One thing that determines the degree to which a given society is unified is the distribution of money. The greater the divide between the haves and the have-nots the less unified the society. In such a society the self-interest/collective-interest dynamic is way out of whack.

So, money plays a vital role in creating and maintaining a social system wherein everyone feels a sense of belonging to one society.

Everyone, then, must agree on what the basic purpose of money is in a social body.

The real purpose of money in any society is to energize the work that needs to be done to create and maintain a healthy vigorous integrated social body.

Now, as suggested above, the self-interest/collective-interest dynamic comes into play in the money equation. Collective-interest is created out of self-interest - the interest to survive. Everyone has an interest in their own survival. In order to survive in a modern society one needs to acquire money, one way or another. This results in the creation of employers and employees, which form collectives - businesses - wherein one's self-interest in making money can be realized as can the collective- interest of the business. The self-interest in making money results in employers and employees contributing to the success of a business collective and to the larger social collective through the payment of taxes. The problem is no one is aware of that self-interest/collective-interest dynamic. It is the fundamental property of every society that ever was and ever will be. And it needs to be what every society is built upon. Built from the ground up.

From the ground up means from autonomous individuals networking to form from themselves autonomous communities while the overall society is formed from those communities. Autonomous means not controlled by the state. It means that individuals will be in control of the state - in control of its budget, its authority, its purpose, etc. That in turn means a total reorganization of the entire social system whereby the microcosm forms the macrocosm.

Beginning with the circulation of money we see that social sysytems are poorly designed - cumbersome, ineffecient and unfair.

In designing a new socioeconomic system we take a lesson from the composition of everything else in existence. Every macro system is composed of micro bits. Everything is built by connecting small discrete bits together to form a coherent macrocosm. The microcosm fashions the macrocosm - from infinitesimal quantum particles to the gigantic universe - from hydrogen atoms to enormous galaxies - the whole biosphere is made possible by miniscule molecules of DNA - life forms are made up of microscopic cells - buildings are built brick by brick, nail by nail, rivet by rivet. Also, first and foremost their foundations must be secured. And this is how a socioeconomic system should also be created and maintained. That is, built up from foundational localities - individuals, neighborhoods, communities, towns, villages and radiating on out. So, the idea is to support and secure the foundation of a social system first and go on from there.

In the system now in place money starts its journey from the upper echelons of the federal apparatus and banking industry from where it finds its trickle down way to the rest of us. And with this arrangement when things are good it's supposed to be a boon to everyone. As Ronald Reagan claimed, "A rising tide raises all boats." But somehow it doesn't seem to work out that way unless, of course, you belong to a yacht club. The manner in which money is now circulated lends itself to abuse, is not judicious or efficient.

The circulation of money in the United States is almost entirely handled by the Federal apparatus. The money supply and the circulation of money is regulated by the Federal Reserve from where it finds its trickle-down way to the rest of the social body. Then a sizeable portion of what has managed to trickle down is sent back to another part of the federal apparatus, the IRS. The money collected by the IRS is then redistributed by yet another part of the federal apparatus, Congress.

Now, it is through taxation that a society pools its money to take care of collective interests. This pooling is necessary but can be better accomplished with a different system. Before we get to describing that system we need to dismantle the one in place. First of all let's take away government power to tax and thus get rid of the IRS and every other tax collecting bureaucracy. This would, of course, also mean that there would be no entitlements of any kind. No food stamps, no unemployment insurance, no Medicaid or Medicare, no social security, no federally or state sponsored welfare programs at all. But as we shall see there would be no need of them.

Under the new system the circulation of money would be directed first through the microcosm and from there to the macrocosm. This would ensure that each and every locality had the wherewithal to be fit and healthy. And it would effectively eliminate poverty.

Fit and healthy localities adds up to a fit and healthy society. Now, with the installation of a new and very different banking system each and every local bank would, in effect, have access to whatever funds necessary to maintain its viability. Of course, each and every locality would feel it necessary to conduct themselves in a fiscally responsible manner because keeping the value of money at as high a level as popssible would be in everyone's interest. So, whereas a community could depend on immediate and sufficient funds in times of need it would also be extremely conscientious about using the funds prudently during those times, and also in times of prosperity.

The goal of each and every community would be to reinvigorate the societal money supply by contributing more into it than has been taken out, thus keeping the value of money at the highest rate possible. This is accomplished through profitable businesses, an efficient public sector and through individuals who are able to earn more money than they need to spend. Individual savings would be a vital part of the system. And because of the lack of government entitlement programs, as noted above, individuals would have a strong incentive to save. And individual savings along with all the liquid assets of the business sector would contribute to a general pooling of money to be available throughout the system for public sector programs and projects.

So, everyone's assets, from individuals to corporations, would represent the pool of money that would be available as needed for investment in the private sector and support for the public sector. Everyone would contribute to this pool and, in a very real sense, have equal access to it. Presently, taxation is how we pool our resources for redistribution as government sees fit. But it is a costly, inefficient and unfair system. With the system herein suggested everyone would contribute all their bank deposits to the general pool while also having access to it when neccesary. This would be a one for all and all for one situation where perceptions of injustice would be virtually impossible to insinuate, neediness could be taken care of immediately at the place of need and everything would be taken care of by local banks. So, no extra cost for redistribution would be incurred. With this system a rising tide would indeed raise all boats.

The government per se would have nothing to do with the collection and allocation of money. The government that is deemed necessary by the people would receive the appropriate funds, approved by the people, to support, coordinate and integrate the social system effectively and efficiently. Such funds would amount to a share of the wealth in the banking system generated by business and personal accounts. So, the need for government would be weighed against peoples' natural proclivity to hold on to as much of their money as possible. And government would need to constantly prove itself worthy of the peoples' support. Government and banking officials could be removed from their positions by the people at any time if they are found to be deficient in their responibilities.

A good image to illustrate this system would be to imagine the whole society afloat on a national pool of money. Savings accounts, liquid assets of businesses would be part of this money pool which would be allocated for private and public sector projects. Each and every individual, each and every community would be contributing to it, earning interest on it, and withdrawing from it as needed for investments, or public works. Every segment of society including the federal government would be just another locality. In this vision of things everything flattens out floating on the pool. No higher and lower, only different terminals with different perspectives, needs and roles. One draws from and contributes to the general pool as one's condition and circumstance dictate with reference to one's ongoing and overriding need to preserve the solvency of the system as a whole.

The control of the banking system would be initiated from the communities. And just as the various terminals of government would be created out of localities the various facets of the economy would also be created out of the microcosm. And the banking system would also be formed in such a manner. Community banks would form county banks that would form state banks and so on to regional and national banks.

County banks would actually be comprised of local banks and they would invest in the larger projects that would benefit the operation of the localities. County banks would be dependent on local banks for funding and, so, could not take on any projects without approval from localities.

The county banks would, similarly, create state banks, state banks regional banks and the regionals a national bank. Local banks would have to have confidence in all the various banking terminals from the county to the national. The confidence level would determine the amount of capital local banks would invest in county banks, state banks and the rest. Local banks would control the money supply throughout the system. Thus the financial system would not stray very far from its foundation.

Tracking the money trail would be a matter of every sector knowing how much every other sector has and what's being done with it. The independent agency responsible for the circulation of money would monitor all banking transactions and know where every dollar was going and what value it generated throughout society. "Cooking" books and juggling numbers would not be tolerated. Such practices, however, would be highly unlikely with such a system. Not only would it be extremely difficult to do, it would be impossible to get away with, for anyone would be able to follow the flow of money throughout the whole system via one's personal computer. Of course, there wouldn't be the need for financial deception as there is today. For one thing, there would be no IRS to contend with.

Banks would not be solely private businesses. They would not be commercial enterprises. They would not be owned by anyone. The banking system would be an independent conduit for private and public investment. Each and every bank would be part of a system whose purpose would be to serve the interests of the society as a whole through the servicing of the self-interest of individuals and businesses. The banking system's infrastructure would be paid for, as it is now, from the earnings of the banks themselves. An individual bank would exist as part of the overall independent banking system and as an integral part of the social body. The officers of a bank would serve as guardians of the public trust as well operating as private bankers. They would be subject to review, censure and removal by the public they serve.

Taking a look at how a local community bank would conduct its business within this system will give us an understanding about the whole operation. The bank would be the focal point of the community. Business leaders, community leaders, bankers and community ombudsmen would all get together to assess economic, social and environmental conditions and discuss targets for investment. There being no taxes they must decide what monies need to be invested in the public sector. Such monies must be seen in the long term as investments in the community's future. They must be calculated to support the activity of the private sector's profitability, i.e., not be a drain on it.

The social contract would need to provide one entitlement with respect to this system. That entitlement would be full employment. Let's say that would mean at least one living-wage job per household. If such a contract could not be fulfilled by the private sector in a particular community then the public sector would pick up the slack. The public sector's budget would, of course, be derived from the private sector's assets, so, it would behoove the private sector to keep as many people employed as possible. Of course, since individuals are autonomous they would be individually responsible for providing for their own retirement and health care. Businesses would not have to provide such benefits to their employees as they do today thus increasing their ability to keep people employed with higher wages, which in turn makes it possible for autonomous individuals to be responsible for themselves and their families on their own.

A revolutionary health insurance plan can be found on the "Health" page.

As an individual, then, one comes to see oneself in relation to one's community, and to the social organism as a whole, as a player on a team where self-interest and collective-interest merge. Our whole concept of money would, of course, need to be amended. The perception that one is worth the money one makes would need to be changed to - money makes one's worth possible. That is, money would be used as a means to coalesce a society into a synergistic unit in which everyone has an integral part to play. It would have a unifying effect within the social organism rather than a divisive one. There would still, of course, be differences in the amount of money to be made according to particular occupations and endeavors but the competitive/cooperative dynamic would be oriented in such a way that opportunities would be as universally available as possible and everyone would be contributing to the overall system with their saving accounts and profits.

If the focus of money is to make one's worth possible we would have to reevaluate our ideas about what kind of work is to be compensated. Broadly speaking whatever tasks are required for the wholesome maintenance of those organizations beneficial to the social organism should be paid positions. The economy should be structured so as to make it possible to provide living wages for all the work which needs to be performed to sustain any enterprise society deems of value to its consistency. All enterprises should be subject to the market place including those considered to be public sector projects in that their value should be connected to cost effectiveness. However, the long term view must, in some instances override, the short term view of what something may cost in relation to immediate return on the dollar. For instance, we have to be able to project into the future and see the worth for generations to come in whatever it may cost us now to sustain a healthful environment while we learn how to live profitably within the prescript of our ecosystems.

With money, in effect, percolating up through the system from the localities, small businesses would have ample access to required capital and their success at generating profit would boost the percolation of capital on to the county terminal. Just as communities would cooperate in forming county associations in order to facilitate the health and well being of themselves and the entire social organism, county-wide businesses would be likewise formulated. And so on and so forth throughout the system. As in anatomical organization the health of larger organs of society would have direct correlation to the condition of the cells, the communities, which form them. Such an economic system would, of course, favor small business endeavors more so than is now the case but it would not, on the other hand, hamper the formation of whatever big business is necessary to serve the society at large.

County associations, including government, business and cultural institutions, would serve to synchronize and coordinate communities and impress upon them certain dynamics such as how they should compete and cooperate with one another in order to work together in the most optimum manner possible. The County would provide an objective overview through which the communities could realize their relation to each other and to the larger society as well. Individual communities would, in turn, instruct county institutions as to how they should function in relation to them in order to present a clear and accurate picture of things so the communities can function as freely as possible. This system would also form and shape every other facet of the social/political edifice.

The whole system would be predicated upon the constant exchange of information and perspective for the purpose of creating and maintaining a healthful synergy throughout the entire social organism whereby everything is measured as to how it relates to everything else and how it all might impact upon the future.

It would be in the interest of every economic sector that every other sector does well. And it would be in the interest of every individual that every other individual does well. This does not mean there would be no competition because the only thing that ensures that people and/or institutions will do as well as they can is competition. In wishing that everyone do as well as they can one is promoting the idea of competition. Otherwise it is an empty sentiment. This is, of course, competition with a strong cooperative element. Through competition each one of us strives to be the best while at the same time we bring out the best in everyone else.