How to Fix Civilization

Civilization is neither stable nor just because of a systemic flaw: Natural wealth is not shared equally.

If we charge fees to industries that release pollution or take natural resources, and if we set the fees just high enough to cause industries to cut down on environmental impacts--to the point that most people think those impacts are being held to acceptable limits--, we will have accounted for economic externalities AND we will have produced an economic measure of the value of natural resources to the economy and society. We will have fixed the serious defect that causes the economy to disregard the costs of destabilized climate, damage to the environment and depletion of scarce natural resources.

The proceeds from fees should be shared equally to all the world's people. We might decide to reduce or eliminate conventional taxes and require each person to put some portion of this money toward support of public programs of their choosing. Programs and services that many people endorse as good examples of ways to benefit society could qualify to receive funds. (A random poll could show what fraction of the natural wealth stipend should be available for citizens' personal  use and what fraction should go to support community needs, in the view of most people.)

A fee amount that is set high enough so that people are discouraged from causing harmful impacts on the environment...discouraged strongly enough to bring the overall extent of environmental impacts of various kinds into line with what most people think is acceptable...would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society. A system of random surveys could tell us what limits people want on various kinds of impact.

Fees would increase when an economy is expanding, to prevent growing demand for pollution permits, etc., from causing the economy as a whole to exceed the limits (in terms of environmental impacts) acceptable to the people. The rising fees would put a damper on the pace of economic activity, thus preventing what otherwise could become an unsustainable boom. This damper on excess activity is a counter-cyclical influence that functions automatically.

Environmental impact fees introduced as a way to efficiently manage pollution and depletion of resources would have the added benefit of stabilizing the economic climate.

With fee proceeds shared to all, everyone will continue to spend in support of their own basic needs, regardless of employment status. This would insulate the sectors of the economy that provide for basic needs from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. All people would continue to spend in support of these sectors, even during an economic downturn. Economic slowdowns, then, can never become so severe that they threaten social cohesion and stability. Economic sectors that provide essential goods and services will remain strong.

Within this alternative paradigm, some people may choose to live a very simple life and minimize their need to earn income beyond their natural wealth stipend. When the economy slows, the falling demand for pollution permits, etc., would mean a reduction in fee amounts.

Reduced fees would translate to reduced income for people relying largely or entirely on their natural wealth stipend. During economic slowdowns, these people would feel increased incentive to enter the job market. An influx of additional job-seekers would make business start-up and expansion easier. Again, we see that this paradigm would automatically produce a counter-cyclical influence. When natural wealth is shared, the economic system is less inclined to 'boom and bust'. With pricing of natural wealth, there is an economic incentive, felt by all, to try to reduce impacts on the environment. Civilization is more likely to be sustainable.

We talk more about minimum wage than we  do about minimum income. That could change when we start talking about sharing natural wealth equally. We could create a more just society that is also a sustainable civilization.

John Champagne  @TallPhilosopher

      Equal sharing of Natural Resources promotes Justice and Sustainability

  Integration of human society and the biosphere

Put Public Funds Directly into the Hands of the People

Who should decide how to spend public funds?

Hardly a day goes by that we do not hear another news report about law enforcement officers who are supposed-to-be public servants violently assaulting the citizens who they are supposed to be protecting. (Until editors decide that the story is old and they move on to the next hot topic. Then we'll likely see those reports only if we look for them, or if an incident sparks an uprising.)

We need law enforcement agencies that the people can trust. Citizens must feel free to communicate with police officers and other public officials when they see problems, and they must feel that talking to law enforcement about criminal behavior will help bring positive results. This requires high levels of trust in the police. It requires that the people trust that the law is fair.

Hardly a day passes that does not bring new reports of corruption by elected and appointed officials somewhere in the world. Corruption anywhere is a threat to civil society everywhere because if we fail to create systems of government that are honest and responsive, we will suffer further erosion of trust in the integrity and value of our civil institutions. There will be some segment of the population that is more prone to being seduced by claims of a pure, perfect ideology, an alternative system, if the established order is in decline. Any fundamentalist, reactionary ideology that is prominently opposing the establishment will appear more attractive when contrasted with an unsustainable and corrupt system [even though the competing, reactionary ideology would bring its own (less visible to adherents) systemic defects.]

In order to thrive, our society requires healthy institutions that have the people's trust. We need to be confident that governments and public officials are operating in the public interest.

Would we be better-off with an alternative political paradigm that puts public funds directly into the hands of the people? Each of us might be asked to decide how to spend a small, equal fraction of the total public budget. We would spend in ways that we think will benefit society, with the condition that our choices must line up with the opinions of at least a significant portion of our fellow citizens. If I spend my share of public funds on things that, say, 50% of citizens feel promote the public interest... we could be pretty sure that my choices, whatever they are, will in fact promote the public interest at least somewhat and probably quite a bit. We can use public random surveys to know what people think regarding this or that public service (to find out to what extent people think particular services produce benefit for society and the larger environment). 

We can create a paradigm that, in its very operation, directs people's attention to the question of how public funds are being and should be used. Imagine surveys that ask where more public funds should be directed, and where we should reduce public spending. Imagine random polls that show examples of people performing actions that aim to promote public interests. Shown in pairs, one example might be thought by most survey respondents to show a greater benefit than the other. Spending can be directed primarily to providers of services that are most highly rated.

If I put a large fraction (say 80%) of my share of public funds toward support of programs and projects that eight-out-of-ten citizens agree promote the public interest, I might be allowed more latitude in deciding how to use the remainder of 'my' share of these funds. I might be free to use the remaining (20%) fraction to support programs that, say, 20% of citizens agree promote the public interest. This question of what might benefit the community is a really big question, and one about which  reasonable people will disagree. Within this paradigm, the most widely-supported programs would receive the bulk of the public dollars (or distributed-ledger crypto-currency), while other programs (more controversial or experimental programs, perhaps) would have access to reduced but still significant amounts of public funding.

If this idea of dispersing public policy decisions to all people is adopted more generally, we could manage environmental impacts in ways that are in accord with what most people think is acceptable. If we take a survey and learn that most people think we would be better-off and that our children would be better-off if we were to reduce carbon emissions by, say, 40% over the next ten years and 40% more in the decade after that, then we should have a policy that would bring about that reduction (about 5.5% per year). We can assume that some people would want a greater-than-40% reduction, while others would want less-rapid reduction or no reduction. Forty percent in ten years might reflect the median or average opinion about what is acceptable. The amount endorsed by average opinion would be the amount appropriate for a democratic society.

We could issue permits for fossil carbon emissions (or for extraction of carbon) and auction the permits in a free market. The number of permits offered would correspond to what most people think is acceptable. We can apply this idea to the management of all kinds of human impact on the environment.

When the decision of how to spend public funds is put into the hands of the people at large, no person will be forced to support a program with which they have a philosophical disagreement. With a sliding-scale criterion for eligibility, there would be no hard cut-off point for access to funds. No program manager would have reason to be overly-concerned about achieving a particular qualifying score (50%, for example). Instead, all managers and providers of public services would have an abiding interest in improving their service or efficiency, regardless of their current position on a public approval ratings scale.

Within such a paradigm, we might expect to see broad support for public sponsorship of secular (non-sectarian) schools, public parks, libraries, scientific research, public health services and responsible law enforcement.

Imagine a public school system that allows students access to a budget that they can use to 'purchase' time at hands-on activities vs. lecture/discussion vs. art/music, gardening, etc. There is no reason why schools cannot create more than one environment for students to participate in that will nurture their development. We might have some students attending some lectures, engaging in some hands-on learning, some art, every day, while others participate mostly in (lower cost) lecture/discussion for three weeks straight in order to save up funds to be able to go on a spectacular field trip.

One clear advantage of secular (non-religious) schools  is that we would be less likely or not-at-all likely to find the teaching of an 'us-vs-them' mentality. We would be more likely to see expressions of the idea that we are all Earthlings. We must work together to make a healthy global community and to effectively meet the great challenges that confront us.

Biological Model for Politics and Economics

@TallPhilosopher I'm not using Twitter so much, after learning that my replies were being relegated to the 'Offensive Tweets' backwater.

Discussion at Kialo: Discretionary taxation