|What is "freedom"?
do not provide more
Many Americans boast that our democracy
provides us with more freedom than the people in other nations, but it
doesn't make sense to claim that one government
provides more freedom than another. Freedom is not an entity
that we can measure.
It makes more sense to say that different types of government systems
provide different types of freedoms; that each government has
advantages and disadvantages; benefits and burdens. There is no best
system. There are only choices to make.
For example, in some of my documents I suggested a society in which the
government owns all of the land and buildings, and they make all of the
decisions for us about which material items to produce. The homes in
the city would have different visual appearances, but they would be all
virtually equal in regards to size and amenities, and nobody would be
allowed to own their home, so nobody would be able to make changes to
the structure of it, or renovate their home, or paint either the
inside or outside of their home in the
colors that they prefer.
That type of society would also produce fewer types of material items, and
there would be fewer models of each type.
In America, by comparison, people have the freedom to build their own
home, renovate their home whenever they please, own their own plot of
land, make their own meals, and select their own products. Americans
also have the freedom to start businesses and produce as many different
types of material
items and models as they please.
It might appear as if America provides people with more freedom, but a
more accurate way to describe the differences between these governments
is that they provide different types of freedoms, and they have
different advantages and disadvantages. In the city I propose, for
example, people don't have much freedom in regards to their home, but
they are free of mortgages, rents, landlords, and the buying and
selling of homes. They are free to move from one home to another
whenever they please, and they are free of home
In a city that does not have a peasant class, the people have to
share the chores that nobody wants to do, and so a further advantage
to restricting peoples freedom is that the city doesn't need to
produce paints, paint-cleaning chemicals, lumber, acetone,
drywall, electrical wiring, and other items for consumers to
renovate their home. Those products would only be produced only
for the businesses, schools, and social clubs.
By reducing the number of consumer products, fewer people are needed
for the production and recycling of consumer items, and by eliminating
consumer's access to chemicals, the city avoids the problem of people
dumping chemicals and paints down the drain, which makes it more
practical use processed sewage as fertilizer for parks and forests.
The city will not provide the people with as many types of material
items as America provides, but they will have free access
to those items, and that gives them the freedom to try any of the
products they want without having to purchase them, and they can give
an item back to the city if they decide they don't like it. They are
free of maintaining the items, also. If they want to ride a bicycle,
they are free to pick up a bicycle anywhere in the city, ride around on
it, and give it back to the city without any concern for its
maintenance or storage.
What type of freedoms do you prefer? You might think that you
are so smart and educated
that you can figure out what you prefer, but you would be foolish to
assume so. There are thousands of potential government systems and
freedoms. How could you possibly know which set of freedoms
would be most happy with when you don't even know what all of your
options are? You would not have a good understanding of
what you prefer until you've had a chance to live in different
Even if you could live 100 different lives in 100 different societies,
there would still be thousands of other possible government systems and
freedoms that you have not yet tried. You should not assume that you
know what you want from life.
Some women are certain that they want a particular type of diamond
ring, and some men insist that they must have a particular type of
automobile, and many children insist that they must have a particular
toy. These people believe they know what they
want, but in reality they only know what they want at that
If you could live your life over and over, each time in a different
type of society or era, you would discover that there is no perfect
life. There are only options and choices; advantages and disadvantages.
There is no "solution" to life. You would discover that you can enjoy
life in many different types of societies, and in many different types of
homes, and in many different types of clothing styles. You would
discover that you don't need any particular material item in order to
enjoy life. You would discover that the people who believe they must
have a particular item are ignorant fools who don't understand life
The best option for the human race is to control our arrogance, let
each city be an independent society, and allow each city to experiment
with their culture. We can then observe one another and learn from one
We also need to refrain from behaving like an arrogant King who tries
to control other people. We need to allow other people and societies to
live the way they want, eat the foods they prefer, and dress in the
clothing styles they like. We must stop
believing that we know what is best for other people. We must push
ourselves into cooperating with other people, and learning from one
If you could live different lives in different societies, you would
eventually realize that you don't need a particular type of automobile,
furniture, or cell phone in order to enjoy life. You don't need any
particular jewelry item or sports activity, either. There is no
particular freedom that you need in
order to enjoy life, either.
Earlier I mentioned that the universe follows a simple rule; namely,
you cannot get anything for free. This concept applies to freedoms.
Freedoms are not "free". Every freedom has a burden. The more freedoms
we provide people, the more burdens we put on them.
For example, when you are free to choose your own home, you are
burdened with the work of purchasing homes, dealing with their
maintenance, and dealing with the selling of the home. By comparison,
when you are denied the freedom to own your own home, your life
becomes noticeably simpler. You can select any home in the city that is
available, and you can move to any other home whenever you please. You
never have to worry about rent, mortgages, or maintenance.
For another example, when people have the freedom to choose their own
cell phone, they must spend time looking at all of the choices and
making decisions, and they must make these decisions on a regular
basis because new models come out every year or so. By comparison, when
government officials make decisions about cell phones for us, we never
have to worry about analyzing phones or new technology. We lose the
freedom to choose our own phone, but we gain the freedom to spend more
of our lives on more pleasant activities.
Many people wish that they could live longer, but we could achieve the
same effect simply by reducing some of the work that we must do right
now. How much time do you spend right now paying
bills, analyzing products, and dealing with home maintenance?
were living in a society in which there was no money, and if the
items and homes were free, all of that time and stress would
eliminated from your life. It would have the effect of giving you more
life for other activities.
much freedom do you want with meals?
Most people have their own kitchens, and
make their own meals. When people eat at restaurants,
most restaurants have large menus. This system of providing
provides us with a tremendous amount of freedom to choose our own
meals. However, this system puts a big burden on us.
when we make our own meals at home, we have to spend a lot of time and
effort shopping, preparing food, and cleaning up the mess. And when we
go to restaurants, we have to spend time looking through menus, giving
orders, and waiting for the orders to arrive.
In the city that I propose, the homes will not have kitchens, so people
will be eating at restaurants several times a day. How many people will
enjoy the freedom to look through menus several times a day, 365 days a
year, decade after decade? I think that type of freedom will eventually be regarded as a nuisance.
I think the reason people enjoy large menus right now is because they
don't eat at restaurants very often, and so they
entertaining to look
through all of their options.
People who are finicky eaters will undoubtedly want menus, but I think
the "normal" people would prefer that many or most of the restaurants
in the city operate in the same manner as a spouse or friend.
When our spouse or friend makes a meal, we don't get a menu.
eat whatever they serve us.
By having some of the restaurants operate in the same manner, we would
be relieved of the burden of looking through menus and giving orders to
waiters. We would select a restaurant according to the type of meals
that they served, whether we liked the chef's cooking in the past, and
the environment that the restaurant offers. We would walk in, sit
down, and eat whatever was being offered. We might have one or two
options, but there would be no menu. We would not have to waste any
time looking through menus, ordering food, or waiting for our meal.
This system of providing meals would make
the job of
restaurant employees more desirable because restaurants would not be
the incredibly hectic environments that they are now. The
restaurants would not have to worry about taking orders or mixing up
orders. The chefs would not have to make hundreds of different meals at
the same time, or worry about some of the meals getting cold while the
others were still being cooked. The environment of the restaurant would
be more relaxed. Providing meals at these restaurants would be so
simple that robots could eventually do some of the work.
Furthermore, this system of providing meals makes it easy for the city
officials to plan the production and distribution of food. None of the
restaurants would need to stock small quantities of hundreds of
different food items. Instead, each would get delivery of large amounts
of just a few food items for the meals for that particular day.
This system would allow the restaurants to plan their menus months in
advance, and that would allow the farmers to plan for the production of
food and the distribution of food. There will be less food waste with
this system because the restaurants will not have to stock hundreds of
different food items, some of which spoils because nobody ordered it.
This system will significantly reduce the labor and resources involved
in the production of food and the making of meals.
You can get an understanding of how efficient this can be by looking at
an aircraft carrier. They serve thousands of meals several times a
day, but they don't have many people in the kitchen. The reason is
because they don't provide menus. Menus provide us with freedom, but
they are a tremendous burden on society.
Likewise, having kitchens in our homes provides us with certain
freedoms, but it has disadvantages. For example, if we want to have
dinner with friends or relatives, we are limited by the size of our
kitchen and dining room. By comparison, when we have restaurants
scattered around the city, and the food is free, we can have dinner
with as many friends or relatives as we please.
Another disadvantage to having your own kitchen and dining room is that
if you have friends over to your house for meals, they will always eat
in the same dining room, and in the same environment. By comparison,
when we have hundreds of restaurants scattered around the city to
choose from, we can eat with them at different restaurants
and experience different types of foods, dining rooms, and
You have already experienced a society that gives you the freedom to
have kitchens and make your own meals. Would you like to try something
less crime, the more life we have
We can also give people more life to live
simply by becoming more intolerant of crime. The more honest a group of
people are, the less of their time they must waste on crime prevention.
Imagine living in a society in which the people are so honest that
nobody needs locks on homes, bicycles, or other possessions, and nobody
needs to use passwords.
Some of the people who promote tolerance for crime might respond that
we are spending only a few seconds each morning dealing with locks and
keys, and only a few more seconds during the day dealing with
passwords, and only a few more seconds on other crime related issues,
and that those few seconds are an insignificant burden on us.
However, saving a few seconds throughout the day not only adds up to a
lot of time during your life, it also makes your life simpler and less
stressful. You can move more smoothly and effortlessly from your home
to your job to your leisure activities when you never have to worry
about keys, passwords, or security devices.
A lot of problems in life could be described as "insignificant", but
eliminating an insignificant problem is not necessarily insignificant.
For example, a flea could be described as an insignificant problem to a
human. A flea that is living on you will bite you only once in a while.
We could say that a flea is an insignificant irritation, but how many
people would allow a flea to live on him simply because it is only occasionally annoying?
The same concept applies to people who have bad behavior, but which is
legal, such as people who put bubblegum underneath the tables of
restaurants, or who pee in swimming pools, or who leave a mess in a
public bathroom. Those people might be a small irritation, but by
prohibiting them from eating in our restaurants, swimming in our pools,
and using our public bathrooms, we will have a more pleasant life.
article claims that the reason swimming pools are
causing people to develop red eyes is because of the pee in
pool, not the chlorine or other chemicals. Is this true? I
don't know, but the issue of peeing in swimming pools is just one of
the many issues that never existed until modern times, and these issues
are becoming increasingly significant as technology becomes more
advanced, and the human population becomes more dense.
A lot of the behavior that was acceptable during prehistoric times is
causing irritations or trouble for us today, even though some of it is
For some more examples:
• Taking items from national parks,
such as pieces of the petrified trees at the Petrified Forest.
Our primitive ancestors didn't have to be concerned about how their
actions would affect other people or the world. They picked whatever
flowers they pleased; they spit whenever and wherever they wanted to
they walked wherever they wanted to walk.
• Picking flowers in public parks and gardens.
• Spitting or tossing objects off of elevated walkways and rooftops.
• Children who shoot plastic pellets from toy guns, thereby scattering
bits of plastic around the city.
• Taking shortcuts through grass and gardens rather than walking on the
designated footpaths, thereby carving ugly paths through the grass and
• People having barbecues or fires near you.
In this modern world, however, our lack of concern for how we affect
other people is becoming increasingly unacceptable. For example, so
many people have tossed objects off of elevated walkways that many of
the walkways now have fences on them to reduce such behavior. We are
also adding fences to the elevated walkways to stop teenagers from
climbing over the edge to spray graffiti, and we are also putting
fences on them to prevent people from committing suicide. Our society
has to waste some of its time and resources on the fences, and the
fences make the city
look ugly, and they ruin the view for the people who have walkways in
If we were living in a city in which the people were much better
behaved, then we could build beautiful, elevated walkways everywhere
the city, and none of them would need fences, and none of them would
have graffiti on them. We would be able to take walks along
elevated walkways simply to enjoy the view of the trees, birds,
flowers, and ponds. The people who were walking, having a picnic, or
underneath the walkways would never have to worry about being spit on,
or having objects dropped on them.
In a city where everybody is well
behaved, nobody would have to worry about people using swimming pools
as toilets, and we would never find bubblegum underneath tables.
Imagine living with people who are so responsible that they don't leave
a mess in the public bathrooms, and if they have a picnic, they clean
up their mess when they are finished.
Every society's reaction to badly behaved people is to design society
to fit the worst behaved people. For example, when people throw objects
off of elevated walkways, we cover them with fences and security
devices. When people pee in swimming pools, most people react by
amount of chlorine in the pool. Some adults react by trying to frighten
their children with the lie
that the pool has a chemical that will change color if they pee.
Incidentally, the attitude that we can stop people from peeing
in pools by frightening them with lies is as idiotic as the
attitude that we can prevent people from using drugs by frightening
them with lies about how dangerous the drugs are. As I pointed out in a
previous document, when a child realizes that his parents and the
authorities are lying to him, it can cause him to look at his parents
and the authorities as liars, or as ignorant fools who don't know what
they are talking about. This can cause the child to lose respect for
his parents and the authorities, and disregard their advice in the
We don't improve human behavior by frightening people with lies. There
is only one way to improve human behavior, and that is by controlling
Unfortunately, people are still reacting to bad behavior by trying to
control or fix the badly behaved people. For example, there were so
many people putting objects into the geysers at Yellowstone National
Park that the park reacted by preventing people from getting near the
geysers. That doesn't solve the problem of badly behaved people,
however; it only reduces the likelihood that they will be able to
destroy those particular geysers.
Incidentally, I heard Michael Reagan, the adopted son of former
President Ronald Reagan, admit on one of his radio shows that when he
was working at Yellowstone Park, he was one of the people putting
objects into the geysers. This brings up another important issue for
this modern world. Specifically, it is not just the children and the
public that cause trouble. It is also the people we regard as
"officials", such as park rangers, policemen, government officials,
school teachers, scientists, church officials, and paramedics.
Our natural tendency is to regard people in leadership positions as
being better than us, but they are just "people", and many of them are
badly behaved, and some of them are more badly behaved than the
"ordinary" people. We must push ourselves into becoming much more
critical of our leaders.
The point I am trying to make with my remarks about bad behavior and
crime is that these irritations might seem to be insignificant, but if
each of us had the opportunity to experience life in a city that was
restricted to people who were honest and considerate, I think we would
discover that life is noticeably more pleasant simply because we never
have to deal with keys, locks, passwords, identification, kidnappings,
rapes, or burglaries, and we never have to be afraid of other
people or watch them when they get near our possessions or children.
Furthermore, the city would be visually more attractive because it
would not need fences or barbed wire, and the city would not need
bright security lights at night, and the buildings would not need to
protect the glass windows at night with protective metal gratings.
I think that if we could experience life in such a city, everybody
would come to the conclusion that crime and bad behavior is indeed a
serious irritation, and that life is noticeably more pleasant when we
are living among a higher quality group of people.
it better to be a child or an adult?
Let's now look at some more details of
issue of government systems and freedom by once again looking at a
simple organization, namely, a family.
First consider an extreme type of family in which the parents make
virtually all of the decisions for the child. In this type of family,
the parents decide where the children will live in the house, what type
of furniture their rooms will have, what type of clothing they will
wear, what type of foods they will eat, when they will eat, how much
each child can eat, whether they will be allowed to have a pet dog, and
when each child will go to sleep.
These parents also tell their children what chores they will do around
the house, and if a child cannot perform a chore properly, his parents
remove him from that chore and give him some other chore, even if he
doesn't want to change.
Those type of parents could be described as dictators, or as
insensitive parents who don't care about what the children "want".
Those parents could also be described as oppressing their children, or
denying them freedom, or treating them as an inferior species.
At the other extreme are the parents who believe in the type of
democracy that America has. These parents are submissive
representatives of the children. The children make the decisions of
what to do with the family, and the parents serve the children.
Those children have the freedom to tell their parents what type of
food, clothing, toys, and bicycles to purchase for them, and they can
decide for themselves when they will sleep, which TV shows to watch,
and where in the house they will sleep. They can decide for themselves
if they want a pet dog. If any of the children want to do chores, they
will decide for themselves which chores to do.
Many people would say that the children who have submissive parents
have more freedom, but that is not true. The children in both families
have freedoms, but they have different types of freedom. The children
whose parents make the decisions for them do not have the freedom to
choose their own clothing, meals, or chores, but they have the freedom
of never having to deal with making decisions about those issues.
By comparison, the children who have the freedom to tell their parents
what to do have the burden of figuring out what to tell their parents.
They have to tell their parents which foods to purchase, what type of
meals to make, and what type of chores to do around the house.
We could summarize the difference between these two families by saying
that the more freedoms the children have, the more burdens the
children have because they become responsible for
making decisions and dealing with problems.
The same is true of the parents. The more of the decisions they make
for their children, the more work they must do, and they become
responsible for the decisions they make.
In the typical family, children do not have much freedom, but they are
not suffering as a result. Rather, they have a wonderful, stress-free
life. They can play with other children without being
about food, housing, taxes, or jobs. Their parents do all of the work
and make all of the decisions.
These concepts apply to all
organizations, regardless of their size. For example, most businesses
do not give their employees much freedom to choose their office, office
furniture, working conditions, or tools. Those decisions are made by
the management, and that puts a burden on the management, and the
management becomes responsible for bad decisions.
Would the lives of the employees improve if they were given the freedom
to choose their own offices, furniture, working conditions, and
tools? That freedom would put a burden on them to do research
and make decisions about all of those items, and they would become
responsible for bad decisions, but what would they gain in return? How
would they benefit?
Giving employees that type of freedom would be
useful only if the managers were so incompetent that the employees
could do a better job of making decisions. However, if the management
was incompetent, the solution would be to get better management,
not give the employees more freedom.
Organizations that provide meals to their members, such as schools,
large businesses, and ships in the Navy, have leaders that make
decisions about what type of meals to provide the people, how to design
the dining room, and what hours the meals will be available. Would life
for the members of those organizations improve if they were given the
freedom to make more of the decisions about meals? I don't think so. I
think it would just add a burden to their life but not provide any
The point I want to bring to your attention is that if we can provide
ourselves with competent leadership, we can unload
some of our freedoms onto our government and
let the government officials handle the
decisions and responsibility.
Every freedom has a burden, so we should have a freedom only
truly benefit from it, and we should let the government handle the
others so that we can be free of those burdens
America provides its citizens with tremendous freedom to choose
whatever life they want, eat whatever meals they please, and start any
business they desire, but these freedoms are putting a tremendous
burden on us. We are burdened with the
problems of figuring out where we are going to live, and we have to
deal with home maintenance, or rents and landlords, and we have to figure
out how to find a job, and we have to deal with the purchasing of food,
the making of meals, and the selection of material items.
Many Americans would undoubtedly respond to my remark that we
are "burdened" by our freedoms by boasting that they don't feel
burdened. However, most people do
feel the burden, and they don't
it, and we can determine this simply by observing their
For example, university professors and school teachers
are so frightened of finding jobs that they are demanding tenure. They
have the freedom to find any job they please, and they have the freedom
to start their own businesses, and the government will not even stop
them from taking a job that they are incompetent at, but they don't
want that freedom. They want tenure. They want to lock themselves into
For another example, a lot of Americans would like to move to a new
home or a new city, and they have the freedom to move anywhere they
please, and as often as they please, but many of them are afraid to
move because of the cost involved, and the complexity of buying and
selling homes, and the difficulty of finding a new job.
Teenagers are in an even worse predicament. Many of them are worried
about where they are going to live, how they are going to find a job,
and what type of furniture and possessions and automobiles to purchase.
They have the freedom to do whatever they want, but those freedoms are
frightening them and causing them a lot of stress. Many of them end up
staying at home with their parents for many years, or they remain in
school simply to avoid having to deal with the process of joining
It doesn't do any good to give people a freedom that they are afraid to
use. We should have freedoms that we actually use and benefit from, and
that we don't truly want should be given to the government to deal with.
The city I propose doesn't provide people with the freedom to build
their own homes, own their own land, or even have their own kitchens
and dining rooms, and that might seem to restrict their
freedoms, but it simply denies them some freedoms while providing them
The people in that city would be relieved of a tremendous number of
management decisions and responsibilities. None of them have to worry
about homes, mortgages, home repairs, or landlords. They would never
have to worry about shopping for food, preparing meals, or making
decisions about kitchen items. They would be able to use any camera,
bicycle, or kayak without worrying about purchasing it or maintaining
it. Since the government controls the economy, the government would
also be responsible for preparing children for society and helping
everybody find jobs. The people would be free of unemployment
The people in that type of city become like children who are being
taken care of by their parents. Or, you could think of it as employees
of a business, or sailors on an aircraft carrier, who are being
provided with meals, homes, equipment, clothing, tools, and whatever
else they need.
Don't look at governments as being right or wrong, or good or bad.
There are some governments that will feel more natural to our emotions,
but there is no perfect government. There are lots of governments that
we will be happy with.
Likewise, there are certain freedoms that will feel more natural to us,
and certain freedoms that we don't care much for, but don't look at the
issue of freedom as if it were an entity that you need, and that you
need a large quantity of it. You can enjoy life with a variety of
different types of freedoms.
For example, we would probably feel more comfortable if the government
gave adults the freedom to choose when they will go to sleep at night,
so I would not suggest the government dictate our sleeping hours.
However, do you really need the freedom to own a plot of land? By
giving up that freedom, we give the
responsibility of land management to the government.
In such a city,
there would be no private property. All of the land in the city,
including the land around factories and businesses, would belong to the
public. Each of us would be free to use the land whenever we wanted to
for bicycle rides, kayaking, snorkeling, picnics, and recreation, and
the government would handle the maintenance for us.
Giving up some of our freedoms will make our life much simpler. For
example, by abandoning the free enterprise system and giving up our
freedom to start our own businesses, the government has to take the
burden of managing the economy, and everybody becomes an employee of
the government. This makes the government responsible for finding jobs
for us, and managing all of the businesses. The people who operate
bicycle repair shops, restaurants, and factories are just employees of
the city who don't have any responsibility for dealing with buildings,
electricity, retirement benefits for the employees, or taxes.
That type of government puts a tremendous burden on the government
officials. They would have to make decisions for the citizens in
regards to which type of cell phones, computer chips, bulldozers, and
clothing to produce. They would also have to make decisions about the
size and design of the homes for the people, and the buildings for the
factories and warehouses. They would also have to make a lot of
decisions about holiday celebrations, language, and working hours and
conditions. They would even have to make decisions about what type of
cubicles to provide for employees, or whether they should design
offices that don't have cubicles.
This government would also be responsible for educating children and
preparing them for both society and jobs. The government would not
allow any adults to do nothing. Everybody would be required to
contribute to society. Furthermore, the government would not allow
people to do whatever job they please. People would be allowed to do a
job only if they could perform properly at it, and if they could not
perform properly at it, they would be removed and given
some other job.
As you imagine a government supervising all of the businesses, and
making decisions for us about food, you should realize that this system
would be practical only if we are capable of providing ourselves with
government officials who behave like responsible parents. This type of
city would be miserable if we allowed nitwits, savages, and criminals to dominate
However, don't let the difficulty of finding government
frighten you. As I have mentioned in other files, don't look for
do nothing. Don't look for reasons to be frightened. Instead, look
solutions to whatever problems you can foresee.
Also, keep in mind that I am not proposing anything we have not already
The military and most businesses are already operating on this type of
government system. We can apply this system of government to an entire
city, if we can
find the courage to experiment with our lives.
The type of government I propose requires a much higher quality group
of government officials, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for us
to achieve it. It simply requires that we restrict voters to the people
who can do a much better job of analyzing candidates for government
office, and it requires restricting voters to those who are so
responsible that they will regularly review the performance of
government officials and continuously replace the worst behaving
official. The military and many businesses are finding people
capabilities, and that is proof that it
the number of products is extremely beneficial
When a society provides the people with
the freedom to start businesses
and choose their own material items, they end up with a large number of
different styles of cell phones, computers, automobiles, microwave
ovens, and other products. By comparison, when the government is in
control of the entire society, the officials will make decisions about
products and models to make, and they will produce a much
number of items. While this may seem to restrict our
freedoms, it has a
The more types of material items and models that we make, the more
factories we need, and the larger the city must be in order to hold all
of the factories and warehouses. The people doing maintenance and
recycling must have larger buildings to deal with a larger
of spare parts, and their job becomes more difficult because they have
to deal with so many different types of items. The engineers who design
products will have to produce more prototypes, and that means they
be doing something more useful.
By comparison, in a city in which material items are restricted by the
there will be fewer factories, fewer assembly-line workers, less
garbage production, less recycling, and the city will be more compact
because it will not need for such large warehouses and retail
outlets. There will be fewer buildings and warehouses to maintain, and
this will reduce the burden on the citizens of building and maintaining
their city. The engineers will not waste their time creating
insignificant variations of items. They will be able to spend more time
developing completely new products.
Don't underestimate the value of reducing the number of items we
produce. The gigantic warehouses and markets in America, such as the
Amazon warehouse in the photo below, would be significantly smaller if
our government eliminated the virtually identical items that are in
By reducing the number of items, we would
able to travel around the city faster because less of the city would be
wasted on warehouses, factories, recycling centers, and repair centers.
We would spend less time
traveling to work and recreational areas.
The more factories and warehouses we can eliminate, the more compact
the city becomes. By designing a city as clusters of apartments,
offices, factories, and by eliminating automobiles and putting an
automated train system underground to connect the clusters together, we
create a city that is visually similar to that in the drawing below,
although the artist made the buildings to narrow to be practical.
That type of city would be much quieter
cleaner than those of today, and everybody would be surrounded by parks
and recreational areas, even when they were at work.