Why does NPR not want to post this comment? Re: Egypt's Conservative Society Further Burdens Poor Women

Awaiting approval for about an hour, so far...

News reports about the challenges faced by those who are least well-off economically would benefit from mention of the idea that natural wealth belongs to all and (some people believe) should be shared equally. If we recognize that air and water belongs to all, and if we require compensation be paid by industries when they put pollution or take resources, then corporations would have incentive to reduce pollution as a way to increase profit, and no one would live in abject poverty. If proceeds from pollution fees are combined with proceeds from fees charged against industries that take natural resources of various kinds, the total amount collected would be enough to provide everyone on Earth a base income of about $20 per day. (R. Costanza, et al; Nature, 1997)

Equal sharing of natural wealth would end extreme poverty AND would tend to moderate the swings in the cycle of economic boom and bust. [Overheating economies would be dampened by increasing environmental impact fees (assuming fees are adjusted to maintain set limits to overall impacts), while slowing economies would not shrink to a dangerously slow pace because all people will have a modest base income in the form of a natural wealth stipend. The most vital sectors of the economy would be insulated from the more damaging effects of a slowdown.]

Systemic flaws are not reported

More security for the least secure means more security for all

Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability

Censorship at Moyers and Company

Bill Moyers' website does not show that a comment is pending (but a spam comment made at the same time as mine, more than two hours ago now, was removed within about 35 minutes or less). Disqus lists my comment as 'pending'.

My comment:
And all this is important because... a relatively small group of people (members of Congress) decides how to spend public funds. If each person had control of a small but equal fraction of the total public funds budget and were required to spend as they choose but only in support of programs that, say, 60% of the people deem to be a valuable contribution to the public good, then the question of who is elected to Congress will become a much smaller concern. (Congress as an institution would take on an advisory role if spending decisions and decisions about how much pollution to allow and how rapidly natural resources should be depleted were made by the people at large.)

As our civilization moves closer toward collapse (as we continue to deplete resources faster than we are learning to do without, and as the quality of civil society continues to erode here and abroad), people will have less and less free time and attention to devote to the latest investigation of systemic corruption and regulatory capture. (Industries that benefit from public spending will have more and more latitude within which to influence the regulatory and funding apparatus of government.

Are we ready for a paradigm shift yet?

What do we need to know that news media are not telling us?
Systemic flaws are not reported

Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere

Pro-Russian Separatists Block Access to MH17 Crash Site - Comment deleted

Flight MH17 report on NPR

I suggested that the nation-state had outlived its usefulness. Someone shot back that a global government would necessarily be more oppressive.

If someone replies to my comment, I should be able to answer that reply. Yet this was deleted by NPR...

Throughout human history, the scale of human organization, including the geographical extent of governments, has reflected the distance across which people could easily communicate and travel within a few days or a week or so. The test of whether a government operates within appropriate limits while also carrying out the responsibilities of an effective government depends not on its size so much as on whether it and the people who give it material support and allegiance recognize appropriate limits to its power... and also whether there is recognition of the full extent of its basic responsibilities; that is, do the people recognize the areas where government must act.

I think that governments ought not initiate force or coercion against peaceful people engaged in private action in private spaces. We do not have authority as individuals to dictate private behavior of others. We cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. When citizens recognize this limit to government authority, we will refrain from voting for politicians who would violate this basic principle. We will not give allegiance to governments that initiate force or coercion against peaceful people. It is this principle, rather than an arbitrary limit to the scale of organization, that will protect us from oppressive governments. (I have heard of cases where the federal government has arrested and prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated the rights of citizens. The size of the government does not prevent it from doing the wrong thing, nor does it ensure that it will do the right thing. The vigilance and engagement of the people is what does that.)

Governments can regulate public behavior. Governments can require that those who cause problems for others pay some compensation to those who are harmed. In the case of putting pollution or taking natural resources in pursuit of profit, the detrimental impact is felt by all. Payment can be required as compensation for the lost opportunity resulting from that taking or adverse impact. (If there will be overall limits imposed, then, to the extent that one actor takes some of the available resources or puts some fraction of the total amount of pollution to be allowed, others will have to refrain from taking, so as to keep overall impacts within the agreed-upon limits. So, any taking of resources or putting of pollution by one actor necessarily diminishes opportunities for others to do likewise. Payments made by industries when they take or degrade natural wealth could be shared equally among all the world's people. The idea that natural wealth is to be shared among all people would be manifest in reality. The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of natural wealth.)

Governments violate moral principle when they initiate force or coercion

A sustainable and just civilization requires that we use our moral sense

Nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness

Another post removed from NPR

Ukraine Accuses Rebels of Destroying Evidence at MH17 Crash Site

This is all so very sad for the families involved. Such a horrible way for these lives to be brought to an end. It is just too sad.

We should know by now, I think, that the nation-state paradigm has outlived its usefulness. When will we call for systems of global governance?

If we seek a democratic society wherein natural wealth is shared equally and environmental impacts are held within limits that most people feel are acceptable, it might look something like what is outlined here:

Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere

Biological Model for Politics and Economics (shorter version)

Unexplained deletion of comments at NPR - Moderating policy could be more transparent

Stress takes a toll on health and family by Richard Knox and Patti Neighmond 

 My comment below was deleted, along with a reply I put in the thread it started.

 Environmentalists and concerned citizens have complained that we are allowing a new class of neuroactive pesticides to be widely used and it is causing collapse of bee populations in many parts of the world. The industry representatives point out that the bees have mites attacking them and point to this fact as evidence that their products are not to blame. In fact, bees have always had to contend with the stress of mite infestations. If they now have to deal with mites and the added stress of neonicotinoids, the combined effect may be more than they are able to deal with.

 Human beings have various stressors. Several types were mentioned in this story. When we introduce unnatural stress into this mix, the combined effect may cause breakdown. The fact that people have no ready access to a share of natural wealth is a source of stress. It means that, absent gainful employment, they can face the prospect of becoming destitute. 

Whether people have access to a paying job can depend largely on macroeconomic conditions. Not something people have any control over. Having no control or autonomy is stressful. Many people in the world live now in abject poverty. This is most certainly an unnatural condition. (There can be acute shortages in nature, depending on season, weather and localized disasters such as a flood or drought. But chronic debilitating poverty is something belonging to civilization. Most specifically, modern civilization. (In the past, as economies slowed or civilizations collapsed, people could move elsewhere to find opportunities, to seek out better living conditions. Now the systems are linked through global networks. When one area experiences a bust or collapse, other areas will be affected. And there is no wilderness that people can flee to as the system turns to chaos.) 

 If we were to share natural wealth equally, then the stress of unemployment would be substantially reduced, as would the stress of being in a relatively low-paying job. People would not face the prospect of becoming destitute if they lose their job. They would still have some spending power, no matter their employment status. And, since everyone would receive their natural wealth stipend without any need to demonstrate hardship, the stress that some people feel when they are put in a position of asking for a handout would not arise. Equal sharing of natural wealth would transform society in ways we can only begin to imagine. 

Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability

Grocery stores throw away so much food. Shame on them.

Shame on us.

Why do we waste so much?

In this time of large population and limited resources it is most important that what resources we do use are used efficiently and not wasted. In this country, very large amounts of food are wasted, thrown away, because of slight blemishes, or slight variations in size, or irregular shapes, that cause 'Grade A' produce buyers to pass them over until they become noticably older, drier, less appealing than others. At this point, or at any point along the distribution line, those produce items which are noticeably less than grade 'A' can be separated from the grade 'A' and offered for sale at a grade 'B' price. There is no need and no sense in holding a bin of tomatoes, with some of them obviously past the point that they will be the first pick of a grade 'A' buyer, but still too good to throw away... there is no sense in holding those all out at a grade 'A' price, until the older items actually deterioriate to the point that they are of no value to anyone. Instead, the grade 'B' items ought to be removed from the grade 'A' pile and given a going market price, (i.e., a price that makes them go, that makes them sell).

There is no reason why those who want perfect tomatoes and unblemished squash should be allowed to dictate the same high 'Grade A' price for everybody.

Those of us who don't mind taking extra dirty potatoes or irregularly shaped carrots, and what not, can reasonably expect to be offered a price advantage that reflects the fact that our willingness to accept nutritious but less than 'perfect' food increases the overall efficiency of the food production and distribution system. Economic incentives *should* accrue to those who promote efficiency, and in a free market, they do. But, the current system is not a free market.

Perishable produce offers a particular challenge to marketers, especially in the current 'self-select' paradigm where consumers can look askance at and pass over any item with the slightest blemish. The items for sale are in a constant state of flux--in transition from fresh to decayed. The relative attractiveness of items can change daily.

Buyers will go for the large items in a produce market selling at a price per item, (rather than per net weight); some smaller items will be passed over, so that they become noticably older, drier than others, or even because they are misshapen. We allow the grocery stores, which have a large part of the responsibility to manage the produce supply, (argueably the most precious natural resource on the planet, at least from our human perspective), to throw away many, many pounds of food every day.

If the produce managers would make an effort to take out grade 'B' produce and sell it at a reduced price to interested consumers, then much of what is now thrown away could go to feed the more needy among us. It is not necessary that we all pay the same high grade 'A' price if we are not all equally concerned that our potatoes be regularly shaped and our tomatoes be completely free of blemishes.

When a store advertises that they sell "only grade 'A' produce", then we can be certain that a lot of grade 'B' and grade 'C' food is being thrown away. There is more profit for the store, evidently, in following this policy (as the system is organized now). The sad truth is that some people have been known to buy grade 'B' produce, then they take it home and eat it, (or not, as the case may be), then go to court claiming that the store sold them spoiled food that made them sick. Others take the food back later claiming that they bought it at regular price and asking for a refund because it is bad. We ought to be able to address these substantial concerns while also promoting a vital, efficient market.

I would be happy to pay a dollar for an ID card that identifies me as a member of the "Grade 'B' Buyers Club"; a group of people who have promised not to sue the store for bad product (we are each responsibile for what we put into our mouths), and promised not to seek refunds on fresh produce items.

I have been banned from stores for taking what were obviously grade 'B' items from the grade 'A' produce rack, asking for the opportunity to purchase the items at a reduced price, then, after being told that the items (which I had taken from the "For Sale" pile) could not be sold at all, and would be thrown away, I (on one occasion) defiantly ate a bruised pear, to show that it was still good inside, and (on another occasion) I took a small box that the store manager insisted must be thrown away. She indicated that if I took the box I was holding, with a few blemished and bruised items in it, that I would not be prosecuted, but that I would be banned from the store.

I wonder how many people have been banned from local grocery stores for taking items that were deemed to have no economic value. If they wish to hire the extra security to protect their policy of throwing away grade 'B' produce, and enforce the ban that they set, that is their perrogative, but if they intend to rely on the police to enforce the ban, then they may be putting an extra, unnecessary, unjustified burden on the publically supported police service. Any police officer (an expensive and valuable community resource) that is called to a grocery store to protect the trash, or to remove a 'tresspasser' is unavailable to the community for other, more pressing concerns, such as protecting against violent crime. The community may frown on this apparent mismanagement of valuable public resources.

Not that I want to promote a climate of lawlessness, but this practice of profligate squandering of resources is a shame.

My letter to HEB Food Stores:

The human population is still increasing. Human beings cut forests and invade wildlife habitat to grow food. Any time that we waste food, we have to destroy more wilderness to make up the loss. Why not sell bruised or blemished produce, grade 'B' items, at reduced price, rather than throw them away? Wasting resources means a harsher life for the next generation.

John Champagne

First published at Geocities


Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule-and-public-property-rights.html

Why I fast - Message to a local TV newsroom

I have what I believe to be a profoundly important proposal. I think the ideas that came to me in a eureka moment would be coming to many others if there were some discussion of the topics of economic externalities (also called 'market failure') and some mention of the idea that natural wealth should be shared equitably, more or less equally. We should hear discussion of these topics in the context of news reports about the problems created by externalities, and within reports about the problems caused by the injustice of unequal sharing of natural wealth.

Externalities are relevant to any story about pollution, resource depletion, traffic congestion (a kind of resource scarcity), etc.

Sharing of natural wealth is an idea that could contribute to any discussion of or report about poverty, unemployment or disparity of wealth.

Some professors have said or endorsed the view that this proposal ... Biological Model for Politics and Economics ... would require changes in human nature and they decided that the paper they received should not be published. They have, however, repeatedly declined to say WHAT changes in human nature would be required. Nor have they said specifically what they read that caused them to believe this.

Kevin Hickey
Demetri Kantarelis

I want someone to show me a flaw in this proposal that would prevent it from working, if there is one.

OR someone show a better proposal for achieving these goals. This changed paradigm would provide the basis for a sustainable society, and it would bring an end to extreme poverty.

I am announcing a fast (68 hrs. on now), as a protest of the neglect of these topics. Also, I protest the discourtesy of these professors (Hickey and Kantarelis, at Assumption College, Massachusetts).

If ANY reporter or editor can say why continued neglect of these topics is defensible, I will end my fast.

(If interested, respond to this critique: Systemic flaws are not reported: What news media and universities are not telling us )

If the professors want to answer the questions, I will end my fast.

If ANY person can show a fatal flaw in the proposal, I will end my fast.

If ANY person points me to a better proposal for how to achieve these goals, I will end my fast.

If MANY people tell me that these goals are not important, I will end my fast.

Otherwise, I will die soon, in a most emphatic act of protest of the neglect of these topics, as explained at the link above.

My hope is that, by alerting you to this blind spot in your (and others') reporting, a change in practice will result.

Thank you.