Evolution (2/3) - My message to not only Americans (3/3)

Now, let's talk about another part of business doings that currently hurt the whole society and makes no sense, which are patents. While the idea itself is actually really good, as they reward inventors, who are pushing humanity forward with new technology, the application of laws around them is quite unfortunate. I am pretty sure, that any honest capitalist has to agree, that having 20 years of exclusivity is actually completely contrary to ideals of capitalism, where one of your main goal is to be fighting against the creation of monopolies, as they are creating huge inefficiencies in the market and resource distribution, and with such exclusivity, this is exactly what we are creating, while it additionally stifles progress. Instead, the proper way to do patents, would be to make them publicly available for anyone to see AND use, including commercial use. However, anyone using the patented technology for commercial use, in the first 30 years, has to pay kickback of 1% of the technology market value (So let's say that you are using new type of battery in a phone worth 1000 CZK, and the value of the battery is 60 CZK, the kickback is 0,6 CZK for each battery) to the patent owners. Also, to protect the inventors from businesses taking advantage of their work, while also allowing inventors to cooperate with businesses when it comes to funding, as many technologies are often very expensive to develop, there should be a mandatory maximum split of patent ownership being 50/50, in cases the businesses fully fund the development, always leaving at least 50% of the patent value to the engineers and scientists themselves, who came up with the technology. This patenting system also gives a small market advantage to the patent owners, if they decide to capitalize on the developed technology in terms of their own manufacturing, which to me seems fair. For the purpose of combating creation of monopolies, patent ownership is not to be for sale, as to avoid huge rich companies buying out all of the important patents for their products, to accumulate many of these kickback benefits, which would eventually grant them huge advantage compare to the rest of the market.

While on the topic of patents, royalties and residuals in the entertainment industry have to be addressed, as they are based on the same ideology, rewarding artists (including also game developers) for their work being used/sold, long after they originally created it, as similarly to patents, society is being enriched by their work long after it was released. Similarly to the maximum of 50/50 split in patents, the rule should be applied here as well, as to protect not only young artists from being robbed of their royalties, by taking advantage of them wanting to pursue their dreams, however due to the costs of publishing art being much lower than the development of new technologies, as well as the risk of it not being successful is also lower (because more often than not, after funding the development of technology, you don't even have any technology to use whatsoever), I think that the proper maximum possible split should be around minimum of 80% going to the artists and only up to 20% going to their labels/publishers and the artist part of the equation is not to be for sale either. When it comes to projects that involve multiple different artists, I believe that this 80% split should be divided between them based on the amount of work on the project and proportionality and total value of their work in the final product. Unfortunately, here we are talking about both subjective and objective parameters, so to me it makes sense that the unions of different types of artists negotiate the split between them and set a golden standard for the different industries to follow. Similarly, there should be a golden standard set, to what is to be expected out of publishers/labels for their cut of the royalties, where they can charge additional fees for extra services, with maximum profit margin set by the union's negotiations, to avoid the same problem of robbing artists, just done in a different way.

Unfortunately, I have little understanding about deeper parts of the entertainment industry and how the money flows through there, but I believe that there should also be a system set in place, that allows licensing of artists work (if they decide to put their art on these platforms) through platforms that allow anyone to use it, with revenue split offered by the person, trying to license artists work, to the artist. This could in my opinion be very advantageous for small up-and-coming artists, who are likely without funds to buy proper, nowadays often very expensive, licenses to use other artists work, in their own art. Personally, me and my other of artist friends struggled with creation of the art we envisioned in the past, while making money of it, due to the very rigid copyright laws, that in my opinion need to be loosened, even thought I don't really have a solution for them, as I never took deep dive into this problem. But I am pretty sure that once the artist is dead, the copyright to their art should be removed and the art should become public domain (except maybe for situations where they die very young).

When it comes to physical art resale, I am of the opinion that their artists should also have a kickback for each sale that is above the original or resale price of their art proportionally to the amount that the price grew. The kickback should be actually quite large in the amounts of higher tens of percentages, which will not only properly reward them for their work, but it will also help a ton with the way money is being laundered through physical art, as it will make it less desirable to do so. Unfortunately, this will make it a great vehicle to legally bribe someone and therefore there will need for laws in regards of that.

Another part of our current democracies, that I see as a huge problem, is an inability to strategically manage one of the most important resources for any industrialized country, which is the electricity. Energy creation and cheap electricity is so important not only because of it being detrimental to the competitiveness of the whole economy (and especially true with industrial base), but also because in our current world, electricity powers up our entire lives, often easing our regular chores, so we are able to be productive (which also means resting) in different ways instead, which leads to more innovation and overall happiness of the population, ignoring the fact that cheap electricity also leaves more money on the table to spend on other stuff, which again boosts up the overall wealth of the society. So, it is no surprise that EU is in such a downturn not only economically, since our current net electricity generation was in 2023 by 7,3% (while not even saving enough emissions – which are largely bullshit anyway – since, to cover one year of emissions created by China only) lower than it was in 2008 (year that the emission allowances came into power) or 4,9% lower than it was in 2013 and is still decreasing, all the while the rest of the world focuses on creating more electricity, as it is the fundamental baseline for any wealthy society, ever since the industrial revolution. While the amount of the electricity generation is important, it is as equally important, that it is affordable, doesn't waste resources, and is clean and safe for our own health as well as for the health of the rest of our habitat, we share with the rest of Gods creations. Last but not least, it is also of great significance, that the energy generation is strategically planned and smartly positioned for multiple different situations like wars, trade wars, loss of supplier due to political or other reasons (like we currently see with Russian gas), natural disasters (volcano blowing up and shading the sun for many months or hurricanes and other weather events destroying less sturdy power generation plants) and so on. For all of these reasons, I think it is disastrous to leave the power generation up to the free market only, whose focus often don't take many of the mentioned levels into consideration, especially if we look at the very expensive projects that have long time of return on the investment, like the nuclear power plants (which is in the end also by far the cheapest and by far the cleanest electricity overall, if you take into account all of the infrastructure needed and externalities linked to other power generation plants). Because of this, it makes sense to me that at least majority (in my opinion around 70%) of the power generation is in hands of the governmental entities (state companies), under which the state and its regions have some amount of control, especially when it comes to planning and also partly or very often even fully funding the expansion of this industry according to energy needs, that we see grow every year, that is to be in ideal situation always at least a bit above the actual needs. Here I could probably go on 10+ pages long rent on how to structure the energy sector, as I have spent hundreds of hours researching this topic, but the truth is that it depends on the current situation of the country and its location, but overall wind generation power plants are complete trash, especially from the environmental perspective, and photovoltaics (at our current technology level) are sometimes usable but currently overall overused and overhyped garbage, and if you think anything else, you are, in my opinion, very well brainwashed by the propaganda. The rest of the market is to be left to the private sector (often with leadership on positioning of these power plants by the government to fit their overall long term strategy) for not only cost comparison with state owned enterprises, but also to nurture innovation in the field, that more often than not comes from the private sector.

Now let's look at the money. Only option on how banks (and insurance companies) could use money that they don't own, is in case they offered collateral to the owner of the money, and they agreed to it (and I imagine there being an additional deal between the two parties in terms of: for how long the money is gonna be used for, % profit that goes go the owner if the investments are successful, how it looks like if they are not successful, partially successful and so on). The collateral has to be physically owned and storaged by the bank until the end of such deal, due to any of many possible outcomes. If collateral is to be split due to bank having some cash to payout the debt, collateral can be "sold" by both parties and the better price wins up being an actual sale.

Other than that, it is forbidden for any bank to borrow money, that they do not own. Based on this principle, it means that every single deposited digital dollar (or any other currency), that is not then used for additional loans (based on the paragraph above, in which case the original owner has no access or very limited access to some of the dollars deposited, depending on the exact specification of the deal), has to have its own physical copy deposited in the bank of the account, or it has to be fully covered by an insurance. Also, I believe that the interest rate mechanism should be abolished completely, as it is cancer on our society, and the only “interest rate” that is to be allowed is to be profit/loss sharing, in the way Muslim banks run some of their current products (ignoring the fact that they are using reserve currency system, which is to be abolished as explained above, as well as in the rules for debts below), where I can see multiple ways on how to make these products beneficial for both sides (lender and the bank). Other than that, the banks can make money on fees, linked to their services like ATM withdrawals or finding investors to fund business projects (also possible with profit/loss sharing mechanism or coownership).

Debts and rules around them - Borrowing on collateral made of value of company shares is to be forbidden. - Collateral out of insurance, other debts or physical art is to be forbidden - Banks can insure their debts but only by collateral made of cash money fully covering the insured debt. And insurer only wins if the bank wins or slightly loses, so it is always based on time and tied to maturity of a specific loan(s) and make up the full value of cash debted and needed to pay bank's depositors in case of loans being in loss or + and if the banks is not fully liquid (able to fully cover the cash needed) at the end of the insurance maturing, insurance is paid off in the size of the missing cash needed to cover the bank's debtors. - There is to be public register of all debts and whether they are being paid

Debts of citizens against the government is almost impossible to acquire except for stealing from the government and the community as a whole (like not paying taxes or worse), serious negligence while in office/services they provide and for additional non standard services of the state like a fund for proper legal defense. (always exactly specify which ones) These services (additional services than the ones that are paid from regular wide society taxes) are by law forbidden to be created in case they are necessary for fulfilling basic human rights (my version) and are instead to be created as regular tax (likely just filling part of the standing pool)

When it comes to money themselves. I believe that they are ideally supposed to fulfill two main purposes. First one being a tool for enabling easy and efficient exchange (that one is mandatory, otherwise they are useless), while the second one being a tool for storing value. Also, when money is in permanent inflation, through constant increase in money supply, it creates a non visible shady tax on almost whole society (except for the few, who have access to that money at the beginning, for whom those money are actually very cheap), which to me is another crime of our current system, as it robs people of their income, without them even knowing it. I also do not like if money are deflationary (like bitcoin), as it creates additional problem of hoarding them and hurts investments, which is best avoided. That is a reason why I have decided to create money system without central banks (they can still exist, but they are to focus on monitoring the economy and inflation/deflation of different parts of economy, as well as they are to function as advisory body to consumers and state), that can create money out of thin air and instead, the money supply should be adjusting automatically depending on the amount of the citizens in the economy and in a version that will in my opinion work better (but will likely need blockchain technology to be efficient), also their economic activity. This money, similarly to today's money, would not be covered by any rare minerals or anything else, except for belief of people in the system. So how are they supposed to work? It is quite simple. At the beginning, I think that the total money supply is supposed to be in the amount of “3“ times the amount of citizens in the country, times their average age proportinatially to the maximum productive age plus the people above productive age, which we can for our explanatory purposes cap at 68, where the start of productive age is to be set at 18. To make it simple, let's show it in an equation. For purposes of this equation simplicity, we will make “3“

1000 CZK, our imaginary country will have 1000 people in a productive age (between 18 and 68) whose total average age is 38,5 and it will have 333 people that are older than 68 years. So the total money supply would look like this: CZK 1000×1000×[(38,5-17)/(68-17)]+333×1000 CZK = 754.568,62 CZK. Meaning that this economy containing of 1333 people plus children would start with 754.568,62 CZK in the economy. This would be an original base of money supply, from which we will remove currency in circulation, whenever a person over 68 would die, in total of 1000 CZK, or whenever person younger dies, depending on the amount of currency that was added to money supply due to his existence, while we will be also adding new money into the money supply in total of [(money earned by a person who over their lifetime haven't hit the maximum cap of “3” added currency into the money supply) × coefficient K], that is to be set based on the average expected savings on citizens earnings. Once this coefficient is set, it is not to be changed (and to be honest it won't matter if it is completely correct, the most important part is that, it is consistent) and I think it should be somewhere around 0,2-0,3, as people will be able to save much more due to them not also having to pay for food and housing. Once the person adds into money supply the amount of “3”, they have no additional effect on adding new money into money supply except once they die, in which case the money is to be removed from money supply. I believe that such system will make it so, that the total money supply moves with the amount of people in the economy and their economic activity, which should heavily reduce deflationary, as well inflationary pressures on the currency that the population rise or decrease can cause. Important note, collecting money from the state (UBI) doesn't add into money supply at all. The second option adds money flat based on the persons age, so whenever a person turns one year older, new money is added into money supply (1/51 of total “3“, while adding 1/51 already when they turn 18). This version could be possibly better to start with since it is easier to track, while I don't like it as much because it disadvantages young people, who usually usually earn less than their older counterparts as well is it disadvantages less wealthy population. This system will not completely remove inflation and deflation in parts of the economy, as those can happen also due to market pressures like innovation but it should remove structural inflation as well as deflation. The money will be added and removed by state for or to the tax pool explain later.

Another huge problem of our democracy is again money but this time in justice system. Where people who were wronged, have little to no support and often are not even able to depend on public attorneys, who are overwhelmed by the amount of work that they do for little pay, so they can't or won't properly focus on these cases, if taking them at all. Because of this, I believe it makes sense to create a fund from which any citizen can access funds for proper defense (up to 2 attorneys at 60th percentile of classic paying rate for attorney for whole case or one more expensive one or 3 cheaper ones - also for class action law suits, citizens can each pool their funds from this fund into same case up to 10-15x), which if they win, costs them nothing to use, and if they lose, they have an honorary debt towards the state to repay the expanses with no monthly payments and due date, if they use this service again (and didn't pay the first expenses, if yes, it resets and works as if they used the service for the first time) and lose the case again, this time they will get an actual debt towards the state, which if they will not start paying, the will get forced labor sentence to clean out streets, garbage disposal, farming and similar jobs that are not so pleasant and serving the wide society for xy months (makes sense if it is related to the size of the debt) for around 18 hours a week after, if served fully, the debt becomes honorary as the first one, while partly lowered. If they use this service for the third time (without paying at least one of the honorary debts), and lose the case again, and will not start paying one of the debts, they will be sent to jail with forced labor for few years after which debt will be annulled but this service will be forbidden to use in the future for this individual. Apart from this, taking public attorney cases should be mandatory for every practicing attorney in at least one of their 10 cases (not only as giving back for the free education, that should be mandatory for any civilized society, they received) and people should be able to also find public attorney (and even combine it with here mentioned service to get the best possible chances of winning the case) as they are doing currently. Controller consul and minister of justice, should overview department, that watches whether some corrupted attorneys are not abusing this fund by overcharging for their services, as well as abusing it through creating "fake" cases and scamming the fund. Ideally judges anytime when this service is used, should know about it, if they preside the case, and mark if the fund paid attorneys behavior is other than, what they would expect from them to behave like, if they were to win the case. Plus random checks is the best way to do it I think. Also, important note. If one of the sides decides to challenge the result and the case goes to the higher court, it still counts as one defense.

Another curse of our current system is that you need money to survive. To me it is question of what type of civilization I want to live in and it is definitely one where things to survive like food, water and shelter are just basic human rights so people can focus on things that are interesting to them, which will in turn enrich the whole society at large. Because of this, I propose solutions how to solve these problems in a dignified way, while practically efficient and covering also bases like self sufficiency that is important to some degree to any sovereign entity (state and to some degree also regions within it)

When it comes to food, I think it is quite simple. (To already non sufficient regions, where its impossible due to weather and other conditions, you will still be very dependent on trade at least in a short term until you change the situation, if possible) In my system I like local farmers having an internal market that is under umbrerella of regions firstly and to some degree also the state, who in the end also provides them with funds for all of their costs (transparently through 106/1999 cz law) they had with the produce that goes to internal food market which is free for citizens (and I would also leave it open for foreigners with long term residence in the country, as long as they don't use it in a business outside of borders of the country, so the same rules as for everyone else) to pick as much as they need. (there is an exception for meat which I will explain later) This only includes unprocessed foods and it also includes restaurants, who just need to make reports of how much they used and wasted (how much they took can be easily monitored by AI today with few employees) and their waste should be monitored by the state and also whether they don't later resell the produce, which should be a huge crime with imprisonment and hard forced labor, as they are stealing from the whole society. When it comes to having an efficient farmers, I would set up a system, where instead of few huge farming companies, I would split them into many (given in a regional license system I will explain later), and since state pays all of their costs, it is simple to see whether some farmers are very expensive or not based on their long term accounting and if some are very inefficient (or are using forbidden pesticides or just not following basic life form rights), license can be taken away after they are firstly warned, with given reasonable time (1-2 years) to change their practices, with exceptions possibly granted due to bad weather in a region, that has to be sufficiently proven. When it comes to what technology they decide to use, I would leave it completely free except for of course some regulations like not using poisons. Also the state should monitor and compare costs of local and international farmers for same produce (importantly the same region) and if all of them are too expensive, I would take out multiple licenses and give them to some new competition. Also farmers that perform better than median cost efficiency, should get their cost efficiency as an additional profit.

When it comes to distribution of such produce, I think its the best if free market decides and this can be best done through this system I have created. Firstly, I think it makes sense for the regional governments to create areas, that are free for the farmers or their associates to "sell" their produce. To minimize wasted food, I believe it will be best if all of the regions farmers and centers (will be many of them in each region) cooperate on state level to fully distribute needed quantities (based on past behavior data + expected change due to a special events f.e.) all around the state. Distribution costs count as costs that are paid by the state and each farmer needs to find a solution, either through hiring a company/person or f.e. doing it themselves. Also, there should be a quality check of produce, which of course should be done by the citizens themselves by reporting produce that they find inadequate to their standard of healthy produce, but also the regional centers should test the produce themselves and additional random checks from the state also sounds reasonable (this can also be a way for farmers to lose license). Interested stores who want to redistribute the food can access the regional center market similarly to restaurants, understanding that they are to redistribute it for free and to them, distribution of this produce should be just a secondary if not even tertiary service. If the food is used as a feed for other animals or f.e. compost that is later used fully, it is not counted as wasted, as long as it is used inside of this "economic" ecosystem, or for otherwise beneficial use towards health of our biom ecosystem (max 5% of total food created can be used for such use - outside of "economic" ecosystem) Any other use is counted as food wasted.

How much food was used for what is then used as another metric this time on how successful each farmer is with his produce

• As long as it goes to human and other animal feed, it counts as successful (There should be always focus on first feeding humans, and if the ratio of human to other animal feed is so bad that humans cant access free food due to it being either low quality or low amount, either farmers are to change their produce collectively to fit the human demand or be replaced with licenses, there should always [unless dictator decision and even there, there can be one after the fact] be a court hearing [if things don't change after a warning and 1-2 years chance to change practices] about this based on a petition or similar practice)

• If the food is used as compost or is being used as benefit to the wider biom and as long as the population is fully fed (there is no one central regional distribution hub reporting not enough free food to fully feed the population - based on the citizens reporting), it is being counted as successful, if the population is fed (there is max one central regional distribution hub reporting not enough free food to fully feed the population - based on the citizens reporting) or worse it counts as semi successful

• If the food is wasted (compostable produce is used fully to create enough compost for the economic ecosystem needs) and the waste is possible to be sold for other use, farmers or distributors (if farmers pay them to distribute their produce) can find buyers for it and as long as the population and other animals are fully fed, it counts as successful, if the population or other animals are fed, it is counted as semi-successful, if they are worse than fed, it counts as unsuccessful wasted. Then there is a term "totally wasted" for produce that can't be used for anything and just rots away. From successful wasted produce farmers take all the profit they make, from semi successful wasted produce the state splits the profit 50/50 with the farmers, from unsuccessful wasted produce the state takes all the profit (i like all or nothing because it creates competition between farmers and state). If state takes this profit, it is to be used back into economic ecosystem for innovation and new technology for farmers, while these funds are only to be available to new farmers (funds for new projects that are to replace current longer standing unsuccessful farmers) or the ones that are not totally wasting the produce above max around 5%. Totally wasted produce above this line is to be counted as a fine (loss in profit) to farmers whose produce was totally wasted.

• Successful and semi successful not wasted produce is counted as being paid for by the state fully financially supporting farmers. - when it comes to places that are currently not self sufficient and have non or biodegradable totally wasted produce, if toxic goes as additional cost for disposal to a farmer (loss in profit) (if toxic for longer period of time 3 years and it is avoidable (exceptional examples like nuclear and to some degree even coal and gas at least for next few nuclear very likely longer years), if not put it in the recycling process or fertilizer and so on

• (in a country where self sufficiency isn't or shouldn't be problem) If two or more central regional distribution centers announce for at least 3 months in a row that they don't have enough food to feed their population, the regions, after an approval of at least 3/2 vote of consuls, have a right to call for a dissatisfaction complaint, where farmers together have to come up how they solve the issue, and if they can't fix it, the licenses for low quality or low yielding (depending on where is the problem) farmers can be revoked, leadership of communes is to be changed, or the executives can force farmers into using more efficient technology, or change the type of produce they make.

When it comes to foreign food produce, It makes sense for it to be sold at market prices as it is now and interested stores can sell it together with the local produce (that stays free). If I were a state who is not fully or close to fully self sufficient like Czechia, It makes sense to use some of the tax pool that will pay exactly the costs of the food, where state pays international market prices, probably again best done on regional level (here I would suggest for them to team up and support from state level) but also private entities (best is to usually do a combo of both, whenever state does anything, I will explain better on building housing example) should be able to trade in it, same as when they are to do for international produce even for self sufficient systems. If the country overproduces, that produce can be traded into other countries, but firstly the country should be self sufficient (population and other animals are well fed). The system will always turn them out unsuccessful wasted otherwise, so state takes the profit.

With meat I believe it to be much harder solution, as first there are two levels that are to be considered here. First, it is a level of life form rights, where if they are to be respected, animal farming will be more area demanding and therefore, we cannot likely expect to eat such huge quantities of meat (at least western society), while I believe it to be still necessary for healthy development of our species, which is the second level that I am considering in this equation. Because of this, state is to guarantee proper nutrition in children's diet by providing (through the already mentioned farming ecosystem) quality meat into their school dining, based on the best current nutrition science (protein needed for healthy development). The amount of school dining meat is to cover all of the protein needs of the children. Then all of the adult citizens, who are all by default collecting universal basic income (UBI) for housing, as explained later, will get an additional increase in UBI in a value of monthly quality meat costs (based on costs to grow it inside of the specific commune providing the meat, plus the distribution costs) needed for healthy diet and bodily development, based on the best current nutrition science. The money that goes into this additional increase of UBI is pretty much a closed off system that always gets paid back to the state (which then redistributes it to into next month's UBI payments for meat) by the distributors that sell meat, easily trackable due to the economic ecosystem (the amount that the distributor pays to the state is based on the amount of meat they got out of the economic ecosystem, the amount of meat they sold [to also track waste], and these numbers are proportionally compared with other distributors and the distributor pays their share of meat UBI back to the state). Person that loves to eat meat daily will not see a difference, as any domestic meat that they will buy, will be according to the earlier mentioned prices, the meat covered by state, as well as the meat not covered by the state. Which means that this meat is to be almost surely cheaper than any foreign meat, as there is no profit incorporated into the equation, as well as cutting costs on the feed for animals due economic ecosystem providing it for free, and any meat that is not gonna respect the life form rights (therefore will be cheaper cause of cutting costs, when it comes to relationship with the animals) is to be banned. The restaurants and other commercial entities that will want to buy the domestic meat will buy it at cost prices, similarly to anyone else, as long as they follow the same rules like no reselling for marked up price or selling internationally, like with the other farming produce, as long as there is enough domestic meat for average citizens to buy for their personal needs. Also, all parts of the animals are to be used, not just the meat.

• For countries that aren't meat self sufficient, I recommend to sell domestic meat for market prices (bit cheaper than internationally bought meat, while still keeping differences in costs of domestic meat based on the costs of the communes that produced it, so there is still a price competition between the communes in meat market) and therefore the additional UBI increase needs to match the meat market prices instead of its costs only. The only good thing about this situation is, that this way, the state will make profit on its domestically grown meat, but unless the state delivers big amounts of it (don't know the average profit margins on the meat, but I imagine at least covering like 70% of the domestically needed consumption), the profit will unlikely cover the additional costs for meat UBI increase, therefore I would use some of the tax pool to subside the meat consumption.

• For countries that are self sufficient in theory (there is enough meat to cover nutritional needs of the whole population), but due to it being cheaper than the imported meat, it is being sold way too fast and some citizens can't buy it without having to wait in long lines or similar issues of that kind, as some citizens buy more of this meat than it is needed for their healthy nutrition, first I would try to publicly talk to the citizens and ask them to only buy the amount of domestic meat needed for their healthy nutritional needs and if it doesn't work, I would start selling it close to the market prices (same as in the previous paragraph), and I would adjust the UBI meat increase based on the market prices. The profit made out of the domestic meat sale should be reused again in the fund for the farmers and it is actually likely that these profits would be even able to fund huge parts of the economic ecosystem if not the whole ecosystem, which will dramatically decrease or completely eliminate the portion of money this ecosystem will take away from tax pool, which would be of course a big win. Because of this, I think it also makes sense to start away with the market prices right away, but at first I would still be against it in a self sufficient country, as if the people have more money on them, because the meat is cheaper, they can more often than not invest that money into the economy, in a more economically productive way. But I think both of the options are very good and in the end it might be better to start with the market prices first as the amount of taxes collected in my system are untested in a real world scenario and this will make the economic ecosystem more sturdy at the beginning and later it can be moved to my original explanation.

Additional income coming from the sale of the domestic meat is to be reinvested straight into the fund that is being used for covering farming costs. Any international sales are to be used as profits for farmers or state, depending on how successful are communes with feeding the population and other animals, same system as with the other produce.

Important note is that, this system will not work if there is a hyperinflation, which is almost impossible with the money system I have created and even basic structural inflation will be non existent. If anything, there is a decent possibility of a small deflation of this money over time, which is to be monitored and in case there will be a problem with it, I already have a solution prepared to deal with it.

Clean water is another basic need that is required for survival of any of our species. In my opinion here, there can be a combination of state and regional funding with private sector even partaking, similarly to the electricity generation (for any state service I believe its best for not only innovation reasons to always leave some part of the market to private sector - best explained in housing). Clean water should be of course free of charge for the citizens personal use, paid out of the tax pool.

In my opinion the land doesn't really belong to anyone, but it is also really hard to make any home, if anyone can come at any time and kick you out from where you are currently staying, so having land rights is still important, while it is mindblowing to me to have to pay for it as a person (in this situation a citizen) who just wants to build house for his own use on a land that nobody uses. And since we already use this useful tool called country, I think it makes sense, to use it for the benefit of all of its citizens, while also keeping order in people being able to depend on their home not being taken away because somebody said so (only exception is dictatorship power, which is also up to the courts after the fact if challenged and nationalization in case of serious benefit to the wide society with little to no other possible ways to achieve the same goal - up to courts).

First lets explain how land and house licensing works. From the point of state it is pretty simple. State has a right to ask for any unused area in any region for a specific beneficial reason and it is up to the region (regions are actually divided into many more (5+) largely independent sub regions, depending on the size and population of the region, and cities and to varying degrees other bigger conglomerations as other standalone sub regions) whether they will give it to them. If they don't, they are to either offer different area options, adjusted option of same area with adjustments that would work for the region or challenge the beneficial reason.

2 vote values. 1 for conglomerations, one for country side, each citizen has both. City value max in distance of around 1km{depends on the region's conglomeration model settings where max distance for full city vote value is X km (where in secluded, mountain areas it can be even few kilometeres [and even 10s of km for some cultural areas, depending on the country of implementation and the decision between the parties involved] and even in hundreds of meteres in crowded areas)} and max distance for full value wide region vote can be 10s of km (even low hundreds in huge countries with very little population like Mongolia and some type of cultural regional governance deals).

every +1x in max value distance = /2 in final vote value as a standard settings, but I can also imagine different models for irregular situations

Claim types: Claim residence, Claim residence coop, Claim business and other Claim conglomeration, Claim conglomeration coop, Claim region (local government), Claim region state (regional government), Claim state (state government)

Claim rules can in my opinion again vary depending on the situation but to me standard settings for Czechia would be that every citizen (or group of) can make a claim on any area, in any region of Czechia that is available for residence or commercial use and isn't already claimed. When it comes to commercial and state claims, residents of the area can vote through previously mentioned system on whether they want to allow to have such business in their area, in situations where such business or state construction would harm the region.

Licenses types: City center commercial - sales, City center residential - not for commercial entities - unless new construction with at least 90% of already "sold" (sold, or used for state "rent") with only up to 30% being used for state "rent" or unless based on state contract, City residential - not for commercial entities - unless new construction with at least 90% of already "sold" (sold, or used for state "rent") with only up to 30% being used for state "rent" or unless based on state contract, City residential - coop - not for commercial entities - unless new construction and only through the coop, City commercial - sales, City services, City education and sport city care, City state services (state, regional and local), City industrial, City recreation, Country side unfarmable commercial, Country side farmable commercial + residential, Country side industrial, Country side residential - not for commercial use, Country side prime residential - with garden - not for commercial use, Country side state services (state, regional and local), Country side conglomeration country side conglomeration coop

License rules:

• Farming land license is forbidden to be rented.

• Renting residential area licenses is to be forbidden except for renting areas that are counted in people's "3" tax base.

• Renting any other license is forbidden - every license that doesn't fulfill for longer period of time (3years) its stated purpose (decided by courts if challenged) is to be taken away unless it starts fulfilling or moves substantially into fulfilling its purpose in 1 year time and then starts to fulfill its stated purpose soon after.

• Ownership change of residential license tied with buying housing property in "3" is automatic and residential license cannot change ownership in any other way except for nationalization in exceptional cases or for not fulfilling its purpose

• Every citizen has a right, and state is mandated to deliver the residential or other license based on citizen lawful claim, given that the land is not being used, isn't part of protected area and will be developed and properly kept

• Transfer of ownership of residential and commercial licenses in persons "3" by sale can't be blocked by the regional vote.

• Renting of residential licenses from people's "3" ownership can't be blocked by the regional vote

• Ownership of land license, doesn't translate into ownership of the resources below the ground, those are owned by the citizens themselves through the state.

During the transition. all small farms below 50-100 ha (depending on the size of the country [most important] and population density [a little bit important, as in a long long run it is irrelevant] in Czechia I suggest 50 ha) shall keep their ownership (per family not necessarily bound by blood - unit of 5+ adults) of land and they shall receive ownership farming license. All of the larger farmers can keep up to 50 ha (max 1 family unit) of land for which they will get an ownership farming license. All the rest of the farmland is to be nationalized and owned by the state and can be used by their previous owners for farming until the land gets claimed. For this farming land, every adult citizen in the country can make a claim alone or in group and the land is to be divided into communal ownership (communal "rent") based on original Kibbutzim (very important that there will be higher 10s, hundreds or even thousands of them [depends on the size of the country], so there is a proper competition between them). In these Kibbutzim like communes, the ownership of productive assets (except for patents for new original technology) is to be non existent, as they are being paid for by the state (because of this the costs of repair or replacement of these assets [cost : effect ratio] is to be compared [long term value minimum 10 years] with other Kibbutzim and the ones with longer [above 70th percentile] asset's use time [while keeping their efficiency of yield per land mass on par - above median in their quality of land group] are to be rewarded financially, that will be split amongst the farmers in the commune as their additional profit - compare to the median costs - that will be distributed to them in case they are successfull or semisuccessfull with their produce and have max 5% of their produce totally wasted. The ones in below 30th percentile are to have these costs as financial loss [compare to the median costs] that will be split amongst the farmers, this mechanism should also work in regards of farmers salaries). Other than that, these communes will work as any other conglomeration. Any person, making a claim on farm land, can join a commune of his liking (there will very likely not have to be maximum persons per commune based on the amount of ha, because if the costs are too expensive for the specific commune, people will not be interested, as much in the work there, as they will be automatically less pay for them and therefore will very likely choose different commune). I also like the way Kibbutzim do it with the division of labor in the communes, where all workers rotate in their positions (apart for people living there under only residential licenses-doctors and other specialists not linked to farming) and profit is used and divided (i believe it to be best if its equal split for all) based on the communal votes. max area size of each communal land being around 3-5000 ha makes sense to me.

In a situation where there are no more residential licenses due to land limitation (far far future if ever), there is an argument for nationalization of some of the residential licenses for development of new housing units, that are to be built in appartment complexes (up or below the earth surface). This should strictly be based on regional government agreement with the state government or dictatorial decision, and only after exhausting all of the other possible reasonable options that still keep the country self or close to self (as sufficient as reasonably possible) food and energy sufficient and aren't significantly hurting the security of the country (like deconstructing strategically important army base to make space for new residential space).

Any international body that wants to use commercial land, has to pay rent on the land used. It also taxes national business that outgrew medium sized business and uses wide mass of land in the country (except for the farmers). Also, citizens that outgrew their “3“ mark, they are to also pay rent for the land used by their property that outgrew the “3“. For the land they use, they pay based on the size and location (that is probably only split into country side, city, city center). This is also where some (if not all) of the money comes from when it comes to Universal Basic income.

When it comes to housing, I believe it to be another necessity for a dignified survival of any human and therefore a basic human right. I also believe that we ought to live in a society, where having children isn't a luxury and therefore, there needs to be a system in place, which thinks of family creation, when solving the housing issue. I have thought about this for a quite a long time and the best solution I have came up with, that is functioning well within my system, is a solution that combines private CITIZEN ownership rent, state "rent" and classic ownership (or coop ownership) housing together with universal basic income (UBI), that is collected on monthly basis by every adult citizen of the country, valued at circa 10% above the 1/2 of the median rent in the country (counting also "rent" prices) for an appartement big enough for 2 adults and 3 children. The 10% is there to allow for some additional dignified survival necessities like basic clothes, hygiene products etc., that are not covered by the other state programs.

While having cash for rent is surely nice, I believe, that especially with this system, it is important, that the state has a way to somewhat “control“ the prices of housing, as otherwise, it could easily happen that the companies don't build enough housing, which will end up raising the rent (and houses prices in general) and UBI will quickly become a huge money dark hole for the state to fund. On the other hand, I am quite opposed to artificial solutions like rent control, as it, in my opinion, has negative externalities, that you want to avoid. That is why I think that more free market solution is a better way to go. Similarly to today, there should be private developers but apart from them I think that state (regions and state alike) should also be building some of the housing (as long as its needed) itself and that is to be done in 2 ways. Directly (only about maximum of 10-20% of all of the housing that is built based on the state contracts mostly to have its own entity for prices comparison), and indirectly, through private companies or citizens themselves, that want to build their own housing (explained in paragraph below). These houses and apartments are to be based on state set specifications (minimum size, minimum amount of rooms etc.) to comfortably house a larger family of 5. Once these houses and apartments are built, citizens can either buy them for the price it cost to build them, or they can be used as housing for citizens that are currently in need of housing and to these citizens state would just stop paying a portion of UBI corresponding to the rent cost of the housing (depending on the markets prices of the rent in the area), this is the “rent“ I have been mentioning multiple times in this article. I believe that the state shouldn't own more than 30% of the total housing. There should also be a requirement, that these housing units are visually pleasing from the outside, as well as the inside.

When it comes to citizens wanting to build their houses themselves (and do not own any other house/appartment), It makes sense to me, that they should be able to receive (in 2s) the amount of credit, that corresponds to building 1 housing (as long as they can proof that they are to use it for a family unit) unit built by the private enterprises/state. This credit can be used to purchase building materials at guaranteed (by state making a deal with distributors) wholesale prices, as well as construction work, in case they decide to hire help to build it. Whatever is left of this money, after the house is built, can be kept by the citizen, with caveat that this citizen won't be receiving UBI (apart from the additional 10% and meat addition) ever since they take this state „loan“ on housing, until they pay of its value, either through decreased UBI payments or they can also pay it off earlier, if they got the capital to do so. Also the citizens can ask for such loan to build housing in a group as big as they want to, as long as they are gonna build housing for all of the persons involved. Those are the city and countryside residential licenses – coop.

As already previously mentioned, private enterprise renting a real estate for residence is to be forbidden and the only renting allowed is from the property owned in citizens "3" tax base. Citizens that are renting such properties or own their own properties still get the monthly UBI that they can use on the rent itself, or they can use it for whatever else they wish for (like starting a small business f.e.).

When it comes to building inside of the cities and other smaller conglomerations, one of the current problems, in at least in central and eastern European societies, is that very often there are some houses being built, but other infrastructure needed like schools, nice public squares, small shops and other not only buildings like parks needed for mentally healthy habitation are often missing in planning of the conglomeration. Due to this I think it makes sense to create templates, where in cases of new constructions or expansions of cities and conglomerations, that will mandate companies, to also build these much needed parts of a living city, if they are to be allowed to build any housing there. Of course, buildings like schools would be paid out of regional/state budgets. There can be many different templates, even brough in by the companies themselves, as long as they respect all of the needed infrastructure that the state mandates to build together with the housing. And of course it doesn't mean that one company has to build the whole template, but whenever there is a planning of such expansions, this responsibility is to be divided between companies working on these projects (not necessarily projects being paid from the housing fund) or citizens themselves if they are interested to use some of the space to build f.e. shops of their own.

When it comes to healthcare, I think that it also should be paid from the tax pool, but I haven't finished preparing laws for it, as I think it is very complicated, when taking into account also non pharmaceutical healing, that is often successful where current modern medicine fails, while also there being many snake oil merchants. But what makes the most sense to me is something in a ballpark of tracking success rate of each type of medicine (after running proper case studies). If there are different similarly successful medicines for the same thing, citizen should by law have a right to be able to pick and choose out of these medicines, with there (in case there isn't enough money to cover the most expensive treatments for all, if yes, it's not a problem and ignore the next sentences) being a caveat that if there is a medicine, that is extremely expensive and is only little bit more successful (max 5-10% difference in success rate) than the much cheaper ones, first the citizen is to use the cheaper medicines and only if they are not successful, they are to receive the very expensive one, or they can pay for the very expensive treatment right away from their pocket. If there are no other possible similarly successful treatments, the citizens have a right to get the expensive treatment right away, as having healthy population benefits whole of the society, as well as life being precious and we ought to behave that way. Also, I think that every doctor that received their free education in a specific country, should be mandated to serve at least few years (around 5 years) in the country, where they received the education. It should be forbidden for doctors to get kickback based on the medicine they prescribe.

When it comes to mental healthcare. I personally believe (and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support my belief) that long term (over 3-6 months) psychotherapy just doesn't work and it is more often than not actually harmful to the individual, as it only feeds into their egotistical and victim mentality tendencies, without the person having to take accountability and reigns of their life, even though many of the psychiatry ideas are definitely sound. Coming from a person, who was actually helped by psychotherapy, as I was able there to finally share some of my personal thoughts and experiences, I was unable to share anywhere else due to my personal mental state, from my own experience, if the person cannot understand what they need to change in their life and doesn't start to implement it after that many conversations in a safe place, no amount of additional talking will help. Instead, what such people actually need the most are healthy reciprocal relationships, but also to have purpose in their life, they feel like they are pursuing, or feeling like the actions that they do in everyday life, have an actual overall positive meaning to their and others life, often (but not necessarily) coming from having a spiritual anchor and doing meaningful work (not necessarily job), as well as having the ability to stand up for themselves and utilizing it, which comes with having positive self-image, none of which will come from being locked up in a facility, where they are treated like completely broken people or by popping pills daily for years that are making emotional junkie zombies out of them, so they can actually never face and solve the underlying issues that cause their depressions, anxieties and so on. Of course there can be exceptions to this rule with people that are in deep psychosis, who need additional personalized treatment, but apart from those I am sure that 99% of all of the mental health problems (apart from children being stuck in their situations due to often their parents having unhealthy control over their life with no way out) are coming from these underlying issues.

That is why I think, it makes sense to fully transform almost all of the current mental health hospitals into some kind of protected workshops, where people with such problems can socialize with others, spend time and ideally also work under the sun (farming seems to be especially great, as spending time in nature and green light is very beneficial to our nervous system based on our current most advanced studies), studying things that interest them, or create art like pottery, paintings but also music (not necessarily hands on art), all the while they also have support from the specialists whenever they need, all of this to gain confidence in themselves again. Stays in such facilities should be voluntarily and paid out of their UBI dedicated for housing, with additional costs being covered by the state, as having mentally stable society benefits us all. Also, similar facilities (with higher security) should be set up for drug addicted criminals performing non violent petty crime like theft, instead of them being sent to prisons.

While previous paragraph is meant mostly for people with very severe mental issues, who are unable (f.e. without popping pills everyday) to function in a wide society. I think that additional focus (often used before or in a combination with these protected workshops) should be on healing through other means that we are now finally getting some very positive studies on (after overwhelming amount of personal – me included - experiences) after decades of being suppressed, which are therapies through use of hallucinogens like magic mushrooms, LSD, ayahuasca and so on, as well as use of classic psychiatry and psychotherapy (in a limited amount), which should be again covered by the state.

While we are on the topic of what people call drugs. Let's have a look on war on drugs and how is that affecting our society. Since 1971, ever since Richard Nixon declared drugs to be the public enemy number one, over 54 years passed, so let's have a look whether the war had any effect on curbing the drug use. Reading through the reports on this issue, we will find out that not only the illegal drug use did not lower ever since the war on drugs started, but that it actually substantially increased and the increase is only accelerating, which means only one thing and that is that the war on drugs completely and utterly failed (if its main goal was ever to stop the illegal drug use, which I seriously doubt, except for maybe hallucinogens and marijuana, which have a way of opening people's eyes to their own emotions and to the evil system we live under, which of course threatens the people in power, who want us to stay their slaves), as whoever wants to procure drugs is able to do so. On the other hand, let's have a look at the externalities it brought us. Destroyed countries and neighborhoods ridden by violent crime, because the drug trade cannot be done through legal pathways, unnecessary deaths (overdoses and gang wars) and other terrible reactions (like the earlier mentioned psychosis) due to the drugs being unregulated and laced by different substances, as well as not knowing their potency even if they are not laced, funding illegal operations of CIA, or decades of avoiding in my opinion the best medicine (hallucinogens) when it comes to healing traumas and mental issues in general, being one of the leading causes to the homelessness problem, we have currently in western society, are just on the top of my list. So, the war on drugs is to be stopped, as anyone with at least a few brain cells has to come to understand, when they look at the carnage war on drugs brought to us, or just by looking at the history of alcohol prohibition in the US.

Instead, we should focus on smart and responsible regulation, that will leave drugs out of the children's hands (which also comes with truthful education about the drugs, instead of our current propaganda lies), while their brain is still heavily developing, as based on our current studies drugs can hurt their brain development substantially, while allowing the legal framework to sell these drugs to adults, who are interested in them, combining those regulations with additional reasonable laws similar to drunk driving prohibition. As mentioned in my articles before, specialized stores make a lot of sense to me.

Since we are on the topic of crime, let's look at our current prison institutions that are often either a total joke, or on the opposite side of things, they are modern age slavery facilities or similarly bad facilities where criminals have to fight for their dear life every day, as in some of these prisons guards don't even dare to police inside of the prison, and it is left to gang rule (especially prevelant in South America and some parts of Asia from what I have seen due to overcrowding) or combination of both (US prisons). While it is somewhat understandable that such behavior towards criminals would be in some eyes justifiable, especially when it comes to very violent criminals, how do you think that such criminals will behave once they are out of the prison system? While for some it might be such a hard lesson, that they will never want to come back, vast majority will just continue with their previous behavior, as they had little opportunity to learn any new positive habits there, and will go back to crime. Yes imprisonment is supposed to be about punishment (as well as protecting wider society from criminals) but also, in my eyes, it is supposed to be about rehabilitation (which also protects wider society from crimes), because again, unless it is a life sentence, once these criminals finish their sentence, they will join the society and everybody should want for them to become stable and productive members of society.

First let's look at the punishment part. Personally, I think that prisoners performing physical labor as part of their sentence is overall positive, as work cleanses soul and builds character, also it is showing the criminals, that never held any real job, that they are capable of doing so, once they are out. However, these types of “jobs” should in my opinion be focused on physically intensive labor like construction, farming, lumberjacking, mining for the more serious crimes and for less serious crimes jobs similar to current day-to-day prison operations like cleaning, laundry, cooking and so on, and to some petty or small crimes I think it makes sense for them to even perform jobs outside of the prisons like cleaning streets and so on, instead of jobs like manufacturing that are very dominant type of work for current US prisons, or service and administrative jobs like call centers or data entry. Also, even though they are prisoners, they are still humans and such they ought to be treated. So, when it comes to their salaries, they should be paid similarly as any person outside of the prison performing these types of jobs (prisons are to be non profitable enterprises). With these salaries (and UBI), they are to automatically pay for their housing, salaries of their guards and other costs related to their imprisonment, but what is left, should be theirs, and they can decide whether to support their families outside the prison, spend it in prison stores (which are to have same prices as outside world stores) on some goods or keep it in an account, to which they will have access to, once they leave the prison (or combination of all three), which will also make it a higher chance of them not going back straight to criminal activities, as they will have more options with some money in their pocket. The inmates that will refuse to work (long term, not just because they felt sick and couldn't work some days), can have their sentences prolonged up to double time served and during the working hours (only based on judges decision).

Another part of punishment that has to be addressed is inhuman torture treatment of many prisoners in a form of prolonged solitary confinement (anything more than a few [2-5] days even for the most serious situations), beatings, electrification of prisoners, hanging detainees by their wrists or ankles, waterboarding, starvation and dehydration, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse, burning or branding, denial of medical care, overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, forced labor in dangerous environments without proper safety gear, exposure to extreme temperatures and other psychological and physical torture. These are to be criminalized under harsh punishments for anyone even slightly involved. Also, prisoners are not to be used as test subjects except for the studies related to the betterment of prison system or prisoners rehabilitation, or related to their disease for which there is no cure. But even these studies have to be joined voluntarily, with option to leave them whenever they want and they are to be free of any payment or other benefits.

Another part of the punishment that is to be addressed is entertainment. Prison sentence is not supposed to be fun, so entertainment in form of console/computer games, television, internet (except for educational courses if neccessary) are, in my opinion, to be completely prohibited (except maybe for playing games with their kids during visitation hours or once in a long while events like movies, or concerts, if performers are willing to do so). On the other hand, I think that some form of escapism and especially creative outlet is needed, soul healing and can help tremendously with rehabilitation, so instead the prisoners should be encouraged to do arts, play board games and they should have access to wide variety of not only educational books, together with newspapers to not completely lose touch with the outside world.

On the topic of rehabilitation. Since I already mentioned proper pay for work, humane prison conditions and art programs, I would also like to add educational courses to the mix with inmates being able to even pursue college degree education or useful trades. I would also suggest spiritual/philosophical in person “courses“ (different types that inmates can choose from) led by religous/spiritual figures or specilized educators, focused on the introspection of inmates past behavior and path forward, that should in my opinion be mandatory once a week for first 1-2 years of their sentence, after which the inmates can decide whether they want to keep attending it or not. Last but not least, they should have an access to counseling ideally in a social form like alcoholics anonymous, especially when it comes to previously addicted persons.

Another huge issue in our current societies is education. It is no wonder since it is pretty much the same as it was in 18th century, where the goal was to create largely mindless working zombies (I like the term non player characters) to boost the economy, without questioning the power at large. I think that it is undeniable that every child's default settings is to explore the world, if only because of their survival needs, but I think it is deeper than that, because we humans are explorers and it is no wonder, since our world is fascinating. Unfortunately, our schools are set up in a way that exploration is suppressed and instead you are told what to think and know and memorize it, without often even understanding why it is so, even if true, while demanding and enforcing often undeserved authority (kudos to teachers who are exceptions to this rule). It also completely ignores differences between the interests and different talents of our children, especially during the most important early education, where most of the children get broken by the school and therefore lose their wonder for exploration and deeper knowledge, which is in the end one of the main goals of our current education system, as explained earlier. Fortunately, nowadays there also exist innovative new models of schooling, from which we can take inspiration, one of which I personally like a lot called “forest school”. It is a type of school were children largely learn by playing and exploring the world around them, in a way that is interesting to them. So how I would like to see our future school system is quite simple. First of all I still think that there are some subjects that need to be in mandatory curriculum like writing, reading, basic math, history, sports, some basics of natural sciences ideally often thought outside, as well as at least some basics in logic, rhetoric, ethics and debate and “spending time outside in the dirt”, but even most of these subjects (apart from sports and spending time in nature exploring it) should not be mandated to be studied during exact years or even in some chronollogical order, but instead the child should have an option to fulfill them in a spawn of many years (let's say up to age of 15 – reading, writing and basic math by around age 12 tho), whenever they feel like they want to focus on them. The early schools should instead be made so that the very young children have many toys to choose from, that are showing them cool laws or teaching them interesting information about our world while playing, with their teachers/guides leading them with questions to spark their curiousity and providing them additional material, if they are interested in finding out more about how these toys work. It could be so that some children will be interested in hard sciences and will not even learn to properly read until they are about 10, when they need to learn it to continue with their science studies, some will for example just paint and do other physical arts without even touching hard sciences until it is mandatory for them at later age, while some children will like to try everything and will have their education field quite similar to today, leading into every child's education being quite unique depending on their own interests. I am pretty sure that this way, children will spend their time way more efficiently, while not losing their sense of wonder and love for the world, which will lead into much more productive and happy society overall and yes, it also means that there will need to be more teachers in earlier education, than we currently have but I wouldn't be surprised, if it also meant that there will need to be less teachers needed later on, as this system will make the children much more self reliant when it comes to their learning. Again education (with college degrees included) should be paid from the taxes. On the topic of home schooling, I don't see a huge problem with it as long as the children once in a while (around 1 day a week/max 2 weeks) also attend proper school with other children to catch possible children abuse, as well as to socialize children, while also fulfilling the mandatory subjects in proper time.

While on the topic of education, I think it is very important to speak more deeply on the subject of history, as that is where a lot of the brainwashing about the world happens, as well as it being immensely important to understand wider world around us. First of all, similarly to any other subject, it shouldn't be thought by a way of memorizing dates, but instead from a perspective of human behavior and causes and effects that lead to the historical events by making the children figure out reactions to policies of rulers themselves with thought provoking questions by their teachers/guides. Also, I think it is important to teach history not only from a perspective of the country of residence (while important parts of the national history and especially its modern history - since around beginning of 20th century - should always be mandatory) but to also look at the historical events from other nations perspective and analyze their (usually their leaders) motives for such behavior. Also, there should not be a mandate to one specific version of history and instead different theories are to be explored, as well as different interpretations, as long as it is clear that it is an interpretation that might but also might not be fully true.

Last but not least, I would like to focus on science. Currently, science is being abused by the people in power, who have created around it an atmosphere of literal religious believe, within many parts of our societies, where challenging the current scientific dogma accounts to heresy and people who do so, are ridiculed and pushed to outskirts of society. This unfortunately happens even when the science they challenge is wonky, or often complete horse shit (like with our current history), with short term studies, that were never even reproduced or have huge holes in them, with other evidence pointing to different results, or are heavily subjective. First of all, at the core of all science is an idea, that it is always ever evolving and it is necessary to question it, as that is the only way to make progress and learn new things. Second of all, science of things that affect human or nature health needs to be done properly, with control groups and long term (even decades when it comes to serious technology like SSRIs – that had no long term studies done on them, while being used by and hurting hundreds of millions around the world – or mRNA) observations with proper control groups, otherwise it is as almost not doing them at all and they are pretty much irrelevant. While this is of course a problem of our laws, it is also a huge cultural problem, which is in my opinion in part created by our education, that tries and often very successfully kills the spirit of exploration in us humans, so here I am also making a personal plea. Next time you hear someone challenging the current scientific dogma, ask them and yourselves, what is the evidence that supports their opinion and more importantly, try to find out what is the evidence that supports the current dogma and dig deep into it. You will be often very surprised on what you will find out, as science has been used to turn this world upside down, as by saying that the opinion is supported by most of the scientists in the field, automatically turns (or turned, as many things changed in past 5 years and many people opened their eyes) wide majority of people's brain off and they stop thinking for themselves. Climate science is a perfect example, where none of the dogmas and predictions that these scientists brought to humanity in past 5 decades came true and many of the (especially young) people still believe it religiously, while completely ignoring insane amount of evidence that points to it being ALMOST complete horseshit, while the people in power use this propaganda to impoverish our whole society, to make more money for themselves and most importantly to control the world population.

While I could go on and on and on with other laws that I have came up in past many years, I think that this is quite enough to paint a skeleton of how I personally see the way our governments and society should be restructured and for those interested, you will find many of my law ideas in my notes, that you can get inspired by and as already mentioned in this essay, I am not finished with the system yet as there are many upgrades I already came up with in the past, while writing this and I am sure will come up with still, but time is of the essence.

Now that we have talked about the overall system, I would like to focus on EU, as in my last article I have promised to do so. Similarly, to most of the Europeans, in theory, I see EU as a good idea, as it is advantageous for us Europeans, not to stand alone in the world, where we are competing against such giants like USA, Russia, China and in the future, I expect that many African countries will unite, as well as many Muslims countries and only God knows what else will happen. Another reason, why I think it makes sense to have an institution similar to EU, is because it has been (apart from recent developments) very good for overall peace in Europe, which has been in past ravaged by inner conflicts. On the other hand, I believe that the path for Europe is much more different than the one of the US or China, who are strongly centralized in their rule and the states inside have quite little sovereignty. In my opinion such system would never work in Europe longterm, because the differences like our languages, history and cultures will always eventually turn into nationalistic sentiment that would break up the bloc, as it is already happening now. But even if it worked, personally, I believe in decentralization of rule, as heavily centralized governance of such huge areas always (in history) eventually leads to some type of totalitarian rule or violent misuse of power. While that is also possible with decentralized governance, it is definitely less likely. And while decentralized rule has its own disadvantages, they can be mitigated. So how would I go around building European Nations (EN)? First of all, it would be based on a similar system of rule that I have outlined at the beginning of this article with few major differences. First of all, I believe that EN should have it's own constitution (agreed upon by all of the states involved), that is to be the only legal document above the laws of the involved nations, with its own constitutional court based in Czech republic (I think Brno makes a lot of sense), not only because we are well positioned in the middle of Europe, but also because in the past we have always played a role of a bridge (and often got fucked because of it) between western and eastern europe. Also, due to our shared history and culture with both regions, we understand both sides well. It also makes sense to me to set up the constitutional court in a country, which has fresh experience with modern totalitarian rule, thanks to which, we have much better immunity against all the propaganda and totalitarian tendencies that most of the western Europe was eating up from EU platter without second thought in past decades. It will probably be best if there is one judge per each nation and the judges are appointed by a vote of their own judges in those countries, so we avoid politization of the whole process. Also, EN would have no parliament, and would only run with senate of technocrats (generally, these seats should be made available for successful senators of involved countries that finished their terms, and are being voted on by the labor unions etc. themselves, but with each country union having 1 vote for each seat – given to the most popular candidate based on their own vote), who would have almost no power and would be charged with preparing the legislation based on the best practices of countries inside of EN, that will be VOLUNTARLY passed, or also completely ignored, by the nations inside of the bloc. Then EN would also have publicly elected consuls, but apart from possible dictatorship powers (approved by the EN senate and executive branches [unanimously] plus parliaments of each nation), their main job would be mostly advisory (towards the governments but also to shape public discourse inside of EN), as well as playing a role of diplomats outside and inside of EN with some powers and responsibilities when it comes to foreign policies of EN.

Due to such strong decentralization, it is very important that the constitution is very strong with not only human rights and other life forms protections, but it also needs to already specify solutions to many issues that are currently ignored by the EU, like shared maintanance of strong outside borders, or fair trade between the countries inside the bloc, so some countries don't take advantage of others. Personally, I haven't had time to prepare it but in time, where it will be needed, I am sure I will have it ready for you to take inspiration from.