Wow! That was such a clear interpretation of how the ideal society would work.
Know Thyself

Good questions all.

For the wealthy, yes, there’s that higher-minded, altruistic appeal. That works for some of course. After all, there is a billionaire offering a $5m prize to the best idea that can replace our current system (yes, I’m applying). Some wealthy folks, in the quiet of their minds, are naturally coming to this conclusion. Thank goodness. But I think the best appeal is “you don’t lose any of your wealth.”

The idea’s transition plan includes a stage were all current debt is eliminated for everyone and creditors are left 100% whole. That stage can make them 110% or 120% whole, whatever is necessary to get them to sign on (within reason of course). It’s quite flexible.

It then converts all existing wealth, even those represented as tangible assets, into NBR at a similar exchange rate as above, thus leaving all assets free just like people. So not only do people with wealth and capital get to keep all that, they also get to have all their necessities provided for at no cost to them, as well as their capital goods, as well as the necessities their family would need. In short they’re not harmed in capital wealth terms in any way after the new model is implemented. I think that’s a powerful argument.

Speaking of “powerful”, the “powerful” (and this gets to your second, more sticky question) can still be powerful, but “power” gets redefined. Since NBR is non-transferrable and comes from a third party (society represented by this payer group structure using an algorithm) “Power” in this model is the ability to influence and inspire others’ cooperation. There’s no way to coerce, pay, threaten, blackmail or force someone to do anything by withholding that person’s access to making a living, because wealth and power (as defined above) doesn’t benefit from the weapon of drastic negative (mostly financial) consequences such as losing your job, reputation, short-term stability (marriage, immediate wealth) or freedom.

The “will to power” challenge — and this is just my opionion — is more an artifact of the current model than it is human nature. Just like the current state of greed. Of course a person is going to aspire to power in the current model! It’s the way to everything — sex, adoration, control, and, yes, wealth and material goods. The “will to power” is a distortion of human nature. Again, my opinion. This distortion is cleared up by making overt our innate dependence on and being an integral part of the cooperative nature of life: no one can make anything happen without the help of others and the planet. This should be obvious to everyone. It’s a basic reality that’s camouflaged by debt-based financial systems, but made overt in this new model. When people see that “net benefit” can’t be created in any other way other than cooperation, then, sooner or later, they’ll give up aspiring to the old-school style of power.

As for this payer group structure: there are elements to the model I haven’t described. One is the definition of “no cost.” The other is Reputation Accounts. “No cost” is not the same as free. One’s ability to get necessities depends on the owner of said necessities willingness to give them to you. Everyone is free. So the owner doesn’t have to give you anything. Reputation Accounts allow said owners to understand who you are, what you have done and what you’re currently doing as a way to determine your status in society. They’re more than that, but that’s a nutshell. Data in them comes from those who work with you. They make declarations in into your account, positive and negative, through a rigorous review process. What “increased ability” do payer group members have over others? My guess is in addition to people working within the payer group, there will be others working outside the group but contributing to the group through their fields to assist the group. This means pretty much every field that would be in the group would be supported by similar folks outside the group. So there really is no “inside” information or abilities these group members have. It’s all above board, open and transparent — it has to be to function correctly.

Given these two, and what else you now know, we can conclude — fairly safely — the following:

  1. payer group members will do their jobs “right” because they want their necessities.
  2. payer group members will self-police each other and use the reputation account system to whistle-blow. After all, any act which creates Net Benefit merits NBR. So if a payer group member blows the whistle, and their act is sustained, they not only have improved the system, they receive a reward for it…..more luxuries for you! There are no reprisals of any consequence possible in this system, other than people being mad at you, so far more people will blow than today. Remember: we’re talking about human greed.
  3. while this group is well compensated in NBR (for obvious reasons) it is also hugely important. It will likely draw highly “right-minded” people: people who want to do this work because they want to give themselves to making the system work. So their integrity will be very high and their tolerance of people who will try to “break” the system will be very low.
  4. negative reputation accounts in a system where desire forms cooperative and productive bonds (relationships) will have a detrimental effect on one’s ability to create such bonds. In this model, your reputation literally precedes you. Consequences of a net-negative reputation are pretty dire, personally and professionally.
  5. remember this group is open. It’s never closed and entry is allowed to anyone who passes the payer institute curriculum. Nepotism can’t happen because there are no gatekeepsers guarding positions in the organization because there are no gates and really no positions! But let’s say a small enclave of members wants to try to create the scenario you describe above: turn it to a closed “party” with exclusive “power”. How would they do that? They have no ability to force anyone to do anything. They have no control over anything they could use as leverage. People in the organization would probably just ignore such silliness, or, worse (for the perpetrators), report it and for their “trouble” get a nice NBR boost. They would of course also file negative declarations in each of the enclave-member’s reputation accounts. And, for sure, the rest of humanity would not look favorable on someones trying to do something like what you suggest.

Always happy to try to answer questions and I really appreciate questions which poke at the model. They can only help to improve what my tiny team and I are doing!

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Perry Gruber’s story.