Custodianship

[Magnet Man]

The questions every modern parent has to deal with are: If we are facing an Age change, what are the perimeters of the new paradigm? What basic social and spiritual ethics will defi ne the Nuclear Age? What guidance and what training do we give to prepare our children for future contingencies as our population keeps on doubling?

None of the current Steel Age ideologies; whether it be Capitalism, Communism or Socialism, will allow us to survive for long in a Nuclear Age environment. To start with, their economic foundations are all based on the concept of State or private ownership – which is in turn, little more than an artifi cial extension of the primal territorial imperative - and therefore, retains the inherent aggressive nature of that primitive state of mind.

The current international drive to forestall the present evolutionary challenge, by trying to initiate a global policy of zero population growth is rejected entirely. It is the antithesis of Natural intent; distorts the fundamental social base of family values, and is therefore profoundly immoral and ultimately destructive to the specie as a whole.

We have the technology, the natural resources and the painstakingly developed human genius to accommodate tens of billions on this planet without danger to the environment. All we lack is the evolutionary insight to make the mass change and proceed to do so.

The only logical ethical imprint that will remove the last vestige of apelike behavior from the human psyche and accommodate the occupational needs of an egalitarian global population, peacefully and creatively involved in the complexities of planet management, is that of custodianship.

[TarotDragon]

Hello, MagnetMan. I have been reading some of the posts in here recently and have some questions regarding this one.

What do you mean by custodianship? How would this work? Some would say you’re trying to promote communism or even hippiedom. But you’ve already stated that you don’t believe communism is the way to go. So what is the difference between communism and custodianship? I’m not very well versed in the workings of communism so if this is a silly question I apologize.

There are more questions I’d like to ask, but thought I should stop before I filled up the screen with them. Can’t wait to hear back from this,

TD

[Magnet Man]

strictlyplatonic said:

So what is the difference between communism and custodianship?

All forms of human government are based on communal cooperation to a large extent. Generally speaking, Socialism is usually a partnership between the state and private industry, with the state in charge of essential services. In capitalism private industry can compete with the state for all services. In Communism the State owns everything. The basic flaw in all these systems is in finding ways and means to share resources, labor and surpluses equably.

In socialism private industry is taxed heavily - so the gap between rich and poor is not that large. In Capitalism tax is lighter with the ideal that profits are plowed back into new industry. The gap between the haves and have nots are huge here and growing further apart as we speak. The Communist ideal is based on egalitarianism. It failed because it set the state as the standard for personal and collective excellence. In practice, only an incorruptible God can be put in such a position. So Marx was wrong, religion is not an opiate, religion ( or rather spirituality) is an essential dynamic of human government.

All governments are traditionally founded on the idea that citizens need bureaucratic over-sight and strict policing. Even private corporations have shop foremen, supervisors etc. In this respect the view in human management is much like that of a parent, watching over potentially unprincipled children. This fundamental state of distrust, provokes a negative response among far too many, who then indulge in endless schemes to circumvent existing laws, even go outlaw. In response the state has to legislate endless new laws to close the loopholes, and prosecute those who defy the law and jail them. A delicate balance is needed, if state laws become too draconian, revolution results.

All these forms of governments are based on legal ownership. Ownership is based on artificial boundaries. Literally hundreds of thousands of laws are required to define, establish, sustain, borrow against, and pass on estates and relevant deeds of ownership.

The cost to sustain government systems based on ownership and social policing eats up more than 60% of the GNP of all societies.

The concept of custodianship introduces the idea that citizens should be treated as responsible adults that do not need close supervision. The fundamental idea behind custodianship is that mankind, as Socrates and Plato averred, is intrinsically good, and if shown the good will do good. In a society based on custodianship nobody owns anything, neither the individual nor the state - and yet each is personally responsible for the upkeep and further development of everything.

This positive view of mankind, forces people to seek the good within themselves and self-police their own behavior. As one can only view the self in relationship to the collective, this makes every person look at the behavior of his/her neighbor for guidance and for good examples.

Custodianship can only be initiated via an entirely new approach to infant and child education. (See Education. Heart start program) It can become a reality inside one generation.

[TarotDragon]

Okay, so I think I'm getting the idea here. At least the difference between all the governments. ;D

But still some questions remain. I mean, I totally believe in the idea of if man sees good he'll do good. I don't think we're a race of inherent evil, or if that's to extreme, badness. If we were I think we would've desrtoyed each other long ago. But that's going off topic.

But how does custodianship change things? It seems that man only feels a need to change things in his enviroment when its his own personal property. Even then, things don't always change. So how do you get man to think of everything around him as not his personal property, yet have him feel it his duty to keep up and protect the world around him?

TD

[Magnet Man]

strictlyplatonic said:

But how does custodianship change things? It seems that man only feels a need to change things in his environment when its his own personal property. Even then, things don't always change. So how do you get man to think of everything around him as not his personal property, yet have him feel it his duty to keep up and protect the world around him?

TD

Ownership places more emphasis on the value of the property rather than the person responsible for its upkeep. So absentee owners, or shareholders in a property, will spend all kinds of money looking for a person that will keep up the value of their property and even provide bonuses if that hired hand can improve the value of that property. Very few such excellent mangers are available and consequently most properties do not perform to their optimum potential. Most owners who actually work their own property are either not as skilled as a hired professional, or are hampered by all kinds of developmental restrictions and government taxes that penalize improvements by forcing them into higher tax brackets.

The fundamental flaw in ownership is that it is an artificial concept that distorts the natural dynamics of non-trespass that have always been in existence. As man can only create from resources that are already Created, and make use of technology that has taken thousands of ancestral generations to developer, claiming sole ownership over them is basically unethical.

Custodianship emphasizes the person and places a high value the on the stewardship ethic that motivates that person.

A person profoundly motivated by an inner sense of personal excellence for its own sake, rather than money and material bonuses, discovers infinite reservoirs of creativity within his or her genetic make-up and has the energy to turn a barren desert into an oasis of plenty. If such a person is globally orientated, the whole planet becomes the home estate.

In this sense property and person become melded into a single entity. Improving the self improves the property and vise versa.

Because man is intrinsically good and will do good if given the right motivation, an global education system based on the custodian ethic will turn out far more naturally skilled and motivated property managers than a system based on artificial ownership.

So instead of having a highly valued property on hand, with few good managers, we end up with a highly valued property (planet Earth) and billions of highly motivated custodians, eager to improve both themselves and the property.

[soulatom]

Whoa....this subject opens up unlimited possibilities and bones of contention one might say. I am all for custodianship, and sincerely believe that if one is given something to care for he will take much better care of it than if it just always belongs to someone else and they can't ever have the opportunity to experience it. But it seems like such an evolved state and a lot reeducation must go into to how we percieve the planet as a whole. I can see people who have had a chance to experience things or as you have laid out here or learned from an early age a sharing and caring ethic...but what about the people on the planet that haven't had the opportunity to experience this sort of lifestyle? Most of the people I know that are prepared to fuction in a custodial mode have become disgusted with the glut and sated with excess before they came to that point of view.

[Magnet Man]

soulatom said:

Whoa....this subject opens up unlimited possibilities and bones of contention one might say. Most of the people I know that are prepared to function in a custodial mode have become disgusted with the glut and sated with excess before they came to that point of view.

Idealism is always hard medicine to swallow if one has not yet come to the conclusion that the status quo is not working well.

But without high ideals where would we be?

Custodianship is not an impossible goal - not if we educate each child with that ideal from the word go.

Ownership limits our collective potential severely. Strive as we might, at the end of the day, only a few become stinking rich and have whatever they want, when-ever they want it.

Wars are fought over that want, and will continue to be fought even more bitterly, unless we step back and take a much broader view of man in general and the exponential factors that we are already facing as our numbers escalate, and the finite amount of resources that are available.

Ownership, by its artificial nature, engenders mistrust and endless laws that need to be enforced to protect private wealth.
The cost of protection is emmense. It breeds greed, envy, suspicion, locks, fences, vaults, moats, battlements police, armies, bureaucracies, borders, legal deeds, courts, prosecution. And not only in terms of monetary expense, but more in terms of the psychological load such a negative form of human inter-relationships places on both the individual and collective psyche. It does not bring out the full genius potential that lies in all of us.

Custodianship is about trust. It is a natural attitude that man has to Earth and all that is on it. One does not look at the Grand Canyon or a sunset and want to own it. Sharing it with another makes it even more precious. We can do this with a car or a yacht or anything Else - especially if we trust the care each will give to the object of our desire. And since we all have different moods at different times, custodianship allows us all to have everything we want, when-ever we want it - or as close to that ideal as any ideal can get. Trust breeds respect, which brings on love, compassion and generosity - all of which brings out the very best in us.

And it costs government nothing - but the love and care parents are willing to put into the upbringing of their children.

[TarotDragon]

admin said:

The fundamental flaw in ownership is that it is an artificial concept that distorts the natural dynamics of non-trespass that have always been in existence. As man can only create from resources that are already Created, and make use of technology that has taken thousands of ancestral generations to developer, claiming sole ownership over them is basically unethical.

Well this topic seems to be seriously intertwined with a myriad of other issues. But these ethics of ownership seem to apply everywhere. I have never thought of ownership in the way you have just made me. I hadn’t thought of the fact that if I buy a book and say “its mine” that I was laying claim to all the history behind that book. I mean, when you think about it, just the history of how books came about is rather astounding, from when ink was found by the first cavemen through all the complicated little intricacies that led us to the written word. I never stopped and said “hey, when you’re saying this book is mine, you’re saying you own the history and that is so not true.”
This has been pretty darn cool. ;D

(Hope all above was clear. I got a little confused myself, reading it back.)

admin said:

Ownership, by its artificial nature, engenders mistrust and endless laws that need to be enforced to protect private wealth.
The cost of protection is immense. It breeds greed, envy, suspicion, locks, fences, vaults, moats, battlements police, armies, bureaucracies, borders, legal deeds, courts, prosecution. And not only in terms of monetary expense, but more in terms of the psychological load such a negative form of human inter-relationships places on both the individual and collective psyche. It does not bring out the full genius potential that lies in all of us.

I really agree with this. I hate the thought of some one supervising me, standing over my shoulder and watching every minute little detail because they think I can’t do it right. Sure, it makes me pay more attention and probably cuts down my chances of doing it wrong, but I don’t like being distrusted. No, no, no. And when you feel like you’re distrusted you begin asking “why?” And the why’s just seem to lead to more why’s until you feel so confused you stop asking, about everything.

Is that why we hide away from policemen? Because we know that they distrust us? Sorry for the off-topic question.

admin said:

Custodianship is about trust. It is a natural attitude that man has to Earth and all that is on it. One does not look at the Grand Canyon or a sunset and want to own it. Sharing it with another makes it even more precious. We can do this with a car or a yacht or anything Else - especially if we trust the care each will give to the object of our desire. And since we all have different moods at different times, custodianship allows us all to have everything we want, when-ever we want it - or as close to that ideal as any ideal can get. Trust breeds respect, which brings on love, compassion and generosity - all of which brings out the very best in us.

My only problem with all of this is it seems too utopian, a fantasy, a dream we all want, but ain't ever gonna come true. I'd like to enjoy all of what you're sayin, but I remain skeptical about the rest of mankind. We say we want change and all of this, but it seems we're all too afraid to move, like if anything is said against the ideals of the present, Armageddon will arrive.

(Side note: If the world is changed from what we know it, isn't that a sort of Armageddon, even if the change is for the good?)

By the by, hey soulatom!

[soulatom]

strictlyplatonic said:

I hadn’t thought of the fact that if I buy a book and say “its mine” that I was laying claim to all the history behind that book. I mean, when you think about it, just the history of how books came about is rather astounding, from when ink was found by the first cavemen through all the complicated little intricacies that led us to the written word. I never stopped and said “hey, when you’re saying this book is mine, you’re saying you own the history and that is so not true.”
This has been pretty darn cool. ;D

I really agree with this. I hate the thought of some one supervising me, standing over my shoulder and watching every minute little detail because they think I can’t do it right. Sure, it makes me pay more attention and probably cuts down my chances of doing it wrong, but I don’t like being distrusted. No, no, no. And when you feel like you’re distrusted you begin asking “why?” And the why’s just seem to lead to more why’s until you feel so confused you stop asking, about everything.

Is that why we hide away from policemen? Because we know that they distrust us? Sorry for the off-topic question.

My only problem with all of this is it seems too utopian, a fantasy, a dream we all want, but ain't ever gonna come true. I'd like to enjoy all of what you're sayin, but I remain skeptical about the rest of mankind. We say we want change and all of this, but it seems we're all too afraid to move, like if anything is said against the ideals of the present, Armageddon will arrive.

(Side note: If the world is changed from what we know it, isn't that a sort of Armageddon, even if the change is for the good?)

By the by, hey soulatom!

Good point TarotDragon....what plagues me reading this is all the times that I dishonestly or selfishly held onto something and didn't share it and I almost got caught. The furtive movements of hiding something or how quick the mind can race to justify something and cover your tracks. That plagues me worse than the idea of someone looking over my shoulder (although that is also an unforgivable state ...when you think how limiting is to box yourself inside those boundaries of deciet when the alternative, just sharing something is so much more creative, elative and enjoyable than trying to hold on to something, horde it, and keep it away from someone else.

I really like the analogy from you and MM about the book. Hadn't thought of it that way myself.

Back to topic, Yes I guess what your'e saying is that if the world morph's into a happy place that can also be seen as a state of Armageddon? Hadn't hought of that, that way eihter. Sort of like when we die we always think of it as utter disaster, but maybe with life's lessons learned we take those lessons with us and move to a new beginning. Hah! why are we so afraid of change when the mal-content seems so rampant? Ahh I'm ranting aren't I??
I have heard of custodianship taking off in small ways like the whole bicycle thing in europe, community gardens, etc. and I have always wondered why it hasn't become more widespread, more rapidly. There is no reason that anyone single human being should have to go without with the resources this planet has to offer. But then MM answers that so well above, I guess what we are back to is why do we resist change so hard when it is evident that it is imperative to our survival? ::)SA

[TarotDragon]

soulatom said:

Good point TarotDragon....what plagues me reading this is all the times that I dishonestly or selfishly held onto something and didn't share it and I almost got caught. The furtive movements of hiding something or how quick the mind can race to justify something and cover your tracks. That plagues me worse than the idea of someone looking over my shoulder

Ah, yes, the hoarding of our secret treasures. I suppose we're all guilty of it at some point, whether it be a bag of skittles or a thought. I know I am.

But what's this biycle thing you mentioned in Europe? Is there already some form of custodianship going on out there? It would be cool hearing about that stuff out there.

soulatom said:

I guess what we are back to is why do we resist change so hard when it is evident that it is imperative to our survival? ::)SA

I guess we fear change because we can't foresee what that change will turn out like. We know the present, we can see the course its taking and thought its bad, we know it and therefore it is safe. Sort of like the saying "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know". For me I feel this a lot. I have difficulties in changing anything, whether it be minor drastic, even though I know the change is for the better. But I suppose this is a bit off topic, my favorite place to be! ;D

Another sort-of-idea on custodianship. Are we here on Earth to learn and live and share our life experiences with each other? Or perhaps some one above?

TD