Some people prefer I do other things or talk about other things but . . . well guess what I do this for free so I talk about whatever the fk I want.

Anyways, understanding the principles of a free will civilization is not a laughing matter and sure assume that I'm just acting on a hunch but my "hunch" is that understanding trusts at least on a very subtle level is tantamount to understanding what these "free will" societies are all about. Need I remind you that these are civilizations that have had eons to think about careful legal frameworks and philosophical views. And likely more often than not, what we are doing as we develop our own philosophies and legal frameworks, we are not *inventing* anything new. We are *remembering* things that leak through despite the efforts of the death traps.

Ok so Trusts.

Trusts are convergent, not monastic. They don't originate from a singular culture even though one of the most brutally successful cultures managed to be its harbinger (the Romans). That's not because trusts are a Roman invention. It is because it is such a robust piece of legal architecture that it survives almost any culture under whatever name it's dubbed.

Here's the basic idea.

Everything can be attributed to more than just an owner.

First it has a grantor. Who decided the ownership first of all? We don't necessarily know by the deepest philosophy who is rightfully owning it, but we can at least answer one basic question: Who was the last one that said they could own it? This kind of thinking is not subtle or rare. It is all pervasive in societies both benevolent and cruel. It is about inheritance.

Let's jump to the other role. The other role is a governor. Or what you might call Trustee. There are many synonyms. This is because having "the rights" to something is vague.Just about every relation you engage in from a casual conversation to an all out war - there is a governor. Someone who claims authority to do things with the trust. That doesn't make them the rightful governor. That just makes them the acting authority. Identifying who claims governance does not automatically make the matter benevolent, but it takes away the mystery. When someone says "Who died and made you king?" well that is exactly a question of trust logic. Who says you get to say how to drive the car? Who says you can plant petunias in that plot of dirt? Who says you're the one who gives that kid her vitamins? These are not trivial questions. These are important.

Finally you have a beneficiary or beneficial ownership. Why are we doing this? What is the proposed outcome? Whom is supposed to *enjoy* this fact. Try and get away from the idea that there's an intended beneficiary and you're throwing yourself into naivety.

If I were to summarize one key purpose behind philosophy of Trusts is that it is meant to remove guillibility and naivety.

When something happens you stop just sitting thinking "well what happens happens." There is a system at play here. what is it? Who said it could be done this way? Whom is it for and if it's not for anyone then what's the point? Who says they're in charge and who said they could be in charge?

I'm not saying this gives you all the answers. I'm saying this is a foundational tome for where the answers start.

---

On a completely unrelated note but I'm adding it here because why not. Yo you should totally get Intysam's 3rd Eye Quest game. I've been playing it and it's honestly kind of addictive. But I don't even bother to play it any one single way. I just pick up cards and I try to guess things. It is building the remote viewing muscle passively. Like exercising with your backpack while waiting at the bus.