I read the wealth article and saw several references to human capital. As further support for the validity of Universal Enfranchisement, I suggest that a human who receives a monthly dividend has more economic value than one who doesn't. I further suggest that this increase in value justifies the existence and value of the fund to provide the dividend.Stephenstillwell 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
People v. United Nations
The United Nations, through acceptance and ratification of its’ charter, has further accepted a duty to all people inhabiting this planet to protect us from damage created by the various nations of the world. Evidenced by the majority desperate and tenuous state and the continuity of war and unrest, We the People charge that duty has been breached. Pursuant to the values set forth by the United Nations, We demand the United Nations and its’ Member States recognize the value of each individual person and further accept this value as a capital basis for a stable world economy. Pursuant to this demand and to establish a minimum individual sovereignty the United Nations must accomplish the following:
1. Establish the value of an enfranchised person.
2. Establish the age of enfranchisement.
3. Establish secure local accounts for each person to deposit their value in trust with their local government, register their votes and collect their dividends.
4. Establish rules governing the prudent, secure and sustainable investment of this human capital.
5. Establish a reasonable dividend to be paid directly to each enfranchised person without tax, tariff or encumbrance of any kind.
6. Resolve that a corporation is not a person, but a protectorate government of the nation responsible for its’ charter.
Stephenstillwell 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The following are my thoughts on quantifying a settlement. I hope they provide a clear perspective.
1. $1, 000, 000, a nice round figure, seems like a lot but really isn't, and also makes the math easier. Six billion million is six quadrillion dollars, or about two thousand times the net worth of the wealthiest eight hundred people. Acknowledging the base value of each person to be 0.0003 times the average net worth of the wealthiest eight hundred people is not excessive, and could not significantly reduce the position of those most wealthy.
2. 17, not a likely consensus, but my opinion.
3. Technologically speaking, if one secure account can be created, so can 5 or 6 billion. This shouldn't be a tremendous problem.
4. The Savings and Loans had functional regulations, which might be a good place to start. I feel that each individual should be able to borrow some, if not all, of his or her own capital for secured things like a home, or a secured interest in the company, business or farm where they work, etc...
5. 1.2%, this will pay each person $1, 000 per month. This is just about enough to sustain existence in a developed county. If each person can borrow 10% of his or her capital for a house and pay 15%-25% of the dividend in payment, each person can have shelter and still have enough dividends to eat and pay taxes. This is also consistent with a 2% sustainable growth rate.
While this would only provide a poverty level subsistence income in a developed country, extreme poverty would certainly be eliminated. This is the goal.
I recognize the belief that “all people able to work should work.” I believe that in a society where basic needs are assured, people will apply themselves to productive activities. Those whose basic needs have been assured by position and inheritance have proven this for centuries.
Those who shun productivity in spite of social pressures reduce the productivity of others when forced into a work situation. If these people are content to not work and live at poverty level, they aid society best by staying out of the way. While we take freedom from criminals, we also provide them with food, shelter and security. If we can provide these things to criminals why can we not provide them to all?
If poor people have a small guaranteed income, capitalism can begin to provide things that poor people need, like the $4 insecticidal mosquito nets that people in Africa can't buy because they don't have $4 (annual medical budget).
This would also have a positive effect on desperation and all the resultant ills. The current ability of money or the lack thereof, to coerce bad behavior would be significantly reduced.
6. This is self evident, a group, or government, is not an individual. Corporations are by law, soulless money making machines, and function well, as tools, in that capacity. They are in fact non-democratic governments, should be treated as such, and should not be allowed the rights, privileges and freedoms of individuals.
I can not think of a human problem that would not be positively affected by the universal enfranchisement of each human. How else will the meek inherit the Earth? Please, at least, think about this. Sincerely, Stephen Stillwell
Universal Enfranchisement provides for dividends of commonly held, collectively managed capital, to be paid directly to individuals.
This provides for the concerns of Marx without altering Smiths capitalist structure, or taking anything from anyone.
In fact, Universal Enfranchisement simply adds more capital to the system by recognizing the value of the masses, as individuals.
This basic enfranchisement provides the individual freedom to labor, to cooperate, or not, by choice, for greed, altruism, or boredom, and not by force of necessity.
Gareth: My argument was that where Smith left off there Marx began. Western philosophy reinforces the ideology of 'value-free' decision making. Smith and Marx together showed that it was not possible in the world of trade and ownership. Smith chose as an individual to contribute by charity back into the system to those in need. Marx chose to advocate a revised allocative mechanism for the society, a group mechanism.
Let me ask you two questions: 1) Given the current system is there some policy that could be adopted and correct once and for all what is now lacking? 2) If (hypothetically speaking) (1) is possible and true would that system be better than the current system?
Stephen: Well, yes, in my opinion, Universal Enfranchisement would do just that.
I have a blog posted with a description.
I welcome your learned opinion.
Gareth: I can see the logical thread from Smith through Marx to the UE. But in my opinion the dilemma set out in this thread still holds. The valuation of a human life to Smith is an objective given. What is the difference in saying everyone is valued at such amount or the price of everyone is such? This leads to the topic of buying and selling human life which I see you have considered.
In my opinion Marx would argue that something good for all will not get done unless it is the interest of those powers that are in control. The implementation of structural change in power structures involves conflict.
Stephen: Accepting that UE is a functional and desirable mechanism to further define and perfect the social contract, and that the manifestation of UE will not take place without the acceptance and aid of power, my task now is to determine and remove whatever objections those persons and groups of power hold.
I present the concept in the form of a suit, as this tool has been used with some historic success to appeal to a higher power, to present the idea in a condensed form without speculation of probable effect. My hope for this approach is to present a palatable solution without the bitter prejudice and anger of the disenfranchised, to provide an honest tasting of an improved and reasonable relationship.
The most obvious flaw in this is the historic lack of reason in power. Reflecting on the aristocracy of France, if these wealthy and powerful people had understood and embraced the power and control of corporate capitalism over a representative government, they may have retained their positions and lives.
The greatest difficulty in the identification of objections is that power is not homogenous, and indeed, the various loci of power are at deadly opposition and they will not consider the concept enough to form an opinion and voice their objections.
The power of business should welcome the stability likely resultant from UE, as conflict and disruption are bad for most business, except for the military part of the military industrial complex. I do not understand a businessperson's objection to the creation of a six trillion dollar a month increase in worldwide cash flow, market, as this objection would not serve the interests of shareholders. The greatest difficulty I imagine with business is convincing the military part that more money is to be made from construction than destruction.
The powers of governments and politics are even more problematic, especially for me, as I do not understand the motivation to attain and hold power as an end object. The objections of these persons and groups often seem irrational, paranoid, or deceptive.
Perhaps philosophy can not advance, if based on natural truths. Perhaps philosophy can only advance civilization toward a manifestation of that philosophy.
Gareth: A practical objection, if the credit is created at birth, as stated the parents could withdraw the balance and murder the child so as to minimize ongoing expense.
And for those 'good' parents, I think they would be motivated to have more children leading to overpopulation and the environmental destruction of the planet.
Stephen: The actual statement is:
Item 2. Establish the age of enfranchisement.
UE doesn't pay people to procreate. The balance, capital, is held in trust (collective management), only dividends are paid to the enfranchised. The capital disappears with the individual at death, as the capital is based on, and represents, the living enfranchised human being.
UE functions to democratize Capitalism. The only vote, or voice, one can have in Capitalism is with the flow of wealth from capital. UE simply recognizes the value of each (adult) human as capital, and provides a vote in the form of income.
Gareth: What is the age of enfranchisement that you would propose? When does a foetus become an individual?
You: The capital disappears with the individual at death, as the capital is based on, and represents, the living enfranchised human being.
Me: Someone is forced to withdraw (or borrow against) capital then it is expropriated by those whose power he is in. I gave Smith's answer to this in the 'stagecoach scenario' so your concept is not new in this thread. Thank you for showing another dimension to the problem.
Stephen: I proposed 17 as the age of enfranchisement; Children are the responsibility of enfranchised adults. This makes the divisive fetal question moot.
The stagecoach scenario looses applicability in this age of capital based on debt.
The human capital of UE is a debt owed by society to the individual in exchange for the acceptance of certain responsibilities, and covenants of the social contract. The “someone” forced to borrow against capital in this case is the social collective, and the lender is the individual.
If the community fails to uphold its part of the social contract, if the individual disagrees with community rules, or simply prefers another community, the individual has the right to transfer his or her self and capital to another community. This allows, or forces the various forms of government to compete based on their merits, and ability to uphold society’s part of the social contract.
As a practical matter for society, is an individual who is willing to loan a million dollars to the community at 1.2% annual interest, spend that interest in the community, follow the rules, and pay taxes, worth the million dollars?
Consider also the reduced welfare burden, and that elusive confidence factor.
Gareth: I think Smith and Marx's distinction between static and dynamic concepts still holds. Capital is the only objectified value in Smith's model, profits are the payments made to the 'owners' of stock. Marx alleged that the stock, to use Smith's term, or capital, to use Marx's term for the same thing, was obtained by theft, so it was justified to take it back by force. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to Smith's model. For Smith, rents are a payment for the use of land. Land is got by birth, and that class has no moral justification for the life style given to them by birth. The landowner class is morally obliged because of their leisure to become an intelligentsia and govern. For Marx to tell the workers to throw off their chains and become the governing class just places that function in a different class.
Reference: Let me ask you two questions:
1) Given the current system, is there some policy that could be adopted and correct once and for all what is now lacking?
2) If (hypothetically speaking) (1) is possible and true, would that system be better than the current system?
Stephen: It is this theft and lack of moral justification at the heart of the current system that caused and supports the lack of universal personal freedom and liberty.
UE recognizes every individual, not only as stock, capital, and land, but as the owner of that commodity, without the repugnant act of taking by force. This, at least to a minimum extent, corrects for the disenfranchisement, and provides a reasonable adjustment to the static or dynamic valuation. Recognizing an existing value, like finding gold, may alter slightly the value of all gold, but it does not take gold from anyone.
This throwing off of chains will provide a significantly greater level of personal governance, and possibly a larger effect in government, but the people whose will drives them to govern, to control, will still hold that power. That power will just be somewhat limited by an obligation to the shareholders.
In my opinion, a system that is changed only by providing each individual the minimum capital, stock, land ownership, whatever, to sustain existence, would be a significant, valuable, and justified change, and will benefit all.
davids04 wrote:
Has anybody mentioned that it has been in capitalism's interest to combat poverty? Not only does combating poverty create new consumers and markets but it also removes a threat to capitalism's being.
Poverty can be threatening to capitalism. In the past we have seen riots against capitalism because people felt left out and denied participation in it.
It is perhaps a given that if The New Deal had not been implemented in the United States, which allowed more Americans to engage in capitalism, the country would have been torn apart by the have-nots fighting the rich. Without The New Deal capitalism in America surely would have collapse, making way for communism or worse.
Stephen: These are points supporting the Universal Enfranchisement of all individuals in capitalism, or the world economy.
By providing a minimum capital share to each individual, everyone is guaranteed participation, and a regular dividend.
While Universal Enfranchisement would benefit any governmental structure, extra-governmental capitalism has the most to gain.
Since the capital share takes the form of a low interest loan to the government of the individual, and is based on the value of the individual, capital is created and income flows.
This not only externalizes the basic cost of human survival, but defines and provides a minimum level of capital to that end.
unrealist42 wrote: A simple change in the capitalist spirit would be to make the people equal shareholders of Earth Inc, a sort of uber holding company that has joint venture shares in every enterprise on the planet thus providing every person with income from dividends and removing the need for social support.
Stephen: This is similar to my description of Universal Enfranchisement in that it provides subsistence for each human.
I am curious, what mechanism will compel every enterprise on the planet to grant shares, and pay dividends to this corporation?
As I describe UE, the capital owned by each person is based on the value of a human being, and takes the form of a loan of that value, by the human, to the government of the human.
This structure of UE creates the relationship where government derives power, in the form of capital, directly from the individual person, and accepts the responsibility to manage this capital for the benefit of all the governed.
UE accomplishes this without the direct redistribution of wealth. The new capital created by UE would be invested in secure enterprises and infrastructure.
While this new capital may have the effect of reducing the value of all existing capital in some proportion, the flow of income produced will likely more than make up for this. Realistically, the value of the dollar has decreased by 30% or so recently, and the concern for that is minimal.
The current national debt is nine trillion dollars. This money is spent and gone. New capital to fund UE in this country would be about 200 trillion dollars. This money would be securely invested in a permanent trust.
About the incentive/lazy person issue: Have all those persons born with trust funds refused to work or be productive? The idea that a subsistence income will eliminate the incentives that compel people to work, and to better themselves is unfounded, and in fact has been proven false by generations of the wealthy.
The cycle of welfare is driven by the fact that welfare support is lost if one gets a job. If a person takes a job that brings home $600 a month and loses $800 in support, where is the incentive? When the additional expense of working, child care and transportation ...etc exceeds the potential income, the decision to not work is not lazy, it is pragmatic.
unrealist42 wrote: The same mechanism that enfranchises them to be enterprises in the first place, the law.
In the future people may believe that it was god who created the corporations but today many people still know that it is the law that creates corporations. So, what the law giveth, the law may taketh away.
While UE is a good idea, I don't get the concept of the loaning of the undetermined value of human capital to some government. It seems a bit unwieldy and fraught with difficulty.
It would be simpler to just divide up the ownership of all the property of the planet amongst the population in the form of 1 nontradable share per person. Existing enterprises would instantly be converted to joint ventures with Earth Incs. Earth Incs share would be determined by how much real property ie land, resources, each enterprise uses or controls. All land ownership would be converted to leaseholds with title going to Earth Inc.
Earth Incs charter would require it to work "in the best interest of the shareholders". Country and local governments would become wholly owned subsidiaries. Hostile takeovers would be initiated against any joint venture partner not operating in the spirit of the charter.
Stephen: Both concepts provide the desired result of providing subsistence income through capital enfranchisement to all people.
UE makes newly created capital available to the local governments of the people. I think it pretty simple to register to vote, sign your social contract, and open your account with the local authorities.
I believe this would be easier to sell (and infinitely more appropriate) than the taking of currently held assets. Since the individual accounts would be required in either case, the additional effort to take and account for the existing enterprises is eliminated with UE.
I also believe in property rights, and feel the collective has no right to individual property, though the collective has every right to invest, and may buy those enterprises determined appropriate.
UE relies on the individuals trust in the smallest levels of government, and establishes the individual as the source of all power. I think this would be far more appropriate and universally acceptable than a corporation that owns some part of everything.
Obviously some central accounting and oversight is required. This is why my proposal takes the form of a suit against the United Nations. Simply because it is the only international organization, and its charter could reasonably provide for UE. (since been persuaded that an extra-governmental solution is possible, with a human's fiat currency, like bit-coin)
Any law creating the corporation you describe would necessarily require a world government.
Having secured capital and a clearly defined social contract is a great step toward a better education, especially if you grow up with that reality.
davids04 wrote: AbyssOfLife: Poverty is required of a society.
I guess that had to be said. Society, like any universal dynamic, requires such an imbalance to keep it vital and on going.
Stephen: While I disagree with the assertion that poverty is a requirement, some imbalance is certainly inevitable, reasonable, and acceptable.
UE does not attempt to create total equality, or even to abolish poverty by some definitions. UE would only lift that heavy burden from the shoulders of those elite whose benevolence has provided for the needs of the poor, and distribute the responsibility to the whole of society.
UE as I have proposed it, would only provide a poverty level income, and would only eliminate destitution. This level of enfranchisement would not likely affect the stratification of society. Those “happy poor” may remain so, and provide working capital to society without significantly burdening others.
I suggest that the masses, enfranchised and better cared for in this way, would provide a healthier and more productive work force, with more people working fewer hours.
Davids04: You talk about UE for people around the world. Well, I think we have arrived at it with liberal democracy. Theoretically liberal democracy is the best way for attaining UE.
Stephen: Theoretically or practically, liberal democracy does not guarantee enfranchisement of all people, as evidenced by the disenfranchised.
UE however would enhance and further perfect a liberal democracy, by defining the social contract, and recognizing the value of each equal person.
Abyss of life: I believe food and shelter is a necessity of life, yet many don't have skills to provide this for themselves. As I discussed previously in the thread. I am talking about reality, not a utopia. We all would like to think the masses can, but they can't. This is not even considering more complex situations of life such as taxes, healthcare and education. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.
Stephen: You have stated that the masses can not acquire the necessities of life without the generous attention of the elite.
I have suggested that the masses could do this if sufficiently enfranchised, as evidenced by those who were born with or inherited trust funds.
I have further suggested that capital is largely intangible, as evidenced by the variable value of things, that sufficient capital could be created to fund UE, as evidenced by the fact that the federal reserve bank routinely creates capital out of thin air, and if it can, so can the UN. In the case of UE the capital is backed by the masses, which is realistically all that backs the US currency.
The continued existence of destitution is evidence that the generous attention of the elite is not sufficient to resolve the problem.
The actions and acceptance of the elite would certainly be required to establish UE. This leaves to me or anyone interested, to obtain this acceptance by removing any objections.
UE would provide new capital for the management of the elite. If competently regulated, how is this harmful?
The income generated by this capital would provide the means for the necessities of life for the masses, unless you argue that the elite are incompetent to manage capital, which is historically inaccurate.
Five or six trillion dollars a month spent world wide by the masses would provide a stable cash flow for all economies. How does this disadvantage anyone?
"AbyssOfLife": Poverty is required of a society.
Stephen:If the poor are a burden, why are they required?
AOL: "It isn’t a curse; the curse is forcing those out of poverty."
Stephen:Have you found people who feel cursed from being forced out of poverty? This absurdity has no basis as an argument against UE. UE makes no claim to end what you consider poverty, only destitution.
AOL: "Certain things exist when not in poverty. These things require careful attention and knowledge. Most do not have the capabilities."
Stephen: What things, exactly, do you mean? You make an incorrect assumption if you equate poverty with a lack of intelligence.
"AbyssOfLife":"When you have a limited number of rich people, they can employ those that do have these skills to make up for the deficiency. This brings the middle class into the situation. They greatly struggle because they acquire some of the riches, but do not have the resources to account for the gaps in abilities and knowledge. This brings up the poor. Now they are in a unique situation. The burden of these capabilities is removed from them. They serve as the simple function of labor. In this role they have very little burden of responsibility to others. They basically work, eat and sleep. They have no means of anything else or anything that requires careful attention."
Stephen: This all ignores the barriers constructed by the elite to prevent any unacceptable advancement. The assumption that the rich are intellectually superior to anyone else is unfounded. When a game is fixed, it is not a game of skill. Again though, even if correct, this would only be improved by UE. The rich may even be able to adjust wages down; the poor could afford to work as interns.
AbyssOfLife: When you bring capitalism into the equation, things drastically change. Instead of small portion of the population with these heavy burdens of society, now you have a large portion with these burdens. It is now up to every individual to shelter himself or herself. It is up to every individual to feed himself or herself, along with many other issues such as transportation. Before these were taken care of by a few individuals for the masses.
SS: When and where were these things taken care of for the masses, do you mean slavery?
AOL: Under capitalism you have many individuals taking on a responsibility that many can not care for themselves. You have taxation and the complications that come with it. Instead of one person taking care of the taxes for many (landowner) you now have every individual paying their own.
SS: Landowners typically taxed their tenants, serfs, peons...etc.
AOL: Many can’t handle this issue. Some that have means hire accountants, the rest have to struggle through this process on their own. This causes great stress on the individual. This is only one example of many that the lower class and middle class have placed on them without means of supplying help, something the richer class has always had the means to provide for themselves.
SS: None of this has any bearing on the provision of subsistence income to all. I have not suggested that each person be responsible for the management of their capital, or that they even have access to it. The simple provision of a subsistence income would do far more to ameliorate these problems than exacerbate them.
AOL: What does this overall mean? The materialism and technology is searched for at greater lengths. It becomes more than enjoyment, it becomes an obsession. The middle and lower class need these more than ever because their ability to survive depends on them. They financially can’t afford these but need them to sustain themselves. They become the cheese in a mousetrap to them. Their desire for these things grows every time the trap snaps on them. Causing a vicious cycle until they move into complete desperation.
SS: While this may be true of certain individuals, it is not of many others, and it has little bearing on the problem of destitution.
AOL: The reason I called it is a curse is that instead of living life, they are now struggling to only survive.
SS: How is this any different?
AOL: I know and understand the conditions of the poor have never been great, but many throughout history have found it comfortable in that place.
SS: According to what poor people?
AOL: They have been able to enjoy most of the things in life, such as family, security and love.
SS: What experience with the destitute substantiates this?
AOL: But now under capitalism they all have been placed in this rat race where no one has all the skill to survive and only a few have the means to address all of that require addressing to live life to its fullest.
Stephen: You state that you don't like the idea of Universal Enfranchisement, but you have not addressed any of its provisions, suggested why it would not function as described, or how anyone or thing would be harmed.
Lacking some settlement akin to UE, the gap will continue to increase, and the world may well be destroyed by the ignorance you present as reality.
"winverawin": now I ask you. What is the driving force behind capitalism?
1samuel8: The main driving force behind capitalism is natural: the will to survive and the depreciation of physical assets.
There is a lot of nonsense related to the word "capitalism" mainly because modern day socialists have trouble: 1) accepting that people are different and people want different things 2) distinguishing between an "entrepreneurial" spirit and corporate government-cronyism
Stephen: I agree with the bulk of your assertions as well.
With this last bit you are a little unfair in your argument. Many modern day socialists have no trouble with these distinctions. Many simply believe that some things are better socialized, like the army, fire and public safety, health care, water and roads...
All systems could benefit from a reduction in corruption and cronyism.
While UE is not likely to have a significant affect on cronyism, and I feel that it is a creative work around to preserve value for everyone.
Since UE is no threat, the cronies have no reason to object, and every reason to embrace the concept.
davids04: ... And that 'floor' has to be earned.
Stephen: This logic would deny the inheritance of trust funds, which is wrong. Why is it acceptable for one to be enfranchised with a trust fund, and not all?
Stephen: The responsibilities of enfranchisement are simply to follow the accepted rules of law, collect and spend your dividends. You state that people are not capable of these simple things. People incapable of the responsibilities of enfranchisement are hospitalized or incarcerated.
AbyssOfLife: In your example of UE you are projecting the image that all desire and have the capabilities to acquire these things you wish for in life.
Stephen: In my example of UE I state that all humans are equal, just like the US Constitution and the UN Charter.
I further suggest that all humans are equally valuable, and that that value can and should be defined and made available as capital in trust to each person as part of a defined social contract.
The definition of the social contracts is the responsibility of the various governments, as is the responsible management of the trust.
1Samuel8: Saying "that some things are better socialized" is not the entire truth. The entire truth would include saying "Socialists believe in government monopolized army, fire and public safety, health care, water and roads and whatever other services the bureaucrats want to control. Opponents are out of luck and will meet the barrel of a gun."
Stephen: Of this list; army, fire and public safety, health care, water and roads, the only one not socialized in the US democracy is the health care. Some water systems have been privatized with generally poor results. A corporation has the same structure as a socialist government.
My point was that not all socialists believe the same things, many people who would not call themselves socialists believe in socialist structures, just as not all capitalists are government cronies.
I'm not sure what you mean by enforcement.
The way UE would work is, a human establishes his or her account with the local authority, the UN transfers the capital to the local authority, the local authority manages the capital and pays dividends to the person.
It is a proposed settlement to a suit against the UN to partially fulfill the goals of its charter, posted earlier in the thread.
Dio-lectic: If only it were so simple.
Stephen, one drive around town, say Austin TX, should convince you why the second proposal is unworkable on its face. You have to first solve the problem of underachievement.
So long as a person receives value in equal share, he or she must hold by basis of reason the measure of the value. Otherwise you create an unjust system.
Stephen: I'm not sure what you mean by “must hold by basis of reason the measure of the value”, but the basis of my reason is that all people have value, and based on the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that value is equal.
If underachievement is a problem, there is no just solution. No person is qualified to judge what adequate achievement for another individual is.
As for the value in equal share; the inherent value of a human who agrees to not interfere with the peaceful function of a society, that is, a signatory to a social contract can be somewhat agreed upon, through negotiation.
That a human has no value at all is unjust, the current state of the world is based on this premise.
The example settlement I proposed sets the value of a human at one million dollars, to be credited to a local trust account. This trust would pay a dividend of 1.2%, or one thousand dollars a month to each adult human who wishes to be enfranchised.
Where is the lack of justice in everyone being guaranteed an income sufficient to feed and shelter them? This would not interfere with the right or ability of anyone to pursue whatever activity they wish.
The problem of underachievement is a reasonable concern for a society, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.
Pragmatically, the underachiever serves society best by not getting in the way. This is the boss’s nephew who can't be fired and creates more work than they do, or some analog of this. If these people are content to sit in their houses and do nothing else, they will at least provide capital for their community trust, and spend their dividends.
Realistically, this person will get bored and find something to do, or succumb to social pressures. Without the imperative of working forty hours a week at a job they don't like, they may actually find the place they can provide the most appropriate support for society. I strongly suspect that the explosion of voluntarism would astound the most cynical, well maybe not so much, but some. (No, I really think this would be a thing, flash mob voluntarism)
Many of the people branded underachiever are artists of some kind, and the current state of the world does not adequately support the arts. This has been a particularly sore spot for me. An artist must be accepted to survive, and many artists are not widely acceptable. This settlement would allow a human to just be an artist.
If you examine the psychological causes for underachievement, I believe you will find that the security of enfranchisement would have a positive affect. I'll discuss it with a psychologist.
Thank you so much.
Chato: Roosevelt, who was accused of being a Socialist, was nothing of the sort. He was a Capitalist who saw this inherent contradiction and tried, by regulation, by the minimum wage, by unemployment insurance, etc, to create a form of Capitalism which had no choice but to treat it's employee's fairly.
... Democrats favor "government charity," whereas the Republicans oppose government charity.
To give an example of what I'm talking about, here are excerpts from some of Roosevelt’s speeches:
From "Roosevelt_speaks":
Excerpt from State of the Union Message 1944
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
Stephen: Thanks for the quotes, I was not familiar with them and they speak directly to my point. I am sad that the vision existed at a time when it could have been implemented.
The various entitlements that were enacted fell significantly short of the goal for a number of reasons, aside from the large assortment of bureaucracies created, the primary fault is that all of these programs require some discrimination between who is eligible, needy, or authorized, and who is not.
UE eliminates this flaw by enfranchising all people at a minimum subsistence level, with the minimum possible infrastructure.
"Necessitous men are not free men." This expresses the core motivation for my proposed settlement. A person can only collect unemployment insurance if let go, if their employer pays, and if they have worked a required amount, if they quit because they feel the employer is treating them unfairly, they can not. UE provides some leverage for an individual without union representation, which are most workers.
1Samuel8: I see no reason to trust you unless you say who pays for this and how all of this will be enforced.
Stephen: That seems healthy, I see no reason to trust anyone either.
Who pays for this is effectively everyone and no one.
If a bank has ten dollars deposited, the bank can loan one hundred dollars. Who paid for that?
What I suggest is that each human is worth a million dollars, can loan that million dollars to their local government, and be guaranteed a regular dividend payment from this trust. (Since people can move, this gives governments more incentive to provide a nice place to live. (Profit motive))
As I previously noted, the US national debt is currently nine trillion dollars. Providing UE for the US would require that all the governments borrow a total of about two hundred trillion dollars. This money would be held in trust, not spent and gone like the nine trillion. The two hundred billion dollars a month spent in dividends would tend to stabilize the economy and reduce or nearly eliminate the social welfare burden.
Rules governing the prudent and secure investment of these trusts are a matter for people better educated and more experienced than I am.
I have no particular interest in modifying any government, that, I believe is the right and responsibility of the governed. The only requirement made of governments by UE is to invest the trusts as agreed and pay the dividends.
Enforcement is an area I have no functional expertise in as well, I realize there is a need to control fraud, and for oversight of investments. The various governments have infrastructure in place to provide this sort of policing.
I suggest the international court would have jurisdiction, and the UN should have organizational control, simply because it is the only international organization with a charter that could encompass this program.
Is there some ideal or preferred method that you would be comfortable with? Is there some specific danger that needs accounting for?
Obviously a program of this scope, kept as simple as possible, would still require a tremendous amount of negotiations, and the attention of everyone. I am honored to have attracted some of your attention.
SuperCulture: You can never get rid of the poor unless there is either: 1) A huge jump in technology or 2) people become better people all around.
Stephen: Thanks for your comment. I understand many people have no interest in possessions ...etc, and pursue lifestyles that many will consider poor in any case. The intent of UE is to eliminate destitution and make available sustenance without discrimination.
I'm pretty sure we can count the huge jump in technology in the bag, and my opinion is that UE will help people become better by helping to assure fulfillment of basic needs.
(Stephen: Who pays for this is effectively everyone, and no one.)
1Samuel8: Well, with that sort of business plan, I am willing to bet my life that nothing worthwhile ever gets done.
Stephen: As I continued, we currently create money out of thin air, and you could argue that nothing worthwhile has gotten done. Since calling money into existence as desired is our current business plan, I am simply suggesting a method to provide minimal existence with individual sovereignty in a sustainable manner.
(Stephen: … and be guaranteed a regular dividend payment from this trust. (Since people can move, this gives governments more incentive to provide a nice place to live. (Profit motive)) 1Samuel8: Guaranteed??? Can you explain how there is a guarantee of payment?
Stephen: I think you must be still concerned about the enforcement aspect.
Are you asking what mechanism will force the government to pay a dividend instead of keeping the money, when a government agrees with the UN to participate by investing the capital as allowed?
Are you asking how can we be guaranteed to return two percent-or-so on this capital?
Certainly a guarantee is only as good as the government.
A government might decide to default for what reason?
Since the capital is in the form of a debt, and ethereal, it can be removed as easily as it was credited.
A citizenry denied of their property would not long suffer such a government.
Any or all the forces available to diplomatic coercion could be used to persuade an errant government to perform as agreed.
Ultimately you are correct that there is no absolute guarantee of anything. If we do not have faith that humans can provide for the basic existence of all humans, there is no point in trying.
How would things be worse for whom, if this utility was in existence?
stoned_kazak: poverty can only truly be overcome with socialism.
Stephen: Will you specify how?
My understanding is that inequality exists in all systems, is unavoidable, and not truly unjust. For example, I believe that a doctor should earn more than I do, well, in my current situation everyone should earn more than I do. I hope you get my point.
Whatever is said of capitalism, the reality is that it is just commerce.
No capitalist government exists. Socialist governments are capitalist, in that they hold and control the capital. Democratic governments are capitalist in that they enable and protect socialist and totalitarian corporate governments. A Capitalist government would have to provide capital to all its citizens, because you have no vote in capitalism without capital.
Inequality is unimportant, the fact that someone else has 10 or 10,000,000 times the capital I have is of no concern to me if I have enough to survive.
Socialism is ideal for social systems, capitalism is ideal for commerce, and Universal Enfranchisement can facilitate both of these things working in harmony under any form of government.
Thanks for sharing, and if I have missed something major about a particular socialism, I am ill informed and would appreciate a primer.
I visualize wealth as a fluid system.
Trickle down economics presents capitalism as gentle clouds lifting and distributing the wealth to all. This is easy for many to grasp, since their money constantly evaporates, and they never see more than a trickle.
I see capitalism as a pump that is efficient, over-sized, and dumps into an ever expanding reservoir with no outlet, or a heart, with arteries and tissues swelling from clogged capillaries.
An analogy of an overcharging battery works as well though.
In either case, what I perceive as lacking is a method to evenly distribute an adequate return and increase the flow.
faust: Specific programs do, however, target subgroups of poor -
Chato: I actually agree with that, ["taking charge of your own life."], but we ARE the government. It's NOT Socialism to expect Government to recognise necessary Rights.
Sheesh, talk about personal responsibility! What about our responsibility to the country?
Stephen: The ninth amendment allows us to claim any right.
Why not a right to a share? If we find it acceptable to allow people to inherit the wealth of their ancestors, which they did not work for, why should each person not inherit a share of the wealth left by previous generations, or be granted a share of the natural resources of the planet?
Before the current state of technology this was not possible. With our current monetary standards, accounting practices, and debt based currencies, it is.
This minimum enfranchisement enables the poor to progress at their individual paces, attending to their unique and individual needs, in their own ways, without the imposition of others priorities.
This makes the myriad, expensive and inefficient programs designed to help the poor irrelevant and un-necessary.
If people are never enfranchised in capitalism, commerce, society, they can never take charge of their own lives.
Enfranchisement is the only way to assure the personal sovereignty required for freedom or liberty.
Faust: You're grasping at straws.
I'm sad to agree with what you say, this is particularly accurate.
If the humans, though, have gotten together and agreed on what humans should expect from society, I feel we need to push them as hard as we can to make good on their words.
The U.S., from its position of power, agreed that these declarations of rights are correct, acceptable, self evident, and use these statements as a scale to measure the actions of other nations. The U.S. should take the lead in assuring that all humans achieve this described state.
My conservative belief that the federal government should administer a limited body of law concerning interstate activity extends to my acceptance that some administrative body must be charged with the task of overseeing international activity. If that function was only to administer Universal Enfranchisement and arbitrate international disputes that would be fine.
I can't be too concerned for national sovereignty when I have no personal sovereignty. I would gladly trade one for the other.
Kriswest: Was that the Govt of the U.S.A.. Or the U.S. Gov't, that signed with the U.N.? they are two different entities you do realize this don't you?
Stephen: I'm not sure which did the signing, but I also am ignorant of the distinction, sounds interesting.
Faust: The UN, the WTO, the World Bank - when these function at all, they are practically handmaidens to US interests. Most of the time, anyway.
Stephen: The US interests are actually the interests of commerce and wealth, the US is just the strongest and most obvious protectorate of these ideals.
Mindful of your observation, it is clear that UE could be established if US interests were convinced that it was in its best interest.
Since I have no audience with US interests, I have not been able to address any objections it/they might have.
Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs applied to society as a whole. Without fulfilling biological needs of the whole, advancement can not take place, and attempts at higher functioning are thwarted and perverted by obsessions with unfulfilled needs.
Faust: stephen - I haven't seen your argument that UE is in the interests of either the US or of the bastions of "wealth and commerce". Have I just missed it?
Stephen: Like I said, I haven't really gotten a credible specific objection to respond to.
The general advantages are; an even distribution of new capital without taking anything directly from anyone, a worldwide increase of cash flow, minimum support for all people.
If you consider what would happen if every adult human received a monthly dividend and each community was entrusted with a fund to manage, for the provision of this dividend (and any increase that can be managed.) How would this effect any given situation or person?
Who or what would be harmed by this?
Can you imagine how life would have been different, when you were growing up, thinking about what you would do in the future, if you knew there would always be this minimum income to sustain you. Some have this now.
If you could provide this future for every human, why not?
Faust: And what is your argument that these are advantages?
Stephen: If destitution is a problem, no destitution is an advantage. Cash flow is what makes society and capitalism function; this stable cash flow would be an advantage. If consumer confidence is a problem, the security of a guaranteed subsistence income is an advantage. If it is easier to get money from the masses than from other corporations, this is an advantage. All Americans are asked to do in this crisis is spend money, having money to spend is an advantage.
Faust: One thing that would happen if all people were financially supported is that they would make more people. Which, presumably, would have to be supported.
Stephen: The reality is that more affluent countries are experiencing a decline in population, if you don't count immigration. The more likely children are to die before adulthood the more children will be produced.
Faust: What is the advantage to the even distribution of new capital, and how is this goal even achieved?
Stephen: Some minimum level of capital is required for capitalism to function. An even distribution of this minimum capital would allow capitalism to function everywhere. Eliminating the barriers to commerce is an advantage. Items 3 through 5 of the complaint would achieve this goal.
Faust: But I don't want shadowbox. Please give the argument for such a plan.
Stephen: This plan provides a greater assurance that the declared human rights may be achieved, the argument is the complaint.
I don't argue the rights, they have been established, I argue for a method to achieve these rights. A rational argument against the proposal would illuminate how these rights would not be forwarded.
1Samuel8: I asked you how it would be enforced and you dismissed it.
Stephen: I don't think I dismissed your concern; I spent some time addressing it. The question is somewhat vague. How can one enforce anything? Should we not pass laws against murder because we can not enforce them? We can punish offenders who are caught and tried, but the murders are committed anyway.
1Samuel8: I asked you to tell how that money would be guaranteed and you had no idea.
Stephen: I actually answered, by contract, in so far as that is a guarantee, it is customarily considered a guarantee. As I said, like US currency is backed by the US government, this capital would be backed by the human population of the world. We can see that enforce and guarantee are not things that can be accomplished absolutely, the options are inaction or avoidance.
Faust: Capital makes capitalism function. This is my position.
Faust: I'm not talking about the more affluent countries' populations. Stay with me - you are proposing that we make poor countries richer - it's their population I am talking about.
Stephen: So, if things continue as they are, we will be overpopulated out of existence. The options are; Increase their standard of living to reduce their population growth, or extermination. I prefer the former, as I perceive the latter as a loss of capital.
Faust: Even distribution of capital isn't what makes capitalism work - the accumulation of capital is what makes it work. Look it up.
Stephen: I don't propose an even distribution of all capital, just this capital. Source? Since you said, and I accept; “capital makes capitalism function”, -“the accumulation of capitalism is what makes it work”, the even universal distribution of this minimum capital can make capitalism function universally, enabling the even accumulation of capital to make capitalism work universally.
Faust: I don't believe in rights. I don't care if they have been "declared". Far from implementing them, we should be abrogating them.
Stephen: To default instead of cooperate is always a strategic advantage. At some point though, you will run out of cooperators, and the barbarians will be at the gates, and will be pissed.
Faust: We do enforce laws against murder. Big, expensive criminal justice system for that. It took a lot of thought. Try it.
Stephen: This was my point, enforcement can be provided for any law. I somehow didn't expect the usual personal attacks from you. The suggestion that I have not thought about this problem at length is unfounded, and hurts my feelings. I wouldn't like you as a teacher.
Faust: The thing about liberals is that they think everyone will agree with their premises -all they have to do is make the argument.
Stephen: At some point the perceived liberal position is only pragmatic. A liberal would demand governments support for the poor, I propose a system where the poor provide capital to the governments and receive a portion of the profits/taxes/income. Do you disagree with the premise that destitution exists? Do you disagree with the premise that the abolition of destitution would improve society for all? I suppose this makes sense if you do not believe in rights.
Faust: While I have stated my objections crudely and briefly - they all represent a legitimate political and economic view - a mainstream one at that. It's the view of Middle Class America without the PC qualifications and hawing.
Stephen: I agree that defaulting on agreements is a mainstream, legitimate political and economic view. I don't believe it is functionally advantageous in the long term, as a sustained policy.
Cheap labor is an advantage, but not so great as the long term disadvantages. With UE everyone would get dividends to subsist, but this income will reduce the amount of wages required, externalizing a portion of production costs.
I do not believe that the cost of keeping the destitute down outweigh the benefits of recognizing their value. The destitute are generally not providing any labor anyway.
As UE has never existed, you have no more valid proof that your costs would increase than I have that your costs would not increase any more than your increased income. I don't have access to a powerful socio-economic computer model, but I dream of it.
I am simply, and earnestly considering how the world could provide a more pleasant and productive existence for all the people.
Mordechai: Tyranny of the majority is the situation that exists in illiberal democracies.
Radical redistribution sounds good until you realize three truths:
1.) The people who right wrongs have no incentive to fix the problem.
2.) People have no incentive to work to move up the ladder if they will be punished for success.
3.) Those that are rich now have every incentive to bribe the bureacrats into letting them keep their wealth for a cut (fee), while those bureacrats continue to have a job working for a magical "social justice" that's always just over the horizon.
M.K.Fitzgerald: A. Rich people are just doing the same things you would do if you were rich: maximize security.
B. What company was tanked by its CEO? And why was he wrong to do it? Blank-out I'm sure.
C. YOU run YOURSELF, and there's nothing any rich man can do about it.
Stephen:
A. This is probably not true, it certainly isn't for me. The psychological make-up of ultra wealthy people is not the same as others. Assuming that wealth is the cause is likely wrong. As an example; people who win large sums of money often loose it.
B. ENRON, Adelphia, Chrysler, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Denali, Arbusto, Spectrum 7 Energy Corp., Harken Energy, Tyco.
Of course wrong is a subjective characterization, and from the perspective of anyone who gained, there was no wrong doing.
C. This is a gross over simplification. If a man has a choice between various vocations that are available under the conditions dictated by various rich people, starvation, or criminality, the running he does of himself is certainly restricted, or controlled.
1.) With UE, the people who right wrongs are provided with an incentive for establishing an acceptable environment for as many people as possible, since the people become a source of capital, and disenchanted people leave and take their capital with them.
2.) UE creates no requirement for any such punishment, and repairs the disincentive to work that currently keeps welfare recipients collecting.
3.) The potential for, and existence of corruption, is not likely to change significantly, though if all are enfranchised in society, they may pay more attention, and demand more effectively, that rules are followed and infractions punished.
Mordechai: Frankly where you get these ideas is beyond me.
Europe is currently dealing with the problems that come from a system of "Universal Enfranchisement"
Hate to bash Europe, but it's easy because they screwed the pooch, and they make a great example of how "Universal Enfranchisement" and "Social Justice" are euphemisms for "Socialism-lite.
"Socialism rarely works, and when it does, it only does so on a very small scale. And that is only because everyone can agree about it.
Stephen: Universal Enfranchisement in the economic system does not exist anywhere, so observing problems caused by it is not possible, though one might suggest possible problems.
UE, as I suggest it, is a method for funding a Basic Income for all humans by establishing a capital trust fund that is shared equally by all humans, managed by their various governments, and provides a source for a basic income.
Ref: Philippe van Parijs BIEN www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/Index.html
The proposed settlement and basic income would make the regulations you decry redundant, and un-necessary, though, the thirty five hour work week and month of vacation may become more of a standard, and also may increase productivity.
People who long for more than basic survival will still work, or do what they do now, but they will have a greater position of leverage for negotiating compensation. Of course, employers will also have this basic income to point to when negotiating compensation, so payrolls may actually be reduced and minimum wage would reasonably be reassessed.
People who don't long for more than basic survival will either find some productive pursuit or not, either way they will not be the drain on society that they currently are. Saying get a job to a beggar carries a lot more weight if the beggar has a basic income.
The innovators you express concern for would have more freedom to find accepting accommodations, willing workers/investors, etc...
In this way, people will have the ability to choose productive vocations, which they can be happy with, instead of the current system of being forced, by lack of choice or availability, to work at jobs that are not satisfying, producing and selling things that people don't want or need.
People will do those jobs that no one wants to do if they need to get done, if they are allowed a reasonable level of human dignity, a sense of ownership, and provided reasonable compensation.
Mordechai: Yeah, got a chance to read about this idea. It sounds insane. It presupposes that products are effectively free. They are not. This idea is basically what happened in the show "Star Trek."
People in Star Trek may or may not work, and everyone is looked after to some extent or another simply because technology has come to a point where energy is relatively free, and manufacturing and agriculture are largely automated. Great world, great idea. Maybe one day we'll get to a point where costs are so low, and production so high that we can just have a "public trustfund."
Problem is, we aren't in that world. Trying to do that now would not work.
Stephen: I don't understand how this presupposes anything except that humans have some tangible value.
The most likely assumption is that prices in general would rise until production catches up, as a function of supply and demand. This would effect those commodities most in need for survival, but if most everyone is eating now, maybe we can just deliver more efficiently and reduce waste.
This plan requires the acceptance that the world is worth four or five quadrillion dollars more than the current capital assumption, or what people accept as valuable.
If this capital was backed by gold or some other collateral that was parked in a safe somewhere, it would be as functional as if it were still in the ground, which it is.
How exactly would this fail to work?
Each community could loan half of the funds directly back into the community at twice the interest rate and completely cover the required payments. Each individual could reasonably borrow back 25% of his or her own capital, and still receive half of the income. A large amount of this capital could also be invested in state and federal bonds at a lower rate than is currently being paid.
The expenditure of this basic income would necessarily increase production to a level that would otherwise take hundreds of years, if ever. The potential exists but is not accessed because of the lack of global cash flow.
Economics has been defined in terms of a trickle down/noblesse oblige paradigm for so long, that visualizing the effects of this system may be difficult.
If you can specify your perception of who will be harmed, or how this would fail to function, I would gladly address that. 24.155.103.50 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bojan: Very usual fallacy is that we think that government money is our money. We can only claim that this money is our money, but nothing else. We do not decide how it will be spend or have any other control over this money.
Stephen: This is why each individual should be enfranchised with a real share of the world economy. The income from this share would provide subsistence for those in need, tax relief for those doing better, working capital for entrepreneurs, or just some money to decide how it gets spent, in short, a vote in capitalism.
When you say that people should not be provided a basic income, do you suggest that there are people unworthy of existence?
Why should one human decide if another is worthy of existence?
Enfranchisement and a basic income assure the things that you do support, without having one human pass judgment on another.
Bojan: Basic income makes sense to avoid bureaucracy, but I am not sure how good idea is to give money (some kind of pension) to all people. It requires self discipline. What effect would it make if you give somebody, lets say, 800$ a month. He/she can spend it for drink, gambling or other non-existential stuffs and still live on the street. It is better to collect this money and invest in apartment buildings and other things I mentioned before. For me it is better way to achieve some kind of minimal social standard. Something like - everybody have place to live, health care, free education, communal services, public transportation, etc.
Realizing Basic income program on global level would require amount of 6 trillion $ per month. Current global debt is about 35 trillion and it is impossible to solve.
Stephen: What I have suggested would create a global debt of @6 quadrillion dollars, borrowed from the people of the world by local governments and invested in trust to return a little more than 1% interest. This is the 6 trillion dollars.
Bojan: Why I pointed that 35 trillion $ global debt can not be solved. Because there are not that much cash on planet. Is there anybody on planet that can return interest of 6 trillion $ per month.
Stephen: Cash is a very small part of the money in the world. EXXON made something like 35 billion dollars profit last quarter and I'm pretty sure none of it is in cash.
The amount of cash in the US is about 2000 dollars per person.
Obviously there is no one person who can borrow 6 quadrillion dollars, but there are 6 billion people, and as I suggested half of the interest could easily be paid by them borrowing back a quarter of the capital for secured investments like a home or interest in their workplace.
If, as has been reasonably suggested, banking is reformed, banks will require significantly more deposits to cover outstanding loans.
Also as I suggested, governments would gladly borrow a large portion of this capital for infrastructure investment to attract all the new spending created.
Even if no interest was collected, and the fund acted like a gigantic ponzi scheme, with the dividends being paid out at 1.2%, the capital would last nearly a hundred years.
Capital would be retired upon the death of a person, so if a million or five dollars is dropped from the balance sheet, what real difference would it make?
Ideally, after several generations of humans grow up in an environment that respects human dignity and sovereignty, society will find an even better way to provide for everyone’s needs and this program will no longer be needed anyway.
Stephenstillwell (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)