It’s great seeing society move closer to a Copiosis reality. It’s greater still seeing experts in many fields expressing ideas which get ever closer to what Copiosis promises. Such ideas come to those who know everyone is worthy of love.
I enjoyed hearing from one such person while listening to a recent podcast. The show featured Thomas Piketty who spoke about Participatory Socialism. Piketty has written many books on economics. Several of his works became best sellers. He’s probably best known for Capital in the Twenty-First Century. That book explores deeply how humanity got where we are.
In the podcast, Piketty explores potential solutions that might divert humanity from its current path. He offers brilliant ideas which stand out from what others offer.
For example, he suggests that a nation-wide inheritance tax could amass enough money to pay every citizen over $150,000 no strings attached. I don’t recall whether that payment is one time or annually. Such a policy, according to the Piketty, creates freedoms reminiscent of those Copiosis creates. Through such a scheme, he says, people needn’t work because they need to. Instead, they could explore. They could be more selective. Being selective they could better align their work with their passion.
It’s an excellent idea, were it not requiring a wealth redistribution. But Piketty’s ideas – pretty much all of them – involve extrapolating on historically successful wealth redistribution schemes. That’s a train of thought I’d expect from an economist. Piketty is a good economist. But he also thinks out of the box.
The trouble with other people’s money
Wealth redistribution isn’t something Copiosis advocates. Anytime someone takes money from another, resentment usually follows. Especially if the taking involves using that money in ways the person you’re taking from doesn’t support.
This explains why so much political churn happens. So many people aren’t happy with what government does with money they pay in taxes. Political affiliation doesn’t matter. As a result of their displeasure, people organize then try to put “their guy” into power. They hope their guy will use money coming from people’s pockets in ways they agree with. The problem is other people usually enjoy more influence in who gets elected. Sometimes “the people” prevail though. That’s why we have the gridlocked see-saw of today’s politics on issues people care about.
Copiosis eliminates taxes and every other way anyone can take money from other people. In the place of taxes, Copiosis awards everyone producing net benefit with an income. That income comes, not from sales or taxes or another person’s wallet, but instead it literally gets created specifically for “paying” actors who create net benefit.
That means “government workers” get awarded when they do net beneficial things. In this way, it doesn’t matter if a group doesn’t support what government workers do. If what they do creates net benefit, doers get income. If someone doesn’t like what those people do, the person irked by others’ acts can do what he thinks should be done. Should he generate net benefit, he’ll get an income too, just like those he complains about.
Back to wealth redistribution
Another problem with Piketty’s brilliant solution is it still involves money. As we’ve said over and over at Copiosis, money comes with all kinds of problems. That’s why we do away with all kinds of money in Copiosis, replacing it with Net Benefit Rewards.
Piketty’s idea does acknowledge something Copiosis acknowledges as well. It acknowledges that people needn’t “earn” income they get. This idea that people must earn what they get goes against all natural laws. It’s an idea those in charge created long ago in order to stay in charge.
Getting humanity off this trope won’t happen easily. But it must happen if humanity wants the future it knows is possible. That future really is humanity’s future. That future thrives on wealth that needs no redistribution because everyone enjoys equal access to that wealth. And that wealth is so expansive, it’s unlimited for all practical purposes.
Social, political and economic challenges humans now face indicate human progress towards that future. So do ideas Piketty offers.
In truth, this future we know as possible represents just one potential, or probable, future. Humanity could just as easily move into a future identical to what we live today. Which future we actually move into depends largely on how deliberately a select few selects what they focus on. That’s why Copiosis’ sister organization, Positively Focused exists. Through Positively Focused and organizations like it, humanity’s select are getting how powerful they are. Then they’re directing their focus deliberately.
The good news is those select few shaping the future – contrary to popular belief – are not necessarily the richest, the smartest, the greediest or even the meanest.
Those shaping the future are those who love humanity. Listening to Piketty, I get a sense he’s one such person.
Someone recently asked “How is production of goods and services regulated to avoid over and underproduction [in Copiosis]?”
It’s a good question and something distinguishing Copiosis from other systems currently used to manage resource distribution. The way Copiosis manages distribution results in an abundant world for people and the planet.
In capitalism, and to some degree, other economic models such as socialism and communism, overproduction and underproduction create problems. Too much of something creates a surplus which causes certain cascading problems. Not enough creates scarcity, creating other cascading issues.
How it works today
Both overproduction and underproduction present problems. That’s why economies strive for a balance or equilibrium between supply and demand. These two problems, overproduction and underproduction, affect consumers and producers alike.
Too much of a good or service makes that thing’s price go down. Lower prices mean paychecks go farther. For consumers, that’s not so bad, right?
But overproduction tends not to last. That’s because lower prices can influence producer activity. When prices get too low, producers will stop making things because production costs and lower prices shrink profits impossible. Slowing production reduces surpluses, thus raising prices and making production profitable again. But that means paychecks don’t go as far.
But more producers will make that thing, seeing more opportunity to profit. And they’ll keep making more until some kind of balance happens between production and demand, price and cost. Economics classes illustrate this with the supply and demand equilibrium graph or curve.
So price and cost signals control production and demand, thus keeping the two in equilibrium. All economic systems that use money today control overproduction and underproduction through such price and cost signals.
As mentioned, overproduction produces lower prices, making producers less willing to commit costly resources to things where profit margins narrow. Underproduction causes limited product availability and higher prices. If people want something in short supply, they must pay more for it. That increases producer profits. And THAT causes producers to make more of the thing until, once again, a balance occurs between consumer demand and producer supply.
Generally speaking, that’s how today’s economic systems keep production in check, or in an equilibrium of supply and demand. It mostly works.
Copiosis is based on abundance, not price and cost. Abundance is the natural order of the Universe. So Copiosis accords with how the Universe works instead of worrying about production.
Have you noticed pear trees or dandelions, plankton, or any other facet of nature concerned about “overproduction”? Does the universe carefully dole out the number of asteroids or planets that exist? How about the sun? Does it hold back on energy it spews into our solar system?
Of course not!
Look at all those leaves in fall. That abundance turns to soil, aided by bacteria, worms and other natural functions. Look at one tree. Notice how many freaking seeds one tree produces!
Now look at how many of just one tree type exists. How many of those seeds from all those trees actually become more trees? Comparatively little.
So does nature concern itself with overproduction or underproduction? Decidedly not! Seeds that don’t become trees become food for all kinds of things. Some seeds, embedded in fruit, animals take great distances aiding in varietal distribution. They’ll eat the fruit, then later, maybe miles away, poop these seeds out which may end up sprouting another tree.
Salmon, as large as Golden Retrievers, once filled North American rivers so thick witnesses said “you could walk across the river on their backs.”
The universe doesn’t care about overproduction or underproduction. It produces abundantly. Same with Copiosis.
Overproduction in Copiosis?
In Copiosis, we ask: “overproduction?” What is that?
Copiosis worries not about overproduction. Or underproduction. People must worry about such things today because inflation, deflation, unemployment, surplus goods and all that other stuff “economists” worry about, affects people’s pocketbooks.
Nothing like that happens in Copiosis.
Instead, building blocks of goods and services (called capital goods) are owned/stewarded by individuals. Those people, with the help of the Copiosis Organization, monitor what’s happening and distribute their capital goods, at no cost, to people who make things. How do they decide who gets how much?
The NBR algorithm helps them decide. Among other things, it measures how many people make a given thing, and how many want the thing people make. If not enough things people want are being made, then the algorithm awards more Net Benefit Rewards (NBR) to those who make more of those things. Such awards decrease for people making things not so much in demand.
That way, producers stewarding capital goods have information they need. They will get more NBR supporting people making things that people want, thus creating more Net Benefit Value (NBV). They’ll distribute less capital goods to those making things people want less.
In Copiosis, algorithmic and market data works alongside capital good stewards’ own self interest (their ability to enrich themselves) and society’s interests (ensuring people get what they want) too. Producers get richer distributing goods and services to high NBV producing activities.
Meanwhile, the algorithm also manages HOW things get made. By awarding more NBR to producers using the most regenerative manufacturing practices, the algorithm incentivizes planet-friendly producer activity.
Since capital goods cost producers nothing, doing the right thing not only costs nothing, producers get richer doing those right things.
Copiosis: It’s about freedom
It doesn’t matter very much how much of something gets made. What’s more important is, how the thing gets made. And, since Copiosis rewards NBV, not production, “overproduction” becomes a market for creating wealth. That’s because when someone figures out what to do with stuff no one wants in a way that creates NBV, that person gets rich.
Copiosis offers a precise and effective way of allocating resources. NOT controlling an artificial problem such as “overproduction”. Copiosis’ approach is based on abundance. Abundance of wealth for all, and an abundance of whatever people want. While providing all that abundance, Copiosis ensures producers take care of the Earth too. All without impeding anyone’s freedom.
While creating so many benefits, Copiosis eliminates many, many things keeping people stressed, uptight, insecure and afraid of each other. Those things, insecurity, stress and fear perpetuate many problems. Both individual ones, such as disease and mental illness, and societal ones, such as school shootings, wars and environmental disasters.
We’re excited about Copiosis because of all this. Abundance can exist as the foundation supporting human society. Don’t you think it’s time that become our reality?
There’s a problem I’m thinking about. I think we got it licked. A certain legal approach could dramatically affect our transition implementation. This legal strategy offers one reason why we must not condemn or vilify the rich.
I listened to a podcast this week which put me on this train of thought. In it, a British journalist talked about legal differences between the US and the UK. Those differences largely shape how a free press works (or doesn’t) in Britain.
Free speech protections don’t exist in the UK. That means powerful people take journalists to court if they write negative articles about them. If the powerful can prove the journalist or their publication damaged the powerful person’s reputation, the powerful person can win huge judgements. Judgements which can bankrupt an organization.
So UK journalists must exercise great care when reporting on powerful people. This also explains why powerful people, especially powerful people doing shady things, don’t often get covered in the UK press.
Life and death?
I’m not worried about Copiosis harming some rich guy’s reputation. I’m not too worried about what I’m about to describe either.
And yet, a billionaire who doesn’t like Copiosis – for whatever reason – might try miring us in legal actions. Such a person might hope constant court battles will bankrupt the organization.
Russian oligarchs use this strategy on UK journalists and their employers. Newspapers then fear reporting on their shady UK dealings, according to the podcast. Such dealings often happen with British government assistance, again, according to the podcast. If lawsuits don’t do it, oligarchs burned down journalists’ homes and threaten them in other ways in the past.
Another reason explains why I’m not concerned about getting mired in court. Copiosis will attract a LOT of money. We can weather courtroom attacks.
Death threats and people firebombing where team members live…that’s another matter.
This explains why we must create as many friends…and as few enemies as possible. Not because our safety is at risk. But because when people get into fear, especially about their money, they’ll do almost anything.
Of course, attracting such negative attention will tell us our plan works. And negative attention attracts other kinds of attention. Including attention from people willing to fund us even more.
A special breed…
No doubt some will fear our plans. Moreover, they might act on that fear. “Act” might include menacing, harassment, and, yes, death threats.
These kinds of things explain why the implementation organization demands not only a certain kind of culture, but certain kinds of people. Not everyone possesses the fortitude to withstand criticism, public shaming, people hating them or threatening them with violence, legitimate or otherwise.
I want people on our team fortitudinous enough to weather such things. Furthermore, such people must put the mission ahead of their own life. Asking such a thing of another involves serious soul-searching. Because asking requires my own willingness to do the same.
Hopefully my 10 year track record shows I do just that. And I’m willing to keep doing it until Copiosis becomes our global reality. I want people around me making the same commitment. Which explains my very specific criteria with which I’m building the Copiosis team.
Many problems stand between here and Copiosis as the full blown future. But as I’ve said before many times, we will figure all those problems out.
Because Copiosis represents our future. And a bright one at that.
When someone believes in something, and someone else pokes a hole in that belief, one of two things happen. On the one hand, the opinion holder will calmly, rationally question or answer the hole-poker. Then either validate or disagree with what the hole-poker said. No harm no foul.
On the other hand, the opinion holder might get defensive. They’ll attack the other person. They’ll use ad hominem or other fallacious attacks.
It can also happen the other way around.
Such is the case when someone disagrees with me or Copiosis. Sometimes I’ll pose a question which supposes a break from logic in the hole-poker’s belief. Other times I’ll confront their perspective directly with my own assertion.
I get both kinds of reactions. Sometimes the person offers a calm, rational rebuttal and we part agreeing or disagreeing. But other times, the person loses their shit.
Enter the “C” Word
Out of their mouths come some of the worst possible thoughts. They might attack me, or Copiosis, or both. The person lost control of their thinking, and their belief took over. Their belief felt threatened, thus must defend itself. So it literally takes the human being over.
Every once in a while, someone losing their shit will bring up the “C” Word. The person will call me a “cult leader” or compare Copiosis to a “cult organization”. This especially happens when I confront something they believe is, for them, a Truth. Their belief expresses what they think is Truth about the way life is, or the way life should be.
Often the way life is or should be relates to some kind of fear, insecurity, hatred or sense of injustice the shit-loser feels.
They fear climate change is going to destroy the planet and render humanity extinct. Or they worry about far right or far left factions and fanatics focused on extreme negative perspectives. Such groups will render certain countries into fascist states or worse, they say. Some worry false information, conspiracies and secret cabals jeopardize peoples’ freedoms.
Staying rational while experiencing fear, worry or insecurity isn’t easy. Lots of reports detail what happens when people are scared, worried, stressed or insecure. One collection says:
People in fear can’t see straight or think straight. Their behavior often becomes erratic. In my opinion, erratic behavior includes labeling something a cult that clearly isn’t.
Optimism creates what many lack
Fear, worry or insecurity doesn’t engender the stable, rational space born of an optimistic life view. Such an understanding creates clarity, certainty, and confidence. That confidence and optimism allows a power so complete, the person can literally make possible what many think impossible.
Copiosis, for example.
That’s why I’m creating, endorse and support a culture for the Copiosis implementation organization based on a practice which produces highly stable, optimistic perspectives. Copiosis will meet an extreme amount of resistance. If people helping it to become the dominant economy on the planet have a tendency to lose their shit, how are they going to weather the resistance we’ll face in the future? Resistance which might include stalkers and death threats?
An optimistic person, on the other hand, confidently and assertively knows everything unfolds perfectly. When an insecure person meets someone like that, the insecure person will lose their shit. That’s because their shaky Truths can’t stand up to someone clear, stable and optimistic.
Their only alternative then, is to launch attacks meant to defend their shaky Truths.
Copiosis requires people working on it who benefit from stable and optimistic – radically optimistic – attitudes. In other words, people with a highly developedinternal locus of control.
When a person calls Copiosis a cult, or me a cult leader, what they’re saying says more about what is going on in them, than anything about me or Copiosis.
In the future people likely will still sling the “C” word at me and Copiosis. So, let’s examine whether Copiosis qualifies as one. And whether I qualify as a cult leader.
A cult is an organization formed around a charismatic leader with intentionally concealed purposes. That main purpose usually involves raising money. The money usually comes from people the cult manipulates (members) into sociologically separating or isolating themselves from their networks, families and society.
Cults, then are always focused on two things: signing up members, then taking their money. If Copiosis is focused on getting money from members, I’m doing a crappy job as its leader. Copiosis too is failing as a cult. No one can become a “member” of Copiosis.
The Implementation Organization called Copiosis, for which I’m the Chief Visionary Officer, doesn’t have members either. The people in it will be employees, all of whom will be paid very good salaries.
According to ICSA, rather than focus on a beneficial organizational mission, cult members, and their organization, focus almost exclusively on their leader, who demands unquestioning commitment. Anyone who participates in the Copiosis social group, or our online video calls will realize I encourage everyone to be their own leader, as per stigmergy. Everyone is free to share their opinions. But that doesn’t mean anyone, including myself, must accept that opinion. It also doesn’t prevent me, or anyone else from challenging opinions thought bogus, flawed, or based in fear or insecurity.
ICSA says cults discourage or even punish questioning, doubt, and dissent. The Copiosis social group represents the only thing resembling a “membership”. We encourage dissent, questioning and doubt and treat them with dignity. But again, that doesn’t mean such doubts, questions or dissent will get endorsement or support, especially if they come based on inaccuracies, false information, or baseless opinion. Fear or insecurity based doubts or dissent receives respectful treatment: We address them, but they don’t change much.
To my knowledge the social group’s “ban” feature gets rarely used. So no evidence exists\ that likens Copiosis to a cult or me a cult leader as far as suppressing thoughts goes.
About controlling people
The one ICSA criteria I disagree with is this one, which I’ll quote directly:
Core group leaders, and future Copiosis employees are not required to meditate. However, all core group leaders, I think, will agree meditation offers huge benefits. Instead of a “mind-numbing technique”, meditation does the complete opposite. It sharpens the mind, making it a more clear, focused and capable tool. Any internet search on “the benefits of meditation” makes this clear.
Copiosis’ fundamental philosophy doesn’t advocate “suppress[ing] doubts” either. What it does is recognize doubts for what they indicate, and encourages people with doubt not to dwell there. It says the same about insecurity, fear and other negative emotions.
The next criteria might also sound similar to our fundamental philosophy. But pay particular attention to the part in parentheses:
I do encourage, and will encourage in the implementation organization culture, that people think, act and feel radical optimism and a sense that things unfold perfectly all the time. But no one need work in the organization I’m creating. As for personal decisions such as marriage, what to wear, where to live and disciplining kids, all that is none of my (or Copiosis’) business.
God like leaders?
My clients (from Positively Focused and The Transamorous Network) will attest to this. They possess better and far more intimate experience with my thoughts on thinking and acting than anyone following Copiosis. They will tell you I always emphasize them making their own decisions. I encourage them to rely on their internal guidance. And when I suggest they do something, I always tell them “Watch what happens when you do it. If it works, do it more. If not, drop it.”
It’s true should you visit Positively Focused you’ll discover I claim that I am god in human form. But I also say and know everybody is god in human form. Furthermore, I share with my clients how they can realize this without trusting me telling them. In other words, I’m, again, specific about pointing people to their inner knowing rather than following or doing anything I say.
So when the ICSA says the following, I don’t believe it applies either to me or anyone else leading Copiosis:
Our mission at Copiosis involves freeing people from economic domination. We don’t “save” humanity because we don’t believe humanity needs saving.
ICSA says cults thrive by establishing an “us vs. them” mentality putting “members” in conflict with greater society. As most know, I disagree with any division of any kind. Copiosis, the economic system, eliminates such division to the degree it can by making wealth something possible for everybody without taking from anyone. “Everybody” includes the rich. So if cults create conflicts based on division, then Copiosis can’t be a cult.
Other gray zones
The ICSA offers another criteria one might think applies to me specifically. It says cults are lead by a person with no accountability to anyone else. The organization offers military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations as examples of those held accountable to others.
The only one I’m accountable to is myself, my conscience and that which is Copiosis, coming through me. That can confront many people, and often does confront some. The only thing I can say about that is this: what results am I producing and do those results unethically enrich me alone (or at all?)? Or do they move forward Copiosis’ mission?
So while some could claim because I’m accountable to no one, I am a cult leader. But that single criteria doesn’t necessarily make me a cult leader, or Copiosis a cult. One must judge that in the context of what I create. I would argue, as I have before, that I am proving to be the best person to usher Copiosis into the world…so far.
ICSA then asserts that cult groups justify shady and unethical practices by saying their exalted purpose merits such practices. I personally won’t say our practices are 100 percent ethical. We screw up. But we don’t take those acts and justify them by claiming Copiosis is so special the ends justify the means.
The ICSA then says cult leaders use guilt and shame to control members, demand members cut ties with families, give up personal goals and activities and devote “inordinate” time to the group, while living and/or socializing only with group members.
Again, I refer anyone seriously concerned about the status of Copiosis as a cult or me as a cult leader to my clients. They’ll tell you I encourage them to give up guilt and shame. In their place I show them how to create self-confidence, joy and a sense of freedom no matter what external conditions they face. Since “members” don’t exist in the economic system or the implementation organization, who is it we’re controlling, demanding they cut ties or give “inordinate” time quantities to the organization? No one attempts to control another. Instead, I encourage individuals exert self control.
That wraps up ICSA criteria defining a cult. While a couple gray areas exist, I think, clearly, Copiosis is not a cult. Nor am I a cult leader.
Closing the circle
Which brings us back to people losing their shit. Why do people invoke the “C” word when I confront them on their fear, insecurity, flawed logic, plain old erroneous views or their version of Truth?
The stable, calm, secure optimist knows that as many truths exist as human beings. Therefore, optimists don’t stand in a “truth”. They stand in “knowing“. That knowing breeds a level of confidence that when expressed gets expressed with assertiveness.
There’s a saying:
Few people stand in confidence, and fewer still prioritize themselves. A person who doesn’t lose their shit when another asserts their opinion, or confidently states something they know, doesn’t come around every day. So when they do, other people tend to lose their shit when they speak.
It’s incredible people attack someone who is optimistic and happy and determined to create something that will vastly improve nearly everyone’s life. Even those attacking that person. Why would someone freak out about a person encouraging others to see the world positively, when it’s clear doing so will make a person happier than when focused on negative things or things they fear or make them insecure?
I think it’s because the attackers would rather be right than happy. I’d rather be happy. Call me a cult leader and Copiosis a cult. I know the difference between a cult, what I’m creating and who I be.
Seriously: why not happiness?
And since I’m the faucet through which Copiosis flows, it’s on me that it flow properly. That can’t happen if the team ushering it in contains people who are afraid, insecure, negatively judgmental of anyone, pessimistic, or pessimism’s cousin; “realistic”.
That’s why I encourage optimism for people interested in Copiosis. One, they’ll feel better about the future. Two, they’ll see Copiosis happening everywhere, which will further fuel their optimism and soothe their pessimism.
At least a couple of times in online exchanges, people accuse me of wanting everyone to “think like I do“.
The funny thing is, everybody’s inner knowing thinks more alike than different, in the sense that all of our inner knowing knows that everything is always working out, nothing is going wrong ever, and we enjoy life as eternal beings. We are all spiritual beings enjoying a human experience. Not the other way around.
This is easily demonstrated and clients who work with me discover that rich, stable, confidence-inspiring perspective.
Copiosis doesn’t go after people. It doesn’t control anyone. We are not asking for them to give us a bunch of money either. We invite them to do so, but we’re very upfront about it, and we have no hidden agenda.
What’s more, our mission stands out on our Facebook page and on our website home page. All the information about Copiosis is clearly laid out in our materials. We do encourage happiness. Because happiness feels good.
And when a person stands in good feelings, they can’t help but feel good about the future.
Isn’t that the best place to welcome the future? I think so!