EDIT: The ideas in this series have been updated and revised, HERE.
“Never collect any kind of interest on your money, or profit on the food you give.”
- Leviticus 25:37
Shevat is the Hebrew month (5th or 11th depending upon the calendar you use) which tends to fall in January or February in the Gregorian calendar. It is said that on the first day of Shevat in the year 2488, Moses began a public 37-day review of the Torah. After finishing on the 37th day, as if to emphasise that these were his final words on all theological matters, he died.
As far as dramatic statements of intent go, that’s a good story. Today – 25th January 2012 – is also the first day of Shevat. Not wanting to let a dramatic opportunity slip past, I have decided to clearly summarize the nature and intent of Zero State in a series of 37 statements, one per day, starting today. I’d rather not die when the series is completed on March 1st, if it can possibly be helped.
Seriously though, the story of Moses’ last 37 days caught my eye and strikes me as a remarkable coincidence because I already had it in mind that Zero State should be built upon a set of 25 principles and projects, plus a founding set of 12 already-established groups coming together to form a new goal-oriented community (part of my membership drive strategy for this year).
More specifically, this series of 37 posts will be structured as follows:
1 Goal:
8 Principles:
CHANGE
LIBERTY
CONSTRUCTION
ACTION
COMMUNITY
WORK
BALANCE
FOCUS
Plus 16 Projects & 12 founding Groups.
Collectively, I will refer to these as the 37 Pillars of Zero State.
1. GOAL
Since its inception eight months ago, there has been considerable discussion of what it means for ZS to be goal- and action-oriented, what ZS’ core meme is, and how that might relate to the word “Zero”.
We now understand that Zero refers to a total societal reset or renewal – a new beginning. A full-spectrum evaluation of what is good and bad in society, leading to development of the former, and abolition of the latter. Most notably, we believe in working toward the abolition of involuntary suffering by all means necessary. We also foresee a coming wave of technological change which will both make such renewal possible, and render null our ability to predict the future beyond that wave.
Zero State intends to gather together groups formerly seen as disparate, newly united by common agreement upon a set of good and fair basic principles, in order to create a greater, distributed community, and work on a local level around the world.
Together, these things constitute a common focus, trajectory, and method, but one last and most important thing is required: A single, clear, tractable and unifying goal. The goal must be our “big idea”. With one undisputed goal, a multitude of people with different ideas and approaches will still be working together, effectively, as one. Without such a goal, there is no movement, only chaos.
Our goal is REVOLUTION.
Opposition to revolution – to change – is defence of the status quo, so as the old saying goes; You’re either with us, or against us.
None of this should be taken to infer mindless aggression or adherence to any particular political point of view; it simply means that we intend to act vigorously as the agents of deep, global change.
In practical terms, our goal is to:
1) Create a system – compatible with our principles – by which any person anywhere in the world, any citizen of any State without exception, can access resources through the Zero State network. For example, a person who cannot get certain essential goods or services for lack of money should be able to find some kind of solution via ZS for free, or as close to free as possible. A person who is in some way oppressed by local law or tradition should be able to find support – and ideally liberation – through ZS-affiliated agents. In short, we aim to realise our principles and make the resultant benefits of Principled Community available to everyone, everywhere.
2) Act to have this system adopted and implemented by the European Union by all means necessary. ZS members whose sphere of personal influence is outside the EU should work to make local conditions more receptive to connecting to such a system – for the benefit of local people.
Our revolution is global, but centred in the European tradition of political liberation. We work to overcome those who would systematically limit, exploit, and oppress others. We fight to create an open State that exists beyond local control and limitation of every type.
- Amon Kalkin
Hi Amon.
This seems a bit vague. Also, you didn’t mention that we look forward to technological changes, that will change our world for the better. That seems an important idea, that you didn’t mention here. Should the 1 goal be to encourage and assist the technological changes that we hope are coming?
Hi Martin –
Did you miss this sentence:
“We also foresee a coming wave of technological change which will both make such renewal possible, and render null our ability to predict the future beyond that wave.”
?
I would call the post broad, not vague, and it is necessarily so because it attempts to encapsulate a would-be mass movement that incorporates multiple principles, projects, sub-goals, and concerns. Anything more specific would, by definition, be a sub-goal.
Your own statement, for example, about “changing the world for the better” is considerably more vague than my own. I’ve stated a single particular way in which it could be better – a network that works to ensure that no-one is cut off from the benefits of what are essentially unpredictable high technologies, and committed to achieving that goal.
So, yes, on the one hand it is extremely, extremely broad – as it must be. More specific subgoals will be discussed along with the 16 ZS projects. On the other hand this single “global goal” is much more specific and tractable than the usual transhumanist technology cheerleading, which doesn’t actually do anything.
Apologies if my response seems a bit strong, but this is a critical point.
p.s. Just another angle to address re: your comment – helping technology along is, of course, a laudable goal, but it is not a good in and of itself. Helping develop the newest shiniest weapons, for example, is not a highest goal that would appeal to a lot of people – especially if there is no statement in the same highest goal about who the weapons are to be used on.
Last but not least Martin (as I say, it’s an important question!), there is one clear sense in which yes, the blog post is vague – i.e. it lacks details of the system, what its specific functions might be, or its implementation via EU resources might work.
The reason for that is quite simple – none of those things have been decided yet. That’s really the substance of the work itself, rather than the goal of the work, and its details will come out of the work of the 16 projects and other initiatives. Onwards and Upwards!
One advantage of such ‘vagueness’ is that it preserves options. For example – someone said to me yesterday “so you plan on taking over the EU?”. Well, I can imagine *someone* ‘taking over’ the EU’s choice of policy direction if times get convulsive enough, but no, I never actually said that. Convincing incumbent EU politicians to enthusiastically adopt and thoroughly roll out the ZS system would technically satisfy our top goal.
Speaking of “broad”, I think that EU should be mostly intended as “European peoples” or “current and future political institutions in the European areas”.
Alas, I have very little residual confidence, if any, in the EU in the sense instead of “EU commission, council, parliament, officers, employees, BCE”. But, hey, one never knows, some revolutions takes place from the outside, some from the inside. Other times yet, old names continue to be used for things that have in fact become quite unrecognisable. So, let’s not make it an onomastic issue.
Hi Stefano – Yes, you’re absolutely right, this is a perfect example of how details can be perilous when defining a highest-level goal!
Let’s just say that you clearly understand what I’m getting at… a ‘revolution’ in the core functionality of Europe (rather than the “EU” or any other organization)… gathering together the resources of all the European nations (arguably at a low right now, admittedly) and making it a priority to extend influence in other areas, allowing individuals to connect to a resource-sharing system which doesn’t really care if the local government doesn’t like the idea. Put that way, it’s obviously and deeply controversial, but hey, revolutions generally are…
The main reason I’ve said ‘EU’ and will certainly continue doing so is that, for now, the EU is the single easiest way to connect politically with multiple European nations simultaneously.