Civilization is headed for another great collapse --

 unless we bring our behavior more into accord with our principles.

→ Intelligence is the capacity to connect cause and effect—to respond adaptively, preserving health and life. An intelligent society responds to environmental conditions in ways that ensure its own sustainability. When harmful actions are invisible to those causing them, that feedback loop breaks. People unknowingly damage the interests of everyone, including future generations, because the costs never show up in their experience. Harm you cannot see is harm you cannot stop.

---

→  Charging fees based on ecological damage would do something simple and powerful: it would make prices tell the truth. The hidden cost of pollution—normally invisible to consumers—would appear in prices. A democratic society would set fees just high enough that industries find it worth their while to clean up. We'd know we've found the right level when a random survey shows that most people regard current environmental impacts as acceptable—a genuine balance between economic freedom and ecological responsibility. Where opinion says impacts are too high, or that constraints are excessive, fees rise, or fall, accordingly. For the first time, the actual state of the environment would track what the public actually wants. That is democracy in its most literal sense.

---

→  Consider outdoor lighting—a small but telling example. Most of us have wished, at some point, to see a dark sky. A fee system calibrated to public opinion could dim lights on certain nights: enough to stop disorienting migrating birds, enough to see meteor showers, thin crescents, passing comets. People who want the convenience of more outdoor lighting would vote in random polls that way, and nudge the permit price down slightly, so people providing outdoor lighting will do it more. Those who want less interference with the view of the stars would respond to random polls in a way that causes fewer permits to be offered. If we assume our fee is based on the price of permits sold at auction, we will see fewer permits offered for sale result in a higher permit price. Fewer people will buy. Fewer people will create light pollution. The balance found, after the survey and permits auction, would be the one most people actually prefer—not the one most profitable to lighting manufacturers. 

---

Outdoor lighting is just one of countless environmental impacts that human civilization must learn to manage efficiently and fairly. A fee system grounded in democratic feedback could, across all such impacts, produce a world that matches what people say they want—and leave a livable planet for those who come after us.

---

John Champagne    @TallPhilosopher on BlueSky   @TallPhilosopher on X

Ending Poverty, Promoting Sustainability, and Respecting the Golden Rule

The most fundamental moral principle—the Golden Rule—is simple: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Every major religious tradition teaches it, and people of secular conscience embrace it as well. Yet in politics and economics, we often neglect this principle. We accept governments that meddle in the private lives of peaceful people, even when no one is harmed, and in doing so, we support policies that violate the Golden Rule.

Attempts to regulate private behavior not only infringe on individual rights; they also distract from the proper purpose of government. Government’s legitimate role is to safeguard public rights—protecting people from harms imposed by others without consent. If no one else is harmed, no public duty arises, and government has no cause to intervene.

But when pollution is released into the air or water, or when natural wealth is taken from common resources without compensation, harm is imposed. Polluting industries, in pursuit of profit, force all others to refrain from emitting similar material to a proportional degree—assuming we as a society intend to respect limits to overall pollution. Without limits, the rights of the public would be disregarded in practice, existing only as a philosophical construct.

In such cases, requiring polluters to pay a fee is not an arbitrary use of force but an act of justice. It is the people’s way of enforcing their collective right to define limits. If average public opinion holds that more pollution would be unacceptable, then the appropriate response is to adjust fees until emissions fall within that acceptable range. This is the Golden Rule applied to public life: no individual or corporation should impose upon others what they would not want imposed upon themselves.

When such fees are collected, fairness requires that the proceeds not be absorbed into bureaucratic budgets, but rather shared equally among all people. Natural wealth—clean air, stable climate, fertile soil, rich fisheries, and forests—is the inheritance of everyone. If it is diminished, compensation should flow equally to all, not to the few who hold political power. In this way, the fees serve both justice and poverty alleviation. Every person receives a dividend from our shared inheritance, ensuring that the benefits of nature’s wealth are broadly distributed.

This framework points to a new political possibility: a marriage of libertarian and green traditions. Libertarian principles insist that no government should initiate force or coercion against peaceful citizens. Green principles insist that natural systems be respected, and that human impacts remain within limits that sustain life and fairness across generations. Together, these principles affirm both freedom and responsibility.

A libertarian-green path would respect private property, civil liberty, and personal choice, while also establishing public property rights in the commons. Polluters and extractors would be required to pay the public for the damage or depletion they cause. Dividends from those payments would end poverty by guaranteeing everyone a fair share of natural wealth. Meanwhile, honest prices—prices that reflect real environmental costs—would align profit with sustainability, ensuring that innovation and enterprise serve long-term flourishing.

Such a system offers maximum freedom within necessary limits. People remain free to pursue their interests and livelihoods, but within rules that prevent them from violating the Golden Rule at the expense of others.

If we wish to end poverty, promote sustainability, and bring human impacts on the environment into line with what most people would deem acceptable, then we must return to first principles. Government should not coerce peaceful individuals. It should instead protect our shared rights, ensure that natural wealth is treated fairly, and embody the moral precepts that sustain society. To respect truth, prices must reflect real costs. To respect fairness, proceeds from the commons must be shared equally. And to respect freedom, limits must be set by the people themselves, through democratic processes that give voice to the collective conscience.

This is not utopian. It is simply the Golden Rule, practiced consistently in our economic and political life.



Biological Model for Politics and Economics

Respect individual sovereignty -- What would that look like?

Latitude can be offered to taxpayers, so that no person will be forced to support something that offends their conscience.

The proviso: Put the money toward alternative uses that most people agree are better for society. (An open call for people to document various things that people do to benefit society can produce a library of mini-documentaries. These can be compared randomly, in pairs, so that the best documentaries (most engaging, most informative, balanced) can be brought to the surface. These best docs, depicting various kinds of public service, can be compared, in random pairs again, in A/B testing, iterated many times, to find which kind of public service is consistently rated as more valuable to society. If someone wants to stop payment of their tax money for what they believe to be a harmful or corrupt purpose, they would see by the resulting 'gradient map' in which direction they should move those funds.

This is what we might expect to see in a society that has a high level of respect for individual sovereignty.

Who should decide how to spend public funds?

Empowering Citizens through Participatory Taxation: A Democratic Approach to Public Spending

The Problem

Our society faces a crisis of trust in public institutions. Daily headlines reveal law enforcement officers abusing their power rather than serving the public. Corruption among elected and appointed officials worldwide erodes faith in governance systems. This breakdown of trust creates fertile ground for reactionary ideologies that promise alternatives to dysfunctional systems.

For a healthy society, we need institutions that citizens trust to operate in the public interest. The current paradigm of centralized decision-making about public funds has led to widespread dissatisfaction and distrust.

A Democratic Solution to Public Spending

What if we adopted a new approach that puts spending decisions directly in the hands of citizens? We can create a system that uses comparative evaluation to produce a gradient map of public spending preferences, allowing taxpayers more control over how their contributions are used.

How It Would Work

1. Creating Representative Content: Citizens could create mini-documentaries showcasing various public services and programs. These would undergo preliminary A/B testing to ensure accuracy and quality in representing each type of public benefit.
2. Comparative Evaluation: Through millions of survey iterations, citizens would be presented with random pairs of these mini-documentaries and asked to indicate which shows a better use of public funds.
3. Gradient Mapping: These evaluations would generate a comprehensive gradient map showing the relative perceived value of different public services according to citizen preferences.
4. Taxpayer Direction: If taxpayers find a particular congressionally-approved use of funds objectionable, they could redirect their contribution along this gradient map toward alternatives that most people agree represent better uses of public money.
5. Proportional Allocation: Citizens might allocate a majority of their tax share (perhaps 80%) to widely-supported programs, while having freedom to direct the remainder toward more experimental or controversial initiatives that have at least modest public support.

Benefits of This Approach

• Increased Tax Compliance: When people believe their money is being well-used for purposes they support, willingness to pay taxes would likely increase.
• No Hard Cutoffs: Programs wouldn't suddenly lose all funding by falling below an arbitrary threshold. Instead, funding would gradually increase or decrease based on public perception of value.
• Continuous Improvement Incentive: All public service providers would have ongoing motivation to improve their efficiency and effectiveness to attract more citizen-directed funding.
• Broad Consensus Support: Essential services that most citizens value—like secular education, public parks, libraries, scientific research, public health, and responsible law enforcement—would likely receive robust funding.
• Environmental Management: This approach could extend to environmental policy, with emission permits or extraction quotas set according to democratically determined acceptable levels.

Practical Applications

In education, this system might allow students some budgetary control over their learning experiences, creating flexibility between lectures, hands-on activities, arts, and field experiences.

Secular public institutions funded through this democratic process would likely emphasize our shared identity as global citizens rather than divisive tribalism, promoting cooperation on our greatest challenges.

This participatory approach to public spending would strengthen democratic principles by creating a direct connection between citizens' values and government actions, rebuilding the trust necessary for a functioning civil society.


Based on an earlier essay: Who should decide how to spend public funds?

Empowering Citizens to Direct Public Funds: A Participatory Approach

In an era where trust in governmental institutions is waning, empowering citizens to have a direct say in public spending can rejuvenate democratic engagement. Building upon the principles of participatory budgeting—a process where community members decide how to allocate portions of a public budget—this proposal introduces an innovative system that leverages citizen input to guide the distribution of public funds.​  Participatory Budgeting Project+1Seattle+1

---

The Proposal: Citizen-Guided Allocation of Public Funds

1. Interactive Mini-Documentary Surveys

Citizens participate in surveys presenting randomized pairs of brief documentaries, each illustrating different public programs or services. By selecting which of the two they believe represents a better use of public funds, participants provide valuable insights into collective preferences.​

2. Developing a Gradient Map of Public Preferences

Aggregating millions of these pairwise comparisons generates a "gradient map"—a nuanced representation of public opinion on various programs. This map highlights which initiatives are broadly supported and which are more contentious.​

3. Taxpayer-Directed Fund Allocation

Armed with the gradient map, taxpayers can redirect a portion of their taxes away from programs they find objectionable, channeling funds toward alternatives with higher public approval. This ensures that redirected funds support initiatives aligned with collective values.​

4. Open-Source Content Creation and Evaluation

The creation of mini-documentaries is open to all citizens, fostering transparency and inclusivity. A separate A/B testing mechanism evaluates these documentaries, determining which most accurately and effectively represent the programs they depict.​

---

Benefits of the System

• Enhanced Trust in Public Institutions: By involving citizens directly in funding decisions, the system fosters a sense of ownership and trust in governmental processes.​

• Responsive and Equitable Resource Allocation: The gradient map ensures that public funds are directed toward programs with broad support, promoting equitable distribution.​

• Increased Civic Engagement: Open participation in content creation and decision-making processes encourages active civic involvement.​

• Transparency and Accountability: Publicly available evaluations and funding decisions enhance transparency, holding programs accountable to citizen preferences.​

---

Implementation Considerations

• Technological Infrastructure: Developing secure and user-friendly platforms for surveys and fund allocation is crucial.​

• Inclusivity Measures: Ensuring broad participation across diverse demographics to accurately reflect public opinion.​

• Educational Initiatives: Providing resources to help citizens understand programs and their impacts, enabling informed decision-making.​

• Pilot Programs: Testing the system in select communities to refine processes before broader implementation.​

---

By integrating citizen preferences into the allocation of public funds, this participatory approach aims to create a more responsive, transparent, and trusted governmental system. It builds upon existing participatory budgeting practices, enhancing them with innovative tools for broader and more nuanced public engagement.​

Local Government Association+4Wikipedia+4Seattle+4

Overly has questions (but no answers)

Someone who seemed to not like the idea of requiring industries to account for external costs related to production asked me what I think would happen if businesses are not allowed to make a profit. This was in response to a question about whether he thinks producers should be able to hide some of the costs of production from customers, and whether he thinks that air and water and other natural resources should benefit all people equally. [He asked the question about the effect of not allowing profit, and one about how much the proper (honest) fee would be, but ignored the questions I had put to him. (There is nothing about a pollution fee-and-dividend that implies disallowing profit, so I don't know the point of the question, other than to deflect / distract.)]

To Overly:

Why are you asking about the impact of not allowing profit? Where do you see, in a proposal for a pollution / extraction fee, a suggestion that businesses should not be 'allowed' to earn profit?

Businesses earn profit if their expenses are more than offset by their revenue. That remains true if we account for externalities. But any business that had only been able to make profit by externalizing some of its costs will face a greater challenge, if they are not making things that are essential. (If they are making essential goods or services, they will not lose customers if they raise prices, unless many of their competitors had been operating by relying less on externalizing costs, so that they are impacted to a lesser extent by the introduction of the policy to account for externalities, and therefor face less need to raise prices.)

Customers will continue to buy from those who make essential goods and services, even as the price goes up. That reflects the meaning of the word, 'essential'. People will be able to continue to buy essential goods and services, if we charge environmental impact fees and share the proceeds equally, because they will have a natural wealth stipend that more-than-compensates for the rise in price of those essentials.

Why do you suppose that accounting for externalities would mean businesses are not 'allowed' to make a profit?

Some business owners would prefer to simply pay the fee when they extract or emit, and be done with all the other regulations that are in place as a stopgap measure, to make up for the problems associated with the skewing of the market caused by the externalized costs. The other, less efficient methods of managing environmental impacts could be eliminated. (If we set emissions and extraction fees high enough, there will be no environmental problems that require government intervention.)

If we took a random poll, and we found that the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere each year is, say, 15% higher than what most people think is acceptable, then a number of permits could be issued to reflect the amount of emissions that the people (most people) will endorse. These permits could be sold at auction.

We might find that people are very responsive to the change in price, after producers are made to buy the emissions and extraction permits. So, demand will fall with a minor price signal, in such a situation. (If demand for permits is low, price for permits will be low.)

If people are less responsive to price changes, the permit price will be driven higher before it has the effect identified as the target by the random poll.

The auction price of something depends on intensity of demand in relation to supply. I am not able to predict what the auction price for various kinds of permits would be. You seem to think an inability to predict the auction price affects the viability or effectiveness of, or rationale for, the fee-and-dividend system. Do you think that? Why?


Imagine taxpayers could stop their money from supporting things that offend their conscience or that appear wasteful...

Systemic flaws are not reported

What Do We Need to Know That Our Newspapers and Universities Are Not Telling Us?

This is an update of an older version of this letter

To the Editor,

Our economic system has a fundamental flaw that impacts environmental sustainability.

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 impacts 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 to skew toward more environmentally harmful acts. Consumers do things that tend to pollute air and water more than they would do if the cost of the degraded environmental quality were factored into the prices of the things they buy. This harms the interests of other lifeforms on Earth, and it will harm the interests of future lifeforms, including our own descendants.

"Economic externalities" (hidden costs) cause us to do the wrong thing. When markets function with 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 lose 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. Reduced commitment to free markets will usher in a move toward more trade barriers and a less efficient (less prosperous) economy.

Where are the reporters and commentators who will report on and speak out against an economic system that gives us incentive to do the wrong thing? This defect in our economy disrespects the interests of other inhabitants of this world, and of future generations of humans, by depleting resources that they might rely on and polluting air and water that they need. They cannot speak up in protest. Should we?

If we determine that natural resource wealth is owned by all equally, then any money paid by users of natural resources would go to all the people; to each an equal amount. A proper accounting for this wealth would end abject poverty in the world.

It is immoral—particularly so for journalists—to acquiesce in a system that gives people incentive to do the wrong thing. It is immoral, too, 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 idea in reality. If a more efficient and fair accounting of natural resource wealth would spell an end to abject 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 can explain why my analysis is flawed; or begin meaningful reporting on environmental journalism and the urgent need for natural resource accountability.

gaiabrain.blogspot.com | @TallPhilosopher