This series of posts was mostly aimed towards those who still consider the idea of spirituality important. Included in this demographic would be any atheists who still consider some type of spiritual view.
It may be time to take a moment to consider my position on capitalism, but I'll preface by saying I reject the dualist control dichotomy of capitalist/communist. In my opinion, that duality is a modernist control machination implemented by The Usual Suspects.
I don't own property and probably never will although if I did own I'd only buy one property that would satisfy my needs. I don't exploit anyone's labor for personal gain or profit. I run a small legal proprietorship which means today that banks, corporations, and governments are at war with me--this is because I refuse the corporate model of doing business-what I call the Unholy Trinity and make no mistake about it--if you are not for the Unholy Trinity they WILL wage war against you in every way that's legal (and sometimes illegal). To be frank, if one is friends with this group then one simply hasn't been asking the right questions. So, in my opinion, any sustainable capitalist model has to end income via exploitative rent-seeking, using forced coercion and unnecessary exploitation to earn a profit from someones basic need of food and water has to end, too. In my Global Commons model I also see the need to end neoliberal debt slavery for education, and a new healthcare system needs to be implemented--one premised on a healthy foundation and not the present capitalist model of healthcare which seeks to profit from an extraordinarily toxic system--ending the toxic system would be the saner approach! I've pointed out the lunacy of the cost of maintaining this present dysfunctional system--it must be staggeringly expensive and it would be less expensive to implement a healthy economic model.
The Four Pillars of a Global Commons Civilization should be funded by a non-debt public means of exchange via something like Public Banking or a non-debt currency like Positivemoney.org. Let's be clear here: this model is premised on the hopes of civilization surviving 100 more years in a healthy fashion--something that is quite questionable under the present system. The crown in the cap so to speak with this model is it also doesn't break the only spiritual rule that really matters: The Golden Rule which was always relevant to the trading of goods and services.
In this model, capitalism would still exist but would have to reinvent itself by earning capital in creative non-toxic ways. Charging humanity interest on housing, food/water, education, and healthcare would have to end. This is an old predatory mindset perhaps justifiable in 1850 but now just a prison or death sentence for civilization in the next 100 years.
The foundational basic needs economy would need to be educated (re-educated) to become a culture of people attaining their higher potentials. I call it a culture of attaining mastery. Of course, a re-education away from cynical misanthropy would be needed. A large part of a new education model would be to teach every manner of personal food production which would reconnect humanity to its earthly roots and end the dissociation implemented by the capitalist machine--one intended to control food production for oligarchic agendas and profit. A one house per-person policy would end homelessness, unsustainable hyper-inflationary real estate speculation, and would re-align humanity with the ethics of the Golden Rule. Buying and selling one's personal dwelling would still happen but there would be little inflation or profit motives involved. Within a new commercial capitalist model, the buying and selling of real-estate for commercial purposes could exist similarly to what exists now--a fiat currency could also still exist and be used in this economy. I see this as a sane compromise between the unending war between Marx and Adam Smith.
I need to touch on Buddhism for a moment. Of the two major schools, I'm more sympathetic to the Theravadin view in that other dimensions exist and are real--and populated. The Mahayana schools view and its universal conclusions come from experiences with the human mind--fair enough as far as it goes but I can't for the life of me see how one can draw universals definitively from experiences within the human mind. Admittedly, this is a Christian Gnostics take on it. I've also mentioned in previous posts that I'm more sympathetic to dualist Davita Vedantists philosophies.
Nevertheless, Buddhism, no matter which school, should be consistent with a Golden Rule economy! Why it's not in practice is a very interesting question indeed.
I'll finish up with thoughts on crypto tomorrow. I'll also briefly touch on women and the gay community as they relate to these issues over the coming century.