>>I call it the "metaphysics penalty" plus "poor boundary awareness"
>>analogous to communism.  What's yours is mine.

      It is tempting to confuse the move from ownership to stewardship as
a move towards communism.

      The primary problem with communism was central plan, having someone
tell you what you could make, who you could sell it to, and what you
could charge for it.  As there is no single human being or group of
human beings smart enough to span an entire civlization and its markets,
this was doomed to failure, not to mention the seeping in of corruption,
tempation and seduction at the highest places of power.  Pretty soon the
top level people are running the place for themselves at the expense of
everyone else.

      In a free market, each person is allowed to make these decisions
himself, what to make, who to sell it to, and how much to charge.

      It is tempting to consider that the RIGHT to do these things
comes from OWNERSHIP of the means of production and the product and
perhaps one find its hard to conceive how a free market can run in an
environment of stewardship rather than ownership.  Certainly this
needs to be hashed out.

      Ownership means rights of control.

      Stewardship is more like a duty of guardainship with limited rights
of control as the steward never really owns the item he is guardian for.

      For example people own stock, but give it over to their stock
broker to invest for them as stewards of the stock.

      I bring you back to the forest and the boat.  Ownership of land is
probably one of the most fudamental and most ridiculous basis of
production and product ownership, because ultimately everything comes
from the land.  Who owns the land?  Those that take it by force, end of

      Now you consider a more spiritual concept that everyone owns the
land, then everyone owns the tree in the forest.  Who then owns the boat
invented by and made by one man from the tree?

      Do not the people who own the tree the boat was made from, and who
supported and put the civilization there so the man could invent and
make the boat, have some claim to the boat?

      The arguements between total ownership and total slavery tend to
leave out a middle path that is more favorable to spiritual development,
probably best described by stewardship, but not completely delineated by

      Lots of non producers would love to have everyone own everything,
so they can suck off the work of the producers.  These of course push
things towards very tight ownership in the name of "I produced it, so I
own it so you have no rights to it!"

      Giving sway to the non producers leads to welfare states at the
point of a gun aimed at the producers, which by definition is a form of
communism, "from each according to his ability and to each according to
his need." But who determines ability and need?  So we have a central
government again, which pushes the 'welfare of the people' party line,
while actually lining their own pockets with the protectorship scam.

      A protector is one who says something is good for you, when in
fact it is good for them at your expense, and they know it.

      Their primary interest is to protect you from the truth in order to
protect themselves by keeping their slavery of you in working order.

      Protectors running a protectorship scam are probably the closest
definition of evil there is.

Mon Oct 10 16:25:42 EDT 2016