It is easier to tear down and destroy than it is to build and create. This is true whether we are talking about a tower of blocks, a work of art or a civilization. A civilization is stronger and more resilient when its citizens believe that it is to the benefit of all to participate in seeking improvements to this human society and to the health of the ecosystem that sustains it. Ideally, each of us should appreciate and fully identify in the development of a promising and beneficent global society. We should strive to make a world that recognizes the people as the rightful owners of natural resource wealth, so that the world we create together will not be a world that has more paving or pollution or noise or extraction of limited resources than what most people would say is acceptable.
A society that recognizes the people as the rightful owners of the Earth's natural resources will not tolerate inequitable exploitation of this shared legacy. An owner of natural resources is one who has a right to use that resource. So not just humans. An owner has a right to stop others from messing up the resource, and a right to receive compensation when damage is done or value taken. (Human beings are a life-form unique on the planet; unique in our ability to devastate ecosystems that sustain other lifeforms. Any sense within us that we have a right to use what we find in the environment and to enjoy the benefits of clean air and water, we must acknowledge a similar sense in our fellow inhabitants. If other lifeforms also have a right to share in the benefits of natural wealth, we need to limit how much we actually disturb the ecosystems that sustain them. We could do this when we consciously recognize those rights and resolve to limit our disturbances only to levels that (most people agree) are respectful of those rights and of our conscience.
If fees are charged to those who use or mess up wealth of the commons (natural resources), the proceeds should go to the people. A guaranteed minimum income for everyone on Earth could result from the collection of fees for use of natural resources in agriculture, industry and commerce. A minimum income would decrease the problems associated with disparity of wealth and would end abject poverty, while the universal nature of such a payment would ensure that no one would forgo productive work for fear of loosing their public property dividend. As our economy becomes more fair and transparent, more people will come to feel an ownership in the system. They will be more likely to want to protect and improve rather than destroy. By making the least secure among us more secure, we will make everyone more secure.
Attaching fees to the use of natural resources would create a mechanism whereby citizens could exert their will on the larger economic system, to define appropriate limits to potentially harmful human activities. What levels of pollution and what rates of extraction of resources are acceptable? We could all share in deciding limits to human activities insofar as those activities impinge on the commons. If most people polled in a random survey say that they want stricter limits on monoculture or paving or a particular kind of pollution, for example, then the associated fee would increase, causing industries to try harder to reduce the offending activity. And the inverse is also true: Any activity that had been discouraged more strongly than the people now deemed necessary would have its associated fees reduced. The actual conditions on the Earth that result from the sum of all human activities would come to reflect the expressed will of the people, as reflected by random polls. (We can know that a poll is reliable and that it can serve as the basis of public policy if anyone is able to take a poll and thereby verify it. Solid and reliable documentation of methodology could compliment or substitute for repeating a poll for verification purposes.)
In such a democratic society, we would not allow loss of biodiversity, pollution of our streams and rivers, high rates of mineral depletion, (including fossil fuels), loss of our starscape every night of the year to light pollution--at least, we would not allow these things beyond what is acceptable to the people. Given a voice in the management of natural resource wealth (which owners should have) we likely would not consent to the conditions in the world as we've made it thus far. When we fully apply our principles of ownership and fair compensation to questions of natural resource wealth management--when we recognize commons or public property rights in our accounting--much will change. We will have a synthesis of capitalism and communism in a truly democratic society. We will have a civilization that is sustainable or much more likely to be so. We will have a more just society.
Systemic flaws are not reported
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Critique of the Gaia Brain paradigm, a Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Title: Gaia Brain: Integration of Human Society and the Biosphere
Summary: On the basis of an analogy between how nonhuman organisms (from unicellular to bees) affect and are affected by their environment and how economic forces affect the use of natural resources, this paper proposes a radical transformation of human life: Children are to be educated differently, governments as they now exist will be abolished, and the labor market will be liberated from its current constraints.
The detrimental impact human beings have on the environment presents us with the "greatest challenge" the species has faced since it began to walk and talk. Economics provides the key to its solution: a "resource fee" that will be assessed to every product and service. These fees will penalize the use of environmentally damaging things, providing the "feedback mechanism" that is needed so that human culture will be in touch with its impact on the biosphere. This fee will provide the marketplace with information about the product's or service's environmental impact. They will be determined democratically by every person on the planet. Proceeds will be used to support "things we would like to see more of."
Evaluation: This paper is eminently clear; the author is able in a few paragraphs to present and weave together findings from microbiology, ethology, and economics into an intriguing and intelligible picture. On the basis of his assessment of the current "environmental crisis," he proposes an interesting (and to me, novel) solution. An effective way of affecting people's behavior is through their wallets, so charge them for the damage they are indirectly doing to the environment. The author also recognizes a number of problems which might be raised to this suggestion (Who determines the fees?, How will this money be used?, Etc.) and attempts in the limited space available to address them. Although, as proposed, this suggestion seems to be thoroughly unrealistic, there could be merits to its basic idea. Something like a "resource fee" might be worth considering as environmental policies are discussed.
The significant "leftist" tendencies of the paper weaken it. The author continues to have hopes in a world (non-) government, a radical transformation of society, a radical and universal democracy, and an elimination or significant reduction of alienation. His solutions to the problems inherent in his proposal seem weak. It is not clear to me that all people (including children -- p.7, ln.20) can ever be in a position to assess the conflicting "findings" of the "experts" of interested parties as to the true environmental impact of every product and service of every activity of every person and company of the whole world. And, without governments, how will the money be spent? Will every person on the planet have a say? How could that occur?
Recommendation: If a clear and interesting voice from those who continue to propose radical transformations of society and of human nature is needed, this paper could find a place in the proceedings. If the volume needs to be limited to realistic proposals, it does not belong.
-- End of this anonymous critique --
Author's response:
The idea of a pollution fee or fee on use of natural resource, the commons, is not new with me. I learned about it in a college text during a course on political economy, in a book called, 'The Economics of Social Issues'. What is new, to my knowledge, is the connection drawn between this method of management of resources and the feedback mechanisms that operate in biological organisms, such as sensory nervous systems. Also new is the (proposed) practical realization of the idea that all people share in the ownership and management of the air and water, the commons, the natural resources, by receiving the proceeds of the user-fees, and by deciding what absolute limits will be placed on the use of the resources.
I do not propose that a fee be assessed on 'every product or service', but on those human actions which adversely impact the environment. If I am a reading tutor and I ask a student to read to me, I am providing a service, but I am not adversely impacting the Commons, and would not expect to have to pay the people to compensate them for degrading a public resource. If I drive 50 miles to get to the school, I expect to pay a fee to compensate the people for degrading their resource, the air, but this fee would be incorporated in the price of fuel by the fact that extracting petroleum for use as fuel would have the appropriate fee attached. If I take some kind of waste products and recycle them into new product, I would not expect to have to pay a fee. " . . . [C]harge them for the damage they are indirectly doing to the environment", sounds like we would examine each life, each person and make an assessment, a judgement of their impact on the earth by recording their purchases or examining their habits. That does sound totally unrealistic. But that is not what I propose. I would rather charge the corporate agents that damage the earth directly, and charge individuals for the damage they do directly.
As a practical matter, if a material is produced and marketed for a particular application, such as petroleum for fuel, then the producer ought to be assessed at the point of production as if delivery to market was equivalent to actual use. This way, the market will reflect in price the (perceived) ecologic impact of use. I would judge, for example, the 'damage to the earth' as the act of taking oil out of the ground, where it can be easily measured, rather than have gasoline delivered to the market prior to the assessment of any impact fees, and assessing the fees on the end-user. Making the necessary measurements as close to the point of production as possible will reduce the potential for subversion through black market trading.
It would be easier for me to accept 'unrealistic ... radical transformation' as valid and true argument against this paradigm if not for the fact that this plan could help to alleviate or eliminate some of our society's seemingly most intractable problems. This possibility of multiple benefits through the realization of this new paradigm could overcome the resistance to change that usually makes radical change such an unrealistic possibility. If not now for radical transformation, when? We have just invented a whole new media: Interactive hypermedia. Perhaps soon, this new form of human communication will be as extensive as the telephone network, which also continues to expand. We are in the midst of a long period of accelerating change. It is in times of invention of new tools that we see the greatest social, political and economic changes, because they so affect the ways that human beings interact with one another.
The basic idea here, or basic ideas are that we all own the air and water and natural resources, and to the extent that any person or corporate entity appropriates any of these resources for their own use, that entity ought to compensate the owners of the resource. The monies paid in exchange for the use of resources are controlled by the people, who may use them for whatever purpose they choose, but perhaps with a portion dedicated to community projects that enjoy the support of a large majority of citizens, and the remaining portion available for individual needs and wants. The people also control the level of the fee, or the overall level of resource use: The people are owners and managers of the commons. "Something like a resource fee..." What does this mean? What thing like a resource fee might we consider? How would this something be like a resource fee and how would it be different? (Who would decide on the fee amount? How would the proceeds be spent?) What is meant by 'leftist' tendencies, and why is it in quotes? (I did not use the term in the paper.) Perhaps 'leftist' refers to the idea that all the people own and would help manage the commons, and would receive the proceeds of the fees on their use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this idea is readily understood and accepted by members of the public who have been apprised of it. Many people feel that, yes, this is a good idea, but 'they', the established interests, will never go for it. To the extent that politicians and captains of industry successfully turn the purposes of government and corporate institutions toward these ends, they can help restore a sense of integrity and efficacy to our public institutions. This idea, put in practice, would reverse the trend toward greater disparity of wealth, while preserving, even improving, free market rewards of individual effort and initiative. It would help to promote a sense among the populace that we all share a power and responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. For these reasons, it seems to me not a weakness, but a strength.
I did not intend to suggest that children would be responsible for making decisions regarding resource use. I do suggest though, that children, students, might be involved in the process of gathering information about the opinions of the adults in their neighborhood. But the reviewer's statement brings to mind the idea that some communities might choose to celebrate exceptional, exemplary schools that cast their own mock votes with such careful consideration and clear explication of the why behind their votes that they stand as a model to others of how this responsibility for stewardship of the commons might be carried out. The community might want the school's mock votes published so that they can be copied by others, in effect letting the adults delegate their vote to those outstanding students.
We could ask someone from Pete Marwick, (or someone who knows more about accounting principles than I), how we might make scalable structures, accounts of each person's preferences, then each community's preferences, etc. that could be surveyed at any level, just as search engines survey large amounts of data through a network. The example of the school above may offer a clue to how this might be done. If teachers and students made it their business to ask community members what their opinions are about conditions in the community, they could post the results of their surveys on the internet for all to see. To the extent that the expressed wishes of the people conflict with actual conditions, we would expect resource user-fees to rise or fall as appropriate, until the disparity is resolved.
What better time to consider and make radical transformations than now? These are times of rapid, accelerating change, when the situation is dynamic and plastic, when we can make a great difference for the future depending on what decisions we take today, what we do today. A radical transformation, in the right direction, could be a very helpful and timely change.
But what change in human nature does the reviewer believe is required by this proposal? If anything, this paradigm is more respectful, more accepting of human nature as it is. The current system has a problem with externalities, which put every economic actor in the uncomfortable position of having to sacrifice community interest for self-interest, or, (perhaps less frequently), vice-versa. We all are driven by a mix of desires: to promote the community interest, and our own individual interest. This proposed system of incorporating external costs into the price of economic goods allows us to quickly and efficiently find a balance between self-interest and community interest, simply by seeking the lowest price for the things we buy, which we are naturally inclined to do, already.
Is it plausible to think that we do not need radical transformation of society? Is it realistic to think that if we could just teach a few more people to stop dumping motor oil in the back alley, get the miles per gallon numbers up a bit more, get some more people to separate out their paper and glass and other recycleables, take their shopping bag with them for re-use, and such things, then we will have met the environmental challenges that confront us? I wonder what alternative proposals the reviewer would suggest that might have the potential for resolving the 'tragedy of the commons'. Or would he/she take issue with the suggestion that this proposal does that, or that the tragedy of the commons is an issue of concern?
This paradigm, by the way, does not only address environmental problems-- although ideas about how we might better address the problem of pollution did provide the germ that it grew from. It is hard to over-estimate, I think, the combined effect of both a completely free labor market, which gives everyone the greatest incentive to increase their knowledge, skills and abilities, and a guaranteed income, which protects all from abject poverty, which currently debilitates a large portion of humanity.
John Champagne
Systemic flaws are not reported
Summary: On the basis of an analogy between how nonhuman organisms (from unicellular to bees) affect and are affected by their environment and how economic forces affect the use of natural resources, this paper proposes a radical transformation of human life: Children are to be educated differently, governments as they now exist will be abolished, and the labor market will be liberated from its current constraints.
The detrimental impact human beings have on the environment presents us with the "greatest challenge" the species has faced since it began to walk and talk. Economics provides the key to its solution: a "resource fee" that will be assessed to every product and service. These fees will penalize the use of environmentally damaging things, providing the "feedback mechanism" that is needed so that human culture will be in touch with its impact on the biosphere. This fee will provide the marketplace with information about the product's or service's environmental impact. They will be determined democratically by every person on the planet. Proceeds will be used to support "things we would like to see more of."
Evaluation: This paper is eminently clear; the author is able in a few paragraphs to present and weave together findings from microbiology, ethology, and economics into an intriguing and intelligible picture. On the basis of his assessment of the current "environmental crisis," he proposes an interesting (and to me, novel) solution. An effective way of affecting people's behavior is through their wallets, so charge them for the damage they are indirectly doing to the environment. The author also recognizes a number of problems which might be raised to this suggestion (Who determines the fees?, How will this money be used?, Etc.) and attempts in the limited space available to address them. Although, as proposed, this suggestion seems to be thoroughly unrealistic, there could be merits to its basic idea. Something like a "resource fee" might be worth considering as environmental policies are discussed.
The significant "leftist" tendencies of the paper weaken it. The author continues to have hopes in a world (non-) government, a radical transformation of society, a radical and universal democracy, and an elimination or significant reduction of alienation. His solutions to the problems inherent in his proposal seem weak. It is not clear to me that all people (including children -- p.7, ln.20) can ever be in a position to assess the conflicting "findings" of the "experts" of interested parties as to the true environmental impact of every product and service of every activity of every person and company of the whole world. And, without governments, how will the money be spent? Will every person on the planet have a say? How could that occur?
Recommendation: If a clear and interesting voice from those who continue to propose radical transformations of society and of human nature is needed, this paper could find a place in the proceedings. If the volume needs to be limited to realistic proposals, it does not belong.
-- End of this anonymous critique --
Author's response:
The idea of a pollution fee or fee on use of natural resource, the commons, is not new with me. I learned about it in a college text during a course on political economy, in a book called, 'The Economics of Social Issues'. What is new, to my knowledge, is the connection drawn between this method of management of resources and the feedback mechanisms that operate in biological organisms, such as sensory nervous systems. Also new is the (proposed) practical realization of the idea that all people share in the ownership and management of the air and water, the commons, the natural resources, by receiving the proceeds of the user-fees, and by deciding what absolute limits will be placed on the use of the resources.
I do not propose that a fee be assessed on 'every product or service', but on those human actions which adversely impact the environment. If I am a reading tutor and I ask a student to read to me, I am providing a service, but I am not adversely impacting the Commons, and would not expect to have to pay the people to compensate them for degrading a public resource. If I drive 50 miles to get to the school, I expect to pay a fee to compensate the people for degrading their resource, the air, but this fee would be incorporated in the price of fuel by the fact that extracting petroleum for use as fuel would have the appropriate fee attached. If I take some kind of waste products and recycle them into new product, I would not expect to have to pay a fee. " . . . [C]harge them for the damage they are indirectly doing to the environment", sounds like we would examine each life, each person and make an assessment, a judgement of their impact on the earth by recording their purchases or examining their habits. That does sound totally unrealistic. But that is not what I propose. I would rather charge the corporate agents that damage the earth directly, and charge individuals for the damage they do directly.
As a practical matter, if a material is produced and marketed for a particular application, such as petroleum for fuel, then the producer ought to be assessed at the point of production as if delivery to market was equivalent to actual use. This way, the market will reflect in price the (perceived) ecologic impact of use. I would judge, for example, the 'damage to the earth' as the act of taking oil out of the ground, where it can be easily measured, rather than have gasoline delivered to the market prior to the assessment of any impact fees, and assessing the fees on the end-user. Making the necessary measurements as close to the point of production as possible will reduce the potential for subversion through black market trading.
It would be easier for me to accept 'unrealistic ... radical transformation' as valid and true argument against this paradigm if not for the fact that this plan could help to alleviate or eliminate some of our society's seemingly most intractable problems. This possibility of multiple benefits through the realization of this new paradigm could overcome the resistance to change that usually makes radical change such an unrealistic possibility. If not now for radical transformation, when? We have just invented a whole new media: Interactive hypermedia. Perhaps soon, this new form of human communication will be as extensive as the telephone network, which also continues to expand. We are in the midst of a long period of accelerating change. It is in times of invention of new tools that we see the greatest social, political and economic changes, because they so affect the ways that human beings interact with one another.
The basic idea here, or basic ideas are that we all own the air and water and natural resources, and to the extent that any person or corporate entity appropriates any of these resources for their own use, that entity ought to compensate the owners of the resource. The monies paid in exchange for the use of resources are controlled by the people, who may use them for whatever purpose they choose, but perhaps with a portion dedicated to community projects that enjoy the support of a large majority of citizens, and the remaining portion available for individual needs and wants. The people also control the level of the fee, or the overall level of resource use: The people are owners and managers of the commons. "Something like a resource fee..." What does this mean? What thing like a resource fee might we consider? How would this something be like a resource fee and how would it be different? (Who would decide on the fee amount? How would the proceeds be spent?) What is meant by 'leftist' tendencies, and why is it in quotes? (I did not use the term in the paper.) Perhaps 'leftist' refers to the idea that all the people own and would help manage the commons, and would receive the proceeds of the fees on their use. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this idea is readily understood and accepted by members of the public who have been apprised of it. Many people feel that, yes, this is a good idea, but 'they', the established interests, will never go for it. To the extent that politicians and captains of industry successfully turn the purposes of government and corporate institutions toward these ends, they can help restore a sense of integrity and efficacy to our public institutions. This idea, put in practice, would reverse the trend toward greater disparity of wealth, while preserving, even improving, free market rewards of individual effort and initiative. It would help to promote a sense among the populace that we all share a power and responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. For these reasons, it seems to me not a weakness, but a strength.
I did not intend to suggest that children would be responsible for making decisions regarding resource use. I do suggest though, that children, students, might be involved in the process of gathering information about the opinions of the adults in their neighborhood. But the reviewer's statement brings to mind the idea that some communities might choose to celebrate exceptional, exemplary schools that cast their own mock votes with such careful consideration and clear explication of the why behind their votes that they stand as a model to others of how this responsibility for stewardship of the commons might be carried out. The community might want the school's mock votes published so that they can be copied by others, in effect letting the adults delegate their vote to those outstanding students.
We could ask someone from Pete Marwick, (or someone who knows more about accounting principles than I), how we might make scalable structures, accounts of each person's preferences, then each community's preferences, etc. that could be surveyed at any level, just as search engines survey large amounts of data through a network. The example of the school above may offer a clue to how this might be done. If teachers and students made it their business to ask community members what their opinions are about conditions in the community, they could post the results of their surveys on the internet for all to see. To the extent that the expressed wishes of the people conflict with actual conditions, we would expect resource user-fees to rise or fall as appropriate, until the disparity is resolved.
What better time to consider and make radical transformations than now? These are times of rapid, accelerating change, when the situation is dynamic and plastic, when we can make a great difference for the future depending on what decisions we take today, what we do today. A radical transformation, in the right direction, could be a very helpful and timely change.
But what change in human nature does the reviewer believe is required by this proposal? If anything, this paradigm is more respectful, more accepting of human nature as it is. The current system has a problem with externalities, which put every economic actor in the uncomfortable position of having to sacrifice community interest for self-interest, or, (perhaps less frequently), vice-versa. We all are driven by a mix of desires: to promote the community interest, and our own individual interest. This proposed system of incorporating external costs into the price of economic goods allows us to quickly and efficiently find a balance between self-interest and community interest, simply by seeking the lowest price for the things we buy, which we are naturally inclined to do, already.
Is it plausible to think that we do not need radical transformation of society? Is it realistic to think that if we could just teach a few more people to stop dumping motor oil in the back alley, get the miles per gallon numbers up a bit more, get some more people to separate out their paper and glass and other recycleables, take their shopping bag with them for re-use, and such things, then we will have met the environmental challenges that confront us? I wonder what alternative proposals the reviewer would suggest that might have the potential for resolving the 'tragedy of the commons'. Or would he/she take issue with the suggestion that this proposal does that, or that the tragedy of the commons is an issue of concern?
This paradigm, by the way, does not only address environmental problems-- although ideas about how we might better address the problem of pollution did provide the germ that it grew from. It is hard to over-estimate, I think, the combined effect of both a completely free labor market, which gives everyone the greatest incentive to increase their knowledge, skills and abilities, and a guaranteed income, which protects all from abject poverty, which currently debilitates a large portion of humanity.
John Champagne
Systemic flaws are not reported
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Natural Law remedy for systemic flaw: Civilization can be made sustainable and equitable
An unsustainable civilization is a consequence of a systemic flaw -- Natural law points to a solution.
Human rights are natural law. If we recognize basic claims that citizens might make, such as a claim to a right to share in deciding limits to pollution and to rates of taking of natural resources, we can understand these claims and rights as natural phenomena or natural law. We might recognize that, for the healthy functioning of society, citizens must assert these claims to their natural rights, and must act so as to create systems of governance that assure these rights are respected in practice. Presently, our system of government does not embody these rights in its functioning. Our society does not reflect an equal sharing of natural wealth, which can be understood as commons or public property.
This systemic flaw allows harm to be done to the environment without some direct and proportional economic cost being incurred. This means that prices of things do not reflect environmental impacts such as pollution, resource depletion and habitat destruction.
The idea that natural wealth ought to be shared equally is reflected in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stewart Mill, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith and others.
If we look at basic human rights as reflecting underlying laws of social interaction, we might notice some important facts about these basic rights that could aid us in solving some very important problems.
Natural law suggests that living systems, including human society, are delicate, intricate phenomena. The fact that it is always easier to tear down and destroy than it is to build and create reflects the nature of the underlying enabling conditions, which require order, structure and process rather than chaos or randomness. This is true whether we are talking about a tower of blocks, a work of art or a civilization. So, a civilization is stronger and more resilient when most everyone believes that we will all be better off by working to improve on what we have made. We cannot have many people wanting to destroy this nascent global civilization to see what else might take its place. For the benefit of all, there must be very few of us who believe that the world we have created is ugly or hurtful or evil. We need a society that all can believe in and feel glad to be a part of. Among other things, this means that we must have a system that recognizes the people as the rightful owners of natural resource wealth, so that the world we create together will not be a world that has more paving or pollution or noise or extraction of limited resources than what most people would say is acceptable.
Then we'd have a true democracy.
If we limit or discourage excessive taking of resources or putting of pollution by charging a fee to polluting industries, then the fee proceeds (a monetary representation of what we all own in common) could be shared equally among all the world's people.
We will have a more equitable society. No one would live in abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth cures the defect that we see in the thriving and collapse of civilization. It also makes the boom and bust business 'cycle' into a less wildly gyrating phenomenon.
Biological Model for Politics and Economics: Human Society as Neural Network
Human rights are natural law. If we recognize basic claims that citizens might make, such as a claim to a right to share in deciding limits to pollution and to rates of taking of natural resources, we can understand these claims and rights as natural phenomena or natural law. We might recognize that, for the healthy functioning of society, citizens must assert these claims to their natural rights, and must act so as to create systems of governance that assure these rights are respected in practice. Presently, our system of government does not embody these rights in its functioning. Our society does not reflect an equal sharing of natural wealth, which can be understood as commons or public property.
This systemic flaw allows harm to be done to the environment without some direct and proportional economic cost being incurred. This means that prices of things do not reflect environmental impacts such as pollution, resource depletion and habitat destruction.
The idea that natural wealth ought to be shared equally is reflected in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stewart Mill, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith and others.
If we look at basic human rights as reflecting underlying laws of social interaction, we might notice some important facts about these basic rights that could aid us in solving some very important problems.
Natural law suggests that living systems, including human society, are delicate, intricate phenomena. The fact that it is always easier to tear down and destroy than it is to build and create reflects the nature of the underlying enabling conditions, which require order, structure and process rather than chaos or randomness. This is true whether we are talking about a tower of blocks, a work of art or a civilization. So, a civilization is stronger and more resilient when most everyone believes that we will all be better off by working to improve on what we have made. We cannot have many people wanting to destroy this nascent global civilization to see what else might take its place. For the benefit of all, there must be very few of us who believe that the world we have created is ugly or hurtful or evil. We need a society that all can believe in and feel glad to be a part of. Among other things, this means that we must have a system that recognizes the people as the rightful owners of natural resource wealth, so that the world we create together will not be a world that has more paving or pollution or noise or extraction of limited resources than what most people would say is acceptable.
Then we'd have a true democracy.
If we limit or discourage excessive taking of resources or putting of pollution by charging a fee to polluting industries, then the fee proceeds (a monetary representation of what we all own in common) could be shared equally among all the world's people.
We will have a more equitable society. No one would live in abject poverty.
Equal sharing of natural wealth cures the defect that we see in the thriving and collapse of civilization. It also makes the boom and bust business 'cycle' into a less wildly gyrating phenomenon.
Biological Model for Politics and Economics: Human Society as Neural Network
Friday, October 12, 2012
Moral foundation allows us to adapt to circumstances
Our global civilization is headed for another great collapse unless we bring our behavior more into accord with our principles. Natural resources belong to all.
Intelligence is the ability to make connections that foster adaptive responses, to preserve the life and promote the health of an organism. Intelligent societies respond to environmental conditions in ways that promote sustainability. Societies lack intelligence if actions by members cause damage that is not readily apparent to those members. Then individuals may unknowingly do things that harm the interests of all members of society, and that may even cause harm to the larger community of life. When we do things that cause harm and cannot see the effect of our actions, we cannot respond in a way so as to reduce or stop the harm. We cannot consider the effects of our actions on others if we remain unaware of those effects. We are unable to abide by this basic moral precept.
Economists call the disconnect between what it costs to produce things (including costs in terms of pollution and resource depletion) on the one hand and the prices of products offered in the market on the other hand as 'externalities'. Fees assessed to industries according to how much ecological damage they cause would make the prices of things reflect the harm (the costs) that otherwise would remain hidden from consumers. A democratic society would set the fees so that they are just high enough to cause industries to try hard enough to reduce pollution, resource depletion and other harmful environmental impacts. We will know that industries are in fact trying hard enough when most people say that environmental impacts are acceptable, with a good balance being struck between 'freedom', so that our economic system can function and human needs can be met on the one hand, versus 'control', so that the interests of future generations and the larger living community are protected on the other hand.
We could decide that it is in the public interest to limit the rate of taking of natural resources (by applying a fee), so that the shock of having to adapt the scarcity of resources can be reduced by spreading resource availability out over a longer timeframe; or so that, in the case of renewable resources, a sustainable and healthy resource base can be maintained.
We could decide, collectively, that it is in the interest of stargazers (that's most of us at some point) to dim our outdoor lighting somewhat on a regular basis, so that we might enjoy a better view of the night sky. Perhaps we would want to further reduce outdoor lighting on select nights, to avoid disorienting night-migrating birds, perhaps, or so that we might more fully appreciate occasional meteor showers, thin crescent (blue) moons and passing comets. A system of fees on outdoor lighting could achieve this. The fees would float up or down, if there were an imbalance between the number of people who want more outdoor lighting vs. the number who want less. Lighting fixtures could be designed to automatically dim or shut off when the fee reached a threshold amount, as determined by the user. Small changes in opinion about acceptable levels of light pollution (or any other environmental impact) would translate to modest but real changes in actual conditions. The reality, the actual human impacts on the Earth would come to match what most people feel is most acceptable. When the reality matches what the people want, then we can say we live in a democracy.
Outdoor lighting is but one of the many kinds of impacts on the environment that human beings must limit, in an efficient and fair way, if we are to build a global society that is sustainable and consistent with democratic principles. The fee system could result in the world that the largest number of people say they want to live in. We would have a more democratic society. When prices show us the harmful effect on the environment of what we do, we will choose the more environmentally-friendly habits and practices.
John Champagne
Equal sharing of natural wealth promotes justice and sustainability: A solution to the matter of instability we know as the 'arc of civilization' (thrive and collapse)
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Intelligence is the ability to make connections that foster adaptive responses, to preserve the life and promote the health of an organism. Intelligent societies respond to environmental conditions in ways that promote sustainability. Societies lack intelligence if actions by members cause damage that is not readily apparent to those members. Then individuals may unknowingly do things that harm the interests of all members of society, and that may even cause harm to the larger community of life. When we do things that cause harm and cannot see the effect of our actions, we cannot respond in a way so as to reduce or stop the harm. We cannot consider the effects of our actions on others if we remain unaware of those effects. We are unable to abide by this basic moral precept.
Economists call the disconnect between what it costs to produce things (including costs in terms of pollution and resource depletion) on the one hand and the prices of products offered in the market on the other hand as 'externalities'. Fees assessed to industries according to how much ecological damage they cause would make the prices of things reflect the harm (the costs) that otherwise would remain hidden from consumers. A democratic society would set the fees so that they are just high enough to cause industries to try hard enough to reduce pollution, resource depletion and other harmful environmental impacts. We will know that industries are in fact trying hard enough when most people say that environmental impacts are acceptable, with a good balance being struck between 'freedom', so that our economic system can function and human needs can be met on the one hand, versus 'control', so that the interests of future generations and the larger living community are protected on the other hand.
We could decide that it is in the public interest to limit the rate of taking of natural resources (by applying a fee), so that the shock of having to adapt the scarcity of resources can be reduced by spreading resource availability out over a longer timeframe; or so that, in the case of renewable resources, a sustainable and healthy resource base can be maintained.
We could decide, collectively, that it is in the interest of stargazers (that's most of us at some point) to dim our outdoor lighting somewhat on a regular basis, so that we might enjoy a better view of the night sky. Perhaps we would want to further reduce outdoor lighting on select nights, to avoid disorienting night-migrating birds, perhaps, or so that we might more fully appreciate occasional meteor showers, thin crescent (blue) moons and passing comets. A system of fees on outdoor lighting could achieve this. The fees would float up or down, if there were an imbalance between the number of people who want more outdoor lighting vs. the number who want less. Lighting fixtures could be designed to automatically dim or shut off when the fee reached a threshold amount, as determined by the user. Small changes in opinion about acceptable levels of light pollution (or any other environmental impact) would translate to modest but real changes in actual conditions. The reality, the actual human impacts on the Earth would come to match what most people feel is most acceptable. When the reality matches what the people want, then we can say we live in a democracy.
Outdoor lighting is but one of the many kinds of impacts on the environment that human beings must limit, in an efficient and fair way, if we are to build a global society that is sustainable and consistent with democratic principles. The fee system could result in the world that the largest number of people say they want to live in. We would have a more democratic society. When prices show us the harmful effect on the environment of what we do, we will choose the more environmentally-friendly habits and practices.
John Champagne
Equal sharing of natural wealth promotes justice and sustainability: A solution to the matter of instability we know as the 'arc of civilization' (thrive and collapse)
Biological Model for Politics and Economics
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Minimum Wage vs. Minimum Income
Equal ownership of natural resource wealth promotes social justice and sustainability.
Minimum wage laws would seem to help those who have jobs at or near the defined minimum level. And they help those who make and sell machinery that replaces low-skilled workers. Minimum wage laws would seem to hurt those who might earn below the legally-defined limit but who have not yet developed skills or experience sufficient to command a higher wage. Minimum wage laws harm everyone if the rising cost of labor causes employers to choose production methods that lead to more pollution or depletion of resources than what a more labor-intensive method would cause.
We cannot create wealth by legislation, but we can alleviate poverty by ending the current practice of allowing theft of natural resources from the people. We all own the air and water--that is, we all have an equal right to use the air and water, and to say what the limits on pollution levels should be. (Some may recognize this basic right as a function of natural law, while others may see our right to breathe air and drink water as flowing from God's grace, but these different views are not mutually exclusive.) We also have an equal right to access the shared mineral wealth of Earth, and a right to share in deciding overall limits to levels of pollution and to the rates of taking of resources.
We could attach fees to the taking of resources and the release of pollution, both as a way to measure the value of natural resources and services (owned by the people and used by industry in pursuit of profit), and as a way to discourage unwanted and potentially harmful environmental impacts. We could set the fees at the levels that would result in only the amount of pollution and rate of resource extraction that the people deem permissible. (Industries would not be able to afford to pollute so much, as the cost of doing so increased.) The fee proceeds could and should be shared among all people equally, because these proceeds would in fact be a monetary representation of the value of resources owned by all. Public policy would assure not a minimum wage, but a minimum income.
If we look beyond questions of air and water quality and minerals management, we can see that this method of charging a fee or rent for causing adverse environmental impacts could be applied to the management of other commons resources. The number and diversity of fish in the sea is decreasing. We could attach a fee to the taking of those species that are threatened with depletion. We could attach VERY HIGH fees to the taking or killing of any member of a species that we do not want anyone to take, so that no one will see that activity as profitable.
Biodiversity is being lost at an astounding rate. Considering the current rates of desertification and loss of topsoil, the pace of forest destruction, the speed of encroachment on and paving of wilderness areas, the increasing threats to coral reefs, and our ongoing assault on climate stability, one might wonder whether we really care what kind of world we will leave for our children. If we were to decide that protecting biodiversity and promoting ecosystem health is a worthy public policy goal, we could charge a fee for any land use that disturbs or decreases biodiversity, from monoculture to asphalt, with the fee greater for those activities that produce more harmful impacts on the Earth and that are more disruptive of wildlife habitat.
With all people voting (through random-sample surveys, which could be conducted by any interested person) on whether the amount of paving, rates of taking of resources, levels of pollution, etc., are acceptable or should change, we would have a system where we could all share in sculpting the overall human impact on Earth. We would shape the world to match what we want it to be. Our economy would function in a way that would bring about a balance between supply of and demand for produced goods and services, AND it would achieve an appropriate balance, as defined by the people, between preserving environmental quality and promoting ecosystem health on the one hand, and the convenience of availing ourselves of natural resource wealth in pursuit of human goals on the other hand.
The amount of money collected through fees on the putting of pollution and the taking and degrading of resources would be substantial. We may not be able to afford such a system and the current system of taxes on income and sales. We may want to eliminate those taxes, or reduce them to negligible levels. (Some sales tax might be appropriate, to cover the cost of policing the marketplace.) We could fund community services from our 'accounting for externalities' fees. The monies collected could be shared among all people equally. We could each spend an agreed-upon fraction (perhaps half) on community needs (e.g.: libraries, schools, public health, police and fire protection, etc.) and spend the remainder on our own personal needs. We would all share in creating the kind of environment that we would choose. We would share, in a more direct and obvious way, decisions about what our community priorities should be. And no one would live in abject poverty.
This paradigm sees the role of government as an arbiter between the individual and community. It recognizes no authority of government to initiate the use of force against citizens. Only those actions, by individuals or corporate entities, that adversely affect others would come within the purview of government. In fact, government, per se, would not exist as we know it. The decisions of government would become dispersed, decentralized to all the people. This 'public realm only' focus for government action is an important point because such profound change cannot occur except through the active support of the people. Many people subscribe to the libertarian view that the government ought not initiate the use of force against citizens. Libertarians will appreciate this paradigm if they are persuaded that it appropriately draws the line between regulated or restricted actions (those that affect others or the community) on the one hand, and actions which are the free choice of individuals (private behavior) on the other hand.
Some people believe that the prevalence of outdoor advertising signs and billboards is too high to allow for an aesthetically pleasing visual landscape. Is the prevalence of outdoor lighting so high that our ability to see the stars has become too severely diminished? We may want to adopt a few "lights out" nights, to remind ourselves that there are stars out there. If enough people share these views, then this vision will be borne out in reality. Perhaps someday the power to decide these kinds of questions will be vested in the people. It will be if we, the people, care enough to take that power into our hands.
Equal Sharing of Natural Resources Promotes Justice and Sustainability.
More security for the least secure means more security for all
Minimum wage laws would seem to help those who have jobs at or near the defined minimum level. And they help those who make and sell machinery that replaces low-skilled workers. Minimum wage laws would seem to hurt those who might earn below the legally-defined limit but who have not yet developed skills or experience sufficient to command a higher wage. Minimum wage laws harm everyone if the rising cost of labor causes employers to choose production methods that lead to more pollution or depletion of resources than what a more labor-intensive method would cause.
We cannot create wealth by legislation, but we can alleviate poverty by ending the current practice of allowing theft of natural resources from the people. We all own the air and water--that is, we all have an equal right to use the air and water, and to say what the limits on pollution levels should be. (Some may recognize this basic right as a function of natural law, while others may see our right to breathe air and drink water as flowing from God's grace, but these different views are not mutually exclusive.) We also have an equal right to access the shared mineral wealth of Earth, and a right to share in deciding overall limits to levels of pollution and to the rates of taking of resources.
We could attach fees to the taking of resources and the release of pollution, both as a way to measure the value of natural resources and services (owned by the people and used by industry in pursuit of profit), and as a way to discourage unwanted and potentially harmful environmental impacts. We could set the fees at the levels that would result in only the amount of pollution and rate of resource extraction that the people deem permissible. (Industries would not be able to afford to pollute so much, as the cost of doing so increased.) The fee proceeds could and should be shared among all people equally, because these proceeds would in fact be a monetary representation of the value of resources owned by all. Public policy would assure not a minimum wage, but a minimum income.
If we look beyond questions of air and water quality and minerals management, we can see that this method of charging a fee or rent for causing adverse environmental impacts could be applied to the management of other commons resources. The number and diversity of fish in the sea is decreasing. We could attach a fee to the taking of those species that are threatened with depletion. We could attach VERY HIGH fees to the taking or killing of any member of a species that we do not want anyone to take, so that no one will see that activity as profitable.
Biodiversity is being lost at an astounding rate. Considering the current rates of desertification and loss of topsoil, the pace of forest destruction, the speed of encroachment on and paving of wilderness areas, the increasing threats to coral reefs, and our ongoing assault on climate stability, one might wonder whether we really care what kind of world we will leave for our children. If we were to decide that protecting biodiversity and promoting ecosystem health is a worthy public policy goal, we could charge a fee for any land use that disturbs or decreases biodiversity, from monoculture to asphalt, with the fee greater for those activities that produce more harmful impacts on the Earth and that are more disruptive of wildlife habitat.
With all people voting (through random-sample surveys, which could be conducted by any interested person) on whether the amount of paving, rates of taking of resources, levels of pollution, etc., are acceptable or should change, we would have a system where we could all share in sculpting the overall human impact on Earth. We would shape the world to match what we want it to be. Our economy would function in a way that would bring about a balance between supply of and demand for produced goods and services, AND it would achieve an appropriate balance, as defined by the people, between preserving environmental quality and promoting ecosystem health on the one hand, and the convenience of availing ourselves of natural resource wealth in pursuit of human goals on the other hand.
The amount of money collected through fees on the putting of pollution and the taking and degrading of resources would be substantial. We may not be able to afford such a system and the current system of taxes on income and sales. We may want to eliminate those taxes, or reduce them to negligible levels. (Some sales tax might be appropriate, to cover the cost of policing the marketplace.) We could fund community services from our 'accounting for externalities' fees. The monies collected could be shared among all people equally. We could each spend an agreed-upon fraction (perhaps half) on community needs (e.g.: libraries, schools, public health, police and fire protection, etc.) and spend the remainder on our own personal needs. We would all share in creating the kind of environment that we would choose. We would share, in a more direct and obvious way, decisions about what our community priorities should be. And no one would live in abject poverty.
This paradigm sees the role of government as an arbiter between the individual and community. It recognizes no authority of government to initiate the use of force against citizens. Only those actions, by individuals or corporate entities, that adversely affect others would come within the purview of government. In fact, government, per se, would not exist as we know it. The decisions of government would become dispersed, decentralized to all the people. This 'public realm only' focus for government action is an important point because such profound change cannot occur except through the active support of the people. Many people subscribe to the libertarian view that the government ought not initiate the use of force against citizens. Libertarians will appreciate this paradigm if they are persuaded that it appropriately draws the line between regulated or restricted actions (those that affect others or the community) on the one hand, and actions which are the free choice of individuals (private behavior) on the other hand.
Some people believe that the prevalence of outdoor advertising signs and billboards is too high to allow for an aesthetically pleasing visual landscape. Is the prevalence of outdoor lighting so high that our ability to see the stars has become too severely diminished? We may want to adopt a few "lights out" nights, to remind ourselves that there are stars out there. If enough people share these views, then this vision will be borne out in reality. Perhaps someday the power to decide these kinds of questions will be vested in the people. It will be if we, the people, care enough to take that power into our hands.
Equal Sharing of Natural Resources Promotes Justice and Sustainability.
More security for the least secure means more security for all
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A sustainable and just civilization is built on principle
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we exercise our moral sense.
Indeed, to be complete human beings, we must exercise our moral sense. This means, primarily, that we respect the golden rule. A sincere and thorough commitment to basic moral principles, including the golden rule, implies a strong commitment to human rights, including property rights, public and private.
When the people at large are recognized as the rightful owners of the air and water and other natural resources (the people at large have a collective right to use and to stop others from messing up), we will require that industries pay a fee when they pollute air and water or when they take and degrade natural resource wealth. Fee proceeds should go to all people, as compensation for damage done or value taken. The fees charged for using that which belongs to everybody could increase when demands on natural resources exceed what most people would say is acceptable. (We could use random surveys to learn what the average opinion of the people is regarding appropriate limits for various kinds of environmental impacts.) Such a system of fees would cause industries that use natural resources to try to decrease their demand for them, thus bringing actual impacts on the Earth into line with what the people want. A policy based on moral principle that recognizes public property rights is also highly consistent with basic democratic principles.
An advantage of a system that requires industries to pay a fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all of us is that, simply by adjusting the fee, we can give capital markets, investors, and business planners the information and incentives they need to most efficiently produce the reality that the people consent to in terms of acceptable environmental impacts. Industries will try to avoid causing adverse impacts on the environment, in an effort to reduce costs and increase profits. This will help to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in. When natural resource values are reflected in prices, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' environmental impacts.
The key to a sustainable and just civilization is to follow moral principle in all action, with particular attention being paid to actions that exert and amplify power or influence over distance. (When the effects of our actions are limited in scale and extent, we can often rely on normal interpersonal communication to alert us when we do wrong.) When we participate in the modern economy by spending money, we can influence people at a great distance. But with environmental impacts reflected in prices, we will be less likely to give incentive to others to do the wrong thing.
The golden rule implies libertarian principles and green political policies. A thorough commitment to the golden rule would mean no use of government as an instrument of force or violence against a peaceful person. In the political sphere, limits to government power are to the public realm, with private action being privately regulated.
We can apply the principles of agriculture, economics, politics, and indeed all of the various fields of knowledge to produce an impressive civilization. But real success over the long term requires sustainability. Real success requires an end to environmental degradation and grinding poverty. Real success requires a consistent and thorough application of moral principle.
A longer version of this article:
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we exercise our moral sense.
Quantum mechanics of gaia brain theory
Indeed, to be complete human beings, we must exercise our moral sense. This means, primarily, that we respect the golden rule. A sincere and thorough commitment to basic moral principles, including the golden rule, implies a strong commitment to human rights, including property rights, public and private.
When the people at large are recognized as the rightful owners of the air and water and other natural resources (the people at large have a collective right to use and to stop others from messing up), we will require that industries pay a fee when they pollute air and water or when they take and degrade natural resource wealth. Fee proceeds should go to all people, as compensation for damage done or value taken. The fees charged for using that which belongs to everybody could increase when demands on natural resources exceed what most people would say is acceptable. (We could use random surveys to learn what the average opinion of the people is regarding appropriate limits for various kinds of environmental impacts.) Such a system of fees would cause industries that use natural resources to try to decrease their demand for them, thus bringing actual impacts on the Earth into line with what the people want. A policy based on moral principle that recognizes public property rights is also highly consistent with basic democratic principles.
An advantage of a system that requires industries to pay a fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all of us is that, simply by adjusting the fee, we can give capital markets, investors, and business planners the information and incentives they need to most efficiently produce the reality that the people consent to in terms of acceptable environmental impacts. Industries will try to avoid causing adverse impacts on the environment, in an effort to reduce costs and increase profits. This will help to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in. When natural resource values are reflected in prices, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' environmental impacts.
The key to a sustainable and just civilization is to follow moral principle in all action, with particular attention being paid to actions that exert and amplify power or influence over distance. (When the effects of our actions are limited in scale and extent, we can often rely on normal interpersonal communication to alert us when we do wrong.) When we participate in the modern economy by spending money, we can influence people at a great distance. But with environmental impacts reflected in prices, we will be less likely to give incentive to others to do the wrong thing.
The golden rule implies libertarian principles and green political policies. A thorough commitment to the golden rule would mean no use of government as an instrument of force or violence against a peaceful person. In the political sphere, limits to government power are to the public realm, with private action being privately regulated.
We can apply the principles of agriculture, economics, politics, and indeed all of the various fields of knowledge to produce an impressive civilization. But real success over the long term requires sustainability. Real success requires an end to environmental degradation and grinding poverty. Real success requires a consistent and thorough application of moral principle.
A longer version of this article:
A sustainable and just civilization requires that we exercise our moral sense.
Quantum mechanics of gaia brain theory
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Systemic flaws are not reported
What the news media are not telling us: There is a defect in our economic system that threatens the stability and sustainability of civilization.
If we start from basic democratic principles, we can recognize a right of the people to define limits to pollution and limits on the overall rates of taking of the various kinds of natural resources. From this, we can see that citizens are stakeholders whose preferences must be taken into account when industries decide how much of this or that pollutant to release or resource to take. The collective decision of industry cannot be allowed to exceed what most people would identify as an acceptable limit if our commitments to democratic principles and the stakeholder role of citizens are to be respected.
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs, so that we can make well-informed decisions. But prices do not tell us the truth. We have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impact caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things, they choose to buy things, that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
"Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus) citizens may loose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to allocate resources. This is potentially a very serious risk, because the preservation of institutions requires that the people have confidence in those institutions.
This defect in our economic system harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
Hidden costs equate to a lack of transparency. This defect is a lack of transparency. The distorted (dishonest) price structure is giving us bad information and we are cut off from the consequences of our choices.
Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against a defect in our economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing?
If we believe that industries should feel some financial penalty when they take or degrade natural wealth, so that prices will reflect these otherwise hidden costs, we could charge a fee or require the purchase of a permit when adverse impacts are imposed on society and the environment. If we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all people equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral, also, to acquiesce in a system that gives (at most) mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that concept in reality. If more efficient management and fair accounting of natural resource wealth (necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to extreme poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms.
I hope a reporter or editor somewhere can explain why this analysis is flawed; or start reporting on natural resource wealth accounting.
Open Letter to Secretary of State Clinton
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
If we start from basic democratic principles, we can recognize a right of the people to define limits to pollution and limits on the overall rates of taking of the various kinds of natural resources. From this, we can see that citizens are stakeholders whose preferences must be taken into account when industries decide how much of this or that pollutant to release or resource to take. The collective decision of industry cannot be allowed to exceed what most people would identify as an acceptable limit if our commitments to democratic principles and the stakeholder role of citizens are to be respected.
Self-interest dictates that we look for the low price. Enlightened self-interest suggests that prices should tell us the truth about real costs, so that we can make well-informed decisions. But prices do not tell us the truth. We have an economy that hides resource depletion costs and other environmental costs from consumers. There is no general fee or tax assessed in proportion to adverse impact caused or natural resources taken by producers, so these costs are not reflected in prices.
Because costs are hidden, there is a distortion that leads all cost-benefit analyses and buying decisions to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things, they choose to buy things, that tend to deplete resources and pollute air and water more than what they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy.
"Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. When markets function with a lack of regard for environmental impacts and quality of life (because natural resource user-fees and pollution fees are not part of the economic calculus) citizens may loose interest in maintaining free markets as an efficient and fair way to allocate resources. This is potentially a very serious risk, because the preservation of institutions requires that the people have confidence in those institutions.
This defect in our economic system harms the interests of all of Earth's inhabitants. It causes long-term damage that will harm the interests of future inhabitants, including our own descendants, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they will need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?
Hidden costs equate to a lack of transparency. This defect is a lack of transparency. The distorted (dishonest) price structure is giving us bad information and we are cut off from the consequences of our choices.
Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against a defect in our economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing?
If we believe that industries should feel some financial penalty when they take or degrade natural wealth, so that prices will reflect these otherwise hidden costs, we could charge a fee or require the purchase of a permit when adverse impacts are imposed on society and the environment. If we believe that natural resource wealth is owned by all people equally, then any money paid by users of these resources should go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world. We would not only improve the efficiency of markets and of our whole economic system in terms of natural resources used, we would also improve the fairness of markets by making access to them (in the form of economic power) universal across the human population. When natural resource wealth is shared equally, disparity of wealth becomes a much smaller problem.
It is immoral--particularly so for journalists--to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral, also, to acquiesce in a system that gives (at most) mere lip service to respect for public property rights, while making no effort to manifest that concept in reality. If more efficient management and fair accounting of natural resource wealth (necessary as a foundation of a sustainable civilization) would bring an end to extreme poverty, it seems to me something worth talking about.
There is deafening silence in discussion of and reporting on systemic flaws--in economic and political realms.
I hope a reporter or editor somewhere can explain why this analysis is flawed; or start reporting on natural resource wealth accounting.
Open Letter to Secretary of State Clinton
Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights, Too
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)