This article contains a good deal of allegory (though some would argue hyperbole) and apologue (though the animals in this case are human in nature) for which I do most humbly apologize. However, one very prevalent issue when dealing with unprecedented proposals is the lack of any precedent to utilize for making valid points. It is imperative that a new paradigm be introduced if this world is to be made a better place for all humanity, but merely stepping outside of the proverbial boundaries … or outside of the proverbial box, is not going to be readily accepted, much less allowed and certainly never encouraged.
If you do not believe me, you need look no further than the many amazing innovations that have been buried under the guise of “national security” or for other equally vague and obscure reasons. You need look no further than the trials and tribulations of people like Michael Reynolds also known as the Garbage Warrior. Even here however, while he was successful to some degree, his ideas, no matter how sound, have yet to receive any widespread audience, much less official recognition or praise … and certainly have not been allowed to expand to the point where they would be beneficial in contributing to the environment or to society as a whole.
The fact is that if we do wish to build outside of the proverbial box, we must not only utilize only such tools as are allowed within those constraints, but continue on within those constraints until a parallel system can be established. Only when a parallel system has been established and its merits validated by human experience, can any real accomplishment ever be made. But what does that really mean? Why would anybody build a contribution within the same current confines as have allowed for humanity and the earth to reach this stage of apathy and disrepair?
Think about each and every alternative system that has been created. Even those that are systemically sound and have a reasonable chance for success. There are many common shortcomings that have prevented all of them from gaining the necessary momentum needed for commencement in most examples. Furthermore, the inability to initiate these programs at any meaningful level, guarantees their failure before they ever do have any real opportunity to be started.
An Attack on Faith?
What does “faith” have to do with any of this? Our entire existence is based largely on faith. In some cases, the “religious” faith of people is brought into question, and the potential for an adverse reaction to “actual science” … which precludes the fact that science is in many ways faith based as well, given that virtually all scientific reality and science by its very nature is never settled and claims only that scientific proofs and theories have not yet been dis-proven. Regardless of whether or not you may personally understand or even believe that science is largely faith based, virtually the entire current system is based largely on faith … and when faith is attacked, people will revolt and rebel … it is never easy to change the status quo.
People put faith in government. Government is there to serve and to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual … but how many individuals place a great deal of faith in government, even if society as a whole does? According to some reports, Democide or the acts of governments that result in the death of citizens reached well over two hundred million people in the twentieth century. Add in a couple of hundred million killed in wars and … well, maybe that faith is misplaced but … attack the faith that people have in government and watch how quickly you become just another crazy conspiracy theorist in the eyes of the masses.
Government is a legal fiction in every legal, lawful and definitive terms of the word. Government exists because people have faith in government. The power of the government is derived from the faith that the citizenry places in government and its agents and agencies. GOVERNMENT does not sue anyone, but PEOPLE do. PEOPLE vs John Doe; et al ad infinitum. People put faith in police and some would even have us believe that these enforcers of government agencies and often arbitrary opinions of government agents are endowed with extrajudicial rights not afforded to the average citizen. This is relevant and included here for a reason however, so let us proceed with the original reasoning before this devolves into a deluded, conspiracy-filled rant. Shall we?
One cannot merely build a home without gaining permission and approval from the government. Most of us living in the cities cannot merely consult with our neighbors to determine if there is any objection to building a twenty-foot high fence and be done with it. People in the US are put in jail for digging ditches, prevented from using their land because it may be inhabitable for some species not even found there or fined for catching rainwater or planting gardens. Government is not seeking solutions or Michael Reynolds would have been allowed to proceed unencumbered and food forests could be created without putting people in jail for digging ditches or swales.
When such “radical” proposals as “circular economic” or “Resource based economic” systems are proposed, is it so difficult to believe that the proverbial powers that be, including both government and the international banking system are going to do everything within their power to shut such a system down as quickly as possible … and by any means necessary if they show even a hint of being capable of large-scale success and disrupting the current status quo?
If there is to be a new system built and a new paradigm introduced to the world, the following steps are imperative for any such program to commence in earnest, much less to be successful.
Any alternative system built must be built using only such tools as are allowed for and under any and all such restrictions as are common inside the proverbial box. Once the system has been built and is in place and has reached a sufficient level of maturity to be fully and systemically sustainable, it can begin building itself as a parallel system, edging ever so slightly outside of the proverbial box among a group freely associating freely in an organized civil society. (Yes, there is legal reasoning behind those terms as there are in the legal structure within such an organization and the manner in which it must be established and operated) and/or among autonomous and/or semi-autonomous groups of people such as the Indigenous and/or Aboriginal people.
This parallel system must by nature and design, be kept restricted within the group freely associating as members of an organized civil society and/or among the indigenous and/or aboriginal people. However, the purpose this serves should never be under-estimated or dismissed.
Those participating outside of the “inner circle” as it were, will be allowed (and even encouraged) to maintain the status quo and operate within the current socioeconomic and sociopolitical systems, while those within the inner circle will be free to participate within the new paradigm. Corporate interests within such a system would be mandated to continue operating for profit to some degree, outside of the inner circle. They will continue to pay taxes in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and at the same time, fund the system within the system.
If the alternative, now parallel system is ultimately successful, as it should be given the planning necessary for such a construct, it should soon become blatantly obvious about the benefits of such a social construct for the general populace. Only then can the faith of others be called in to question and examples given of why such a system is vastly superior. However, this should not be construed as an excuse or even reason to attack the faith of the individual, but rather the societal faith as placed in government and the current status quo. When people can see others enjoying a monetary free life, being more productive and enjoying more free time with far more options, only then will the people begin to question their own faith in the current system and the status quo. Even then, only when enough people are keenly aware of the new social construct and the aberration of the current status quo, will they begin to demand the change that is meaningful, constructive and beneficial to both the environment and humanity.