Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too

Human beings have a collective moral right to assert public property claims. We have a collective moral duty to do so, too. Public property rights (and property rights generally) are human rights. Human rights are an example of natural law. As a kind of natural law, human rights must be respected. Public property rights include the collective right of the people to benefit from commons resources (wealth made by natural processes, not human effort). Public property rights include a shared right to decide overall limits to humans' impact on the environment. These collective rights imply corresponding shared moral duties to create systems of governance that assure that natural wealth is shared equitably and that limits on pollution and on rates of taking of natural resources are consistent with the will of the people at large. No society can hold together in the long run in the absence of a respect for basic rights. Economic justice, the stability of our society and the future health of the planet all depend on us recognizing these rights and carrying out these shared responsibilities. Natural phenomena emerge in the cosmos according to natural law. Moral precepts can be seen as natural laws of social interaction, while the emergence of civilization can be seen as a particular kind of natural phenomenon. But civilization as we've made it thus far exhibits some serious flaws related to our near-total neglect of a basic moral precept. There is broad agreement on the idea that human beings have a collective right to define limits to pollution and limits to the rate of taking of natural resources, yet we have thus far failed to carry out our collective duty to establish those limits in reality--limits that are in accord with the average opinion of the people. This neglect of a basic democratic principle impairs economic justice. Neglect of principle impedes efforts to build a sustainable society. We have a civilization that is plagued by widespread extreme poverty and we are threatening to produce a planetary ecological disaster. We are challenged by circumstances to create a sustainable and more just civilization. Civilizations thrive then collapse because, first, conditions emerge that make them possible, then they grow beyond what the natural environment can sustain. Economies boom then bust because they grow beyond what their resource bases can support. The arc of civilization and the boom and bust of the business 'cycle' are similar phenomena seen at different scales. These sometimes wild swings may appear to be cyclical variations, but they actually reflect chaotic instabilities. A closer adherence to basic principles would mean a dampening of these gyrations to the point that they would no longer pose an existential threat to the system. Fees on the taking or degradation of natural resources could be applied as a mechanism to moderate human economic activity, with the aim of keeping overall environmental impacts within limits that most people find acceptable. (We might assume that people will identify as acceptable that which they believe is sustainable--a society that is democratic in terms of limits to environmental impacts is more likely to be sustainable.) We could use a system of random surveys to discern whether more people want to see more strict limits on emission of various types of pollution and on the rates of taking of resources, or more want to be more lenient, or whether there is a balance between the number of people holding one view vs. the other. A fee is a lever or mechanism that society could use for applying incentives to influence the behavior of those who use natural resources. Fees for particular kinds of environmental impacts would rise or fall, as need be, when the actual conditions do not match what most people want to see. Fees would be held steady when the reality matches what the largest number of people say is the best balance between the alternative positions: Freedom vs. constraint; More vs. less impact on the environment. [There is an implicit trade-off that translates restraint now into more opportunities later, as stricter limits on environmental impacts now leads to a more healthy and resilient environment and more abundant mineral reserves in the future. (This mirrors the challenge that confronted traditionally nomadic, hunter-gatherer humans who had begun to settle in choice spots several thousand years ago: After a dry year, they were faced with the choice to either eat their seed grain, or sacrifice now so that they might prosper in the future.)] Defining appropriate limits to humans' environmental impacts is a primary function of government in an advanced industrial society. Such a system as that described above would ensure that the basic human right to collectively decide limits would be embodied in practice. The hope and expectation is that people will in fact choose to keep overall impacts within limits that the larger environment can sustain. Apparently, eternal vigilance is the price citizens must pay to ensure that a human population that has the ability to exceed what the Earth can support in fact does not go beyond those limits. Citizens (even those who are not 'environmentally conscious') would have a natural inclination to call for less impact on the environment (higher fees) because the sum of all proceeds from these fees would be a monetary representation of wealth owned by all. The money collected would be shared to all. Equal sharing of fee proceeds would manifest in reality the idea that we all own natural resources in common. A vote for less environmental impact will translate to a larger natural wealth stipend. Equal distribution of this money would buffer the downward slide of a shrinking economy, because the entire human population would continue to receive a modest income from shared natural resource wealth, independent of income from work, family inheritance or investments. A 'floor' on the loss of human confidence that causes or contributes to business contractions would be created. Spending in support of basic human needs would continue. Resources would continue to flow to the sectors of the economy that provide essential goods and services. With a modest income assured, people would continue to spend in ways that support the most vital economic activities. Sharing natural wealth will mean that economic sectors devoted to meeting basic needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business 'cycle'. Swings in the economic climate would be moderated. With demands on renewable biological resources (e. g., forests and fish stocks) kept sufficiently low and with availability of minerals extended farther into the future through a fee mechanism, civilization becomes a more sustainable phenomenon. With extreme poverty ended and disparity of wealth reduced through equal sharing of fee proceeds, society rests on a stronger foundation of justice, which would further contribute to social stability. We can imagine an equal payment to all people that would protect every person against extreme material deprivation. This natural wealth stipend would be drawn from the proceeds of fees charged to those who take or degrade natural wealth in pursuit of profit. Those who are at the greatest disadvantage under the current system will be better off with this policy. Respect for public property rights would significantly improve the material condition of those who experience the greatest economic hardship. We will no longer have vast regions of the world populated by mostly dispossessed people. Everyone benefits when the economy adapts to the pricing of natural resource wealth. This adaptation is implicit in the transition away from an economy that allows economic externalities to go uncompensated. Externalities are the hidden costs (or benefits) of economic activity. For example, the cost of pollution (born by the human community and the larger community of life) is hidden from investors, corporations and consumers when producers do not pay a fee proportional to the amount of pollution that they cause. If there is no monetary payment made when pollution is created, then pollution costs are not reflected on the financial balance sheet. Economic actors are unable to see costs that are off the balance sheet and therefore hidden from view. They cannot properly take account of these costs. Because environmental impact costs are hidden, all choices about what manufacturing process to adopt, what products to buy, what mode of transport to use, what to eat, etc., are skewed toward more environmentally-harmful acts and away from sustainability. Putting a price on natural resource wealth moves us toward an economy that embodies the concept of public property rights in its structure and accounting. Industrial processes and business models will be redesigned to improve resource efficiency. Individuals will change habits toward more sustainable practices. People will choose more environmentally-friendly lifestyles--even if they are not trying to do so because they are temperamentally inclined to be concerned about environmental issues. This means improved conditions for everyone: More ecological health and more personal health. (Environmental impact pricing would favor whole foods, locally-produced foods and plant-based diets.) A sustainable human society built on a broader moral foundation is good for all Earthlings. Taking ownership of our environment is also good for us in ways that may not be immediately obvious. For example, if we were to decide that advertising billboards are an adverse environmental impact due to their contribution to unwanted visual blight, then fees could be charged to those who post such ads, to assure that the prevalence of billboards on the landscape is kept within acceptable limits. Maybe signage in earth-tones would be considered less offensive. (What would a random survey reveal?) There could be a graduated fee structure. Now imagine that every kind of television or radio broadcast is a sort of billboard in the public space (the public airwaves). If we want to manage the use of the airwaves in a way that is consistent with the will of the people, we could charge a fee for certain uses of the broadcast spectrum that promote private or commercial interests rather than the public interest. We could pay a stipend to broadcasters and/or producers who offer programming that a random survey indicates would make a valuable contribution to the public interest or public good, in the view of most people. Shaping or tilting our use of the broadcast spectrum toward the public interest might change the character of broadcast television and radio in profound ways. We could get an idea about how these changes would affect our culture if we start asking the pertinent questions. Given a multitude of choices for how to use the broadcast spectrum, how might we best promote the public interest? Making channel space available for distribution of programs according to what random surveys show would promote the public interest will likely produce a menu of programs that would serve the public interest more effectively than what we have now. The current system favors quantity (size of audience) over quality (depth of engagement with topics that matter). We can make the world more what we want it to be. By changing our relationship with our political and economic systems--by changing the way we participate in them--toward a fuller respect of our basic principles, chief among them, respect for truth in pricing and fairness in sharing the wealth bestowed by nature, we transform our society and ourselves. With a change in the rules toward greater respect of primary values, we can build a global civilization that is both sustainable and more just.

https://gaiabrain.blogspot.com

Biodiversity as a Public Good

 The decision regarding the extent to which humans shall disturb the larger community of life should be a collective decision.

A basic principle of property rights requires that those who degrade the value of others' property will compensate the owners for the damage done or value lost. If we believe that we all own the air and water in common, then we should require industries that cause pollution to pay a fee to the people at large, because their actions degrade the quality of that which belongs to all of us. We should respect public property rights, too.

Destruction of meadows and forests for conversion to monoculture farmland, pasture, paving and structures adversely impacts wildlife habitat. It would make sense to assess a fee on monoculture, paving and other kinds of land-use, to counteract the economic incentives that encourage destruction of biodiversity and loss of habitat. The most appropriate fee would be a fee that is just high enough to ensure that loss of habitat is not carried to an extent that most people would say is excessive.

Defining a limit to the overall extent to which humans encroach on the larger community of life could mean a more democratic society. Would most citizens prefer that we set a limit? If most people feel that an appropriate limit would be more strict than what we see currently, a survey question could ask what percent reduction per year of paving, monoculture or pasture (or what rate of advancement of untrammeled wildlife habitat) would be an acceptable rate of improvement toward the goal (that is, toward the point where the conditions that manifest in reality match average opinion about what is acceptable).

A random survey is a versatile tool. We can use random polls to gauge the extent to which we should protect habitat and preserve biodiversity. We can also use them to gauge the relative value to society of various kinds of land-use. If a majority of citizens polled said that monoculture dedicated to production of sugar cane or tobacco or opium contributed to adverse impacts on wildlife and that such monoculture supported excessive consumption of sugar or cigarettes or heroin, to the detriment of the human community at large, we might attach a higher fee to monoculture dedicated to growing these crops. We could thereby manage the overall prevalence in society of sugar, tobacco, heroin (and other potentially harmful substances) without the need to take a war-like or militaristic stance or police action against individual citizens who choose to use certain substances within their private spaces. 

(We could require that the buying and selling of some substances be kept every bit as private as the use of them. No public spaces--no places open to the public--need have such markets operating, if the people at large choose to adopt such a standard. Users of heroin or cocaine would need to join a private club and be discrete, away from public view. Parents' interest in shielding young children from the worst of bad influences can be protected.)

In our not-so-distant evolutionary past, certain foods were quite rare, but necessary and highly beneficial to those who could find them. Our taste buds and our psychology are adapted to ensure that we are highly motivated to seek out these previously scarce, high-energy foods. But following the development of agriculture and modern economic systems, scarcity of these high-energy, high-value foods is no longer a reality, while our physiological and psychological appetites for them remain strong.

A fee system could ensure that the mix of foods produced by our agricultural system more closely matches what most nutritionists and most people would agree is a more healthful balance. With a different political and economic paradigm (one able to put a general damper on excess production and consumption by assessing fees on specific types of land-use or other environmental impact), we could see improvements in personal health, along with substantially improved ecological health. 

Fees attached to the cultivation of plants that most members of society feel ought to be grown only in limited amounts would make the products derived from these plants more expensive than what would be the case in the absence of any controls. But the extra profits associated with those higher prices would go to all the world's people in the form of a natural wealth stipend. This method of control would not support black market profiteering or corruption of law enforcement and other public officials, as current methods of control do.

The threat of legal sanctions against people who use controlled substances in private spaces, including the threat of lengthy (and costly) prison sentences, would be removed. This would make it easier for people with substance abuse problems to seek help when they recognize that they do, in fact, have a problem. 

A system of fees can be applied generally as an efficient and fair way to control pollution, to manage rates of taking of natural resources, and to end abject poverty in the world (through equal sharing of fee proceeds to all). An equal, modest payment to all people would mean that workers would have more flexibility in choosing their place of employment. The prospect of being unemployed would no longer bring the threat of becoming destitute (as it does within the current system), because (a monetary representation of) natural wealth will be shared equally.

With a modest income going to all people based on shared natural wealth, a slowing economy would not bring calls for injection of additional money into circulation that are often heard during periods of economic contraction. Monetary stimulus (printing more money) is corrosive to the stability of economic systems generally, as it fuels inflation and tends to stimulate production beyond what is sustainable and what is needed by the human economy and society. 

The ultimate limits to human economic activity are the physical limits that are imposed by the nature of the world we live in. If we exceed limits of what is sustainable for an extended period of time, civilization will collapse. Stimulating the economy by inflating the money supply means that the overall size of the economy grows, and demands on natural resources increase, taking us closer to these physical limits (or farther beyond them, as the case may be). Conversely, fees assessed on those actions that move us closer to (or farther beyond) those natural limits (actions that tend to use up resources and foreclose future opportunities) can moderate the prevalence and intensity of potentially harmful human activities. Fees can prevent excessive growth of economic activity that could otherwise bring the economy to the point where it becomes detrimental to the larger community of life; detrimental to climate stability; harmful to future generations, etc. 

Fees charged to industry proportional to pollution and resource extraction can dampen the upswing and excesses of an overheating economy, while equal sharing of fee proceeds can ensure that recessions do not become so deep that they threaten the viability of the system. With confidence bolstered by a natural wealth stipend, all people will continue to spend in support of basic needs. An economic slowdown will never mean a risk of severe depression or collapse of society.

This proposal assumes that the decision of how we ought to balance the amount of the Earth's surface dedicated to monoculture and paving on the one hand versus meadows and forests on the other hand belongs to all of us. It reflects the view that ownership of the decision about how we ought to balance overall production levels of various kinds of food belongs to all of us. (We can manifest these shared rights to decide these questions in the big picture without intrusive regulation of individuals' personal choices.) The responsibility for deciding how much sugar to produce or how much habitat to destroy does not rest solely with the minority who are landowners.

Our current system encourages economic actors to destroy wildlife habitat for many reasons, including to make room for growing crops for biomass, to support biofuels production. A public property rights paradigm will embody within the structure of our political and economic systems the understanding that bio-diversity is more valuable than bio-mass.


Biological Model for Politics and Economics

@TallPhilosopher - John Champagne on X

Who should decide how to spend public funds?

 Respect for civic duty should not require citizens to support that which offends their conscience.

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? Or, should we allow citizens the option of withholding funds from that which offends their conscience? Each of us might be allowed latitude to decide where we believe our tax money is being misused. We could withdraw funds from those uses and redirect them toward support of that which we think, and most other people think, will better-benefit society. 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 the people at large think regarding this or that public service (to find out to what extent people think particular services produce benefit for society and the 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 randomly-selected example might be thought by most survey respondents to show a greater benefit than another. Spending can be directed primarily to providers of services that are most highly rated in this A/B testing.

The results of the A/B test surveys can inform our actions when we decide to withhold funding from something we think is offensive or counter-productive. What we shift the funds to would need to rate more highly in these tests.

We could allow an even greater role for taxpayers, beyond withholding and shifting funds. Citizens could decide the allocation of their entire contribution to public spending, if they choose to engage in the process in greater depth. For example, if I put a large fraction (say 80%) of my tax payments 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 remaining amount (in this example, 20%). The requirement could be that I use the remaining amount to support programs that 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