from a comment to The Diane Rehm Show:
We could have more discussion of principle in our reporting.
All governments seem to pursue policies that involve initiating force or violence against peaceful people.
There could be more discussion about what circumstances justify use of force, with a particular emphasis on initiation of force.
The kind of damage and suffering and the deaths caused by Syrian military attacks on citizens of Syria is similar to the kind of damage, suffering and deaths caused by my own government's military actions in several foreign nations.
A basic moral precept says that it is wrong for one person to initiate violence against another person. Because we do not have such a right to initiate force as individuals, we cannot legitimately delegate that right or authority to government.
There is a way to build a sustainable and just civilization. It involves sharing natural wealth equally. Pollution fees, with proceeds going to all people, would be an example of a policy that embodies this sharing in the political and economic structures. Fees on taking natural resources, with proceeds going to all people, would embody a respect of PUBLIC property rights in society. Public or commons property rights, like other human rights, are a kind of natural law which must be respected.
A basic moral precept says that we all have an equal right to enjoy natural opportunities. Related to this right is the right to share in deciding overall limits to rates of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources. There is a related shared duty to create systems of governance that result in actual limits that are in accord with, that are consistent with, the will of the people. We have to start talking about basic moral precepts if we are to carry out our most fundamental political responsibilities.
How to make the big problems much smaller
Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income
Monday, February 27, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
When will there be some reporting about equal sharing of natural wealth?
The NPR Ombudsman invites input from listeners about what is not being reported.
An equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a dampening of the boom and bust of the 'business cycle'. Respect of public property rights along with private property would mean a stable and sustainable civilization. The arc of civilization, thrive and collapse, would no longer threaten social and ecological health.
Equal sharing of natural wealth is consistent with natural law, as described by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine...
Equal sharing of natural wealth means economic externalities are no longer a problem. Our economy should not be giving us incentive to do harm by showing us lower prices for the most environmentally harmful choices. Fees on pollution and other environmental impacts will cause us to see the true costs of our decisions. Prices need to tell us the truth about real costs.
When will news reports about wealth disparity and poverty mention the fact that equal sharing of natural wealth makes those problems smaller?
When will reports about pollution and resource scarcity mention that fees on putting pollution and taking resources would promote sustainability in the most efficient and fair way?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Mon Feb 20 2012 01:04:04 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
An equal sharing of natural wealth would mean a dampening of the boom and bust of the 'business cycle'. Respect of public property rights along with private property would mean a stable and sustainable civilization. The arc of civilization, thrive and collapse, would no longer threaten social and ecological health.
Equal sharing of natural wealth is consistent with natural law, as described by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine...
Equal sharing of natural wealth means economic externalities are no longer a problem. Our economy should not be giving us incentive to do harm by showing us lower prices for the most environmentally harmful choices. Fees on pollution and other environmental impacts will cause us to see the true costs of our decisions. Prices need to tell us the truth about real costs.
When will news reports about wealth disparity and poverty mention the fact that equal sharing of natural wealth makes those problems smaller?
When will reports about pollution and resource scarcity mention that fees on putting pollution and taking resources would promote sustainability in the most efficient and fair way?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Mon Feb 20 2012 01:04:04 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Current system produces perverse incentives
Spain's jobless benefits bogged down by fraud
Before the end of this story, I knew that there would be no mention of an alternative public policy that would avoid the downsides of the policy described.
There is nothing more predictable than that NPR reporting (and mainstream media generally) includes significant blindspots regarding sharing of natural wealth, public property rights and economic externalities. These topics are not mentioned in news reports.
When people are paid for their unemployed status, they have an economic incentive to be less productive. This is not good for them nor is it good for society (for us). They have incentive to hide or obfuscate their employment status. This is a perverse incentive. A society that encourages people to be open about their employment status is one where there is generally more awareness among members about the experience and abilities of their fellows.
If we respected natural law enough to share natural wealth equally, we might not feel a need for government programs aimed at poverty reduction, since no person would live with the threat of abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth does not cause people to want to avoid productive work.
Why no mention of that fact in a story such as this?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Before the end of this story, I knew that there would be no mention of an alternative public policy that would avoid the downsides of the policy described.
There is nothing more predictable than that NPR reporting (and mainstream media generally) includes significant blindspots regarding sharing of natural wealth, public property rights and economic externalities. These topics are not mentioned in news reports.
When people are paid for their unemployed status, they have an economic incentive to be less productive. This is not good for them nor is it good for society (for us). They have incentive to hide or obfuscate their employment status. This is a perverse incentive. A society that encourages people to be open about their employment status is one where there is generally more awareness among members about the experience and abilities of their fellows.
If we respected natural law enough to share natural wealth equally, we might not feel a need for government programs aimed at poverty reduction, since no person would live with the threat of abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth does not cause people to want to avoid productive work.
Why no mention of that fact in a story such as this?
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Monday, February 20, 2012
Boom and Bust, Arc of Civilization are Linked
Adapted from a comment on the Greek debt reporting.
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the machinations of the financial world, but my understanding is that US banks lent their expertise at obfuscation, learned while bundling the multitudes of tiny slices of crappy mortgage loan debt, (they sold their expertise, I should say) to those who wanted to obfuscate the financial state of Greece so that, even beyond the point where Greece was in a good position to be borrowing more money, people could still believe or claim that more lending is appropriate.
So maybe there is plenty of blame to go around.
We in the US are borrowing much still, even after the point where we have saddled the next generation with an enormous debt -- to China and other bond-holders.
Our president said he would cut the deficit by half (grow the debt more slowly), but we've doubled the deficit, instead, I think.
As goes the economy, so goes civilization. The boom and bust of the business 'cycle' is the same phenomenon as the thriving and collapse of civilization, but seen at a different scale, a different magnitude.
We are heading for collapse of our global civilization. But there is a solution for this instability.
The natural rights of man can provide a basis for a sustainable and just society.
We are almost completely neglecting commons or public property rights, which Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke all referred to in one form or another. (Joseph Mazor has compiled references to these writers where they have asserted a need to respect the right of the people to have access to natural wealth. Mazor explains that we all have equal claim to the right to enjoy natural opportunities.)
If we accept that we have a political right to share in deciding limits to levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources, then it follows that actual limits should reflect what the people say they should be. To know what the people say on the topic of limits to various kinds of human impacts, we could take a random survey.
If we believe that we have equal right to enjoy the benefits of natural wealth, then to the extent that some would take (and benefit from) resources more than others, those who take more ought to pay some compensation to those who take less. An effective, efficient way to carry out a policy aimed at achieving this would be to charge a fee to those who take, and give the proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
Instability of the economic system is reduced. Upswings in economic activity are automatically dampened because, as demands for natural resources increase in an expanding economy, the limited number of permits available will cause the price of permits to increase. This price increase will tend to dampen economic activity and prevent overheating.
On the other hand, a shrinking economy will maintain its vital functions because all citizens will be receiving an income from their shared natural wealth stipend. Business contractions will be moderated by the fact that all people will maintain some significant level of confidence in their ability to spend money. No one will entirely stop spending. The most essential goods and services would continue to be produced, since we would all have our public property or natural wealth dividend to protect and insulate us from abject poverty.
With less economic hardship associated with loosing a job, (since our job would no longer be our sole source of income) we could eliminate government regulation of the hiring and firing process. We would not need government stimulus or jobs programs.
We could be more selective in our choice of employment. Time spent at gainful employment might decrease, leaving more time available for other pursuits. The pay for the most difficult jobs would increase.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the machinations of the financial world, but my understanding is that US banks lent their expertise at obfuscation, learned while bundling the multitudes of tiny slices of crappy mortgage loan debt, (they sold their expertise, I should say) to those who wanted to obfuscate the financial state of Greece so that, even beyond the point where Greece was in a good position to be borrowing more money, people could still believe or claim that more lending is appropriate.
So maybe there is plenty of blame to go around.
We in the US are borrowing much still, even after the point where we have saddled the next generation with an enormous debt -- to China and other bond-holders.
Our president said he would cut the deficit by half (grow the debt more slowly), but we've doubled the deficit, instead, I think.
As goes the economy, so goes civilization. The boom and bust of the business 'cycle' is the same phenomenon as the thriving and collapse of civilization, but seen at a different scale, a different magnitude.
We are heading for collapse of our global civilization. But there is a solution for this instability.
The natural rights of man can provide a basis for a sustainable and just society.
We are almost completely neglecting commons or public property rights, which Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine and John Locke all referred to in one form or another. (Joseph Mazor has compiled references to these writers where they have asserted a need to respect the right of the people to have access to natural wealth. Mazor explains that we all have equal claim to the right to enjoy natural opportunities.)
If we accept that we have a political right to share in deciding limits to levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources, then it follows that actual limits should reflect what the people say they should be. To know what the people say on the topic of limits to various kinds of human impacts, we could take a random survey.
If we believe that we have equal right to enjoy the benefits of natural wealth, then to the extent that some would take (and benefit from) resources more than others, those who take more ought to pay some compensation to those who take less. An effective, efficient way to carry out a policy aimed at achieving this would be to charge a fee to those who take, and give the proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
Instability of the economic system is reduced. Upswings in economic activity are automatically dampened because, as demands for natural resources increase in an expanding economy, the limited number of permits available will cause the price of permits to increase. This price increase will tend to dampen economic activity and prevent overheating.
On the other hand, a shrinking economy will maintain its vital functions because all citizens will be receiving an income from their shared natural wealth stipend. Business contractions will be moderated by the fact that all people will maintain some significant level of confidence in their ability to spend money. No one will entirely stop spending. The most essential goods and services would continue to be produced, since we would all have our public property or natural wealth dividend to protect and insulate us from abject poverty.
With less economic hardship associated with loosing a job, (since our job would no longer be our sole source of income) we could eliminate government regulation of the hiring and firing process. We would not need government stimulus or jobs programs.
We could be more selective in our choice of employment. Time spent at gainful employment might decrease, leaving more time available for other pursuits. The pay for the most difficult jobs would increase.
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Response to 'Beyond Modernity: Thoughts we might consider'
My comment to NPR 13.7 Blog: Beyond Modernity: Thoughts we might consider
Stu Kauffman wrote:
If we want an economy that does not grow in respect to certain physical quantities (such as the rates of cutting of forests or of taking of fish from the sea, or the extent of monoculture or of paving on the Earth, etc.) we can define those physical quantities that reflect acceptable limits, then issue permits for just those impacts that most people would say are acceptable. We could auction these permits in a free market. Such a system would define limits to the overall size of the human economy in real terms and in a way consistent with our democratic principles.
The proceeds from sale of the permits would be a monetary representation of the value of natural resource wealth, which is best understood as belonging to all (because we all have an equal right to use these resources). The money collected should be shared equally among all members of the human community.
We could end extreme poverty throughout the world. Estimates of the value of natural resources suggest that sharing this wealth would mean about $20 or more per person, per day, for everyone on Earth.
As prices increase for those goods and services produced through use of natural resources, we will reduce our consumption of the more resource-intensive products.
Businesses would modify production methods towards greater resource efficiency. Some enterprises that offer little value in relation to resources used will go out of business, while opportunities (and profits) will grow for those who produce value at little or no cost to the environment.
With equal sharing of fee proceeds, we will be assured that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum will have the wherewithal to acquire that which is essential for living their lives. The most vital functions of the economy would be buffered, as it were, against the more severe effects of an economic downturn.
The need to limit humans' impact on the environment and the need to create a more egalitarian society can both be served through a change in our political and economic paradigms, toward a respect of PUBLIC or COMMONS property rights. The fact that we are currently living in a society that is neither sustainable nor equitable reflects the fact that we have thus far failed to respect this side of the property rights coin.
Moral principle is a kind of natural law.
Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Stu Kauffman wrote:
If we thought together, what would we want for a world civilization?...
...We are millennia beyond the early Bronze Age, on a crowded planet we despoil. At some soon point we must evolve to zero GDP growth with respect to using planetary resources, at sufficient wealth, well distributed, to be "enough" in a thriving global economy enlivened by thriving global cultures.
To transform beyond modernity, we must evolve, including the power structure of our capitalist world. No one gives up power willingly. Unless? Unless: i. By necessity on a finite planet. ii. A new and commanding vision is wrought of what we can become, what magic we can co-create, altering our ethical view of our lives and what form of civilization might best serve our humanity.
If we want an economy that does not grow in respect to certain physical quantities (such as the rates of cutting of forests or of taking of fish from the sea, or the extent of monoculture or of paving on the Earth, etc.) we can define those physical quantities that reflect acceptable limits, then issue permits for just those impacts that most people would say are acceptable. We could auction these permits in a free market. Such a system would define limits to the overall size of the human economy in real terms and in a way consistent with our democratic principles.
The proceeds from sale of the permits would be a monetary representation of the value of natural resource wealth, which is best understood as belonging to all (because we all have an equal right to use these resources). The money collected should be shared equally among all members of the human community.
We could end extreme poverty throughout the world. Estimates of the value of natural resources suggest that sharing this wealth would mean about $20 or more per person, per day, for everyone on Earth.
As prices increase for those goods and services produced through use of natural resources, we will reduce our consumption of the more resource-intensive products.
Businesses would modify production methods towards greater resource efficiency. Some enterprises that offer little value in relation to resources used will go out of business, while opportunities (and profits) will grow for those who produce value at little or no cost to the environment.
With equal sharing of fee proceeds, we will be assured that those on the low end of the income distribution spectrum will have the wherewithal to acquire that which is essential for living their lives. The most vital functions of the economy would be buffered, as it were, against the more severe effects of an economic downturn.
The need to limit humans' impact on the environment and the need to create a more egalitarian society can both be served through a change in our political and economic paradigms, toward a respect of PUBLIC or COMMONS property rights. The fact that we are currently living in a society that is neither sustainable nor equitable reflects the fact that we have thus far failed to respect this side of the property rights coin.
Moral principle is a kind of natural law.
Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too: http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/natural-law-requires-respect-of-public.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)