Indeed, to be fully human, we must exercise our moral sense. Primarily, this means that we must respect the golden rule. In our political life, we have thus far failed to abide by this fundamental moral obligation. This failure produces serious flaws in our systems of government and economics. Social instability and injustice result from neglect of moral principle.
A sincere and thorough commitment to the golden rule implies a strong respect for human rights, which can be understood (and which are understood by many) to include rights to property. But we are neglecting some basic questions that should emerge from a strong respect for property rights. We are neglecting questions that could help us manage, in a sustainable and fair way, the natural resource wealth of the planet. We are neglecting questions that must be asked in order to ensure that our public property rights are manifest in reality.
How much pollution is too much? How rapidly should we deplete natural resources?
When the people are recognized as the rightful owners of the air and water and other natural resources, we will require payments to the people by industries that pollute air and water and that take natural resources in pursuit of profit. These payments will be compensation for damage done to, or value taken from, that which we all own in common.
The fee charged for using that which belongs to everyone should be raised when demands on natural resources exceed what most people polled in a random survey say is acceptable.
Fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of the commons. Sharing this wealth to the entire human population would mean an end to poverty throughout the world. (This will need to be a global policy, lest industries simply flee to the more lax jurisdictions, thus making complex and burdensome "border-adjustment-taxes" necessary in response.)
Does reality match what most people believe is most desirable, in terms of our use of the resources that belong to all of us? In terms of the extent of paving or intensity of light pollution? In terms of the extent to which we encroach on wildlife habitat? Are the rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water acceptable, or are current limits too strict? Or too lenient? These are questions that a democratic society would ask its citizens, if public property rights are respected.
When industries are made to pay an appropriate fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all, capital markets, investors and business planners will have the information and incentives that they need to produce the reality (in terms of environmental impacts) that the people consent to. With the right fees, industries will put the right amount of effort into preventing adverse impacts on the environment. The fee will be a kind of lever--a control mechanism--that the people could use to direct the economy to produce more or less of this or that kind of environmental impact, to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in--a world that is in accord with basic democratic principles.
When prices reflect the value of natural resources used in production, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' impacts on the environment, including reductions in carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions are just two examples of the kinds of environmental impacts for which a democratic society must define appropriate limits. Contentious arguments between competing political factions and economic interests about what is appropriate re limits on impacts are sometimes fraught with rancor. Debate continues and policy lags. While the debate continues, actual rates of putting carbon into the air should be brought into alignment with the will of the people at large.
A strong respect for public property rights would mean that we would each receive part of our income as earnings from work and / or investments, and part of our income from our shared legacy of natural wealth. No one would ever lose all income because they lack gainful employment, regardless of employment status or economic climate.
Respect for public property rights would mean that we would not deplete resources faster than what most people would say is acceptable. We would not disturb or destroy wildlife habitat, we would not intensely crowd animals together in concentrated feeding operations--at least, we would not do these things to such an extent that we offend the conscience of most people.
A random poll could be used to decide at what age people should begin to share in the decisions about how rapidly we should deplete resources of various kinds, or how much encroachment on wildlife habitat by humans is too much. Maybe we'll want to start asking at a younger age questions about how much paving and light pollution is too much, and a number of years later, closer to adulthood, we'll ask questions about how much release of mercury into the air is too much, and other such things. These questions regarding the age at which a person might be asked about specific kinds of impact could be integrated into the polls about those impacts. For brevity, we might ask the meta-poll question one-tenth as often as we ask about specific impacts: For a poll about what extent of paving on the Earth is too much, (More than, or less than, what we currently have), and what rate of change per year would be most desirable, we might add the question "At what age should citizens start contributing their opinion on this question and share in determining policy?".
Does reality match what most people believe is most desirable, in terms of our use of the resources that belong to all of us? In terms of the extent of paving or intensity of light pollution? In terms of the extent to which we encroach on wildlife habitat? Are the rates of taking of natural resources and rates of putting pollution into the air and water acceptable, or are current limits too strict? Or too lenient? These are questions that a democratic society would ask its citizens, if public property rights are respected.
When industries are made to pay an appropriate fee or rent to the people for using resources that belong to all, capital markets, investors and business planners will have the information and incentives that they need to produce the reality (in terms of environmental impacts) that the people consent to. With the right fees, industries will put the right amount of effort into preventing adverse impacts on the environment. The fee will be a kind of lever--a control mechanism--that the people could use to direct the economy to produce more or less of this or that kind of environmental impact, to ensure that we will have the kind of world that we want to live in--a world that is in accord with basic democratic principles.
When prices reflect the value of natural resources used in production, our economy will respond in the most efficient way possible to the urgent need for significant reductions in humans' impacts on the environment, including reductions in carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions are just two examples of the kinds of environmental impacts for which a democratic society must define appropriate limits. Contentious arguments between competing political factions and economic interests about what is appropriate re limits on impacts are sometimes fraught with rancor. Debate continues and policy lags. While the debate continues, actual rates of putting carbon into the air should be brought into alignment with the will of the people at large.
Respect for public property rights would mean that we would not deplete resources faster than what most people would say is acceptable. We would not disturb or destroy wildlife habitat, we would not intensely crowd animals together in concentrated feeding operations--at least, we would not do these things to such an extent that we offend the conscience of most people.
A random poll could be used to decide at what age people should begin to share in the decisions about how rapidly we should deplete resources of various kinds, or how much encroachment on wildlife habitat by humans is too much. Maybe we'll want to start asking at a younger age questions about how much paving and light pollution is too much, and a number of years later, closer to adulthood, we'll ask questions about how much release of mercury into the air is too much, and other such things. These questions regarding the age at which a person might be asked about specific kinds of impact could be integrated into the polls about those impacts. For brevity, we might ask the meta-poll question one-tenth as often as we ask about specific impacts: For a poll about what extent of paving on the Earth is too much, (More than, or less than, what we currently have), and what rate of change per year would be most desirable, we might add the question "At what age should citizens start contributing their opinion on this question and share in determining policy?".
A random survey could show at what age we should begin receiving our natural wealth stipend. Maybe most people, when asked, would say that, for participation in these specific activities (go to a play, attend a concert, visit a museum), young children should be able to draw on their natural wealth stipend. This could apply generally for any activities that are provided transparently in the name of the public interest and the interest of the child: activities that the public has passed judgement on as something actually benefiting the public and child would qualify to receive payment from young people's natural wealth stipend. In this way, the natural wealth stipend can become a source of funding for public and civic education.
Youth can receive a public stipend and be directed to spend in pursuit of the various public-spirited projects or educational activities, whether it be the project of running the school (which would have its own menu of options of activities available inside the school) or projects beyond school: music concerts, museums, theater, gardening and community service. (Some activities may add to rather than draw from a child's natural wealth stipend account. Children could go help in the school garden to earn money toward a spectacular school field trip, for example.)
The youngest members of society have a right to benefit from natural wealth, even if they don't yet know how to use money responsibly. We could invest the money that is their fair share of natural wealth toward support of public programs and services, such as education, libraries, parks, museums, public health, etc., for which there is broad consensus that those programs will promote the health, stability and vitality of civilization in years to come.
Our schools could offer a menu of experiences that children could choose to engage in. If the resources that a child draws on during the school day amounts to less than the portion of their natural wealth stipend available for education, the surplus can accumulate for use later. Save for a rainy day or for a special excursion. Sitting quietly reading a book would translate into an accumulation of funds that will, in time, become available to fund a great adventure. If the rate of spending is low overall, the excess funds can be used to invest in a business or to pay for higher education, or put into a savings account, when the child reaches adulthood.
Random surveys could be used to decide generally what proportion of public spending should go to which programs and services. Those programs that enjoy wide support of the people will receive funding. Programs and services for which public confidence is lacking would see their funding dry up.
The key to a sustainable and just civilization is to follow moral principle in all action. We need to pay particular attention to actions that exert and amplify power or influence over distance. For human beings, normal interpersonal communication includes myriad nonverbal cues that we use automatically and subconsciously to let one another know when a standard of acceptable behavior has been violated. When we participate in the modern economy by spending money, we influence people at a great distance, but without the benefit of the rich communications channels that include our tone and body language.
If environmental impacts are reflected in prices, our natural tendency to avoid higher prices will help to ensure that we will not give producers located thousands of miles away a perverse incentive to do the wrong thing. When higher prices are associated with products that are more harmful to the environment, we will be deterred from the worst buying decisions.
The golden rule implies libertarian principles and green policy choices. We might call this a 'left-libertarian' path. A thorough commitment to the golden rule would mean no use of government to initiate force or violence against a peaceful person, In the political sphere, government power would be limited to the public realm, with private, non-violent action being privately regulated.
We have applied 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. Long-term success requires an end to environmental degradation and grinding poverty. Real success requires that we pay attention to moral principle, account for externalities and share natural wealth equally.
We inherit our shared legacy of natural resource wealth as a birthright. Our charge is to manage this inheritance wisely and to bequeath to future generations, and to share equitably for the benefit of our fellow inhabitants of the planet.
Respect PUBLIC property rights, too
@tallphilosopher
The youngest members of society have a right to benefit from natural wealth, even if they don't yet know how to use money responsibly. We could invest the money that is their fair share of natural wealth toward support of public programs and services, such as education, libraries, parks, museums, public health, etc., for which there is broad consensus that those programs will promote the health, stability and vitality of civilization in years to come.
Our schools could offer a menu of experiences that children could choose to engage in. If the resources that a child draws on during the school day amounts to less than the portion of their natural wealth stipend available for education, the surplus can accumulate for use later. Save for a rainy day or for a special excursion. Sitting quietly reading a book would translate into an accumulation of funds that will, in time, become available to fund a great adventure. If the rate of spending is low overall, the excess funds can be used to invest in a business or to pay for higher education, or put into a savings account, when the child reaches adulthood.
Random surveys could be used to decide generally what proportion of public spending should go to which programs and services. Those programs that enjoy wide support of the people will receive funding. Programs and services for which public confidence is lacking would see their funding dry up.
The key to a sustainable and just civilization is to follow moral principle in all action. We need to pay particular attention to actions that exert and amplify power or influence over distance. For human beings, normal interpersonal communication includes myriad nonverbal cues that we use automatically and subconsciously to let one another know when a standard of acceptable behavior has been violated. When we participate in the modern economy by spending money, we influence people at a great distance, but without the benefit of the rich communications channels that include our tone and body language.
If environmental impacts are reflected in prices, our natural tendency to avoid higher prices will help to ensure that we will not give producers located thousands of miles away a perverse incentive to do the wrong thing. When higher prices are associated with products that are more harmful to the environment, we will be deterred from the worst buying decisions.
The golden rule implies libertarian principles and green policy choices. We might call this a 'left-libertarian' path. A thorough commitment to the golden rule would mean no use of government to initiate force or violence against a peaceful person, In the political sphere, government power would be limited to the public realm, with private, non-violent action being privately regulated.
We have applied 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. Long-term success requires an end to environmental degradation and grinding poverty. Real success requires that we pay attention to moral principle, account for externalities and share natural wealth equally.
We inherit our shared legacy of natural resource wealth as a birthright. Our charge is to manage this inheritance wisely and to bequeath to future generations, and to share equitably for the benefit of our fellow inhabitants of the planet.
Respect PUBLIC property rights, too
@tallphilosopher
No comments:
Post a Comment