OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: The Goal Society: Is it 'A Real Life Economy'?

I understand, Ann, your intense desire to live in a society considerably better than the current; one in which you will be at liberty to meet your "[m]aterial needs, [c]onscious living, [c]reativity, and [c]aring" objectives - which I describe as maximizing your lifetime happiness, noted earlier as the purpose of each person's life. What is necessary for you to be able to do so, and for others also to accomplish this goal for themselves, all at the same time, is a society based on principles that make full use of the nature of human beings. The nature of human beings does not automatically lead to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Society, just like any other natural system can be self-regulating by means of interactions between its members, if only humans are allowed to develop the methods by which such self-regulation can be effective, rather than the social system constantly being held in an unnatural (and very unoptimal) state of balance by the operations of its rulers and other influencers. Unfortunately, Ann, your ideas in "The banking system is not the economy: Painting a new picture" are for more government and less individual choice.

The idea of social self-regulation has been touched on by me and husband Paul Wakfer at OpEdNews.com in "Critique of 'Bio-Politics' Article: Argument for Societal Self-Regulation" which contains links to fundamental essays elsewhere. I very much hope that you, Ann, and all others who want (or may be currently only curious about) a society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit (each with the goal of maximizing hir lifetime happiness) will do a studied reading of the more in-depth discussion of this most important of subjects.

1 | 2