THE NAPUK PARTY -- CODEX
By Ivancho Jotata, known also as Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and other cloning names
[ Remark: There are three papers about NAPUK party that go hand in hand and this is the last, before it is the Program, and first is the Manifesto; they all are related but different, stressing on different sides of the activity of this unique party. This treats chiefly moral aspects of the activists. ]
: This is the last of the trinity of papers about my unique NAPUK party and it concerns chiefly the moral image of its followers, but also the immorality on the money and how to avoid it, the social ruling, and other related or not exactly questions, but which is good to be mentioned somewhere and here is enough place for them. It is not good to begin reading from here, but with the Manifesto.
The history of all societies is a history of selection of better rulers,
who can manage the masses in the interests both, of the rulers and the masses, for achieving of better exploitation of the masses! As far as the NAPUK party is pretty unique, it is summoned to become the best and the last
party, we have to pay attention to its members and followers. And what means the best? Well, all parties defend the interests of some part
of the society, and the better has to be such one that defends those of a bigger group of people, but this party defends the interests of all, of the rich and of the poor, and this is the main difference in the world of capitals, in the capitalism. From another point of view our members have to be neither poor nor rich, to stay in the middle, so that to feel equally well both social poles. Still, they have to be convinced that the common people want
to be exploited and they do quite necessary work for the common good. They are party members, because this is a party, but they don't defend partial interests, they defend the interests of the society.
Yet our members have to defend also those who are in idle state from the point of view of the society, i.e. they do nothing
for the society, but we have, still, to defend their interests, because in a free society one has also the right
to do nothing useful in the moment, because in this way one can evolve himself (or herself, I will not repeat this again) in the interest of himself, what can in the end turn out to be in the interests of the others! This is possible because when one does what one wants it is supposed that in many cases he exploits himself alone
, and if he does not exploit himself in the moment then he just does not know how to do this, he maybe has to be advised or helped with something, but his right to do nothing must not be denied and he has to be provided with all necessary, yet on a very reduced
level, this is obvious; if he agrees to live with very low income and be happy, then this has to be taken for proof that he has other
important for him values and considerations. In a way, the right to work for the others or not has to be observed as the right of the … sexual partner to do or not sex in the moment, so that we have even to help him, to raise his libido!
Then the big private property that is not used for private purposes must not necessary exist, it may or may not be in private hands and the work can, still, be done properly, because in no country exist private … armies and /or polices but there is maintained the external or domestic peace, or then can be state-owned as well private postal services, insurance organizations, and others. What means that this question has to be impartially observed and the right decision found.
Then the social ruling is the most important question in the social area and it is not done properly, we even do not try to do what is necessary but rely either on compulsion, or on delusion of the masses, or in the better
case on some mixture of these methods, but never on logically required means. I (as enlightened person, excuse me for the repeating) can understand that the rulers do this, what gives results, people just want
to be deluded, as well to be manipulated somehow, but we have to try at least to teach them to behave reasonable because this is what has the lowest social price. So that I will make here one important proposition about bettering of the ruling (which I have also done somewhere under my usual pen-name), but I will also say what is to be required from our members, because they have to give good example for the others.
Then I will propose also some new moral stimuli for the masses working in the field of services, but nowadays the major part of people work in it, so that this may help a bit. I will mention also that the pretty fast equalizing of life in various countries can have negative
impact, not only because this will lessen the romantic of foreign places, but also because if some differences disappear this will force the appearance of new
differences, which are not correctly predicted and may turn to be perilous with something. And I will try to give a picture of our life in the near future, probable to the end of this century, which will or has to change again very fast the outlook of our usual life, of our habits. And I will not forget to give one proposition for fighting the overpopulation in the spirit of our party, i.e. to give money instead of to take it, with the hope that this will bring it back to the state in some way or another.
1. Moral Image of the NAPUK-ists
The moral image of our members has to be more or less like that of the … priests! And what this means? Ah, work not for personal benefits but for the others, living more or less middle life (or, then, upper middle, but not of the high-life), showing contempt of money, giving examples for moral behaviour and self-exploitation, and similar things; or also as kind of social workers. With the use of AB (Allowance Bank) or SB (Social Bank) or not, but the income of every our member has to be transparent for the others, and maintained in some limits, even with seizure of received more money than allowed, because it has to go only via some bank and be controlled and the surpluses be taken for the very party! This has to be controlled also for 5 to 10 years after exiting of somebody from our party (if such situation happens), but there is nothing ruinous here for the person, and he can even have his own limited company (Ltd.) but pay himself not much (or not at all) from there.
And the proposed limits are quite natural, meant as hired on work for the party (not that every NAPUK member has no right to earn high salary): the lower is 2 MMS (Minimal Monthly Salary) for ordinary members, 3 MMS for regional level officers, 4 MMS for national level, and as exception for a pair of persons on the highest posts till 5 MMS; what is more than this is taken for the party, or else the person can simply receive no
salary as employed for the party, but his income (and for 5 years before and 5 after, as said) has, still, to be monitored for avoiding of benefits from the service. From 2 to 3 MMS with possible perks like cheap canteen or breakfasts and refreshments, company owned car, company living premises (if one wants), cheaper stay in holiday homes, free medical care, and similar things (maybe also some free insurance) will be quite decent earning, after all, but the point is to earn only his living, not money for exercising business. If somebody does not like these conditions then let him not become our member, but be only supporter (if he wants), or work for nothing (out of good will, if has already secured his living in some other way).
This is quite natural decision and can be applied by any other party, but is not (as far as I know), even is preferred that the rulers of high rank have their ensured high income, in order to be able to pay for their electoral campaign. Yet we don't think that our people have to make such expenses, because it is not done so in any church, the proper person is chosen by the church, and here by the party. We also do not think that our people have to exercise some business, for the same reason, priests have no private business, but we do not forbid them to have (if they already have), because this would have been restriction for our members.
In addition to this our people have to be convinced in the justness of our platform, of the exploitation and the right of everybody to be exploited, or to be allowed him to self-exploit himself in whatever way he wants. We have just to care not to give too much easy money to everybody, but enough for leading of decent life according to the standard of life in the moment. And surely have to be convinced that it must not be paid for healthcare, for education, for communication with the others, even for … sexual relations, if you want, and have to try to provide suitable conditions for not paying in the moment of giving the service, but for paying to the persons providing the service. The money can and has to be used for giving stimuli to the people and for measuring of everything
, but not for egoistic exploitation and ruling over people; the power of money has to be restricted as much as this is possible, not disturbing the production and the economy. If one pays for his healthcare this is direct discrimination
of those who can not pay for their healthcare, and the same about the education (where one can study but other have to begin to work, this is not fair, there have to be exams for finding whether one is capable to study, and to take the best, not just to check whether the future student is not an … imbecile -- how it turned to be often in my Bulgaria). Or we may look at the things from another viewpoint: if one stays in the prison
he pays nothing for healthcare and education, but who is free, he must pay -- don't you find such decision silly and paradoxical? So that such has to be the tendency, yet making some difference what exactly kind of medical or educational services he can receive for free and what kind against payment. Similarly with the medicaments bought in the pharmacies, and maybe in other social questions, it is better to stay nearer to the communist view than to the capitalist one.
2. Ownership of the Means of Production
I am not the first (and will surely not be the last) person who has thought about the ownership of the means for production, what I prefer to name simply exploitative property. Yet I am
first in something, because the left-winged reject entirely the private property (with exception of the state one, of course, and then the last turned to be the biggest and inhumane, in many cases, exploiter, when there is no competition and no market mechanisms), and the right-winged embrace it as the sole pillar of the society, while I simply accept it in some cases, and don't in some others, and search ways for uniting of state and private owned companies. More precisely I state that the ownership of big exploitative property is not obligatory
but is acceptable (as easily manageable), and also that the bad thing is not the very big property but such property that was … inherited
ready without any efforts! Did you get the difference? The big inherited property makes the kings for no merits, it is not
deserved, it has the advantage that one from young years lives with the idea to became a ruler, this helps in some cases, but it is not tied with the personal abilities and such person hires others to manage it, hence the property can as well not be privately owned and the managers be again hired. It has also the advantage that it is big, and in our world of strength one must be strong in order to succeed, but then the state-owned property is, surely, preferable. The meaning of private property is chiefly when it is not
very big, what contradicts to the natural tendencies in each society.
More precisely this last thing means that, as I have heard, the companies live usually 3 generations
, where the first builds it, the second enlarges it, and the third begins to dissipate it (to use the money for something else, because he has no stimulus to enlarge it more)! What means that the important are the first and second generation, and later it can be only restructured, new daughter companies (which are again better manageable) can be built. And it is really so, and because of this I have come (before nearly 20 years and under my usual pseudonym) to the conclusion that it has to be taken some decision that helps in the destructive
phase of the companies, when they become too big, and this is some elegant, financial mechanism, some drastically big inheritance tax
! I introduced first one exploitative minimum
(EM), which has to be, let us say, and for round calculations, 1,000
MMS, but for every heir
, and then has to be applied one drastic tax, such that 1 EM (and everything below this) stays on its place, but from 10 EM are received only 2 EM
, and this by exponent
(which curve in exponential scale is a straight line, so that 2 points are enough to define it)! But this is inheritance, this is not
expropriation, so that every big capitalist can disperse his property when alive to whom he deems capable to manage and multiply it, or then that who receives it has also to be allowed to pass it to whom he wants (be it even via some lotteries) before applying of this tax; in this way everybody is happy, and the property is dispersed in some way, and the state or the region (or both), receive big chunks after the death of financial magnates, and are also advised to give some part of them (say the half), in some form to everybody (not equally in one dollar pieces, but in normally big portions, as if this was manna from heaven).
This is one way to preserve the capitalism and private ownership, yet to have means for passing the very big enterprises finally in state's (and /or municipal's) hands, as well to make the capitalism more attractive. Because, after all, the management either is some science or art that can be learned (and then it has
to be learned, and the management given in the hands of capable persons), or it is not (and then the money have to be dispersed between people from time to time by lotteries), yet in both cases there are no reasons for keeping the money in the hands of some families (more so when there are no real families anymore). The principle of private ownership and this in less hands as possible (say, the oldest son is the only heir) was accepted before millenniums
because this simplifies
the ruling, but nowadays, in the computer age, where everything can be easily monitored and ruled, and when the property can reach astronomical scale, this becomes more and more outmoded. And mark also that 1 EM is quite big money, one can live a whole life on it (roughly 12 by 8 makes about 100, and by 80 will be about 1,000, i.e., these are by one MMS for 83 years for a person without moving even a finger), or else one can freely ground a company with even 1/10 of this money (if 1 MMS is 2,000 US$, for example, then 1 EM gives 2 mln US$), so that this is one very good way for solving of the ownership problem, but maybe can be searched also other ways.
3. Bettering of the Ruling
The democracy -- I mentioned this already, but everybody can see this alone -- is a humbug
, it works sometimes and somewhere, yet not always, and one may say that it better be a humbug than building of prison-state, but this depends on the circumstances around
the state, and in an open world that is not in conditions of cold (to say nothing about "hot") war, there can't exist really bad centralized governing (because nobody thinks about dismissing at all of the Government -- how the anarchists in the past have thought). And the peculiar moment is that where the democracy works good, this is where there are not
big contradictions between the parties, what means that which party will take the power is not very important, what means that the "salt" of democracy, the free elections, is not really necessary! Think about this, and I will give as example the democrats and the republicans in USA, where I am sure that the republicans are not against the democracy (they don't want, say, communism), and the democrats are not against the republic (they don't want monarchy, for example). And also democracy is not
pretty effective form of ruling, and when there is some danger for the state, then the centralized ruling is strengthened as possible. I have though about these things even earlier than 20 years before, I have written some books
, but I will try to be succinct as possible here.
More precisely, what lacks in the democracy is professional ruling
, representative Parliament
, and hearing of the voices of wise persons
, what is more or less equivalent with the statement that this is the … worst possible
form of ruling, because the centralized ruling chooses more professional rulers, the nearly anarchistic or unorganized ruling chooses more representative rulers, and each religious state chooses more wise rulers. It is true that in all these examples is present just one of these requirements, not all of them, but this means that the democracy can always, and maybe forever, be bettered.
Professional ruling we have not, for the simple reason that the professionals are not to be chosen from below, they can be chosen by some commissions or boards or the like of their colleagues, using some system of ratings (how it is done in many cases where there are not well formulated criteria for what is good and what is bad, i.e. the criteria are not so quantitative like they are qualitative and require personal opinion). The choice from below is impossible to give the best professionals, it can give at most the better looking persons, or those who can swindle better, or just those from some party or caste or church or other organization, to which the people can give some credence, what already means that not the people choose but this organization. Here is good to introduce the notion of strategic
rulers, where the first are those who give only general advices, say what
they want to be done (like the women in the families), and the second are the real rulers, the doers, the executives, who have to know how
to do the things. Having this in mind it turns out that the democracy gives not bad strategists, but there is lacking of tactical rulers, which have to be independent, unpolitical, so that such people are, still, not chosen (it is supposed that there are good professionals in the Ministries, or that the parties propose their professionals, but this is not the same, this process must not be politicized, the ruling may be either science or art or both, but it must not be partial
Then the democracy provides not representative Parliament because here everything is mixed
, here we have not rulers and
, the same people execute both functions, this is met nowhere in our life, this is funny, unpardonable, crying blunder, or how one names it, but this exist, alas! And representative Commission or Assembly or Gathering etc. means that in it have to be present all groups of population in the same proportion, for example, if the Gypsies make about 25 % (in Bulgaria the situation is more or less the same), there have to be as much of them also in this Assembly, or if the technical intelligence is 1.45 % in this Commission have to be present sometimes 1 but sometime 2 percents (if there are 100 persons there), et cetera. There is nowhere in the world such National Assembly (how Bulgarian Parliament is called, in fact), and nobody bothers about this at all; I can agree that this may not be the same Parliament, but there is no other such group of people, and nobody thinks to build such one. So that this is a severe lack, such House or Chamber has to be introduced for assessment of all laws and important decisions, with the right of veto at least.
And what I mean by wise persons are such persons who are valued by the population for something, but not
as politicians (because nobody likes the last especially). They may be football stars or pop-singers, or priests, or some of the high-life, but these people must not
be really rulers, they have to fulfill the role of counsellors, or the like, and it is supposed that in many countries they will be either priests, or scientists, or known artists, writers, and so on! (Funny or not, but there was once these years in Italian Parliament chosen one, not pop, but porno, star, so that this is possible, at least for fun, to be done.) And these are the persons who must be chosen by the democratic choice, about this common people can judge, this is motivated, yet, as I said, not as rulers, but as necessary advisors, sages, which the people need and will listen to them.
So that all our current Parliaments have severe drawbacks and they are good only as Talk-houses, so to say, what the word parliament in French means, a place to parlare
(this time in Italian) yet not to govern, these are a kind of pubs and we need Governments. Hence, after these explanations my proposition, this of the NAPUK party, which is against the meaning of all other parties, is in the Government to have three Chambers: of the Rulers
(ChR), of the People
(ChP), and of the Sages
(ChS), and, for simplicity, all by 100 persons!
The ChR has to be chosen by some unpolitical body, according with some rating, or, initially, be proposed by the existing parties, but there have to be obligatory emulated a party of non-party
members, where have to enter proportionally so much persons how many people do not
vote (this has to be thought through), and the persons proposed by each of these parts have to be proportionate with the votes for the powers in the last Parliamentary election. These people have to choose between them the Ministers, even the President, maybe the Municipal Chambers for each region, maybe the Ambassadors, and so on, because they are the real executives, the tacticians, and they have to make or change all necessary laws, but not
to adopt them! In other words, they have to build something like caretaker Government, which does just the necessary work, leaving the show aside.
Then the ChP has to be chosen (to say elected is not very properly) by some procedure for arbitrary choice, either the ordinary -- say, to choose by 2 persons from each age group from 20 including to 70 excluding (what is a well motivated decision) --, or to be applied some more sophisticated procedure for choosing of the necessary number of persons by several parameters
. The parameters can be: age, religious belief, sexual orientation (maybe including the gays and lesbians, if they confess this openly, in order to be able to make the necessary statistics), education (less or equal to primary education, then to secondary including, then to tertiary including, then above this, like PhD), types of education (technical, humanistic, pedagogical, medicine, etc.), spheres of work (agriculture, production, transport, education, police and army, services, etc, unemployed), and maybe something else. And the procedure of choice has to be able not only to choose an arbitrary person, but to substitute
one, i.e. to choose one with given in advance parameters, where the order of searching has to be from the smallest intersection
of all groups (because it can be most difficult to satisfy them) to the biggest intersection, something like this (this is too special matter to be explained in more details). The ChP members have to give their final say about just everything
, yet there may be allowed some decisions to begin first to be executed because of some urgency and later be officially approved or rejected. If something is not accepted in this Chamber it is not adopted for the moment, but the same question can be voted (changed or even not changed) again after some time (half an year, 1 year, 3 years, etc.).
The ChS must be the Chamber where the democratic choice from below has to be applied, yet not for one person but for 5 (or even 10), not only at the top but including people from the near
surrounding of everybody, and iteratively
! This means that one can chose his husband or grand-mother or boss or neighbour or lover or you-name-it, together with the leader of some party or some priest or some writer etc., at least on the first tour of elections. The next tour is only for the chosen in the first one, who have to make their choice from the already chosen people (there is no need to increase the number of possible candidates), yet those who take part in every next tour are the first -- after arrangement according to the received for them
votes -- 5 or ten (how is accepted) times less people (including all those with the same number of the votes for him or her as the last one, in order to avoid some unjustified discrimination due to the method of ordering). And so on until is reached some number about 1,000 (or 5,000), which persons are kept as extended ChS, and they meet together for some time, in some resort, communicate for a while (say, a week), and then choose the necessary number (100, as supposed) for the real Chamber. These people are the real Parliament, the strategists, who discuss everything they want, who vote first everything given from the ChR and then pass it to the ChP, and there can be for some time (say, 3 times) circulating of the voted proposal between ChP and ChS. This Chamber has also major initiative authorization about what to do the ChR, and ChP has to make their propositions first to them.
Something like this, but the number 3 for the Chambers is important, mark this, because it gives already a … plane, not just one axis (like, say, communist and anti-such). In this way the people will have their final say, but under the supervision of the sages, even if the sages can sometimes happen to be porno-stars (because we will hope for the best). I suppose that such procedure will slow
the voting process, some laws will not be possible to accept at once, but why should there be adopted miscarries, after all? And also everything is a matter of habit, so that such kind of democracy -- call it triple
democracy, if you want -- will be much better than the today's delusion (of the people) and derision
(of the votes of the people). And the transition to it will also not be very difficult (I hope not like, say, Bulgarian transition to democracy, which can not reach its end for nearly 30 years now).
4. Other Moments
There can always arise other moments, now and in the future. Say, it is obvious that work only against payment is not good, it is in many cases immoral! One has to receive some payment, naturally, and our Minimal Allowances (MA) each month already do this up to some extent, but one has to work for the pleasure of it -- you may twist it how you like but this is how it has to be. And in addition to this is good if there are some bonuses, which can be given or not, for which exist some expectation (say 20 - 30 %), but the purpose of which is more to serve as some incentive. This is not only well known but applied from old times to all governmental officials, and in the recent times to scientific workers, or also to some musicians, artists, sportsmen, et cetera. Yeah, but not to each workers, what is, I would say, insulting for those to whom this principle is not applied. Yet there are, and have to be, other moral incentives, where the point is not that they will be big and one will succeed to buy cars or homes on them, no, but they will be worth some self-treatment (some feast).
And here I have in mind that today, when everybody walks with his iphones, and can listen to everything and photograph everything, there can be easy to make some small personal badges, with some coded number of the person, in form of something (a clover leaf, or apple, or … radish, etc.), and when one hangs it on his clothes everybody will be able to click a photo and keep it, and this will be one half of the things. It is also supposed that when this picture is scanned with some program (in the iphone) will appear the necessary number of the person. Then the second half of the task is to give to everybody some bonuses
, say, in amount of 1/10 MMS per month and in pieces of about one bus ticket, which are not ready money, he can not revert them to money for himself, but some other person, to whom such bonus is sent, can
do exactly the same!
There can be some system that searches back who has sent this bonus (so maybe each such bonus must have its number, like the money banknotes have theirs) in order to detect whether this is some friend of the person and prohibits receiving of the money equivalent if so, but maybe this can be simplified to not allowing simply more than 3 such bonuses (-tickets) per month from one and the same place (-person); it is nearly obvious that the recipient must not
know who sends him the bonus, this is anonymous voting. Having in mind that nowadays the majority of people (in my opinion) work in the services (because, in broad sense, a bus driver, or physician, or teacher, or policeman, etc. also provide some services) this will allow some unofficial voting for nearly everybody; and there are no problems if one pensioner, or nice teenager girl, or whoever puts such badge on himself and just walks and waits to earn something more. If one has to spent monthly a 100 of such bonuses, or else somebody will simply be deprived of additional income, this will enliven the life, I suppose; and it is not at all excluded that somebody (say, some clothing company, or the like) will sponsor this idea (the necessary software, hardware, the badges) in order to make people buy their cloths (for to look attractive enough), and the very bonuses have to be sponsored by the state. It can be thought also for negative bonuses, if one is not glad of the service (say, 10 times less, but still a possibility). I see nothing bad in this idea, and if somebody wants to hide his real PIN code, then this code can simply be different, and the relation between the one and the other codes will be known only to the system.
Then I mentioned in the Program that ultimately all countries will equalize themselves, as well also the majority of people (how the left- so the right- winged speak about the middle class), so that the standard of life, and for the bigger majority of people, will be the same, what will be not exactly a drawback, but will pose some problems, because too big opposition is nearly so unwished as too little opposition, there have to be differences (but about 2-3 times, usually). I want to remind you in this sense that about 1990, when the communist Bloc dissolved itself, there was some economic crisis, some over-production in the West, and the East in a way helped the West (buying second hand goods, increasing the emigration, etc.), but about 2008 there was not such help and this is one more reason for us not being able still to exit the crisis (in spite of the negative bank interests). The single correct way out of such possible stagnation I see in making of our life more interesting, in finding of new activities in which to engage (what partly means increasing of manually produced goods), not only to buy everything ready in the shops, in increasing of our moral, in living more collectively, etc., about what I have spoken enough already, so that will not dwell on this more.
Now to my original idea about fighting with the overpopulation, which requires the existence of what I proposed here about AB and MA, which is supposed that is between 1/3 and 1/2 of MMS for everybody. Then each newborn child is calculated to cost to the state one such MA, and everybody, say after 15, is asked to decide and sign explicitly (and maybe even to sign it twice
in an interval of 3 months), that he (respectively she) agrees with the new proposal, what is important because it will last lifelong. The proposal with which a person agrees is the following: he receives each month by 1 MA (imagine it to be 1/2 of MMS) if has no alive children, but for each child is subtracted from both parents together
the same 1 MA amount (which is given to the child, this is quite correct), hence if he has made one child he will receive with 1/2 MA less, and the other parent, too, for two children he will already not receive this initially given to him 1 MA, and the same for the other parent, then with 3 children he will be forced to pay
to the state the amount of 1/2 MA (as also the other parent, in order to make the amount necessary to be paid to this child), and so on, until one has made n
children what summed (by 1/2 MA each) leaves for him less than 1 MA what amount he will receive till the end of his life, because this is the minimal threshold. Something in this spirit.
From where the money will be found is another thing, but this can be somehow made, with loans, with increasing of government debt, etc., but once introduced it is the same for the state to whom it pays the additional money. In the correct case, when one will have 2 children, he will simply begin to receive some -- deserved with nothing, to be sure -- money, which he will stop to receive after a while, what is quite correct; if he has only one child he will still continue to receive something (undeserved -- 1/2 MA); if he has 3 children from his income will be subtracted 1/2 MA, what are the costs for the child, but this is not so much after all, if the average income is 2.5 MMS (and 1 MA is 1/2 MMS, respectively 1/2 MA will give 0.25 MMS, i.e. this will be 10 % of the average income). In the not very normal case one may decide to receive initially the money and make as much children as he likes (how it is on the East, including the Hebrews), so that if he has 5 children there will be subtracted 3*0.5 MA = 1.5 MA (what by 1 MA of 0.5 MMS is still less than 1 MMS), and so on. As you see, nobody will have reasons to object to this decision, providing the money will be found, but if 1 MA will be paid to everybody from the maternity hospital, this money must anyway be found, and then there will remain the difference that, who agrees to this will simply receive for some years, until about 30, by something between 1/2 and 1 MA, what is net win, and so with the time people will become used to this system and will want not to make more than the necessary 2 children per family or one for a parent (providing that everybody can have children, what is not
the case for the moment, but in the future we will probably come pretty near to this point, say, 2.3 children per family will give 0 increase of the population -- now this is about 2.6). So that the idea is well thought and if experimented in some small state (there are such ones) may turn out that can be applied even after a pair of decades, and surely about the end of the century.
5. The Future
Ah, what I meant about the future, say, after 20 to 50 years, is that there is no necessity to live in big towns, the very gusto is to live amidst the nature, in some village (or also in the woods, on the bottom of the sea or big rivers, etc.). Yeah, and there will be village bordering with a village, what will mean … living around the streets
! This is one natural extrapolation, and I see no reasons why not to live in this manner. There can be some bigger places, towns, but not with sky-scrappers, and hardly with more than some tens of thousands of people. Why? Well, there are now more and more things dispersed, not agglomerated, maybe in some industries this is not so, but in most of them it is so, and if it is not yet, then this is the tendency. And take also into account that in the agriculture work about 5 to 10 % (in USA are given about 4 %), in the industry work probably about 10 – 15 % but I don't believe that more than this, and everything else are services, where is no necessity for exceeding agglomeration. Then there is the Internet, all children can already learn by Internet (and gather together, say, once in the week, in order to exercise some sporting activities). Then there are the solar batteries, they can be put everywhere, especially in hot places like African, or Asian (and other) deserts. And when there is found cheap energy source then there will sooner or later appear also water.
So that what I imagine are highways, and even not really broad, with 2 lines plus one emergency or for slow movement and stopping on both sides, and with dividing green line with some trees or just greenery, over which can be raised some solar batteries. On both sides are about 20 meters wide areas where are simply home to a home, two-storey, with vine plants in front, with greenhouses, immutable solar batteries above, with some fruit trees, even with some home animals, and wider are placed the fields with wheat or whatever, broad about pair of kilometers. One may work in the field, or in some nearby house (say, to have small local nursery, or medical center, or auto-repair one, or a bakery, et cetera, how it was long time ago). The bigger enterprises (with, still, rare more than 20 workers) will be in the nearby towns on a distance of about 20 km (i.e. on the average by 10 km in both sides, but be it even till 100 km), and this, with MAs and the greenhouses in the homes, will make no problems for decent and happy, mark this, life.
So this is, people, everything about my unique NAPUK party, which is in every aspect different or against all other classical parties and is summoned to become gravedigger of all parties, because its party members will not work for personal benefits but as priests or social workers. The idea is, ultimately to make people live like in some paradise, where they will have all necessary for one decent living, but also stimuli for personal development and will want to work for the others. Money will be used chiefly as measure of every thing, but not as means for exploitation, which will not disappear, but the preferable form of it will be self-exploitation. There are many questions that have to be told, the solution is dynamic, not once for always, but this is not something unachievable for the current stage of development of the society. Yet all this will be possible only after the ruling of our NAPUK party, because it may be thought as the last, but it is the first, meaning its necessity and importance!
If you want less bloodshed, if you want reasonable as possible ruling, if you want secure life for everybody, and interesting occupation, according to one's abilities, and enlivening of the already stagnated capitalism, you have to choose our NAPUK party, not necessary as member, but as follower.
June, 2018, Sofia, Bulgaria