It is not an asset if it belongs to Nature. That needs expanding on. Land is not an asset, it is given freely as we are part of Nature. So historically people have appropriated land as an asset as land can be used to provide food, gain mineral wealth etc. Land cannot be an asset per se but products from that land are assets. Access to land needs to be regulated or moderated by the general assembly, however once land has been used to obtain minerals those minerals become a product of labour and are legitimate assets. Labour or processing brings a status of “asset” to that which Nature provides, but what Nature provides are not assets – land cannot be an asset.
Nature has provided us with resources but man uses intelligence to develop those resources or transport them. Man has a right to develop resources but within the maxim of the general good of mankind and not as present the profit for the 1%. Once man has applied himself to the resources, then the product of his labour becomes an asset. However to control greed that man has demonstrated, primarily through the 1%, the general assembly needs to control acces to Nature’s resources.
Water is not an asset per se, as it is freely given to all humanity in Nature. It is clear that the 1% are trying to turn water into a profit-making enterprise and appropriation of water as an asset needs to be resisted. Transporting water requires human intelligence, and so that makes the ownership of the means of transportation an asset. Air is freely available, and needs to be resisted as an asset.
The wind and sun are natural resources, and intelligence can turn their availability into energy. This needs to be moderated by the general assembly as accumulating energy could lead to problems, but processing the wind and sun is an asset.
Nature provides us with food, but there is a balance as to the way this food is maintained. Over-fishing for example depletes stocks. Access to the rivers and seas for fish needs to be moderated by the general assembly, but processing and transporting the food requires intelligence and so creates assets. Currently BigFood process for profit and create foods that are damaging to health. The general assembly would moderate the use of natural resources and needs to moderate such inimical practices that exist in the food industry.
Land for livestock is required yet both that land and the livestock are natural resources. Both the land and the livestock need to be moderated by the general assembly. Livestock needs to be a renewable resource, so the general assembly needs to concern itself with the sustainability of the livestock. Whilst land and livestock are not assets the product of the farming requires human intelligance and so therefore becomes an asset.
Plants are given to us freely by Nature yet they provide food and health. The land and the plants are not assets but human intelligence is used to develop food and medicine from the land and plants. Once developed the food and medicine become assets, the land and plants need to be moderated by the general assembly. BigPharma develop medicines that create disease, the general assembly needs to moderate this.
The forests are natural resources, and can provide fuel for people as well as materials for building homes. Once the trees have been chopped down, they are a product of labour and become an asset. Who has access to these trees is controlled by the general assembly. But with trees there is a good measure of sustainability as trees can be planted and renewed.
Nature also provides us with non-renewable fuel such as oil and coal. To make a culture dependent on such fuels is short-sighted, and this would be part of the ambit of the general assembly to moderate the use of these non-renewable resources.
Moderation and control by the general assembly is significant in this discourse on assets, and the freedom-loving people who are oppressed by regulation in our current society will react against this approach. Those people need to understand the purpose of regulation in our current society, quite simply regulation controls the 99% and allows the 1% to exploit. It is this inequity that freedom-loving people react against. If a person is genuinely freedom-loving they don’t wish to see the planet exploited – that is so short-sighted, but quite often people of Nature have restrictions imposed on them as part of the 1% exploitation. They blame the bureaucrats and react to interference. But quite simply that interference is based on 1% exploitation – nothing else.
What makes the general assembly different? They are the 99% – and under the process of making money correlate to assets they will be the 100%. At present regulation takes time because people are fighting the police, “the local council” or “city hall”. But they are fighting the pawns of the 1% who become obstacles to genuine freedom and a caring society because of the 1%. The general assembly is the 100%, moderating will only restrict the greedy, those who are trying to exploit Nature to gain more assets than they need. For most people this moderation will be a breath of fresh air because they will be able to produce their food, farm their lands, chop their wood in tune with Nature the way their ancestors had done. Moderation by the general assembly will not control the 99% but the 1%.
And the general assembly will be local. It will be the local people who decide on how the local Natural resources are allocated. So the local people will be heard and understood, and will not be fighting big business who have bought off central government who have then created laws for the benefit of big business – not in the interests of the people, not in the interests of Nature.
And who will be the general assembly, that will evolve with time. This would not be an assembly of representational democracy as controlled by those who finance the political parties. It will be an assembly of responsible local people who will want to spend time taking care of their community. Here is a model:-