derive the law 2

7/27/2019 Derive the Law 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/derive-the-law-2 1/10

Derive the LawM o n d a y , O c t o b e r 1 3 , 2 0 1 4

Derive the Law Welcome to my blog - Derive the Law. In this blog, as the name suggests, I will derive the law from

observations and principles that can be agreed upon. In the first part of each chapter, I will summarizethe information that is derived by the formal derivation included in the second part (of eachchapter). I hope you enjoy reading it. Feel free to comment.

Summary of the Blog:Deriving the Basis for Laws and Rights:

To derive the law, we start with no laws; and a space free of laws is called "Free Space" (Chapter1). In free space, by Karma, the fundamentally understood principle of equality and balance (Chapter2), we agree that it would be best to not fight, and so we establish a foundational Peace Covenant(Chapter 3). To bypass fighting over whatever issues there might be, we eliminate the causes of fightsby agreeing to make and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements (Chapter 4) and by holding

persons who obstruct peace or justice responsible for their actions. Finally, since people can onlyagree or disagree with a matter if it involves them, a person can exercise their right to personal orgroup-consented choices (i.e. choices that do not: 1) subject persons that do not agree, 2) intend toaffect a person that does not want to be affected, or 3) violate the terms of an agreement) (Chapter5).

MoneyIn life, there are objectives we must accomplish, some with obstacles that (on the surface level)

prevent us from accomplishing those objectives. Many times, we can develop a systematic functionthat overcomes, displaces, or bypasses the obstacles we face in order to accomplish objectives. Wecall this type of a system a game (Chapter 6). Each person has an objective - to supply for their needsand an obstacle - what we need might be rightfully owned by another person or business. By Karma, toreceive a need would be balanced by supplying a need of the same worth. This defines the tradegame. The money game is based on the same rules as the trade game; however, people trade money

(a universally-accepted amount of worth) for goods and services. People are to earn this money (andenough of it) by contributing their part to the good of society (Chapter 7). There are many problemswith the economy (due to a lack of stability, lack of control and improper use), and these areidentified in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 poses a solution that uses money in light of its intended purpose andfixes the problems in Chapter 8. Chapter 10 addresses concerns that may arise due to the proposedchange in the system.Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:50 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 1: A Blank Slate - Free Space A space is a connected collection of locations. Spaces can have rules that dictate a regimen to follow within the

space. A physical space with no other governing laws than natural laws is called free space. To derive the law, wehave to start with a blank slate - free space.

Formal Derivation

1.0 - If we wish to derive the law, we start with the concept of "Free Space"

1.1 - Definition of a Space: The total connection of locations (that can possibly contain elements) bound by a set (orsets) of laws.

1.2 - Rules, when understood among a group of people, act as governing rules over the physical space containingthe people accepting them

1.2.1. People have the ability to follow a set of rules they understand.

http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/derive-law_13.html


http://www.blogger.com/profile/06743586170245671500





http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/derive-law_13.html#comment-form


http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=2982620413454330425&postID=8182152454086198935&target=email

http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=2982620413454330425&postID=8182152454086198935&target=twitter

http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=2982620413454330425&postID=8182152454086198935&target=pinterest


http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-1-blank-slate-free-space_13.html














1.2.2. Rules exist in a Quasi-Abstract Space - the space of the mind.1.2.3. The mind is connected to and in sync with the body, which resides in physical space.1.2.4. If rules are accepted, they govern the physical space containing the persons who accept them.

1.3 - Definition of Free Space: A physical space with no set rules other than the natural laws governing the peoplewithin the space.

1.4 - To derive the law, we start with "Free Space."1.4.1. To derive the law we are to start with a blank slate (i.e. no laws)1.4.2. "Free Space" is a space with no laws.1.4.3. To derive the law, we start with the concept of "Free Space."

Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:50 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 2: Karma and its Implications in Free Space Karma is the foundation to justice. It is defined as the principle of balance and equality and it is understood

innately. By Karma, all actions performed by one person would equate to an equal reaction by another person.Suppose all persons in free space are capable of fighting. If a person chose to fight, another person could do the

same in return. In other words, if you were to choose to combat against a person or group of people, you couldexpect those people to fight you.

Formal Derivation

2.1 - Definition of Karma:A principle of equality (or balance) that is understood by all persons. It can also be identified as the foundationalprinciple used in establishing justice.

2.2 - The Principle of Karma states: For something given, a return should be expected of equal proportion.2.2.1. Karma is the equalizing principle that creates balance.2.2.2. To give would be balanced by receiving in equal proportion.2.2.3. For that which is given, return is expected in equal proportion.

2.3 - If you do something combative in free space, you can expect a reaction of equal measure (that quite possiblycould be combative).

2.3.1. For that which is given, return is expected.2.3.2. To a person committing an act, there is rewarded something of equal measure.

2.3.3. For a combative act against a person, there is to be expected a reaction of equal measure (possiblycombative).Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:49 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 3: The Peace Covenant and the InternationalGovernment

If no one wants to be combatted against, they form an agreement. This is a foundational peace covenant thatstates whatever we do, we don't fight.

Thus, since the agreement is to not fight, it is the law, and the law must be enforced. Having free will to break anylaw, there must be a force maintaining order. Since nations in free space are equal entities, there needs to be asuperior that upholds the peace covenant - the international government.

Formal Derivation:

3.1 - Definition of covenant: a grand agreement in which people submit themselves to a common law and/or under acertain order.

Case A: Suppose no one wishes to be combatted against.

3.2 - Supposing no one wants to test 2.3, we have a peace covenant.3.2.1. Suppose no one wants to fight (no one wants to test 2.3).3.2.2. Then we come to the common understanding (or agreement) that we do not fight.3.2.3. This agreement is a set way to which all parties involved should adhere.






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-1-blank-slate-free-space_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-2-karma-and-its-implications-in_13.html






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-2-karma-and-its-implications-in_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-3-peace-covenant-and_13.html
























3.2.4. Hence, the agreement forms a new law - to not combat - to keep the peace.3.2.5. Therefore, there is a peace covenant (by definition of a covenant).

3.3 - There is to be a governing body upholding and enforcing all covenants.3.3.1. For a person involved in a covenant, the covenant to which they belong defines laws they are to follow (see

3.2.2 - 3.2.4 for an example).3.3.2. Human persons have free will - to follow or to break the law.

3.3.3. If laws are broken by someone and no logical consequence is issued, people can break the law with norepercussions.3.3.4. When people can break the law without repercussions, the law is meaningless and peace is obstructed.3.3.5. We desire peace and justice.3.3.6. So, we must enforce every law.3.3.7 This means we are to hold covenants at the highest concern (since they, by definition, define laws) by

deriving and enforcing logical consequences for when they are broken.3.3.8. Since, by Karma, people who are of the same standing are not to impose consequences upon another

(excluding certain karmactic reactions), there must be an authoritative figure above the people that are involved in acovenant.

3.3.9. Thus there is a governing body as the authority enforcing covenants.

3.4 - If nations do not want to fight, there must be an international government that enforces that rule.3.4.1. By the agreement to not fight, we have a peace covenant.3.4.2. By 3.3, there is a governing body upholding our peace covenant.

3.4.3. By the principle of Karma, nations (considered to be of equal standing) are to not have authority over othernations.

3.4.4. The governing body, as it is the authority over the nations, a) must not be a nation and b) must be above allnations (as it would concern the covenant).

3.4.5 There is to be an international government governing the peace covenant.

N.B. This does not mean that the international government need have an army; but if the international governmentderives the need for war (as the only logical consequence that could possibly remedy a situation), then nations are toaid in accomplishing the mission behind the war.Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:49 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 4: Agreeing to Agree To establish peace, we look at the reasons peace might be broken. Total peace is a state in which there are no

fights and all potential causes of fights are addressed.It is to be deduced that to establish and maintain a state of peace, two things must happen: a) we make and keep

agreements so as to avoid disagreements, and b) where justice or peace is obstructed, we derive and enforce alogical consequence over the obstructer(s).

The second requisite falls on the responsibility of authorities, but the first one applies to all.In other words, everyone must come to a common understanding (or agreement) before participating in acts that

could be considered objectionable.

Formal Derivation:

4.0 - In order to establish and maintain peace: a) we make and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements, andb) where justice or peace is obstructed, we derive and enforce a logical consequence over the obstructer(s).

Case B: Suppose that, despite the implications of Karma, someone finds it fit to fight.

4.1 - To be at total peace, we must remedy all disagreements, misunderstandings, broken agreements, eruptions ofchaos, acts done so as to dominate over another (unless agreed upon and exercised fairly), and senseless acts ofviolence.

4.1.1. To be at total peace is to have no fights or potential fights. 4.1.2. We want peace. 4.1.3. We are to eliminate all causes of fights4.1.4. Fights are based upon disagreements, misunderstandings, broken agreements, eruptions of chaos, a need

to establish dominance, and no reason - just because.4.1.5. In order to be at total peace, we must eliminate or remedy the factors (named in 4.1.4) that are considered to

be the basis for fights and potential fights.






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-3-peace-covenant-and_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-4-agreeing-to-agree_13.html













4.2 - We keep peace and ensure justice a) by making and keeping agreements in place of disagreements and b) byresponding to obstructions of peace and justice by removing them and supplying whatever other logicalconsequences are derived.

4.2.1. By 4.1.5, to establish total peace:4.2.1.1. We are to resolve our disagreements. We do this by compromising and making agreements.4.2.1.2. We are to resolve misunderstandings, and this is done by identifying misconceptions and coming to a

common understanding (the definition of agreement).

4.2.1.3 We are to keep the agreements we make, and for agreements broken (acting as a broken law) there is tobe issued a logical consequence.4.2.1.4. We are to reestablish order during a chaotic outburst. Since rationalization doesn't reestablish order

during chaotic catastrophes, martial law would be derived as a logical consequence to reestablish order over thepeople contributing to the chaos.

4.2.1.5. We are to detain those who fight to establish their dominance (except in the case of a competition).4.2.1.5.a. If a fight or potential fight is founded on the need for someone to dominate, the person is fighting to

rise above the ones they are trying to dominate.4.2.1.5.b. Unless a person can be rightfully determined as a superior to another, acts to dominate over

another contradict the principle of Karma - the principle that ensures equality of all.4.2.1.5.c. The person trying to dominate, by Karma, would be dominated by authority, detained until control is

regained, and issued a logical consequence for obstructing peace and justice.4.2.1.6. We are to detain those who fight without a reason as this could be classified as chaotic (without reason

or order), and we are to issue a logical consequence for obstructions to peace and justice.4.2.2. Conclusion: Clearly, by summarizing the deductions, to establish and maintain peace, we are to 1) make

and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements and 2) derive necessary and logical consequences (such asdetainment, paying money, serving time, etc.) over those who obstruct peace and justice.


Chapter 5: Rights Implied by the Law

If there is a law that, when enforced, establishes total peace (like the law deduced in chapter 4), it establishes justice as well. And since peace and justice are the desired attributes of a law, a person has the right to follow a lawthat says to make and keep agreements so as to avoid disagreements.

People have the right to agree or disagree with anything to which they fall subject. And if they are not involved in amatter, they do not have the right to agree or disagree with it.

So, a person has the right to act any way they want as long as they: a) do not subject a person that would disagree,

b) do not intended to affect a person that doesn't want to be affected, or c) do not violate the terms of an agreementby the action.

And authorities can override the first two rules if the action can be derived and people and government can overridethe third if the agreement is null, unfair, contradictory, or outdated.

Formal Derivation:

5.0 - A person has the right to act any way they want as long as the action:5.0.1. does not subject a person that disagrees with it,5.0.2. is not intended to affect a person that doesn't want to be affected by it5.0.3. does not violate the terms of an agreement.5.0.4. (Note: Attached to a person are their possessions)

(Authorities can override a) 5.0.1 and 5.0.2 if the action can be derived and b) 5.0.3 if the agreement is null, unfair,contradictory, or outdated)

5.1 - You have the right to do anything you want if you keep a law that demands total peace.5.1.1. People have the right to exercise their free will within the confines of a just, complete law. 5.1.2. If we are at total peace, we have total justice.

5.1.2.1. If we are at total peace, there are no disagreements and no wrongs that aren't being made right (bylogical consequences).

5.1.2.2. If no one disagrees and all wrongs have been righted, all is right.5.1.2.3. When all is right, there is total justice

5.1.3. If a set of laws, when exercised, establishes total peace, the set of laws is just and complete.5.1.4. A person has the right to act as they wish within the confines of a law that demands total peace.






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-4-agreeing-to-agree_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-5-rights-implied-by-law_13.html













5.2 - If you keep the agreements you are a part of and avoid subjecting a person to a matter they would disagreewith, you have the right to do as you please.

5.2.1. From 4.2.2 we learn that establishing and maintaining a state of total peace is synonymous with a) makingand keeping agreements to avoid disagreements and b) providing logical consequences for obstructions to peaceand unlawful activities.

5.2.1.1. (Since the second constituent (5.2.1(b)) of peace places responsibility solely on the government, we'llconcentrate on the first constituent.)

5.2.2. People have the right to agree or disagree with a matter if and only if they fall subject to the matter. 5.2.3. Thus a disagreement can't occur if a person does not fall subject to the matter.5.2.4. Therefore, as long as you do not subject a person (that does not disagree) by your actions (5.2.3), keep all

agreements you've made (5.2.1(a)), and follow any terms that may have been derived over you, you may do as youplease.

5.3 - It is wrong to act in a way in which you intend to affect a person that does not want to be affected.5.3.1. If you intend to affect a person, you effectively subject them to your action.5.3.2. The person, falling subject to the matter, has a right to disagree (5.2.2).5.3.3. Intending to affect (in any way) a person that does not want to be affected is against the law.

5.4 - Therefore we have 5.0 - 5.0.4.Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:47 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 6: A Fair Game In life, there are objectives that we have to accomplish. Many times there are obstacles in the way of

accomplishing our objectives. So, we look at all persons as equals with equal rights and create a system of rules thatbypass the obstacles preventing us from accomplishing our objectives.

Since the game is an agreement to a set of rules, it is considered a covenant and must be controlled by thegovernment.

Formal Derivation:

6.1 - Definition of a game: a systematic function, bound by a set of rules, and thus composed of a set of proceduresthat overcome, bypass, or displace obstacles in order to accomplish an objective.

6.2 - Games must: 1) overcome obstacles in a just manner (i.e. legally) and 2) be composed of rules that ensure thatall have an equal opportunity to accomplish the objective (by the principle of Karma). In other words, games must be

just and fair

6.2 - When we agree to play a societal game, we enter into a covenant enforced by a governing body.6.2.1. Societal games must give everyone a fair opportunity to accomplish the goal behind them.6.2.2. Giving a fair opportunity in a game means imposing equalizing rules to keep the game fair.6.2.3. By combining under a common set of equalizing rules and agreeing with the terms (or laws) of a game, we

have a covenant.6.2.4. And this covenant has a government regulating the game.


Chapter 7: The Trade Game and the Money Game In life, there are needs. Not everyone has what they need. So we play a game to acquire what we need in a fairmanner. The trade game is based on the principle of Karma. It says that goods and services can be traded for anequal amount of goods and services.

There are a couple problems with the trade game, however, that can be cured by the money game. The moneygame is partly the trade game where goods and services are exchanged for money, an amount of universally-accepted worth. Thus with the money game, you can obtain any good or service you desire (and from any person)as long as you have enough money to match the worth of the goods and/or services provided.

This money, as it is to be universally accepted, should be created and distributed fairly by the government. Andsince, by using money, we have a money game covenant, the government should be able to regulate the use ofmoney to ensure the game meets its objective.






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-5-rights-implied-by-law_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-6-fair-game_13.html







http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-6-fair-game_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-7-trade-game-and-money-game_13.html






















Formal Derivation:

7.0 - Society needs to run. People need to be able to obtain their needs whether public or personal. We also needpeople to offer their services to provide these needs. In the big picture, if each person offers services they specializein to others, all of a persons necessary tasks would be performed with greater efficiency. So there must be a way toensure that if people offer their services, they can attain all that they need. So, we have the wonderful creation of

money.

7.1 - The Trade Game: It would be just for the goods and services of one person to be exchanged for an equalproportion of goods and services of another person, assuming both parties agree with the transaction.

7.1.1. Suppose a person has a need for a personal or public good or service.7.1.1.1. This is the objective

7.1.2. Attached to a person or a business are the items they possess and services they provide.7.1.2.1. This is the obstacle in the way of accomplishing our objective.

7.1.3. By Karma (the principle of fairness), to receive, one would have to give in equal proportion.7.1.4. If you wish to receive goods or services from another person, you can justly do so by offering an equal

amount of goods and services of their own - presuming, obviously, that the other person is in agreement withrelinquishing their goods or services for yours.

7.1.4.1. This is the procedure defined by the trade game.

7.2 - Problems with the Trade Game: a) It's possible that the person possessing the good or ability to do the service

you desire wants no good or service you possess or can do, b) The value of the goods or services one wishes totrade with another may not be worth the same as what the other wishes to trade, and c) there is no incentive forworkers to supply free public services.

7.3 - Definition of Money: a universally accepted measurable amount of worth. Thus it offers the assurance that ifyou have enough to match the worth of something or some service, you can have that thing or service. It alsoprovides a motive to do work.

7.3.1. Money is universally accepted for whatever is for sale.7.3.2. You can attain whatever you want (as long as it's for sale) by exchanging an acceptable amount of money.7.3.3. Since money is the tool used to supply for one's needs, a person would be willing to contribute to society for

a sufficient amount of it.

7.4 - The Money Game has the same objective as the the trade game - to attain public and personal needs.

7.5 - Money is to be appropriated to persons a) so as to allow a person to offer their specialties b) so that they can beassured, in return, that their needs are met.

7.5.1. Since there is a person behind every need provided, we need the people to work.7.5.2. Since people need money to live and we need people to work, we give people money for the work they do

so they can provide for themselves.7.5.3. People can offer the goods and services in which they specialize (not needing to worry about providing

anything else) in exchange for enough money to supply their needs.

7.6 - Since we make a covenant to use money, it must be made and regulated by the government so as to assure theobjective of the game is met. And since the government makes the money, they must also use money to providepublic needs (unless there is an amount considered more than enough, possessed by another person or business -as this would go against the objective of the game).

7.6.1. Not only do personal needs need to be provided, there are public needs.7.6.2. If a calculated amount of money is determined to provide only for a person's personal needs, it does not

factor in the public needs of society.

7.6.3. Unless a person is making "more than enough," they should not have to provide for public needs. Thegovernment should provide those needs.Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:46 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 8: Our Current Money Problem There are a few problems with the current state of the economy that could easily be mended if a few regulations

were put into place. The two main factors contributing to our economic problems are: a) money leaking out of thecountry and b) the ability to freely use the dollar - allowing "sponges" to acquire infinite wealth.






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-7-trade-game-and-money-game_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-8-our-current-money-problem_13.html













Formal Derivation:

8.0 - Our current economic problems are occurring due to two factors. There is/are: 1) a leak, 2) allowing money tobe used too freely, allowing "sponges" to capitalize off the people working for them (not withholding them fromacquiring as much wealth as they want).

8.1 -

Not depicted (due to complexity):8.1.1. There are more than 2 people.8.1.2. There are more businesses than those depicted.8.1.3. Not all people make the same amount of money.8.1.4. There are persons the government pays to contribute in providing public services, and the money they make

goes to businesses.8.1.5. People are taxed.8.1.6. There is some foreign money that is received in exchange for domestic products.

8.1.7. Often times, the persons employed by big businesses reside in a foreign country, meaning their dollarearned is going to foreign businesses, not the businesses depicted.

8.1.8. Many businesses are owned by groups of people.

8.2 - There is a leak, and it is destined to hurt the economy. We must regulate money transactions betweencountries.

8.2.1. Draw attention to the yellow line in 8.1.8.2.2. Suppose more money continually leaves a country than comes in.8.2.3. Then the money we use to account for needs within the country becomes property of foreign countries.8.2.4. People and businesses (in this model) need money.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wnRBMaDYzFk/VDxFKayjgMI/AAAAAAAAADc/BZxXSUnvVTg/s1600/Big+Business.jpg



8.2.5. More money needs to be made (since it is no longer in the country), and the money other countries possessneeds to be accounted for.

8.2.6. Thus we have inflation (due to money made) and a weak dollar (since the money other countries have has tobe accounted for).

8.2.7. There should only be equal trade between countries, and this can be done by trading without money or (formore complicated trades) trading money for money that is to be used promptly.

8.3 - There are too many large amounts of money possessed by citizens. Money should be displaced by thegovernment to account for deficits, or consolidated together by the government in order to draw from a commonaccount.8.3.1. There are "sponges" in society that soak up amounts of money beyond what would be considered (even by

them) as "more than enough."8.3.2. There is money that is not in use that we must account for.8.3.3. We could make money - which would weaken the dollar, we could displace the money from those that have

more than enough, or we could consolidate our profits to pay for all deficits.


Chapter 9: Using Money the Right Way

By consolidating the pots of money businesses possess into a joint-account available to all businesses as moneywould be needed, there would be less money to account for, and businesses would not be hindered from growing toa size that fits the needs of society. The deficits incurred by offering public goods and services would be offset by themoney earned in profitable businesses.With the government handling the money aspect of all businesses, failing businesses can die peacefully. In addition,a person's paycheck would never be compromised.And finally, there would be no taxes (other than property tax), and no inflation as every dollar is destined to return to

the government's account.

Formal Derivation:

9.0 - Each person must be payed enough money to support themselves in exchange for an amount of work that,together with all other workers, would supply all needs.

9.1 -






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-8-our-current-money-problem_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-9-using-money-right-way_13.html












Not depicted (due to complexity, and one I forgot to add):

9.1.1. There are more than two people and one business.9.1.2. For reasons of rank, difficulty of tasks, skill level, amount of skills known, demand, request, risk, and any

other reasons that would add to the value of a person's work, people make different amounts of money.9.1.3. The wonders recycling and finding reliable, sustainable energy sources would have on the stability of the

economy - by enabling us to always have resources available for new goods.

9.2 - The minimum amount a person can earn for the amount of work needed by society should be based on abudget that accounts for needs and a reasonable amount of desires.

9.2.1. A person has needs. And each person should be able to have extra - for things they desire (if possible).9.2.2. Everything has a price.9.2.3. A person should make enough to cover the price of what they want and need.9.2.4. A budget based upon what people need and desire should be used to determine minimum wage.9.2.5. Higher paid jobs should be adjusted according to minimum wage by using a multiplier or by adding value,

which ever makes more sense.

9.3 - Some benefits of having the government handling money:9.3.1. There's no income tax, because income is calculated based on needs, and there's no sales tax or taxes for

public services because the difference between sales and cost of labor and goods (i.e. the CEO's salary) goesdirectly to the one joint account in the name of the government.

9.3.2. There's no inflation because the salary of all persons goes directly back to the government for goods andservices desired, and there is no money unaccounted for.

9.3.3. Money is regulated by the government (as it should be), and thus can serve its purpose.9.3.3.1. Since the Money Game is a covenant, there is to be a governing body enforcing the terms of it.

9.3.4. Citizens' wages are derived and given by the government (a source of infinite money that can thus upholdthe fair game policy), so no one's pay will never be compromised.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPOPP-I9Fe4/VDxFZ3PNlJI/AAAAAAAAADk/pnkBrS0eSog/s1600/Socialism.jpg



The next chapter addresses some fears that people may have about socialism.Posted by Steven Kowalski at 2:45 PM No comments:Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Chapter 10: Fears About Socialism 10.1. With the government in charge of business, there would be no competition and thus no need to innovate.

10.1.1. People would be paid for ideas, inventions, etc. that are used; so there would always be innovation.10.1.2. The government would hire the best persons for the job.10.1.3. People would be paid (in proportions that would earn fair wages) for time or tasks completed - for however

much each category is worth based on what the job is.10.1.4. CEOs would be encouraged to compete to gain more profit, because their wages would be depended on it.

(Since certain businesses are just naturally more profitable, wages would be adjusted to provide an equal opportunityto obtain the desired salary)

10.2. Entrepreneurs don't have the chance to develop profitable, reputable businesses.10.2.1. It is only prohibited for a person to gain profit from another person's accomplishments. So people can

develop personal businesses.10.2.2. If a business requires many people to be functional and it provides a necessity or a source of profit, the

business will be created and, if the entrepreneur possesses the skills, they can run the business.

10.2.2.1. If a development or an idea is projected to be profitable, or if it is necessary for the betterment ofsociety, the government would have to promise to move forward with the idea. 10.2.2.2. All people have different talents: some people create ideas, some people can run businesses, and

some people can create ideas into realities.10.2.2.3. We place people into the areas in which they succeed.10.2.2.4. If a person succeeds in the area of product or business development, they can have a job in the field.

10.2.3. In fact, without needing to worry about a source of income while starting a new business, it would be easierfor a business manager to accomplish their tasks






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-9-using-money-right-way_13.html#comment-form






http://derive-the-law.blogspot.com/2014/10/chapter-10-fears-about-socialism_13.html











derive the law 2

Documents