‘lowest common denominator’ economic theory, the most exaggerated possible result will always occur with the greatest frequency. The subjective value system rewards disproportion in cost-to-price ratio and the greater the degree of disproportion, the greater the reward, so a principle motivation in the system is opportunistic ‘trade’ with those whose ‘subjective values’ descend to optimum lows based on their ‘unique individual experiences, circumstances and personal interpretations’ such as the ‘subjective’ criteria of desperation and potential starvation. From a slightly different perspective of alternative interpretation, the system rewards the exercise of control over the subjective criteria of desperation and potential starvation. The opponent of subjective value theory might even describe it as a system that entitles the individual to orchestrate potential starvation for others then profit from their desperation.

The subjective value theorist contends that it is immoral for society to regulate and enforce value collectively because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and artificially restricts the “unique naturally occurring talents and abilities” (the creation powers, transformative metaphysical miracle powers and meritorious heroic actions) of the individual.

If you are a champion of ‘market economics’ and ‘free enterprise’, you believe in the theory of subjective value. If you believe in the theory of subjective value, you believe you are entitled to orchestrate potential starvation for others then profit from their desperation, and that means you also believe others are entitled to orchestrate potential starvation for you then profit from your desperation. In addition, if you believe in the theory of subjective value, you also believe prohibitive social regulation of orchestrated potential starvation is ‘immoral’.

The subjective value theorist believes not only, that nothing is inherently valuable but that everything is literally worthless, and that value is an abstract interpretation that originates from within the individual. The objective value theorist contends that every product of constructive effort possesses an absolute quantifiable value, not interpretive, abstract or originating from within the individual, but a constructed inalienable physical property of the material product. Karl Marx explains the theory with his world famous ‘footwear’ paradigm. Marx contends the ‘idea’ of the shoe is of no value because it is immaterial and no human can ever wear or otherwise effectively benefit from the ‘idea’ of a pair of shoes. In translation to practical reality, when Marx refers in this context to the ‘idea’, Marx means the shoe ‘invention’, the shoe ‘investment’, the shoe ‘ownership’, the shoe ‘enterprise’. Marx is ultimately saying that the human does not wear on a pair of feet, invention (verb), investment, ownership or enterprise, but wears on a pair of feet, a pair of actual material shoes, and this a difficult reality to contest.

THE THEORY OF OBJECTIVE VALUE:

The value of the wood drinking cup is not the value of wood, nor is the value of the gold drinking cup the value of gold, but the value of both the wood drinking cup and the gold drinking cup is the value of a drinking cup. In objective value theory, the apple possesses quantifiable properties of nutritional value or weight and no subjective interpretation alters that material reality. In a laboratory experiment in which ten subjects each possess ten apples and nothing else, no ‘trade’ ever occurs because an equal exchange of an apple for an apple or ten apples for ten apples is a ‘trade’ of no substance or consequence. In any ‘subjective’ trade involving an exchange of one apple for three apples, one party simply contributes two apples uncompensated while the other party simply gains two apples without effort, and this arguably does not account as a ‘trade’ as well. The objective value theorist proposes the experiment proves the value of the apple is an inherent property of the apple. If the value of the apple is truly ‘subjective’ then any given individual should for any given reason, interpret the apples that individual possesses as of lesser value than the apples any given other individual possesses, and consequently trade more apples for fewer apples. In the laboratory experiment, the subjective trade occurs only subsequent to the introduction of additional criteria such as, perhaps half the apples are rotten or contaminated by worms and five of the ten subjects each possess two pairs of shoes. Subsequently, an individual may possess ten rotten apples and two pairs of shoes. Facing potential starvation, the individual might desperately trade both pairs of shoes for a single apple, while another individual with ten good apples and no pairs of shoes might trade two apples for one pair of shoes with the individual that possesses five good apples and two pairs of shoes. In the laboratory experiment, the only criteria that establish ‘subjective value’ are duress and opportunism.

Duress and opportunism are the criteria under which wild animals operate in the natural environment. The natural duress of the juvenile, elderly or infirmed prey, represents opportunity for the predator. The subjective value theorist paints a flowery and sentimentally evocative picture of an apple farmer and an orange farmer engaged in a harmonious naturally occurring interaction of mutual benefit, and in both theory and practical reality, that exchange certainly occurs. However, the fundamental principles underlying that interaction are the principles of duress and opportunism as they occur for the wild animal in the natural environment. Under these conditions, equally opportunistic parties under equal duress will no doubt conduct mutually beneficial trades but the greater the degrees of duress and opportunism, the more the interaction is that of predator and prey, and not so much ‘trade’. The very essence of the concept of ‘trade’ is disproportion determined by duress and opportunism, naturally occurring, constructed, or any combination thereof.

The proponent of liberal economics clearly and indisputably advocates a human civilization modeled on applied intelligence at some organized level other than that of predator and prey in the natural environment, but subsequently proposes as the criteria for civilized conduct and order, that of predator and prey in the natural environment. The anarchic nihilist that proposes no rules, no laws -- just let whatever naturally occurs naturally occur -- introduces a coherent, consistent and comprehensive proposal. By comparison, the liberal economic model of civilization is incomprehensible, paradoxically self-contradictory, logically flawed nonsense. The trademark conduct and order of civilization -- SPECIALIZATION -- is the conduct and order of COLLECTIVITY. The civilization of specialists is the conduct and order of the COLLECTIVE. The aggregate sum total of the constructive product of specialists is COLLECTIVE product. The aggregate sum total value of COLLECTIVE product is COLLECTIVE value.

SPECIALIZED EFFORT IS COLLECTIVE - PRODUCT IS COLLECTIVE - VALUE IS COLLECTIVE

Why is the distribution of product and value the only thing in this equation that is NOT COLLECTIVE?

How is that logical or proportionate and why should that be?

The answer to these questions is TYRANNICAL THEOCRACY and SUPERSTITIOUS MYTHOLOGY. The mythological liberal economic model of ‘civilization’ is an anarchic nihilistic, random and chaotic natural environment of predator and prey, duress and opportunity, tempered by the nominal structure and order of economic creationism. Benevolent and meritorious action hero-creator gods create wealth from the dark immaterial void, perform transformative metaphysical miracles, subordinate the chaotic forces of nature, bestow bountiful gifts such as the orchestration of collectivity, and thereby improve the conditions of an inferior subspecies otherwise incapable of collectivity.

The value of the apple is the value of an apple, and the meritorious action hero-creator god that claims your apple is of less value than the apple in the possession of the creator god, simply opportunistically declares a position of superiority proportionate to your degree of duress (and this is the only form of proportion that ever occurs in liberal economic ideology). The objective value theorist theorizes the concept of ‘trade’ is a subjective value, and the proportionate material reality of the concept is duress, opportunism and predation. When the objective value theorist advocates a human civilization modeled on applied intelligence at some organized level other than that of predator and prey in the natural environment, the objective value theorist then subsequently proposes applied intelligence as the criteria for civilized conduct and order, as opposed to duress and opportunism as they occur for predator and prey in the natural environment. The objective value theorist assumes that if humans wish for shoes, humans will naturally plan, prepare, organize and cooperate as necessary to produce shoes, and these things will all naturally occur with or without the enterprise of the meritorious action hero-creator god inventor, investor and owner. The value of the shoe is the constructive action that produces the shoe and the value of the constructive action that produces the shoe is the shoe. The meritorious action hero-creator god that invents, invests, owns and orchestrates the enterprise of the shoe produces zero shoes and is therefore superfluous, and without objective value. The value of invention, investment, ownership and enterprise is not merely ‘subjective’ but purely mythological and outright imaginary.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ‘EFFICIENCY’ MYTHOLOGY

Faithful zealots of popular liberal economic ideology frequently perform an act of contrition with incantation of the ritual chant,

“Government can’t do anything ‘right’ - Private enterprise does it better and more efficiently.”

The unspoken superstitious belief behind this superstitious sentimental incantation consists in the accumulative notions that:

► The majority of humans belong to a naturally inferior subspecies insufficiently evolved or adapted to exercise organized thought and conduct coordinated action.

► All organized thought and coordinated action occur exclusively as a product of, and subsequent to, the orchestration of a naturally superior class of meritorious action hero-creator gods.

A representative government is the collective product of the people so to say a representative government cannot do anything ‘right’ is the same as saying the people collectively cannot do anything ‘right’. In a context in which the government that cannot do anything ‘right’ is contrasted with private enterprise that ‘does it’ better and more efficiently, the assumption in principle is that humanity is fundamentally incompetent and inferior, and civilization is possible only under the competent orchestration of superior meritorious action hero-creator gods. If we believe we are better off with private enterprise because government cannot do anything ‘right’ then we believe we are fundamentally incompetent and can never possibly improve, even contrary to our obvious presumption that private enterprise is competent and represents an ‘improvement’ over government.

Champions of private enterprise argue that competition and the reward of profit encourage innovation, maximize efficiency and reduce costs, but on paper, the simplest math proves the argument not merely factually incorrect but logically impossible. To compete for business, the private enterprise advertises and bears the expense of sales and marketing operations; in the provision of products and services, the private enterprise exposes itself to liability, so the private enterprise carries insurance; the private enterprise bears the burden of executive compensation and generates profit for shareholders - In the accumulative scope of ‘costs’, these four criteria dwarf the ‘cost’ of direct labor compensation. A cooperative enterprise, organized, owned and operated by the commonwealth of the people represents the ‘government’ equivalent of the private enterprise. As a single source without a profit motive, the cooperative enterprise has no reason to advertise, market or conduct sales; as an instrument of the commonwealth, the cooperative enterprise is virtually self-insured, encounters limited liability and ‘makes whole’ injured parties without punitive damages or the involvement of a court system; the ‘investment’ involved in the cooperative enterprise is the labor effort contribution of its members, the ‘profit’ is the proportionate compensation of labor effort, and the cooperative enterprise neither bears any burden of executive compensation nor generates profit for shareholders - In the accumulative scope of ‘costs’, the cooperative enterprise operates on a fraction of that of private enterprise. (In addition, the profit motive of private enterprise encourages and rewards dishonesty and dangerous conduct. The consequence is hazardous products, greater degrees of exposure for the enterprise, and health risks for the public, all of which involve ‘costs’ of far more abstract and astronomical values.) These are math equations; the determining factors are numbers and they accommodate no sentiment, opinion or superstition.

In a theoretical mathematical environment, government not only ‘does it’ every bit as well as private enterprise but ‘does it’ astronomically more efficiently than private enterprise, and the mathematics easily expose the premise, ‘private enterprise does it better and more efficiently’ as a patently absurd superstitious belief. The champion of private enterprise frequently counters, “Well, private enterprise does it better and more efficiently than this particular government.” This is not an argument in favor of private enterprise - This is an argument in favor of government. The ‘particular comparison’ argument is a concession that in mathematical theory, government in fact ‘does it’ better and more efficiently. If government “can’t do anything right” then the easiest and most obvious solution is to make government ‘do it right’ while conversely, the most difficult, most impractical and wasteful solution is to replicate the effort and operations innumerable times with private enterprise then astronomically increase difficulty, impracticality and wastefulness by adding the superfluous burdens of advertising, sales, marketing, insurance, executive compensation and shareholder profit.

In private enterprise efficiency mythology, an inferior rabble of incompetent stooges incapable of so much as feeding itself, hopelessly stumbles through a comical series of whacky misadventures, mishaps and escapades, ultimately experiencing the benefit of coordinated action only by the competence, benevolence and charity of superior action hero-extraordinary individuals so superior that even the extravagance of advertising, executive compensation and shareholder profit occurs at a lower expense than the debacle that would surely otherwise occur were the incompetent inferior subspecies left to its own devices.

COOPERATIVE APPORTIONMENT ENUMERATED:

In the context of cooperative apportionment, the idea that government ‘owns’ and ‘operates’ enterprise means a cooperative society plans, prepares, organizes, controls, regulates and orchestrates itself without the domineering intervention or debilitating wasted expense of private enterprise and its extraordinary individuals, meritorious action heroes, benevolent creator gods, inventors, investors and owners. The first step toward cooperative apportionment is to stop thinking and speaking about government, private enterprise and society in archaic terms as distinct separate groups. In the cooperative society, government, enterprise and society are the same thing, and the only thing ‘private’ is you and your privately determined level of participation without the duress of opportunism and predation.

Overview: From the day the first homo erectus pounded one stone against another with the intent of artificially controlling the shape of the stone, everything the human society has done has served the fundamental purpose of reducing effort. The first homo erectus to pound two stones together did so, not in an effort to artificially create more effort by adding the pounding of stones to the list of chores and activities, but with the intuition that pounding two stones together might disproportionately diminish the effort of other chores and activities. In contemporary civilization, when we experience ‘unemployment’, that is not an indication that we need to artificially create MORE effort with increased activity through ‘the creation of new jobs’ - That is an indication of our SUCCESS in the reduction of effort. In our current state of ideological radical extremism, we exercise no sense of proportion and react to the potential of ‘unemployment’ with incantation intended to indirectly ‘adjust’, ‘stimulate’, ‘encourage’ or otherwise concoct excuses for additional ‘productivity’, ‘invention’ and extraordinary heroic meritorious action. In the apportioned society, as our successes in the reduction of effort accumulate, we do not force one another into virtual gladiator blood sport ‘competition’ for dwindling numbers of ‘jobs’, and artificially create hyperactive ‘winners’ and sedentary ‘losers’ - We use our sense of proportion and simply reward ourselves with a coordinated apportioned reduction of effort, and we consider ‘unproductive’ idle time among the things of greatest value.

(If our homo erectus ancestors could see us now, they would administer a firm slap to the sides of our heads then sit us down for a long lecture on the value of logic, intelligence, cooperation, practical proportion and obvious reality, and would probably have a thing or two to say about superstition as well.)

Article 1. Liberated Earth: The modern ideals of ‘freedom’, ‘liberty’ and ‘independence’ as they relate to ‘private property’ are superstitious sentiments without substance. Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of liberal economic ‘liberty’, ‘privacy’ and ‘free enterprise’ mythology is the privatization of the earth. Inhabitation of the planet under the conditions of private property does not establish ‘liberty’ and ‘privacy’ but precludes the possibility of both. (Liberty): The obligatory burden of purchase is an outright compulsory labor program. The champion of liberal economics says private property is a reward earned with productivity, and that is technically true, but in direct honest language without the superstitious sentiment, it means ‘productivity’ is a requirement. The standard of private property is an exchange of labor for entitlement and as such, it is obviously also a threat of punitive deprivation should insufficient exchange of labor occur. Any usage of the term ‘liberty’ in the context of systematic compulsory labor under threat of punitive violence can never apply to anyone but the privileged negligible minority that benefits disproportionately from the arrangement. Any claim to any form of authority to restrict habitation of the planet by another is a claim to god status and any attempt to enforce any such authority is an act of war and a crime against humanity. Compulsory labor performed under threat of punitive violence is slavery and in that context, ‘liberty’ possesses an extremely narrow and limited definition. (Privacy): The ‘private’ ownership of property is anything but private. By virtue of its very privacy, it necessitates the involvement of society simply in mere observance of the privacy. The declaration of ‘property’ as ‘private’ is not something an individual does in private, but does in as demonstrable a public fashion as possible - It is not a private act of self-affirmation but a public declaration of exclusive entitlement. For the overwhelming majority of humanity, ownership of ‘private property’ involves myriad intrusive and invasive relationships with enterprises and agencies that maintain constant contact and exercise imposing and threatening regulatory control over the most private aspects of a human life. Clearly, the establishment of ‘private property’ involves no form of ‘privacy’.

On the apportioned earth, we choose personal parcels by process, we pay nothing and we owe nothing. Obvious socially determined regulations apply, such as restrictions prohibiting personal residences on public lands such as parks, for instance, and behavioral restrictions as well, such as prohibition on actions that may cause environmental hazards or endanger others. We do not buy, sell, inherit or bequeath parcels but we recognize and respect the privacy of every human in a personal habitat that is bound to the earth for life. (We may in fact bequeath and inherit parcels but if we determine a limit such a maximum of two parcels per individual for example, inheritance of a parcel may require surrender of another so as not to exceed the established maximum.) Any improvements or developments we perform on a parcel such as the construction of a structure are otherwise a natural part of the parcel and of no ‘marketable’ value. At the end of our lives, our habitats cycle back into a common pool of available habitats for the next generation and that is how we maintain a system that denies no one and precludes the possibility of hoarding.

Article 2. Natural Value: The practice of specialization naturally makes us dependent on society for provision of the products and services in which we do not specialize. In theory and in origin, specialization accommodates a reduction in effort by maximizing the specific expertise of each individual and in exchange for the vulnerability of dependence, provides the benefit of diversified material value. The introduction of subjective value ideology and profit motive robs us of the benefits of specialization by depreciating the value of our specialized contributory actions and consequently deprives us of the benefit of diversified material value with prohibitive and exclusionary disproportion. Rather than cooperative mutual interdependence in exchange for reduced effort and increased material value, the modern economic society encourages specialization (and in fact, virtually prohibits anything else) then opportunistically exploits the natural vulnerability of dependence with predatory terrorism and punitive deprivation. In a specialized society, there is no such thing as ‘independence’. Every specialist is dependent on all other specialists and the practice of subjective value economics defeats the purpose of specialization. Every individual deprived of the standard of material value produced by society, does not benefit from specialization but suffers from specialization and would live a life of superior quality as a true independent generalist in a natural primordial environment.

Modern economic society recognizes only the ‘value’ of private ‘ownership’ and the ideology of subjective value pronounces direct constructive action as of no value. Although society collectively constructs and operates the productive enterprise, the subjective value ideology of economics arbitrarily strips society of that value and awards the entirety of value thereof to a negligible minority of ‘owners’ that are then entitled to impose unrestricted labor demands on society under threat of deprivation of the product of enterprise. Every ‘private enterprise’ is in fact the product of the collective and the ‘private ownership’ thereof is not real or natural but simply illusory, imaginary, and the product of superstitious belief.

The cooperative apportioned society collectively constructs and operates the productive enterprise in the interest of making specialized material value accessible to all as reward for specialized contributory action. No one ‘owns’ the enterprise or ‘profits’ from the enterprise but any that contribute constructive action benefit from the direct proportionate material value of the action. The ‘price’ of the food is the actual effort necessary to produce and deliver it. The ‘price’ of the house and the objects within it is the actual effort necessary to produce and deliver them. The value of ‘actual’ effort is the common hour and every hour of effort is equal regardless of the action performed within that hour because the equal unit of measure involved is not the action but the hour. The brain surgeon that performs the twelve-hour surgery is entitled to twelve hours of specialized action value in compensation and the patient owes the surgeon those twelve hours in exchange. The surgeon incurs no expense nor accumulates debt in becoming a surgeon but acquires expertise through education and experience that occur as a part of the occupational development process, and every hour of the developmental process is an hour of contributory effort for which the developing surgeon is compensated. By these standards, each individual contributes something of specialized value and in exchange for the vulnerability of dependence, each individual benefits through equal exchange from all things of specialized value.

The cooperative apportioned society requires an administrative body just like any society but the reward for administrative positions is the occupation of an expert position for which the occupant feels passion, not entitlement to orchestrate the actions of others or to profit without effort from those actions. The administrative body of the cooperative apportioned society is responsible to provide every individual with unrestricted opportunity to participate and if the administrative body refuses a participatory role to any given individual then the society owes that individual compensation without contribution. The administrative body does not ‘assign’ participatory roles but accommodates the expectation of every individual to participate and whenever any given individual demands no participation, nothing compels the individual to participate.

In the cooperative apportioned society, the motivation for work is material reality, not intrusive, invasive, meddlesome and predatory opportunism or threat of violence. Every individual participates and contributes because the necessity of food and the comfort of the indoors sufficiently motivates each to a level directly proportionate to the material desires of each. For those that desire minimal material reward and maximum idle time, minimal participatory contribution produces minimal material reward and maximum idle time. For those that desire excessive material reward and constant hyperactivity, excessive participatory contribution produces excessive material reward and constant hyperactivity.

The ‘price’ of the material object is contribution of the actual constructive action to produce it. Those that wish for a luxurious palatial mansion that requires forty-thousand hours of constructive action to produce will contribute forty-thousand hours of constructive action in exchange, and those that argue their hours of constructive action are of greater value will prove it by directly and independently constructing the luxurious palatial mansion of their dreams in fewer than forty-thousand hours. Those that consider that ‘price’ too steep do not want that material object after all and those that want that material object nonetheless must then logically consider the ‘price’ acceptable.

For those that experience apprehension over such ideas and speculate that perhaps the exchange of equal hours and preclusion of disproportionate reward may not sufficiently motivate adequate numbers to become surgeons or other contributors of advanced expertise, the advocate of cooperative apportionment offers a number of considerations for encouragement and optimism:

(1.) The aspiring surgeon (or other advanced expert) motivated primarily by greed for disproportionate reward is probably the worst possible candidate for the position, and will make the most undesirable expert.

(2.) Passion for the craft (of any given expertise) is too long, too underappreciated by modern economic society. For every current expert in the modern economic society, more than one other entertains a lifelong passion for the expertise that remains unrealized because of prohibitive disproportion.

(3.) In consideration of items 1 and 2, the equal hour unit of measure is consequently most likely to produce the greatest quality of impassioned experts, while simultaneously screening out the most dubious of questionable motives and compromised integrity.

(4.) For the truly passionate, the acceptance and recognition of society, modest but comfortable compensation, and engagement in a chosen field of specialized expertise account as more than sufficient reward, and history establishes this as fact.

For those that experience apprehension over such ideas and speculate that perhaps the exchange of equal hours and preclusion of disproportionate reward may not sufficiently motivate adequate numbers to contribute in a meaningful fashion or perhaps even discourage ‘ambition’ and ‘personal initiative’, the advocate of cooperative apportionment offers a number of considerations for encouragement and optimism:

(1.) Society may assess some degree of accelerated value by measuring average productivity then increasing the value of the hour contributed by any given individual proportionate to the level at which it exceeds the average. This establishes a proportionate exceptional reward for the individual that exercises exceptional ‘ambition’ or ‘personal initiative’ that is yet still supported by a measurable material reality (as opposed to potentially limitless imaginary ideological values).

(2.) The ‘ambitious’ individual that practices ‘personal initiative’ can (a) earn exceptional rewards with exceptional performance and / or (b) earn exceptional rewards by contributing exceptional numbers of hours.

Article 3. The Fundamental Philosophical Principles of Cooperative Apportionment: In the modern economic society of subjective value, the ideals of ‘liberty’ and ‘privacy’ are in word, trite and hollow sentiments, and in action, superficial and minimal allowances. The modern economic society is intrusive, invasive, meddlesome and demanding, and expectations of labor in exchange for occupation of the earth are not merely unreasonable and unrealistic, but account as a form of slavery enforced by terrorist threats of punitive deprivation. The cultural values of modern economic society originate from a fundamental belief that any given individual is entitled to unlimited material reward through the exercise of power over others by intrusive manipulation, exploitation, predatory opportunism and threat of punitive deprivation. The system may present the appearance of sophistication with social organization, ostensibly representative government, the advancement of technology and the rule of law, but the fundamental principle is violent barbarism. In the cooperative apportioned society of natural value, we recognize no entitlement for the individual to profit without effort from the actions of others and in fact, culturally consider such desire and intent, reprobate if not outright criminal. In the cooperative apportioned society, we recognize not the entitlement of the individual to profit but the right of the individual to benefit proportionately from the natural value of direct constructive action.

The Major Points:

(1.) The private enterprise that profits from the needs, conditions and circumstances of society does not provide the benefit of a product or service to society for the betterment of society but only opportunistically exploits the misfortunes of humanity, preying on the vulnerability of specialization and its inherent social dependence, depriving vast segments of humanity of the product of their own constructive action and compelling others into lifetimes of debilitating and unconstructive compulsory hyperactivity.

(2.) ‘Profit’ is violence in sheep’s clothing. The desire for profit is the desire to seize by force, the value of the constructive actions of others, and though the institutionalization of economics produces the illusion of civility and the rule of law, the collection of profit is fundamentally equal to the seizure of material at the point of a weapon. No rational human ever ‘voluntarily’ exchanges disproportionate values that directly result in self-deprivation and the contention that such exchanges as they continually occur in modern economic society are the product of ‘mutually consensual trade’ is delusional superstitious belief and denial of violent behavior.

(3.) The productive enterprise does not occur because of the constructive and benevolent contributory actions of ‘private initiative’. The productive enterprise is the direct product of collective constructive action and collective initiative, and the privatization of the productive enterprise is the forceful seizure of socially produced material value by a negligible violent minority that contributes nothing and benefits disproportionately in direct proportion to the material deprivation of others.

(4.) Society does not owe you disproportionate reward for exceptional action. The value of your exceptional action is its direct value to you, and if you complain that is not sufficient reward then the value of that action is probably not so exceptional after all.

(5.) If you refuse to contribute exceptional action to society without disproportionate reward then your exceptional action is worthless to the rest of society because disproportion negates value.

(6.) The value of your exceptional action contributed to society is the improvement of your society from which you directly benefit in direct proportion. Any expectation that exceeds that material reality is a barbaric and violent primordial impulse inspired by irrational feelings of superiority, inability to sympathize, lack of sense of proportion, and grandiose expectations of entitlement.

In the cooperative apportioned society, what we owe each other is recognition of the natural inherent vulnerability and interdependence of specialization, we owe each other respect and appreciation for that leap of faith, and we owe each other accommodation and mutual sacrifice sufficient to preclude the possibility of abuse, threat of violence, and deprivation. The ideological religious belief of economics is a superstitious archaic remnant of our violent barbarous past and the only future of humanity that accommodates economics is the future scenario that also accommodates extinction. In the near future, as technology continues to develop, the function of labor will continue to shift from human to machine. How does economics accommodate that trend? Will the ‘elimination of jobs’ continue until billions are ‘unemployed’, dispossessed and displaced? Will the ‘unemployed’ fail to qualify for ‘healthcare benefits’, housing or even food? The continuing trend of automation, robotics and technological development combined with the superstitious religious ideology of economics is a scenario not in which technology improves the conditions of humanity, but a scenario in which technology replaces humanity. A future that accommodates economics is an emerging plan for a mass extermination that only a privileged minority of ‘ownership’ class will survive. We owe it to future generations to prevent the logical destiny of economics. We are intelligent and we are out of excuses. The time has come to abandon our romanticism and sentimental attachments to superstitious mythological traditions, and exercise our intelligence.