As some kind of follow-up to the "Nature gives everything for free, so why don't we?" thread, I want to extend the topic with a question that's been haunting my mind for a long time as well.
Consider that God, The Force, Nature, The Well Of Life, The Universal Consciousness or whatever you want to call it, placed us here on Planet Earth. This is a divine incident, and it is natural for me to see ourselves as extensions of this Planet Earth then.
Therefore, we should have all right in the world to cultivate an adequate piece of it for free to nurture us and give us shelter, either alone or in a community, just enough to secure our basic needs (not greeds) to survive. Remember that food grows for free.
I feel it is against all natural law that we can't easily do that, that we would have to actually go buy land first for an absolutely inadequate amount of money that most mortals just can't afford. We're therefore forced to participate in an economic system that ultimately is exploiting Mother Earth, and there is no way around that because there is no unclaimed land anymore on this planet. It's like a trap.
It is quite some perversion that most of us, we allow ourselves to be squeezed and stacked into tenements like cattle without a chance to gain independence from the monetary system.
In my opinion, an ideal state should assign a little piece of land to everyone requesting a possibility for self-sustainment. We should also forbid the rich to "possess" disproportional large masses of land, because Earth is necessary for our survival and thus must be seen as something divine.
It's time to wake up to realize who we really are, and what our true rights as spiritual, divine beings are.
Ok, some might say the answer is after all that all the mentioned limitations are part of the game we have chosen to play on this planet. But isn't it about time that we go to the next level of the game then?
P.S.: The question is actually a quote from Alex Collier, a contactee or channeller well known in the UFO scene. I suspect that for some people, this is a questionable source of information, and I concede there is a lot of doom 'n gloom in what he's saying, but nevertheless, he has a lot of amazing wisdom to share.
asked 22 May '10, 14:26
showing 1 of 3 show 2 more comments
While I don't feel your pain, I do appreciate that you're feeling pain and why that is so. I fully agree with LeeAnn and a change of thinking is the only way forward.
Many people today put a lot of faith in science. And through science (Quantum), we now know that there's no physical matter, per se. Or to be accurate, the existance of matter has not been scientifically proven. In other words, our world is real, but it's not really real in a physical sense.
Science has reached the same understanding that many people, throughout history, discovered for themselves. They didn't necessarily use or need science in order to know deeply in their being, that their understanding of the nature of reality was/is correct. Look at these quotes for example:
"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow. Our life is the creation of our mind." Buddha - 563 BCE - 483 BCE
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein - 1879 – 1955
"If you get the inside right, the outside will fall into place. Primary reality is within; secondary reality without." Eckhart Tolle - 1948 - Present
"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering." Buddha - 563 BCE - 483 BCE*
I have no reason to disbelieve quantum physicists, the Buddha and many other's who've discovered the true nature of reality. And perhaps more importantly, what they're saying and what they've discovered feels right to me.
Now through awareness and discernment, I see and understand what's been said. Furthermore, I see that there're many paths to truth and therefore won't interfere or make another's path wrong, ever. In other words, Buddha saw truth from inquiring into his own mind and science used a different approach to reach the same understanding, that there's 'Nothing' out there because it's all in your mind.
Look, this is real, this is physics not some wild fantasy or philosophy from one individual's mind. Many have seen this throughout history, it's certainly nothing new, it's actually just how it is, how it works, and how it's always been.
Currently we have to pay because, somewhere along the road, we bought into the collective consciouness's belief that that's how reality is. Now we're beginning to see that it's only one way, one way out of an infinite number of possible ways or probable ways that we, both individually and collectively choose to believe in and hence, experience.
Knowing that we create our own reality, means we can effortlessly, not through any kind of hard work, choose and summon anything we want, including money, into our lives and live the life of our dreams.
So to change the outward reflection of our world, a change of mind is all that's necessary. In other words, using our mind to focus on how we want our world to be and ignoring all that we don't want, naturally brings our desired change about. It's the law of the nature of reality.
Have fun and enjoy the creations that you have chosen to experience :-)
answered 24 May '10, 05:20
Great answer Eddie :-)
(24 May '10, 13:06) Michaela
Thanks Michaela. Your confirmation is appreciated :-)
(24 May '10, 13:45) Eddie
some would say it comes with the growing pains of our stage in evolution and until mankind realizes his thoughts and actions have consequences for all life, we find ourselves as entitled individuals under a government. and to date those who govern are exacting taxes for what ever reason they believe necessary or what we have voted for. i don't think this will change in our current lifetime, but history does show we are moving in a direction of universality.
answered 30 May '10, 01:02
It's not a very natural system of things, Herzmeister, for most people these days, you are right.
But you wrote, "We should also forbid the rich to "possess" disproportional large masses of land, because Earth is necessary for our survival and thus must be seen as something divine."
That seems like a limiting belief. For example, if I were to start a company selling a product that helps all of mankind, and in the process I earn a lot of money, should there be limits on what I can earn and how much land I can purchase? If so, where is my incentive to want to earn more (and pay my taxes, which helps everyone?) And should it be just as easy to have land if you are lazy and contribute nothing at all to society, as it is to have land if you work hard?
I am never jealous of what others can manage to possess and I never feel limited about the potential of what I can possess. There is plenty of earth and resources to go around. Man badly manages it sometimes, but that can change.
My idea is that it will take a change in thinking to really change the world. This is an interesting question.
answered 22 May '10, 15:08
Hard working and successful people of course shall be free to amass any kind of things they see value in (gold and silver, pieces of paper with numbers on them, matchbox cars or whatever), but not Earth's ground! Owning more ground than one really needs to survive always leads to systems of control over others, as long as the amount of ground on this planet is limited. Earth ground (land and also sea of course) is organic, it grows food for free and thus it should have a special status.
(23 May '10, 13:03) herzmeister
Imagine if it was technologically possible for obscenely rich to obtain a piece of the sun and "disconnect" it in a way that this piece won't shine for us anymore, making the world a darker place, unless we'd pay a monthly rent to them to activate that piece of sunlight for us again. Wouldn't we all go on the warpath against them? Well I see no difference here to what happened to our land, and we just let it happen in our history. (I think the american natives can sing a song about that :->)
(23 May '10, 13:05) herzmeister
I appreciate your opinions, Herzmeister, and you do have some good points.
(23 May '10, 16:36) LeeAnn 1
showing 2 of 3 show 1 more comments
This answer has to start from the beginning of humanity when tribes claimed land freely as you say and other tribes came and killed those tribes for the land and the resources.
(That is interesting even though it is ancient history it seems so familiar in today's world)
Then as the race started becoming more civilized and erecting buildings and forming kingdoms the sense of property changed from my land to this is my village I live in it is walled in for protection. The king's guards keep me and my property protected and all for the price of my taxes I pay. Eventually this changed from small kingdoms to bigger and bigger until it became countries and one ruler elected by the whole country, this ruler has again armies to protect the people that live in his country all the way from the top down to the local town protection the police.
Now if we take that all away and say you can live here for free but don't expect any protection any roads any form of government or rights because you are not paying into the system so you are not part of the system, I wonder how long you would last before someone else that wants your land kills you off for it.
It just doesn't seem it could work without some form of compensation, now here is a workable solution, raise sales tax and eliminate property tax, that way when you OWN property you really do OWN property. It can never be taken away from you because you couldn't afford the taxes on it.
If we go back in time, I believe lets say Babylon for example since I can't think of ancient villages right now. You paid taxes to live there, there was a tax collector that everyone hated much like today but more brutal actually. Now I believe (but I could be wrong on this) people that didn't want to pay tax were free to leave the village, go off and find their own property and fend for themselves. Fight off the wild animals and thieves themselves, try to find their own food since they can not go the market since they don't live in the village. I do not believe their rate of survival would be much high though.
The point I am trying to make it seems civilization needs some form of compensation to be viable.
answered 25 May '10, 06:15
well not every one would want to be farmer some would hunt or fish! but the fact is we could make it that every thing is free but you need to work a minimum of time and if you want more you work more! because if everything was free some would not want to work and do there share! then some people would work for the rest of the world as slave with no pay! in that case it would not be better! that is what i think of it! maybe one day we will evolve on earth to solve that!
answered 24 Apr '11, 03:15
If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website
Your approach has been tried before. It's called Socialism.
That's quite the pigeon-holing approach of an answer. :-> ... First, some true socialists would argue that this system hasn't ever really been tried but rather was abused as a "label" for dictatorship. Second, I guess what I really try to point out is that there are two kinds of resources that we should treat differently: organic/renewable and the rest. For the organic maybe you might say I'd argue for a more "socialistic" approach of distribution if you want to use that label. The rest may remain liberalistic for now.
Often ideologies that sound good on paper just get abused by the power structures that then build up in reality. However, all in all, I believe people all over the world should have the courage and be given the opportunities to come together and try out new forms of self-organization. But when they try doing so, authorities make it hard for them, like in the story of this guy: http://www.simondale.net/house/ ... We should really have the freedom to experiment.