I think there have been some pretty good objections to your ideas, but nobody seems to be of the opinion that you are not someone worthy of working with. That last post is quite revealing into your character, however, not to mention that you were oblivious to obyvatel's original critique of your tactics. If you were truly willing to work with the people here, then you ought to be able to give something other than proselytizing your ideas without being able to analyze them critically. You know, an exchange ;).
You have been making me think about these ideas, and I think I have refined my ideas about economy because of that so thank you. I would like to make an analogy, one which I think fits well.
You suggest, basically, that if humans had access to free energy, we could construct a society from this that was abundant, not based on scarcity and that people would then be able to create infrastructure that would absolve them of menial manual work and allow us all to focus on that which we love. This would remove the need for exchange, and usher in a type of solutocratic government, which would be formed on the basis of attending to regions of ever increasing size.
The starting point, is therefore access to abundant energy. The thing is, there are natural systems with access to abundant energy that we can observe to give us an idea of what such a thing might look like. Let us take a single tree as an example, but understand that we could use a grove or a forest as well.
A tree has access to free energy, it simply has to produce leaves and absord water and co2 in order for the process of photosynthesis. However, the health and vigour of a tree is not guaranteed. A vigorous tree will have a relationship based upon exchange with mychorizzal fungi in the soil which take carbohydrate from the tree for energy but in turn will allow the tree to better uptake minerals and nutrients. There will be numerous other relationships, for example let's assume the tree bears apples. The tree produces fruit which appeals to animals that will consume the flesh, and unwittingly digest the seeds and scarify them before depositing them in a new spot in its manure, which would happen to be an excellent potting soil, so to speak. Again, the energy expended by the tree to produce the fruit that appeals to ungulates or birds or what have you, is done with the understanding that the animal will process, scarify and transport that seed and likely leave it in a pile of an ideal growth medium. Again, this is an exchange. And it is in a system in which the starting point is free access to energy.
So, while I think your ideas are laudible, I find them naive and lacking a basic understanding of natural systems which I believe, are actually better represented by our contemporary economic system than the one you envision. Not to mention that you basically sweep the true cost economic concept under the rug. The problem with that is, it occurs to me that the world is slowly moving towards that type of economy as we speak. More and more public pressure and awareness of the cost of environmental degradation has, for example, changed timber harvesting practices drastically.
And finally, when Gurdjieff is explaining to Ouspensky and his pupils the reason for which he charges 1000 rubles per student per month, which seemed like an exorbitant sum at the time, he replied by saying that he would not charge if he didn't have to, but people would only assume that the value of what he taught was the same as the cost he charged. That is to say, if you give something for free, that is what people will feel it is worth ie. nothing.
Good luck to you, but I encourage you to subsume your ego, and do your best to learn from this and not become exactly what obyvatel referred to with his original criticism.
