Skoči do sadržaja

New revolution of economy


Petar Bosnić Petrus


Translated to English by Spomenka Vlašić

A new type of revolution

 Although, in the prior works/books I was often claimed that after the bourgeois revolution is not possible any more revolution, here I must admit/confess that this what I am offering, however is some kind of revolution, and, perhaps even the largest and most radical, in whole human history.

But unlike the previous ones, this new revolution would not shed a single tear, not one drop of blood or sweat, and not require, nor increase efforts in human activities.

This REVOLUTION OF ECONOMY also is the REVOLUTION of the THE REVOLUTION itself, because it was transformed, from an act of violence which destroys the order into a quiet, peaceful, beneficial preservation of true principles (common law) and all other goods which was created by the human race.

Few words about it.

Finally – after a systematic search which lasted from Plato to Marx, and to these days, therefore, after at least 2,400 years – I think I managed to discover that so much demanded/required and desired new, form of ownership, which is significantly/substantially more functional, more equitable/fairer and more productive than the previous ones.

It is not, of course, any new variant of private or social ownership, but about something completely different and new.

Changes that would be caused by the introduction/establishment and use of this new form of ownership would just like a pleasant, quick and happy recovery after a long and serious illness.

Illness of which mankind has indeed suffered in the last ten thousand years.

In a few years it would radically changed people’s lives – facilitate it, enriched and made much more comfortable and safer. And nature could breathe easily, because these changes would save it from further deteriorating.

Sounds like some naivety, utopia, or giving false hope???


But you will realize very soon that I am talking about the inevitable reality that is tough and stringent as necessity and which is nothing else but necessity itself.

Practical goal

The task of this paper is to be a type of guide for future political and economic practice and to make this practice as productive as possible. In order to make this practice truly easier and more productive, I had to show the whole truth on which elements it is founded and that was not possible without the introduction of some newspapers to facilitate in the understanding of these elements: man, society, politics, civilization, and the meaning and goals of human activities etc. The material which I am putting forward is not too complicated. Nevertheless, in order for the reader to fully comprehend it, I wish to firstly and shortly submit the contents of these new terms.

Here are a few introductory notes concerning these new terms.

Man – exists most completely as a species, a human species, not as a famous “versatile, educated, and developed individual.” (Marx) A species is the most versatile, infinite, that is, immortal form of a being’s existence. Petrus says that the human species is an ontogenic one – able to create something – beingfull (beingness). (From the Greek – ontos on – being and genesis – creation). The ontogenic ability is the divine part in humans. According to the religious, as well as some philosophical beliefs, only God can create something beinglike (beingfull), a (natural) being, (nature) at all (inasmuch as it is not eternal). Petrus thinks that the human species is also able to create something being-like or beingfull – able to create an artificial being. Because of it, he says that human species is an ontogenic one.

Unlike other live species, whose sole aim is pure biological survivval, the human species has metabiological and transempirical goals and the (artificial) being which it created should serve as an indispensable being-like (beingfull) means for its realization.

Petrus suggests that a being, is “something” autopoietic, that is, “something which is able to move itself” (Aristotle) and something which has the power to self develop and the ability to have an infinite long-lasting self maintenance, through the development of its own species, since a species is the most perfect and infinite aspect of the existence of a being – an actualized idea. That which cannot create its own species, or, which does not exist as a species is not a real being but some kind of defect or mere case, a coincidence.

Infinite existence is achieved by generating new generations and replacing old ones.

(Regarding the human species, generations need to be treated as extremely important societal, economic, and legal entities.)

Simple things have no power of self development. Species which are able to create various things – species such as beavers, birds, bees, spiders . . . – are not ontogenic but rather hrematogenic (also from the Ancient Greek: hremathing and genesiscreation.)

Unlike God, who – as was already mentioned, according to religious beliefs and some philosophical thoughts – created a natural being, nature, (inasmuch as this one is not eternal) – unlike God, therefore, man creates an artificial being – “something” that, as was already mentioned, needs to serve as a medium for the human’s freedom and realization of human species’ ultimate metabiologic and transempiric goals.

Some goals included are: a lasting, eternal, safe, and free survival in a part of the galaxy or even in a wider range. The home planets with their beautiful, tame, and live environments are only a temporary residence for the ontogenic species while they are still immature and not ready to survive in space. The lasting, adequate residence of mature ontogenic species is in the interstellar space.

History is an ontogenic process – a process of creating an artificial being. It started tens of thousands of years ago and was successfully finished during the last few centuries.

Throughout whole history, the ontogenic tendencies clashed with the conservative ontoklastic ones, and have therefore hindered the achievement of history’s objectives as well as those ultimate goals of the human species.

An artificial being which was history’s goal, is well known by its name – capital. The immediate root and means of its creation and development are the human’s creative and reproductive work. Levels of its development are: 1. Thesis – money, 2. Antithesis – technique, 3. Synthesis – science, 4. Epithesis – technology which is just a reproduced shape of science, an applied science.

A mature, totally developed shape of capital is science, and technology is its type of self maintenance and means of epitetic or evolutive self development. Capital, or in other words, science is actually a self-conscious artificial being which knows its own character and its own point, such as the fact that it was created by the ontogenic spirit of human species.

Society is the artificial organism, of an artificial being, and politics is its mute will (the “Volonte generale”, Rousseau), for survival and self development a will which various charismatic individuals or nations lead to self conscious and reality – but more about it later.

The Right or Common law is an exteriorised/externalised will of the human species in a form of method of self-organization, self-motivation and self-forcing (self-coercion) of species into action which leads to a certain type of realization of its goals. The Right (common law) includes: things, people, relations and activities – Lat: res, personae, relationes and factiones.

The fundamental addresser of the common law is the human species, but it is also the addressee which is subjected to the positive legal norms.

A state is nothing more than a fully actualized right, (a common law), (law). With the establishment of a state, the right also receives an indispensable power of coercion.

Why the coercion?

Here’s why.

A large number of people, the vast majority of people know what they should do and how to do something quite well, but they do not feel like it, it is difficult for them, exhausting, they are static, as well as capricious, etc. Their inactivity or a much easier and more comfortable, wrong, destructive or useless activity would question the meaning of the human species’ effort/exertion as well as the meaning of their survival.

Therefore, it is necessary that there be an instrument, by which the human species, through punishment and similar methods, all, or at least the vast majority of its members can coerce to activity that achieves its objectives.

As can be seen, and as previously mentioned, this “instrument of coercion” is actually an instrument of self-coercion human species.

But let’s move on.

Hence, the human species (and not any nation or race) is, the source, addresser and addressee, of common law, and since the common law is an isntrument and method by which just human species achieves its aims, and, furthermore for the reason of equality of all people, nations and races, the entire species should live in only one global or world state.

One species, one planet, one law, the same measure for all!

It is the optimal requirement, as well as, the minimal amount of necessary functionality of the human species in its serious efforts to actualize its ultimate goals, and indispensable condition for true justice for individuals, nations and races.

Souvereignty – Since the human species is fundamental addresser of common law, as stated above and since the common law is an instrument and method by which just species realises its aims, no one except the human species can be the original holder of sovereignty – not the individual, the nation, or the race.

Ethics – as it is known is the science of morality and morals are a system of norms which suggest that which contributes to the realization of species’ goals and condemns that which prevents or disrupts its realization.

All of which contributes to the realization of said goals is good and all which prevents or disrupts its realization is bad.

Justice occurs when everyone is rewarded proportionally to magnitude and importance of him contributions for the realization of the species’ goals, and is punished according to the damage or any evil committed. This interpretation of justice relates to individuals, groups, classes, nations, societies, races, generations, and all other subjects which constitute a society or a species.

In order for all the mentioned subjects could truly participate in justice, it is necessary for all of them to be subjected by the same laws because only there where everyone is measured by the same measure, i. e the same laws, is it possible that all individuals, nations, and races be justly rewarded.

That is also one of the key reasons for the establishment of a new state.

Here is another one which was already noticed by the great legal (Common law) theorists of the previous century.

In today’s situation, in the field of international common law, all legal persons, groups, states having the same capacitates agendesthe same capacity to act , all of them, however have unequal capacitates iuridicaeunequal rights.

Instead of “equal chances,” therefore, we start off by unequal ones.

That is injustice from the onset.

It is not only about the injustice, but also about the de-motivation and legal, commercial, and existential insecurity, which in a great measure blocks the productive human capacity, and favors those corrupt and harmful social subjects.

Global state and global legal system should free us from the evil

Moral imperative – do achieve your own goals and interests, but achieve them exclusiveli in a way which, at the same time contributes to the realisation of the human specie’s goals.


This imperative is valid for all human subjects, beginning with an individual to a nation, group, class, race, or generation.

Property – a man’s own identity outside of his skin.

Ownership – Ius abutendi , ius utendi and ius fruendi – basic relation and basic rights in regard to the matter of property.

To this three groups,  I added fourth – ius gubernandi. It is fundation of artificial owner

Apart from the traditional form of private ownership, which is based on the owning of the live owner, we are familiar with the so-called public ownership, which ended poorly. No, there is more.

We believe that we can also talk about something we call the artificial private owner. That is possibly the most important issue in this whole debate. Everything we know about ownership suggests that the artificial owner, when and if it is established, will be a synthesis, that is, will be the result of the development of the institution of ownership. We will talk about this in more detail later on.

I hope that what was mentioned thus far was not too intense and that in the words above some kind of truth can be recognized, or sense at least.

Let us take a small and somewhat easier step forward


What is society?

You are probably familiar with the fact that the founders of sociology defined society as an organism, super organism, or a mega organism. This understanding is very close to the truth because the inner structure of society is very similar to the structure of a highly developed live organism, but this kind of understanding of society has one major deficiency.

An organism is a natural, live, biological entity whereas a society is an artificial one, being-like (Beingfull) – but an inanimate creation.

In previous books, I have already stated that society is one of the fundamental elements of an artificial being (its spine or skeleton) and that it is actually the artificial organism which carries it.

Society is, therefore, an artificial organism.


The differences between an artificial and a live, natural organism could be defined in the following way:

A live organism is based on natural, biological laws whereas an artificial one is based on laws which are a direct antithesis of nature – on the laws of self maintenance and the spirit of being aware of itself and its activities – conscious, purposeful activities of the human species.

A live organism is the means and the end of its survival, but the artificial one is only the means of the realization of certain goals outside of it – metabiological and transempirical goals of human species.

A living organism survives guided by instinct, and an artificial one – by politics.

The key parts of a live organism – the bodies parts which manage it – are alive as well. The parts are not live in an artificial organism; they have an artificial nature and are of spiritual origin. They are: laws, customs, morals, institutions, etc. The only live elements of the artificial organism are human individuals.

Society should not identify itself with the species.

Society as well as the species is a collective entity. They differentiate from one another in that the species consists of biological and functional sameness of individuals, who live together and in groups – in a physical contingency – mostly for the sake of procreation and preservation of the offspring, while society consists of the biological sameness but functionally and significantly different individuals and groups. The functional differences between them, as is already known, arose from the division of labor. Members of society are not simply gathered into a mechanical group, as members of the species, but are functionally related to each other and can live and work at great distances from each other. (E. Durkheim)

Human species, as mentioned before, maintains itself based on its instincts, while society based on politics.

The human species transforms itself into a human society when instinct is exchanged with politics, and, of course, by laws. Ubi societas ibi iusWhere is society there is also common law. Unlike other familiar species, aside from the fact that they are ontogenic ones, the human species is also politogenic or sociogenic – able to create society – an artificial organism.

The species’ goal, (or goal of some of) its parts, groups, herds, or packs) is its biological survival whereas society’s goal is something super biological and super historical – freedom or “salvation” or something that is similar to that, but up to the our time we have trouble to understand what it truly is.

Aristotle had already asserted that a state is formed to give its members an easier life, make them happier, more moral, etc.  That completely goes for a society as well. To that we need to add something which is crucial, or even of fateful importance and something which Aristotle did not mention:

that the key reason for the formation of society, as well as a state, is that it serves as a being-like political or organizational means for the realization of those super biological and super historical or trans empirical goals of the human species.

All societies and states aspire for and need to aspire for a realization of their own goals, but those that realize their goals and interests in a way which is giving the most important contributions for the realization of the species’ goals become powerful, wealthy, prominent and long lasting.

I believe this is something we need to remember well.

The historical process of development of society is nothing more than the process through which people try to make it sufficient meaningful in order to achieve those goals.

Society’s immediate foundation is the functional or serving a purpose/ purposeful relations between individuals, groups, classes, etc. These relations are established and maintained by using laws, customs, institutions, and other similar means. There are two types of these relations. The first are immediate interpersonal relationships, and those others which are of greater importance to us, are mediated by ownership. The expediency (functionality, productivity) of the second depends mostly on whether a society will be prosperous, fair, rich, long-term, etc.

The chore of discovering new, more purposeful relations of these second kinds is the task of politics and politicians, but also of lawyers and legislators. By discovering those relationships and successful persuading people to get involved in them, they gradually improve human society – an artificial organism.

In the book “Introduction to Political Science,” I have defined politics as the mute will of the artificial organism. Politicians are those (people) who can decrypt this mute will and make it clearer, thus achieve its internal aspiration towards development.

This “mute will” is somewhat of an analog to Rousseau’s “volonte generale”, which is often interpreted as the will of the majority. Still, that is not completely justifiable because this mute will or “volonte generale” usually leads us to words such as of a lonely, insightful, or charismatic person, and then later, when it ceases to be pure will, that is, when it gets serious in life’s social practices as a custom or law, only then it becomes the property or “will” of the majority.

I have defined political activity, as the ability to create, establish and maintain new, but also dismissing decrepit, dysfunctional forms and institutions of the artificial organism.

The key issue and problem in this political work is:

How to bring individuals, groups, or classes into a relationship of such dependence of ownership in which their lives would depend on how efficiently they care for it, since it is specific that human life is based precisely on the care of its ownership. Man is, amongst other things, a kind who cares for itself – a self-insuring species.

The best and most purposeful relationships are the ones which motivate people to take care of their own property.

The first major and fundamental discovery in this field, the field of politics, has been the discovery of private-ownership relationships. According to it, people who successfully take care of their ownership are rewarded a good life, and those who do not care about their ownership are punished by poverty, or failure.

The establishment of private-ownership relations brought the introduction of elementary justice into this world.

An equally important or perhaps an even more important discovery was the following:

How to lead some individuals or groups into such a relationship with their property through which they would realize their own interests by doing something good for other members of society, i.e., by satisfying some of their needs? Achieving self-interest in a way that can simultaneously realize the goals of the society and the species’ goals is a CONDITO SINE QUA NON of each society.

In the book “Croatian Testament” I explained the exact issue in these words:

“All of us, as considered by this work, that is, in the “Testament”, strive exclusively towards achieving our own goals. This is totally natural. However, we feel that the good and great ones among us are those who fulfill their own goals in a way that also leads to the realization of the group’s, societies, or species’ objectives. This is the “categorical imperative” of every true political and social activity.

Today, I do not think any differently, but let us get back to one more concrete aspect of this theme.

The development of society


The progress in the development of society consisted in the discovery of relationships which were, in the most refined and painless ways, motivated people more and more to care for ownership, as well as for an even greater number of fundamental social classes, respectively, fundamental societal subjects slip into a motivational relationship (in the field of caring about ownership) and in that way make them productive.

Why is this, motivational relationship so important?

The point is in the following: If one works exclusively/solely on the basis of commands or coercion, then one does not work for oneself or one’s own benefit, but rather for those who are in command. Yet, if one is righteously rewarded for their work, one will then be motivated to work even better. By being fairly rewarded, one works for oneself and one’s well-being, even when performing a task given by an employer with whom he can even be in hostile or antagonistic relationship, in which, for example, those “workers and capitalists” of Marx were. It is almost redundant to state that the one who works for themselves and their own benefit will work better and longer than someone who is forced to work and toil for the good of others.

Here is one short representation of the development/evolution of human society, which I have used in my books “Apocalypse” and “Introduction to Political Science,” as well as in others.

The development occurs through four stages, or those four dialectical developmental stages. They are:

  1. Thesis    –     Neolithic community
  2. Antithesis    –     slavery and feudalism
  3. Synthesis    –     civil/ bourgeois society;
  4. Epithesis    –     future logokratic or nomokratic or even an antropotehnologic society?

Sociologists and anthropologists usually call these stages of society’s development, global societies.

To ensure brevity and clarity, we will introduce / present society by using a triangle whose peaks: A, B, C represent key societal subjects. Peak A represents the subject who manages society – the ruler, authority, or the administration; Peak B represents the owner of basic, productive (capital) material goods, and Peak C the subject who works, toils, or labors. The circle in the middle of the triangle, P. represents ownership, a general productive society’s property – Proprietas –property.

  1. Neolithic community – its – joint / common – ownership, P is nature, the fertile natural environment. Since no one can influence the increase or decrease of the environment’s fertility, no one needs to care for it. The survival of the Neolithic community is based on the capability of nature taking care of itself – it sustains/maintains life in people and animals by its byproducts. Society’s subjects: A, B, and C are not strictly or clearly distinguished from each other.
  1. Slavery occurs through a long-lasting revolution (epochal crisis), which converts joint ownership into a private one. In a slavery society, only subject B, the slave owner – who was also a private owner of various kinds of basic material or capital goods which belong in the P circle – therefore, he was the only one who was motivated to care about ownership and specific (managerial) activity. Subject C, a slave is not the owner of anything and was not motivated to work, but forced. Subject A, the ruler, in a matter of principle, was not the owner of anything which belonged in circle P, but he was, unlike the slave, totally free – and was not forced nor motivated to work or care for the state.

From there we have a large number of poor and such a small number of good rulers and powerful states.

  1. Bourgeois / civil Society – Subject C, slave was drawn into the circle of the motivated individuals. It transformed the unmotivated slave, into a motivated worker. Among other things, the Bourgeois society also gave him political freedom and made him a private owner of his working capacity/power.

Subject A, the authority and the entire administration was left without basic / capital ownership as well as outside of the circle of the motivated ones.  (Take a look at the excellent Weber description of the onset of the modern administration.)

And now: an interruption, a stop, and an unpleasant note – a mild slap to the civil society.


During the second half of the 20th century, something very awkward began to happen in the civil/bourgeois society. A complexity in the management of capital, especially with large capital, made it impossible for the capital owner or the capitalists to manage it, so they gave their authority into the hands of managers, who were trained to do just that.

The transfer of the managerial function from the capitalist to that of a manager was not established by laws which would make the managers existence (like the existence of capitalists, owners of capital), dependent on the efficiency of his management, so the managers realized soon enough that the easiest way to get rich was to neglect and destroy the capital which they were controlling.

In spite of the high increase in the efficiency of technology production, in the second half of the 20th c., the result was a large decrease in the efficiency of world business/economy, the growth of poverty, and the appearance of large debts which increased multiple times from 1960 to 2012. By the end of 2012, the total debt of the human species totaled a little less than 70 thousand billion dollars. Every new member of the human species, at birth, is already in debt by something less than 10,000 dollars.

How was that debt interpreted?

Quite simply!  It was interpreted as an increase in poverty. The lives of today’s people are more difficult, insecure, and poorer from the ones which existed as reasonable expectations and hopes, which took into account the rapid and comprehensive development of production technology and quite reasonably anticipated a significant improvement and relief for human life. We live worse today due to our irresponsible ancestors, who died without returning what they took from us. By living in the way we are living, we are also robbing from our own descendants.

Having hoped for improvement as well as the inclusion of subject A into the circle of motivated people, the complete opposite happened.

And now, let us stop the bashing of bourgeois/civil society because we must acknowledge that we also deserved those bashes because of our non-critical and reckless belief in some kind of necessary and conflict-free continuity of historical and societal progress.

We should have been aware that human society is not an ontologic and -deterministic one but a deontologic world in which there always exists the possibility for this kind of societal excess and regression by which – in a highly developed civilization and in developed civil/burgeois societies, as in the ones of slavery, we notice that a result can happen where only one societal subject remains – subject C, the worker – who will be motivated for the preservation and development of capital human property, P which employees and feeds the whole world . . .

The other two, key subjects; which make up the displayed that triangle – the one who controls the economy, B, and the one who controls the whole society, A, could  care less about the progress of the economy or  society.

The matters stand even worse, because the only motivated subject, subject C – the worker – unfortunately has no real influence in managing the economy, and, as a regular citizen or voter, has no any real influence on the management of society. People all around the world have noticed that they are powerless and helpless and that they are not the masters of their own destinies.

The influence of the Masons conspiracy, the Elders of Zion, the Templars, the Illuminates, Bankers, and other similar subjects and their malicious activities have been used as attempts to “explain” the poor living conditions.  Intellect/ reason/mind, if there is any, tries to resist with all its strength in figuring out what the problem is. It prefers, so to speak, to accept a millimeter of an apparent explanation, even if it be a lie, illusion, or antic, rather than kilometers of truth.

Things are so bad that I ask myself, for whom am I even writing this paper for.

Let us be a bit more precise.

We do not wish to claim that all managers are bad or that they are all cheaters. The majority are honest and hardworking people.

As an example, I wish to ask you;

What can do one family consisting of one hundred hardworking and thrifty members accomplish, if one of them is an alcoholic or gambler who is able to spend everything in only one night which took the other 99 members one hundred years to create?

When this problem is looked at from a different angle more closely, thanks to inadequate legislation, one can notice that those hardworking, honest, and talented managers work for the benefit of the cheaters. Unfortunately, the same thing happens with societal or administrative management, that is, the so-called politicians and statesmen.

The bad workers have it better when the good ones work mor  successfully.

Being that there is no meaningful or purposeful reaction to this unexpected and fast recourse, decline, a true decline, it is logical to expect that general poverty will deepen and problems increase. That is a disease which cannot be cured by the creation of political or trade unions as it is being attempted, but can only be remedied by the reconstruction or reform of the legal foundation of Burgeois society.

What is the point of having ten poor people create a trade union if they have nothing to trade with?

What is the point of a joint state, federation, or union if it is not more efficient and more economical than the ones of the little countries which already exist, but may even be more expensive and uneconomical?

Is it worthwhile – whether by war or political shrewdness – seizing the territory of other countries, if their debts are larger than the value of the conquered states, and will have to eventually be repaid by the conquerors, new rulers?

Conquering or co-optioning such states is similar to purchasing those huge companies which are sold for one dollar, which are not interesting to anyone since they must take over the company’s fantastic debts.

So much for values and the actual dysfunction of burgeois society and the attempts to remove them – we continue to move on with the hopes that history will slowly follow.

Therefore, if you haven’t fallen asleep yet, we return to society’s general development.


Therefore, we continue.

  1. A Logokratic or nomokratic society or antropotehnological civilization.

This society, within the circle of the motivated should return the renegade managers who manage the economy (as well as the owners themselves who manage their own companies) and bring into that circle subject A, that is, the administration and the politicians — the authorities.

The first one mentioned could be done through the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity, and the other by some other law as is the “Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administrative Activities and Authorities.”  (Both laws are exhibited in the subsequent text.)  These laws would make it impossible for managers to cheat, and those in the administration and power would lose the possibility “to use other people’s money without having any care or responsibility,” or as economists would say, and motivated it, and at the same time, forced it to realize its own interests solely by efficiently caring for the progress and welfare of the society.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, here we have the triangulus magicusthe magical triangle.

By the establishment of the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity (and the capital owner) and the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administrative Activities and Authorities, all three key societal subjects A, B, and C, that is, Ruler, the owner of the capital societal goods and its manager, as well as the worker would finally be placed in the motivational relationship toward the development of productive or capital property, P. of society.

By the establishment of these laws, the managers, administration, and authority would finally enter into such a relationship toward society in which wealth, reputation, life comfort, the length of their power mandate, job security as well as other things – would become dependent on how effectively they care for the welfare of the economy and society.

So much about this topic.

The following is very important to point out and always keep in mind.

This is what it is all about.

A modern administration, despite the myths which circulate it, does not have an adequate reputation nor has it got a life standard such as it should have. It is not paid – not even by a long shot –  sufficiently when it controls well nor does it have restrictions when it controls poorly and even does harm.  Being that it is not motivated, but exclusively forced to work, it is normal and natural that it is more prone to malingering, obstructions, and unsatisfactory work rather than outstanding work.


The administration tries to free itself from its poor, slave position by organizing massive strikes and obstruction of its work. It seems to be in vain, a futile struggle, whose result is that it is in an even worse position and has received a bad reputation, and all members of the society now live worse than ever.

The administration’s salvation lies in the struggle to get some kind of law, such as the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administrative Activities and Authorities is.

That law is an instrument for its liberation, and at the same time, an instrument for the general progress of society.

The logokratic or nomokratic society, as the name itself suggests, would be based on the rule of specific laws – Greek: logos or nomos. Those laws are actually like the ones of Argus Panoptes, “guardsmen overlooking the guardians of democracy, legality and justice” (G. Radbruch). Their rule, as the reader will soon discover is no new rule at all, but only a totally developed epitetical feature of a liberal burgeois democracy, a feature which helps it to permanently maintain itself as a productive, progresive and humane method of ruling society.

By the establishment of the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity but especially the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administrative Activities and Authorities, an artificial private owner would be set up on the level of the whole society, respectively, on the national capital. With that, the artificial being would be enabled – just like the natural being, nature – to take care of itself and its further development and with its products it would satisfy human species’ needs and maintain it while it maintains its life and freedom, as well as realizing its ultimate goals.

That is the one which all of human history strived for.


One question remains, who will lead further development?

The answer is short – consumption and the market.

Human consumption is, namely, the tasting of products of the artificial being.  That determines in which direction the artificial being needs to develop its products in order to totally and refinely satisfy man’s needs. In order for humans to give, through their consumption of products, accurate dictates to the artificial being about the direction in which it must develop its products, the consumption must be quite high, massive, and diverse.

Further. The market is an institution which besides its well-known activity – the exchange and pricing of goods – grades the quality of methods used in producing the goods which were placed on the market. In order to explain this better, I will use one of my old examples.

“Two people bring the same amount of wheat and of the same quality to market and both sell it for the same amount, an average price, for example, for 1M USD on the market.”

One of them incurred a cost of 1.2M USD for that wheat which caused the man to go home with a $200,000 loss and he will not return to the market. The other one, using much better methods thereby costing him only $800,000 went home with gains of $200,000 and will return to the market again.

“The market does not only evaluate the value of the product which we bring to the market, but that which we left home as well.”

That is the judgemental and selective strength of the artificial being – an institution in which the most important function is that to protect and reward those individuals who realize their goals in such a way that in doing so, they realize the goals of the human species at the same time, and punishes and obliterates those who acieve their own goals by getting the way by which the society or species can not achieve its goals.

You will not find this kind of understanding of consumption and the market in economy textbooks, but if you wish to understand the real importance of this phenomenon and live in such a way which could lead to the realization of the goals of the human species at the same time, memorize them and always keep them in mind.

Do we need to mention that massive consumption and/or massive production should not devastate the environment?


Additional reasons for establishing Global state.

But why do we need Right and laws equally applicable to the whole world?

Here’s an hypotetical example that will answer that question.

Let’s suppose that some country establishs very good laws that protect nature. Let’s also suppose that these laws are valid and respected only in this country, and, in additional, that other countries do not care about nature and waste it.

What will happen?

Nature’s protection costs a lot. It increases production costs and reduces competitiveness of mentioned good and honest country.

Because of it, the good country, that respects such, good laws, could collapse. It would be ruined just by its respect and life in accordance with good laws.

In opposite to that country, those countries that are not respecting such good laws and are damaging the nature, those countries, therefore, would go well. Moreover, it would even be enriched

It would be a large injustice.

Let’s now suppose that those good laws were global laws which would be equally applicable to all local states in the world. In such case, nature would be preserved, and all countries would be well too. In additional, in this, second case, it could not be possible that bad countries were rewarded and passing well, and good countries or states were punished and collapse, just as really is in a case in which good laws are valid only in one or several countries.

But that good laws which have to be valid to the whole world is possible to apply only by Global State. Those new laws are the root of the solution of problem that are threatening to nations and species. Global State is capable instrument to motivate and coerce all nations to respect and hold those good laws, or Global, ecumenical Right. In additional, only Global state could punish some national state if it is not holding that Right.

Therefore, we have to start with the rule:

One species, One Planet, One Law, the same measure for all!

This is also important in regard to achiveing distributive justice.

Because only if the merits of each of all countries, or some other subject, are measured by the same measure, it is possible correctly determine who has made and gave a bigger and more important contribution to achieving the goals of the species. Only in that way can be determined a fair reward for each contribution. So much about additional reasons for establishing of Global state.

We have already mentioned that the artificial owner is the most important object in this discussion, but what is this “artificial or virtual private owner actually? ”

Of course, we are not talking about some new kind of robot.  An artificial owner occurs when these kinds of laws such as the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity and the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Authorities replaces the natural interest of a live capital owner with an artificial one. By establishment of those laws, capital became owner of itself – an artificial owner.

An artificially created interest has a notable advantage over the natural interest of a live owner. Correctly speaking, the word “ interest” here means a desire for wealth /richness/fortune. The creation of  an “artificial interest” is actually an embedding/incorporation/integration of a “desire for getting wealthy” into capital alone. That artificial “desire for getting wealthy” enables it to guard it by itself (even from its owners, managers and workers who happily robbing it whenever possible). Further, artificial interest enables capital that constantly increases, enhances itself, hires/employs new workers, makes their work much easier, etc.

Why does an artificial private owner need to arise?

Contrary to the utopian-oriented thinkers and the thoughts of ordinary people, who mostly look upon ownership with longing and envy, I must first point out that ownership does not solely consist of delights and enjoyment but more of concerns, headaches, fears, restlessness, day in and day out work on the supervision of the property, and then again: concern, fears, nightmares and restlessness, from which even the wealthiest and most powerful capital owners cannot free themselves from – except in death. The frustrations which ownership creates over great fortunes/wealth are at times higher than the ones created in great misery.

Those who do not believe me – a scientist and theorist – can ask any owner who has a considerable amount of capital about this.

The development of ownership, which I spoke about in the economic documents/writings, evolved from a longing for the unpleasant aspects of ownership to be removed or at least to be lessened somewhat. At the end, that resulted in the creation of an “artificial interest” and an artificial private owner in my works. An artificial private owner can take over a great portion of the work and concerns regarding property (capital) and perform it better and faster than a live owner, eliminating the frustrations which the live owner goes through, and it cannot have a heart attack or end up in a madhouse either.

The second important reason why the artificial private owner was created lies in ever-growing complexity of ownership. As we have previously shown, already in the past century, it became so complex and difficult that even in the most developed countries in the world, especially due to that complexity and intricacy, there was a decline/fall in interest in the ownership of capital, which resulted in the decline/fall of income of ownership over it. Income passed from the owner’s hands into the hands of the employees, especially to layer/stratum of management, who were trained to manage it. Those facts which every economist knows about, was also the main reason that in the legislations of these countries and after WWII, the artificial private owner began developing in a rudimentary form. For many years, I studied those occurrences/phenomena and worked on laws which would enable to establish total / complete artificial owner.

We are not only talking about problems which traditional/customary form of private ownership creates in their daily business, economic, and political sphere. The problem is much greater because the existing/customary forms of private ownership are not sufficiently functional, nor purposeful (serving-to-purpose) for the realization of the species’ goals.

This weakness in private ownership was noticed even by Plato. He requested the establishment of a social ownership, which he believed would be more functional. His request, or idea, was presented in his extensive dialog Država – Πολϊεία. Aristotle was opposed to that idea asserting that the social ownership would soon fail because no one would care for capital property. Two and a half thousand years later, the societal and political practice, which culminated in the communist movement – which Marx himself correctly proclaimed to be Lord Provost – definitely and undeniably proved that Aristotle was totally right in his assertions. At the urging of Marx, numerous countries which based themselves on social ownership, failed precisely because they were not cared for its property. (Nobody wanted to care for it.)

Paradoxically, Plato also was right. True one was his incomplete conscious assumption that the existing forms of private ownership are not fully purposeful for the realization of man’s/ human species’ crucial goals.

The adequacy of Plato’s assumption or him doubt in the sufficient functionality of customary forms of  private ownership was affirmed by societal and political practice through numerous movements which happened during the past two and a half thousand years and strived for/to the elimination of the private but also the establishment of the social ownership. We have already mentioned numerous times that those movements culminated in communism. We must keep in mind that these movements would never have shown up had the existing forms of private ownership been sufficiently functional for the realization of the human species’ goals.

This work gives credence, i.e., acknowledgement to the truth of Plato’s foreboding of the insufficient adequacy of the existing forms of private ownership, as well as Aristotle’s criticism of the idea of social ownership.

But, their opinions are antinomical ones.

Opposites: private and social cancel out one another, as well as themselves.

Since no deeper or broader understanding of ownership existed, that antinomity, respectively, antinomy: private vs. social, (unfortunately), inevitably became the grounds for man’s understanding of ownership. Its apparent unsolvability became unbridgeable dam to the further development of society. This work reveals that the solution of this antinomy, which for the past two and a half thousand years, has been surrounded by an aura of unquestionable unsolvabillity – untouched lies in the basis of human views concerning ownership – this work, therefore, attempts to reveal that the solution of that antinomy actually exist and that it consists in the creation of an artificial private owner, or merely an artificial owner.

A long time ago, I mentioned in several places that this, artificial owner will achieve much more than traditional/customary private ownership which we have today, but also much more than was dreamed of by the proponents of social ownership as well, as, among them, some of the greatest thinkers, reformists, and artists which humanity gave us.

So much for the business, i.e., economic and political – that is, ontogenical and politogenical problems which pointed out to the necessity of drawing up these laws, which are in the texts that follow.



Article 1

This law permits two separate kinds of owners to exist. The first one is the live private owner, in other words a person, an individual, and the other one is an artificial one. That “artificial owner is actually the capital, which by the adoption of this law transforms itself into a legal entity, which is the owner of itself. Both kinds of owners: live, natural and artificial – which are represented in legal transactions by a manager or the user of ownership rights/function – they have the same equal rights by law, and the freedom to enter into all possible business relationships, which are not contrary to the provisions of this law. Ownership of both kinds is exclusive and inviolable – private.

Reference 1

Capital –  in the form of business/firm/enterprisewhich is its key, productive, way of appearing – has been functioning as a legal entity for a long time. (As already mentioned, a business/firm is nothing more than a legal entity.) That is nothing new. The real and very important news is that now – through this law – to this legal entity is given some qualities of a live person. That quality is already mentioned desire of acquiring wealth, i.e., an inner tendency to self improvement and self enlargement, which also controls it from squandering money and protects it’s substance from unscrupulous live individuals which comes into contact with. That is a radical turning point in the improvement of a legal entity, where capital, or in other words, a business/firm gives it independence from a live owner, as well as one essential advantage above all up to now, lower, less developed forms of capital existing in form of legal entities.

A fact that is commonly known is that a live private owner relates to its property on the basis of its own subjective will. It is also known how the other side relates to the owner but we will not delve into that here. The subject of this law is the will of the artificial owner and its relationship toward itself as the property and toward live individuals with whom it has some sort of business or working relationship with. This law is, therefore, an expression of the will and lawful interests of the artificial owner.

Inasmuch as it could not be determined in a different way, this law would be related to businesses/firms which are state owned, the so-called public businesses, mixed companies, corporations, etc. and would not necessarily have to be related to those businesses which already have or will have a personal private owner (an individual) inasmuch as that owner is willing to waste his time with work which would usually be done by an artificial owner.

Article 2

Capital, is an exclusive and inalienable owner of all rights (functions) in relation to itself, i.e., in relation to itself as its property. Those rights (functions) – the right to work, the right to manage companies and having rights to business turnover – are leased out to live individuals under the conditions which are stipulated by this law.

As soon as a live individual ceases to fullfil the stipulated conditions, they automatically lose the right for further use of the leased rights (functions). Any using these functions/rights which are not based on the fullfilment of the stipulated conditions, is a crime or offense.


Article 3

The function and title of the national financial capital owner, the national capital is leased, for example: to a bank’s or investment funds, in other words, to individuals who are employed as investors.

Article 4

The purpose of investing is to gain profit.

Article 5

Individuals who are employed as investors (managers II and managers III – see table) have the right to use that function so far as that quotient of productivity of capital (QPC) with which they are disposing with, is not lower than, for example: 2.

Article 6

The size of the income for the people employed as investors, in other words, the users of the ownership function, is regulated by the table (price list of working hours) by the same principle by which the income is determined for the rest of the employees, that is, the type of workforce/workers.

Article 7

Every company is obliged to deposit its net profit into the investment fund or the bank which established it, or if it came into the function as its owner in some other legal way.

Article 8

The manager who controls the company has the right, whenever the need arises, to use the whole amount which his company deposited into the investment bank.


Article 9

Every form of capital can freely be sold or bought.

Article 10

The most that a controlling manager can sell, for example, is 60% of the company’s value, or all except the so-called – ideal part.

Article 11

The whole company may be sold only by the one who functions as its owner – the actual user of the ownership function, in other words, the titular.



Article 12

The general prices rate (prices of working hour) depends on the production expenses of the workforce and it is proportional to it.

Article 13

The price rate (prices of working hours) for employees depends on their qualifications and the quotient of capital productivity (QPC) which employs them.

Article 14

QPC is calculated in such a way that the market profit (realization) is divided by the total production expenses of those goods sold.

Market profit $300

QPC=    ————————————-,    QPC = 3

Production expenses $100

Article 15

The price rate (prices list of working hours) for all types of qualifications and for all QPC’s, from the least allowed/assigned to the highest possible, is issued by the authorized state authority in the form of the following table, which shows the price rate of work hours for the range of the QPC from 1 to 10. The QPC is expressed in whole numbers and the values on the table and the relations between them are not real but are simplified.


QPC quotient of productivity of capital.

 NQ, Q, HQ : no qualification, qualification and High qualification

MNG means manager. MNG 1, MNG 2 and MNG 3 is manager’s rank


Article 16

The height/level of the QPC determines the quality of the business and labour as well as the “will of the market.”

Article 17

The total of the weekly, monthly, or yearly income of every single employed person depends on: their qualifications, the height/level of the QPC which hires them, the number of hours worked, and the efficiency of their own /single work.

Reference 2

It would be absurd to apply the table in order to pay each employee per hour according to their qualifications and height/level of the QPC which employs him regardless whether they are doing an excellent or unsatisfactory job. The table does not depend directly on the every single worker but on the capital which employs him. That capital, or in other words, its representative – the manager – must disclose to the authorities at the end of the accounting period whether (quarterly, bi-annually, or yearly) that the total actual work which it employed was paid exactly by the dictates of the table. This is necessary since not all workers work equally well so that some of them must be rewarded while others punished by giving them less income. What is taken away from the unsatisfactory workers is given to the excellent workers.

Article 18

The increase or decrease of the hourly rate (values at price list of working hours) in some companies or investment banks, etc. is exclusively permitted on the basis of previously increased or decreased QPC, i.e., on the basis of better or worse work activities. All other decreases or increases of the hourly rate is a criminal offense which is not subject to the Statute of Limitation.


Article 19

Individuals who control certain companies (e.g. manager I) have the right to use that function up until the height/level of the QPC company which it controls, and is not lower than, for example 2.

Article 20

The lowest allowed QPC could be that one which to a hypothetical live owner and would enable (him) to claim an income which is, let us say, at least 3.5 times larger than the income which he would have if the money had been deposited in some bank which gives an average interest rate.


The lowest QPK allowed is, therefore, determined on the basis of the hypothetical interest of a live owner. That is the QPC which would be able to bring the lowest income that he would accept as a reimbursement for all the worries and risks of investing his money in some business deal. If the live owner judged that the intended business deal would not yield at least the same income, then he would rather deposit his money into a bank and live off of the interest which would, indeed, be considerably less, but that is why there would be no more business worries, risks, fear, or headaches. It would also be in accordance with his natural business interests to let the manager go who manages his company in such a way as to bring forth income which is less than the understandably expected and accepted stance of his interests.

An artificial private owner cannot and must not behave differently either.

When the authorized state authority stipulates that the lowest permitted QPC = 2, then, with this, he can actually determine how much the minimal profit rate the artificial private owner is able to accept and which the manager must guarantee. With the guarantee of at least that much for a QPC manager, it also guarantees, i.e., gives reasons for its employment.

An explanation must be given about why the level of income of employments depends on the level of QPC, in other words, the level of the profit rate instead of the level of a quantitative increase (mass of) capital, i.e., business/firm.

The profit rate, or QPC, is the index of height of capital development, i. e. its usefulness. What is the point of having fabulously large capital which gives no profit, but actually operates at a loss? That kind of capital can only be maintained at the expense of society. Its maintenance either stems from human’s stupidity or from some particular reason which is very important to the state. It has no reason to survive; on the contrary, it has every reason to fail.

In order for the not creation of such considerable but unproductive capital, that is, of large but unproductive companies which are constantly exposed to the danger of failure, managerial income, its employment and existence depends on the level of the QPC. By the QPC, the manager is forced to primarily develop, perfect, and modernize the company, that is, the capital with which it controls it, in other words, he is forced to increase its usefulness, and not only quantity.

I must mention here that capital which has a higher level of QPC is more useful to a society and that the level of the QPC is, at the same time, an index of the societal of capital usefulness and not only its direct productivity and development.

It is in the interest of employees that their business has the highest QPC as possible because it enables them to have a higher, and at the same time, more secure income.

Article 21

Covering up of truthful data about the level of the QPC, or the extension of the manager’s function even after the QPC falls under the lowest allowed value, is a criminal offense, and which is not subject to the statute of limitations.

Article 22

A manager who controls the company has exclusive rights to decide about the business and organization of the company. The manager also has the exclusive right to hire and fire workers, which he can also transfer to the head of the plant or supervisor.


Article 23

In order to form a working contract, there needs to be consent from both sides – the employer and the (future) worker; for breaking off the contract, one side is enough/ample – either the employer or the employee.

Article 24

Capital is obliged to only pay for the qualification it needs instead of every single one offered.

Reference 3

From the legal and justified view point of capital interests, which it represents and publishes with this law, it is contrary to its interests, for example, that it pays an engineer according to his qualification if that engineer does the job of an ordinary, unqualified worker.

Article 25

Every company have to be dissolved if its QPC falls under the level which the table stipulates as the lowest level.  Not dissolving the company is a criminal offense and is not subject to the statute of limitations.

Article 26

In the event the company needs to be dissolved, the employees do not have the right to any compensation from the company, creditors, or institution which is obliged to dissolve the company.

Reference 4

The investors, that is, the users of the ownership function are not clearly indicated on the table because they are just a different kind of manager – managers who do not control the company but only finance or control the capital in some other way. They are differentiated by rank, that is, a hierarchical level. The higher the rank they belong to, the higher is the fee/price of their working hour.

Reference 5

The legislator must determine very heavy fines/penalties for cases in which the law is broken, and definitely fines which involve imprisonment since that is a very harsh form of punishment which most people fear. Punishing harshly is necessary because the risk – when the law is broken – becomes actual and great. On the one hand, if the manager who has a large income, reputation/standing, possibility of advancement, etc. is motivated to be more effective and more profitable, and if on the other hand the possibility of harsh punishment deters him from breaking the law or of its trick, one can expect that the manager will try hard to really develop the company which he is controlling.

A long period of limitations for violations or no statute of limitations whatsoever, serves to the same purpose. Namely, if someone knows that he will get 25 years because of a violation, it would not be worth his while to break the law and lose sleep and tremble his whole life. A long period of limitations for violations or no statute of limitations is used as a preventive measure – a mission for potential violators to be kept away from committing a violation.

Article 27

Companies which would have an extremely high QPC would have to, by the request of authorized state institutions, prove that a high QPC was not achieved by doing harm to nature, that is, the environment, consumers, bribing the workforce, abusing their monopolistic position, cheating business partners or the state, or by extortion of illegal contracts with partners, or loan sharking, etc.

The only legitimate level of QPC and profit is the one which would be achieved by legal means.

For the illegitimate achievement of the QPC, no matter how high it is, perpetrators would have to pay fines/penalties for damages to injured individuals, and managers who carried out these damages would have to face imprisonment.

A very high QPC would be legitimate only if is achieved by worthwhile inventions in technology, organization, excellent cost-effective operation, and skillful but fair marketing, etc. This kind of high achievement in the level of QPC should have a monetary reward or some other valuable reward.

Reference 6

This “insatiable hunger for profit” is a specifically human trait, holy hunger and it is very desirable. Furthermore, it is a precious human trait. Only by legal means is that satisfaction of holy hunger – Auri sacra fames allowed. By its insatiability and legal feeding of this hunger, it enabled the human species to develop the artificial being, which would serve as a means for the realization of its ultimate goals.

That practice which is done by the legal means of gratifying or satiating this “hunger” and by not harming or doing anything illegal to anyone, is the only practice we consider which leads to the realization of the species’ goals.

We should hope that this hunger never ends and that it will not be able to satiate itself with anything else until the human species accomplishes its mission because this is nothing other than one way in which it has up until now, manifested its ontogenity and longing for the realization of those ultimate species’ goals.

Not fully comprehending these things, the expression Auri sacra fames – Holy hunger for gold – is mistakenly translated into “Damn hunger for gold” and with this kind of development, an enourmous damage was done to civilization.

Auri sacra fames – Holy hunger in the business world is the same as, for example, in art, science, or inventorship, eros – passion for creation of various works or passion to discovery of truth. In business world money has the same place as truth in philosophy or in science.

The level of the profit rate or QPC, therefore, should not be maximized but only watched that that it is not achieved by making damage to nature, partners, workers, and other individuals, and that no illegal method is used.  The “hunger for profit” should not be judged, but rather encouraged and tormented.

What people should be judged on is when they turn profit into their own unfounded, large income and spend it on foolishness.

No, this is something totally different and one of the significant causes of the modern economic and civilization crisis.

Article 28

Inasmuch as there were no natural disasters, state of emergencies, or anything similar, the manager – after 120 days of taking over the function at the latest – must realize a high enough level of QPC and other legal requirements for the continuation of his work – requirements stipulated by this law. In the event of a violation of these regulations, he will be commiting a criminal offense by usurping the right to work. This criminal offense is not subject to the statute of limitations.

Possible consequences of this law

The law itself clearly shows that it would not cause any turbulence or revolutionary upheaval in society. Once the law is put into force, it would calmly and quietly begin to coordinate the height of income with the abilities of the employees. The incompetent ones would quietly be eliminated, starting with the most incompetent ones. It would work like a filter which allows the valuable ones through, while gradually removing the bad ones.

One of the consequences which could be expected as a result of its implementation, is the decrease of the number of failed investments and a general rise in their profitability especially if the specialized, branch banks would be handling the investments. It is logical, to therefore expect, that the experts for some branches of economy will invest much better than nonprofessionals. Generally speaking, it would seem that this kind of law would make the national capital more rational, economical, and productive.

Primarily, we can expect a rise in work discipline, a rise in work productivity, better application of the equipment fleet, and working hours. That expectation is realistic because the worker will, on the one hand be motivated to work and have a rational secure increase of his income, but on the other hand a threat of losing his job due to working poorly, not working at all, or causing damages would be a great fear.  “Man – says A. Smith – works best when he reaps rewards for a job well done but also punishment for a job poorly done.”  More productive work is an important factor in the pursuit of increasing the QPC.

A more lucid reader can easily recognize that is, by this law actually presented a way of paying for work which Capitalism had in its best times. That was a stimulating and motivating way of paying for work done – better work, higher income. This law stipulates in a similar way, but with a larger advantage in that it is standardized, so that the income of any given worker no longer depends on the will or selfwill of a live company owner. Precisely due to this standardization, work would be more justly paid because all individual work which would have equal productivity (QPC), the same qualification, and the same working hours would be paid the equal regardless of which company people would work in or what kind of activity they would be accomplishing since they would all be giving approximately the same contribution toward the general wealth of society. This is highly important, not only because of the fairness in paying for work done – which is extremely important – but also because of the fact that it is beneficial for society’s advancement and for the realization of its goals, as well as the species’ goals.  That is why it is crucially important that the work be as productive as possible. I understand justice and motivation to be key social means for the increase in productivity of human activity and the realization of its advancement in realisation of the species’ goals.

This law would, therefore, as was mentioned above, along with justice primarily stimulate the increase of work and business productivity– the increase of the QPC.

The relationship between the live and artificial owner

In the law, it was already mentioned that the artificial owner would only have the power where there is no efficiency of a live owner – over state or similar companies. But, would some company owner mind such control over the efficiency of work in his factories and control over the manager’s activities, or control over purposeful and stimulating payment of income? Would he hand over such control to an artificial owner, so that free from hassles, worries, and fears, he could freely devote himself to devising up of new business deals? Wouldn’t a private owner, who is advanced in years and weak, want to have an artificial helper which would take care of a large portion of work and who would loyally take care of his interests? Let us assume, further, that an older factory owner who has no heirs finds out that he will soon die. He loves his company and worries about his employees’ futures and he would like to be sure that it will continue to develop well after his death. Wouldn’t that kind of case be better handled by an artificial owner?

The above mentioned examples undoubtedly point out that an artificial owner would be able to function as a helper to a live owner, who would take care of routine chores, allowing the live owner to better use his own business skills. An artificial owner cannot actually accomplish any activities which are not routine or standardized, or some activities that cannot be standardized or automated. An artificial owner is not creative, but he can use manager’s creativity in a better way by the than a live owner can.  Besides that, a manager cannot cheat it as he often does it with live owners.

By taking an artificial owner as a partner, it would be preferable that a live private owner specifies the way in which the height/level of his income (income from capital ownership) would be determined.  It would maybe be better if the owner’s income be determined by the following formula:

net profit x QPC

income =  —————————


In this way of determining his income, the owner would be stimulated -because of an increase to his income – he enlarges his capital and perfects it. Income from capital ownership would be considered as interest, rent, or a reward for the increase and perfecting of capital. If an owner would work in his own company as a manager, then he would, of course, receive managers salary whose level would be determined by the table 1.

From what was said thus far, it is clear that the artificial private owner was able to prevent pillage in the privatization process in the so-called transitional countries, and the privitization should not have happened in such a ruinous way because a manager who is controlling the company – until a new live owner is found – would have to be responsible in regard  to an artificial owner. The artificial owner would be a suitable “legal individual” for all countries in the so-called transitions. So much about the artificial owner and privatization, or, in other words, reprivatization.

There is one more very important thing or problem. A vast majority of companies in these transitional countries operates on the edge of profitability. Besides creating salaries for their workers, it delivers the owners a very thin or no profit. Fearing for their personal societal security and existence, which could be threatened by possible losses, owners are closing those kinds of companies and letting go of their workers. An artificial private owner does not necessarily need such a profit, i.e. income if the appropriate state authority (in times of crisis) lowers the minimal allowed QPC to 1, so he can keep those kinds of companies in operation, as well as hold on to their workers. Also with good management and a little bit of luck, the situation in the company (QPC) can be fixed and in that way increase the income of the employees and secure future to them.


Previous explanation of that law

There is no society which could survive without an administration, i. e. an administrative apparatus, because the administration is the headquarters or the “nervous system” of a developed society. It was determinated by: Durkheim, Spencer, Comte, Hegel, Weber, and other sociologists and thinkers for a long time ago.

On the other hand, we must point out that no society exists which could survive when its own administration starts robbing it. It is not possible to create such highly developed production technology which could place a barrier on the excessive appetites of the swollen and alienated administration.

The administration itself buried many great past civilizations.  There were some lucid and profound members in those civilizations who totally understood that their own administration was destroying them, but they didn’t know in what way, or how to curb and force it to be a productive element of society. Just like many people today, with a heart wrenching feeling of powerlessness had to watch the general deterioration.

That kind of tragic ending could happen in today’s world civilization. Possessing highly developed technology is no guarantee for a civilizational survival. On the contrary, it could be backed by unprecedented barbarism and cause great misery.

Here’s one paradoxical example from contemporary life.

The most technologically developed and wealthiest country in the world, the USA, developed within itself, among other things, a detonator for its own destruction, which economists call (inner national debt). It is climbing toward 30 thousand billion dollars. That is how much today’s living Americans owe their descendants, and that is a debt which even God could not write off or excuse. This debt was made by the American administration – with the help of inflation financing of the state budget by deficit, and similar methods.

An especially awkward trait of this debt is that the money which was “borrowed” by the use of these methods from the future, that is, from future generations, cannot be given back to the owners or beneficiaries. Because of this, there are approximately 16 million unemployed and approximately 12 million homeless people in the USA today. These poor people became poor because their ancestors did not return the money from a long time ago which they “borrowed” through the mentioned administrative methods from them. That is just scratching the surface in pointing out the consequences of the inner debt which the administration has created – because it likes to live comfortably at the expense of the future. This is a problem between the intergenerational economic relations, but there is more on this subject in my book, Suma ekonomije.

In 1989, I wrote that a similar process and a similar fate soon await the future EU and other administrative kingdoms, if they do not implement some law like the Law on the control of efficiency of administration and government into their own foundations. In my book, “Apokalipsa” I showed that it is not too bold to claim that without that kind of law, there can be no “normal”, that is, healthy, or productive sustenance of civil civilization on this planet.

Here, again, in the form of a law, I tried to present an instrument of “restraint” for the administration, or authority, if you will, since the tops of the administration are those layers or part of the nation or society which has the power – the authority.

Later I will show that that “restraint” for the administration is actually its liberation.


Article 1

The members of parliament, county or local administrative unit, that is, all members who perform administrative functions, in other words govern on the basis of law, in the state institutions, in other words, social authorities are chosen on the basis of legitimate democratic elections.

Article 2

Individuals who, on the basis of legitimate democratic elections come into power in some administrative function (commune, republic, federal state, or union) have the exclusive right of making decisions about the controlling organization of that administrative unit, management, and right of hiring and firing of personnel, etc.

Article 3

The measure of competence for the performance of administrative activities, that is, exercise of authority, a measure which also determines the boundaries of the legitimacy of the authority of personnel and teams, which came into power via elections – that measure, therefore is: – the level of the quotient of efficacy of the administrative activity – QEAA.

Article 4

QEAA become visible if the total savings of the citizens is added to a total profit produced by the companies on the territory which is ruled by some administrative team, and divided it with the costs of functioning of the administrative team or the government or the administrative apparatus that rules in this territory. See formula:

Total citizen’s savings + total profit

QEAA =   ——————————————————

Expenses of the administration’s functioning fee


This provision is made / based on the assumption that the general human production is divided into two major branches: the production of material goods, and the production of human life, which I have called in some economic writings the “production of the workforce.”  The first one takes place in factory plants while the other one takes place in households. Material goods are produced through the “consumption of the workforce” and the “workforce is produced” by the consumption of material goods. Both of these kinds of productions reject a surplus value. The surplus which is realized in the factory plants is called profit, and the one that occurs in households (an excess of income over the expenditure of life, which are actually production costs of the workforce), family savings – “the total savings of citizens.”  Both of these “surplus values” are basic components of GDP – Gross Domestic Product or income.

The expenses of the administration’s functioning are actually expenses for the upkeep of those two productions in their functional, that is, productive state.

QEAA – the quotient of effectiveness of the administration’s activities is the figure/number which shows how large/big net wealth administration allows/enables to create to productive social entities for each monetary unit which is spent on its maintenance and functioning / operation.

QEAA can also be seen as an index which demonstrates or shows what the production of the national income rate is.

Article 5

Individuals who come into power via legal democratic elections, have the complete right to exercise power, in accordance with the law, as long as the level of QEAA is not lower than, for example, 2. If the level of QEAA falls below that level, the authorities or individuals who are responsible for that decrease in the level of QEAA are obliged to resign from that position.

Article 6

Each prolongation of the mandate, after the level of QEAA falls below the lowest allowed level (for example, 2) is considered a criminal offense of usurpation of power, and is punishable by imprisonment. This criminal offense is not under the statute of limitations.

Article 7

Concealment of truthful data or giving false data about the level of QEAA is considered a criminal offense of deception, and will be punishable by imprisonment.  This criminal offense is also not under the statute of limitations.

Article 8

The income of the employees in the state administration is determined on the basis of the price list for the working hours and is shown in the following table which was given by the national Union or World state authority.

The values on the table and their relationships are only a simplified version.

Tablica 2

The abbreviations NQ,  Q  and HQ denote the level of qualification, and MN 1, MN 2 i MN 3  denote the manager’s hierarchical level.

Article 9

The price per working hour of a worker employed in the administration depends on the qualifications or the rank of the employed individual, as well as the level of the QEAA which is achieved in the administrative unit where that person works. The total of the weekly, monthly, or yearly income depends on the price of the working hour, the number of hours worked, and the efficiency of the employee’s individual work.

Article 10

The increase or decrease of the price of the working hour in any particular administrative unit is allowed exclusively on the basis of previous increases or decreases of the QEAA, in other words, on the basis of the increase or decrease of efficiency. Any different increase or decrease of the price of the working hour is against the law, a criminal offense.

Article 11

Each administrative unit is required at the end of the accounting period to publicly report the expenses of their own functioning, as well as the level of the QEAA. It is also required to report if all employees received their proper pay according to the regulations of the table.

Article 12

For employment in the administrative service, for those individuals who are not hired on the basis of election, but based on mere demand for a workforce, a consent is necessary of both parties – the one carrying out the authority (manager) and (future) employee. To break a working contract it is sufficient to have only one side will or decision – the will of the one carrying out the authority –manager – or the will of employee.

Article 13

Inasmuch as there were no natural disasters, state of emergency, or anything similar, the manager or the managerial team who controls the state or some administrative unit of the state, must in 120 days, at the latest, from the day he took over the managerial function, realize a sufficient high level of QEAA and other legal requirements for the continuation of his work – requirements regulated by this law. In the event of a violation to this regulation, it is seen as a criminal offense by usurping the right of control and power. This kind of law breaking is not under the statue of limitations.

Consequences of the implementation of this law

The height/level of the QEAA depends on the efficiency of these two types of productions (the production of the workforce and the production of various goods, services, etc.) since the size of the numerator depends on their efficiency (total savings + total profit) and the larger the numerator, the larger is the QEAA.

Since the main interest of the administration is to have the highest level of QEAA, the administration will undoubtedly want to be at the service of those two types of productions and it will establish such regulations which will enable them to have a higher usefulness or profitability.

Generally speaking, if the length of the administration’s mandate, its power and reputation would depend on the height/level of the QEAA, then it would always strive to lower the cost of its functioning (which is settled by the taxes, surtaxes, customs, etc.) up to such a point that with each further decrease in expenses, it would lower its efficiency. The consequence of that pursuance for decreasing expenses of its own functioning would be a permanent appearance of new solutions, rationalizations, and innovations which would decrease the expenses of the administration’s functioning even further. With that, the administration would finally turn from a social subject who spends the national income into a subject which participates in its creation. Namely, when the administration comes down to the lowest possible measure (under the condition that it remains efficient) then the expenses for its functioning in society brings about value and profit.

Dependency on the level of the QEAA would force the administration to limit itself to only those activities which would increase its level. Doing other activities would not be worth, nor it would have any interests in them. The administration, therefore, would solely concentrate itself on the economic politics and to make society more functional. That would, on the one hand, enable higher specialization and expertise of the administration, and, eo ipso a higher efficiency. On the other hand, it would give more freedom to the other economic and non-economic subjects in society.

A review of the review

A frequent reaction on these laws is a complaint:  that something – if thesre laws vould be established– we will have to work something. That is totally correct.  But if you are afraid of that, I can assure you that you will work less than you do now, but live much better, more peacefully, and safer. In a country where a large number of its citizens work in a useful job, in sufh countries therefore there is everything in abundance, all is inexpensive, and people are not living difficult or uncertain.

This, of course, are not all the laws which are necessary to some society, but only the fundamental ones, the ones at which a society is based on, and the ones on which depend on whether they will be wealthy or poor.

* * *

In addition to those two laws which have already been displayed, there are the Law on the Control of the Economic Efficiency of Family Life, and the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Schooling. Those laws will not exhibit here, but belongs here, in a group of acts Ius gubernandi as well. We will shortly talk about it because it is a topic of another Book.

Ratio essendi of ius gubernandi

The development of society and civilization has led to the separation of ownership and management functions. Today the owner can no longer manage capital property, and this function is taken over by the manager. While the owner himself was able to manage his capital property , the following rule was valid: Fati dominii sui dominus sequiturthe owner follows the fate of his property – he rose or collapsed with him. When the manager took control, he did not took responsibility for the fate of the property by which he ruled. The owner became redundant. The immediate goal of a manager is to make a bigger income, and he can get it much easier by neglecting and destroying the property he manages, rather than by enlarging and developing it. That is the fundamental cause because of the world began to enter into one, not only an economic, but an epochal crisis.

To prevent this, I formed a group of state laws – ius gubernandi – The Right to management – and added it to already existing groups: ius utendi, ius fruendi and ius abutendi.

Since the mentioned economy of wastage is not only practiced by economic managers, but also by politicians and state administration, as well as by other key society entities, ius gubernandi consists of several laws, The most important of which are: the Law of control Efficiency of Managers, the Law of control of efficiency of politicians and administration, the law of control of school efficiency, the law of controll the efficiency of family life, and some others relating to the control of the size of the human population and the relationship with nature (enviroment).

The entire wealth of today, whole civilization, is the property of the human race. But our race is not, as a manager is, exempt from the rule; that the owner follows the fate of his property. So, in order to prevent the large troubles that it might befall, the human species, we must prevent the wastation of our property, i.e. prevent colapse or regress of civilization. Those laws mentioned above would have to be valid for the whole world, and this is only possible if a global state is established. Global state could be something like a federation of existing national states.

But a global state, by itself, would not solve problems, because the solution of the problem lies in those laws that change man’s attitude towards capital property and the society in which he lives. The global state is only needed to apply those laws at the whole species and at the whole planet. It is similar to the ecumenical validity of ius gentium of the ancient Roman Empire. Without those new aforementioned laws, the global state might be even worse solution than the present state.

Here we will only state that those four laws are applied to the four key social subjects:

  1. individual,
  2. a)family, b)school
  3. company
  4. state

and to bring them into a motivational relation towards the creation of its own, as well as, society’s wealth and the realization of the human species’ goals.

* * *

Here, I haven’t mentioned the Law for the Control of the Human Population.

Overpopulation, is in fact an oversupply of human life. Too little/small demand for it brings down/lower its price and value. In the last time it provoked mass illegal slavery, which is incomparable crueler even in regard to the worst forms of ancient slavery. Besides that, human overpopulation also devastates the live natural environment. The task of this law would be: to motivate nations (especially those overpopulated ones) not to place their strength and safety into the size of their population, but into increasing and upgrading/perfecting their material wealth.

The ultimate goal of efforts and the sacrifices which humanity makes is the realization of its metabiologic and transempiric But it is not possible to achieve it by the worsening of human life, than rather by its gradual improvement.

There, such much for now, because this is a theme of a much larger book which is talking about the necessity of creating a World state.

Are these laws some kind of Utopian creation, and who would be interested in their application?

Is this a real project with a purposeful means for the development of society or just mere utopia?  We can see it if we answer the question: how many subjects in society would be interested in its establishment.

For the establishment of that first law, the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity, the state administration could be interested in the most because it would receive an abundant and reliable source of income for its own sustenance by this law. That kind of source would allow it to worry less than what exists now. Therefore, it will not be a miracle if it intensely tries to establish this law. After all, I have already pointed out that this law – in Western societies – after WWII, began drafting something very similar but very sporadic and rudimentary.

Nearly all employees would be interested in this law due to the constant control of efficiency and good management, just payment of salaries, and job security, except for certain managers because this law places full responsibility for business operations on their backs. If the criteria of efficiency would be moderate, as it really should be – because of the safety of the so-called sustainable development – then that law would offer safety to a large majority of managers, but would be unacceptable to only a small number of them. For those who build their careers by using their very skillfull, nice excuses and phrases in order to cover up poor results, and those who may feel incapable to satisfy even those, moderate criteria, this law would not be satisfactory.

Nonetheless, managers would much prefer this law, i.e., of having an artificial owner rather than a live one, because the artificial one cannot be abusive, insolent, nervous, unreliable, or shifty in his requests, which is often the case with live owners.

As far as those interested in the implementation of the other law, Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity, it is quite a similar procedure.

To those who carefully read this discussion, it will be totally clear that today’s society also needs some kind of law which would enable reliable control of the authorities, and in that way secure a productive functioning of society, and ultimately a normal development of civilization; that belief in politics, means very little, even if a great number of people shared this conviction  because that conviction would not automatically result in the establishment of that law.  Its establishment depends on whether there exists in society, or would it be able to differentiate and form large interest groups, in other words, such groups to whom it would be in their direct interest for that law to be implemented. Here we will see if such groups exist, i.e., whether they can be formed.

We can show that by using this formula:

Total savings + total profit

————————————————— = Q E A A

Expenses for the administration’s functioning

The numerator in this formula suggests two large groups. The factor – “total savings” represents the consumers, grouped within a family as well as those outside of it, and the “total profits” are all the owners of capital and all the employees (outside of the administration). The factor – “expenses for the administration’s functioning” represents all the employees in the administration.

The captial owners, entrepreneurs, and practically all employees who are represented by this factor “total profits” would all advocate for the implementation of this law. This law would increase their income, decrease their taxes and surtaxes as well as other taxes. There would also be an equitable pay on the level of the entire society, and the employment procedure itself would be safer.

Among the interested parties are also the “total savings” ones, that is, the consumers: women who run households, employees, and retirees, as well as the unemployed population. They would be interested because this law would facilitate the increase of savings and life standard in general, primarily by decreasing expenses for the upkept of daily life, that is, through the decrease of the price of groceries and other things which we cannot live without.

An especially interested group would be scientists of all kinds because the implmentation of this law would considerably increase their income and social standing. This group would not give a large number of votes for the implemenation of this law, but it is a very influential group, so a considerable number of people – due to their strong influence, would vote for its implemenation.

At first glance, which was also once my own opinion, all those which are represented by the denominator, “expenses for the administration’s functioning” – the employees in the administration – would vote against the establishment of this law out of fear that the law would have influence on the decrease of their income, and on the increase of work efficiency.

No, this fear is not justified because the implementation of our law would make it more meaningful, and allow the administration to work easier, increase the income of the administrators, their reputation, social power, and respect for people.


Quite simply.

The highest and most natural administration’s interest would be to increase its income, and it can only increase it by increasing the QEAA. For it to increase, it must first decrease the expenses of its functioning, which means that it must decrease the number of buildings and rooms in which it works, its fleet, consumable goods, and the most important factor: the number of employees while increasing the efficiency and courtesy of those who remain working.

The administrative apparatus is an instrument by which people are governing society. The administration is the backbone and central nervous system of the social system, or state, and at its top are the politicians, who are at the same time the brain of the administration. But in spite to such important positions, the huge number of administrators are poorly paid, and their salaries remain small and meagre whether they work well or poorly, so they are inevitably and totally logically motivated to work even worse and less since less work and less agony is exchanged for the same sum of money.

There is something more important to say. Upon further examination, we will see that the economic status of the modern administration  – at the baseline – is the same as the economic status of the late ancient state slaves, just like the ones who took care of administrative activities was the same as those who worked on the latifundia or in the mines. The only difference is that the modern ones are paid in cash while the ancient ones were paid in kind: shelter, food, clothing, contubernally, and in some peculiar things, etc. There is a difference in that the ancient states took more care of their slaves than today’s.

Secondly, the administrator’s work is such that the social psychologists and sociologists consider that there is no work which devastes the human spirit more than the administrative one. Because of the poor work of the professionals and their mental and character deformations, the administrators have a poor standing in society.  They are often called “office rats”.

The people at the top of the administration, that is, the so-called politicians do not sympathize in the least with the administration’s position and they are constantly (rightly so) unsatisfied with it. The citizens are also dissatisfied, as well as the administration itself.

There were many attempts to turn the administration into a satisfactory, obedient, and efficient state and social apparatus. The most famous attempts were those of Weber, Lenin, Roosevelt, Mao, as well as several attempts from the Canadian and British governments. All of those attempts were unsuccessful because they were based on pure violence over the administration:  “cutting”  of its income, “privileges”, rights, devastations and obstruction of its work, etc.  The goal was to drain from the administration the best and the most work possible, for the least amount of money.

A lofty goal, without a doubt!!!???

God willing!!!

Even though that will sound horrible in the majority of people’s heads, we need to say that the administration elegantly outwitted all of those attempts, and that its sleight of hand was something very good because if it had not done so, things would have turned out much worse. On the other hand, as I have already said, the administration isn’t able to succeed in improvement/meliorate its position, resorting to massive strikes, or obstructing its work, so that these things are now at a deadlock. Society is not at rest, it’s slowly declining/falling down.

The Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity would change these things without having to use any kind of violence. After that, or some other similar law came into effect, the administration alone in order to achieve its own interest (the highest possible QEAA), would increase its efficiency and service. It would decrease the number of its employees, and would raise or increase its income and standing to the level of the such kind of subjects who manage society well and take care of the welfare of its citizens, workers, entrepreneurs, companies, and other social subjects.

I believe that after the establishment some of this kind of law, the work of an administrator would become such that clerks would do their work with pleasure and even passion because they would directly see the fruits of their labour not only in their wallets, but also in the advancement in their environment and in whole society. It is a great satisfaction and happiness when people see that they are able to create some great and meaningful public goods. That is a motive which should not be underestimated because it might belong alongside those strongest human motives. It is not an uncommon occurrence that people even give their own lives because for attaining something so great.

The Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity would, therefore, turn these unmotivated, hated, and despised contemporary “slaves” into people and institutions worthy of great respect. I had the opportunity to see this live, although rarely, and unfortunately only for a short period of time. Namely, on this burnt place, of a once powerful and progressive civilization, sometimes a flicker of light and goodness shows up, but, unfortunately, it goes out very fast.

The Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity is actually a Law of liberation the administration because it would give the administration the freedom and autonomy, similarly, but at a much larger scale than workers were given by the laws for ending slavery and serfdom. This would be good because the administrators, who would then be motivated to work would be incomparably more efficient and more productive than they are now by having an informal status of a slaves, who are forced to work.  Further, autonomy, which this law gives to the administration, would enable it to organize itself in a way that would suit it the best, in order to achieve the highest possible level of QEAA. It would be useful also for whole society.

Here we have another important thing, something which has to do with the administrative top, that is, the so-called politicians.

If the length of their mandate and the level of income depended on the level of the achieved QEAA, instead of the will of the voters, which often transforms into wishfull tyranny, through which the voters – not thinking at all of tomorrow and knowing that they have a “good thing going” now, but still want much more – if the politicians’ mandate, therefore, depends on the level of the QEAA instead of on these: da nobis hodie . . . give it to us today – the political activity could be more successful and productive.

The tyranny of the pampered public (voters) prevents the politicians to realize great ventures, with which it would considerably enhance not only its own standing and the standard of life of the public, but the level of civilization’s development. It seems that politicians fear carrying out real, large/great ventures/projects and they are gotten rid of out of fear from these pampered, willfull, or hysterical voters. A law like the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity would make the efficacious administration untouchable, it, therefore can be a guarantee to the politicians that, instead of constantly “applying firefighting measures” they will also freely and without fear be able to carry out those more meaningful, and more important to society, ventures, programs, reforms, etc.

After all, I have already pointed out in previous writings that this kind of law would protect good people from bad governments, and good governments from bad people, or bad tempered people.

To sum up.

The previous short analysis shows that the interest group which would vote for the implementation of this, the second law, is actually large enough to take the win at the elections, or some other kind of referendum and it seems that the problem is only in that there aren’t enough people who would introduce the broader public with the law itself and its advantages compared to the existing ones, or large piles of legislative garbage which is unsparingly offered to us.

So much for the utopian and realistic, in other words, real purposefulness of the previous two laws.  We owe it to sobriety, honesty, and truth.


I know that we are living in the times when it is difficult to read a text which is longer than half a page to the end, let alone one that is thirty some odd pages long.

That is why I would like to tell those who haven’t died of boredom or who haven’t fallen asleep yet, what I wrote about thus far.

Here it is.

I wanted to show that there was intensive degeneration and a setback in the second half of the 20th century in bourgeois/civil/public society. Further, I wanted to show that this degeneration isn’t removed by the formation of joint markets, unions, or federations, nor of seizing the territory of other countries, but primarily by the reforms of legal foundations of bourgeois society, such a reform in which all key social entities/subjects are shown by the “Magical triangle”:

A – Those who control society, authority; B – individuals (owners or managers) who control capital, companies, banks, etc. and  C – the workers –

therefore, the reform which would bring/set those individuals to a motivational relationship toward creating and improving human capital property, P.  See above our:  “Magical triangle”which is representing society.

In my opinion, that is possible to carry out by means of laws such as the ones exhibited above:  the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Managers’ Activity and the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of the Administration’s Activity and Authority, as well as:

the Law on the Control of the Economic Efficiency of Family Life and the Law of Controlling the Efficiency of Schooling which I haven’t exhibited here.

By the establishment of some of these kinds of laws, the greatest form of synthesis in the process of the development of ownership – artificial owner – would be created. That artificial owner would be nothing more than the human’s property, capital/artificial being which would also, by the foundation of these laws, give it the capability to take care of itself and of the human species by working for it and realizing its ultimate goals.

I consider human species as an ontogenic one – capable of creating an artificial being, which is a necessary means for the realization of the ultimate species’ goals – goals whose realization gives meaning and purpose to human existence, work, history etc.

common lawius, , recht, lois, diritto, I defined as an externalized will of the human species – a will which is externalized or objectified as an instrument or method with which the species leads, motivates, and forces itself for the creation of an artificial being and its use for the objective of the realization of its ultimate, metabiologic and transempiric goals.

The human species is the original addresser of law, and therefore the original, natural sovereign.

Individuals, nations, races, etc. are only the spokespeople and executors of its will and should be rewarded in proportion to the level and value of the contribution they made and gave for the realization of the species’ goals.

The request and assignment/task – set by justice and the process for the realization of the human species’ goals – is the establishment of a world, global state. After all, is there anything more natural, anything more normal than all members of the same species are living and working within the framework of the same legal system?

One species, one planet, one law!

If we do create that World state in the same way we have created the EU, by simply unifying and co-optioning the existing states – whose societies suffer from elderly diseases and weakness – we will only ensure that those diseases which have affected civil societies and their democracies to thoroughly spread over the entire planet, and we will most likely live much worse and more difficult than to date.

As far as the EU is concerned, it can only survive and realize its goals by reform which is based on those kinds of laws which we have already exhibited, and which would give new strength, productivity, and longevity to its democracy.

Why democracy, and not E.g. Monarchy?

Democracy is an artificial, improved replacement of natural selection – the best way to maintenance human species and achievement its goals.

Democracy is based in liberty/fredom. And fredom is in fact and in its foundation an unlimited right to creativity. (Rousseau, Kant, Fichte, Schelling Hegel)

The World state which is the most necessary of necessities, the most needed necessity to the human species, should be based on the reformed and revitalized civil/bourgeois society and strengthened democracy, in other words, on the above mentioned laws because they motivate all the important social subjects, but also force them to realize their interests and their own goals exclusively in a way in which the species’ goals, the goals of various unions, or federations, the goals of nations, local states, and smaller states, groups, classes, professions, etc. are simultaneously realized. I often refer to this upgraded democracy – a nomocracy – a rule of law.

Further, it is necessary that the entire species lives in one state, i.e., that it obeys the same laws so that the merit of all individuals, nations, races, or states could be measured by the same standards and that all of these subjects could be awarded justly for their contributions to the realization of the ultimate human goals.

That would be all.

For those who survived this, and remained normal, I wish them much success in their work in reforming civil society, and in the creation of a World state.

The Nobel Prizes are impatiently waiting to be awarded to you.

Sincerely yours,


From → Nekategorizirano

Napiši komentar


Popunite niže tražene podatke ili kliknite na neku od ikona za prijavu: Logo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Google photo

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Google račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Twitter picture

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Twitter račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Facebook slika

Ovaj komentar pišete koristeći vaš Facebook račun. Odjava /  Izmijeni )

Spajanje na %s

%d blogeri kao ovaj: