Since it would be so dangerous for a nation's leaders to invade a non-POM nation,
there might be those who would want to attack it via terrorism. This would not
even require that the threat be coming from a national government. It could be
done by almost anyone or any group no matter how small and radical. This leads
to the conclusion that there would be terrorist efforts on the part of individuals
or groups no matter how few people were motivated to perform such acts.
Now if there are enough attempts at terrorist acts and given the technology
available for destructive acts there will be some "successful" acts
of terrorism. But the number of such acts, the success rate of the attempts,
and the recovery from such events will be better for a non-POM economy than
for a POM economy.
There will be fewer attempts at terrorist acts because the international trade
of a non-POM economy will be by barter. This is functional because a national
economy has many products and services to offer and has many needs for goods
and services to meet. Therefore the inherent win-win relationship of barter
will promote amicable relations between the producers and consumers of the
trading nations. This will avoid the colonial exploitation relationship that
many industrial nations have experienced with third world nations.
Another reason for fewer attempts is that entry into a non-POM nation is much
easier to control. That is, everyone who enters the nation will be identified
to the accounts computer system. Unless the entrants expect to live on the
charity of their hosts, they will be bringing money from their own nations.
To be spent, these assets will have to be given to the non-POM nation in exchange
for money in computer accounts. To have an account a person must be identifiable
to the computer. That is, the computer must recognize their voice, fingerprints,
retinal image, smell or some other measurable aspect of their person such that
the computer system can transfer ownership of goods to them in the event they
buy something. This means that every retail outlet can identify anyone who
comes in. It also means that anyone that the computer does not know is automatically
under suspicion. Therefore, there is almost no anonymity in a non-POM economy.
Next, the terrorist either must bring the destructive device(s) into the nation
or must acquire the item once in the nation. Smuggling will not be done for
profit because there is no tax on importing goods. But protecting the consumer
from defective or dangerous merchandise would be paid. Therefore imported items
would be examined. On the other hand, in a non-POM society, weapons and other
destructive devices are not likely to be given easily since the person who
sells or gives any dangerous item will be held responsible for its use even
after they have given it to someone else. Thus it would be difficult to acquire
explosives, poisons, hardware, and other resources needed to create those items
once in the nation. Now none of these actions will be impossible, just more
difficult than in a POM economy and thus less likely.
Next we take up the success rate of attempts at terrorism. The current attitude
of the vast majority of people in a POM economy is "that's not my job" or "it's
none of my business" or "I don't want to get involved." This
is a product of the POM simulation of a zero-sum game
relationship. Contrast that with the non-POM attitude of "what can I do
to help?" Since
one can get paid for getting involved, since one can get paid for doing anything
useful whether it is a part of one's job description or not, everything in
public is everyone's business. In a POM economy such an attitude would be considered
it would be seen as some act of nosiness or selfishness in curiosity or somehow
taking advantage of someone else. But in a non-POM economy it would be recognized
as being neighborly and those benevolent attentions, the actions of a friend
Therefore, anyone who appeared to be secretive, or not welcoming the attentions
of others would look suspicious. If they were near some important equipment
or in a crowd, they would be likely to be noticed and questioned. Those who
enforce the law (police) would find this attitude on the part of the public
to be quite helpful.
Some terrorist attacks would inevitably be successful, even as they are under
a POM economy. When damage occurs or when people are injured, money is no object
(that phrase has a literal meaning which is the one intended here) in the recovery.
Whatever anyone can do to help will be paid. Unlike disasters in a POM economy,
there is no delay while the decision is made as to who, if anyone, is going
to "pick up the tab." This means that resources would be available
for the recovery as quickly as word spread about what was needed. Those who
spread the accurate, well-considered word would also be paid. In other words,
the response would be optimized because that would generate the most pay. There
is never a shortage of natural disasters to provide practice and lessons in
emergency response and each time additional procedures and techniques would
be learned, as they are now. However, in a non-POM economy these discoveries
will be put into practice much more quickly than they currently are, since
people will want to be paid for benefiting others by making these things possible.
Terrorist attacks can never be completely eliminated but the motivations for
them as well as the opportunities for their implementation would be greatly
reduced, so the resultant damage, loss, and suffering from successful attempts
can be minimized by a non-POM economy.
(See "non-POM Open-source"; for a related article that explains
defense in the case of terrorist computer hacking.)
Previous: Non-POM and Taxes
Next: Non-POM and War
Care to comment? Please click here to email us!