1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Robert G. Ingersoll: A Lay Sermon (1886) No man should be allowed to own
any land that he does not use.
Everybody knows that -- I do not care whether he has thousands or
millions. I have owned a great deal of land, but I know just as well as
I know I am living that I should not be allowed to have it unless I use
it. And why? Don't you know that if people could bottle the air, they
would? Don't you know that there would be an American Air-bottling
Association? And don't you know that they would allow thousands and
millions to die for want of breath, if they could not pay for air? I am
not blaming anybody. I am just telling how it is. Now, the land belongs
to the children of Nature. Nature invites into this world every babe
that is born. And what would you think of me, for instance, tonight, if
I had invited you here -- nobody had charged you anything, but you had
been invited -- and when you got here you had found one man pretending
to occupy a hundred seats, another fifty, and another seventy-five, and
thereupon you were compelled to stand up -- what would you think of the
invitation? It seems to me that every child of Nature is entitled to
his share of the land, and that he should not be compelled to beg the
privilege to work the soil, of a babe that happened to be born before
him. And why do I say this? Because it is not to our interest to have a
few landlords and millions of tenants.
The tenement house is the enemy of modesty, the enemy of virtue, the enemy of patriotism. Home is where the virtues grow. I would like to see the law so that every home, to a small amount, should be free not only from sale for debts, but should be absolutely free from taxation, so that every man could have a home. Then we will have a nation of patriots. Now, suppose that every man were to have all the land he is able to buy. The Vanderbilts could buy today all the land that is in farms in the State of Ohio -- every foot of it. Would it be for the best interest of that State to have a few landlords and four or five millions of serfs?... read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Bottling the Air Times have caught up with Ingersoll. Ronald Coase, prominent Chicago economist, says polluters (whom he calls emitters, to avoid bias) have as much right to emit as victims (he says receptors) have to breathe clean air. It doesn’t matter, says Coase, how we assign property rights originally: as long as property is firm, the market will sort it all out. However, since emitters have invested in costly facilities, and property is sacred... you see whither this unbiased science is tending. Was he laughed to scorn? Au contraire, he was raised on the shoulders of his adulatory peers and anointed a demi-god (which tells you something about his peers). Having risen on wings of theory the idea found its way into practice, and today The South Coast Air Quality Management District awards "offset rights" to those with worthy track records of emitting. New emitters must buy "property rights" from old ones. In effect, we don’t fine people
for emitting, we reward them
with a right to continue. Then we can pay them to stop, by buying
back the right we just gave away. This is putting the free market to
work, they say. ...
And those who want to breathe? Coase says they should pay for the privilege, as they pay for indulging any personal taste. After all, they already pay those who supply them with land to live on. Only welfare bums would expect property owners to dip into their hard-earned savings and supply them with free air, when the market has a solution at hand. All they need do is buy offset rights from Ancient and Honorable Emitters. When they want to breathe, they just retire the rights upwind of them. This is a marvel of efficiency, too. They retire only what it takes to clean the air they need: no waste. If they can’t afford to buy outright, they could rent -- markets have ingenious solutions for all problems, like any good panacea. Gas masks are another free-market solution: much better than socialistic policies that would impose uniform clean air on everyone, whether they want it or not. ... read the whole article Henry George: Thou Shalt Not Steal (1887 speech)Go into Pennsylvania, and there
you will see great stretches of
land, containing enormous deposits of the finest coal, held by
corporations and individuals who are working but little part of it.
On these great estates the common American citizens who mine the coal
are not allowed even to rent a piece of land, let alone buy it. They
can only live in company houses; and they are permitted to stay in
them only on condition (and they have to sign a paper to that effect)
that they can be evicted at any time on five days’ notice. The
companies combine and make coal artificially dear here, and make
employment artificially scarce in Pennsylvania.
Now, why should not those miners, who work on it half the time, why shouldn’t they dig down in the earth and get up coal for themselves? Who made that coal? There is only one answer — God made that coal. Whom did He make it for? Surely you would say that God made it for the people that would be one day called into being on this earth. But the laws of Pennsylvania, like the laws of New York, say God made it for this corporation and that individual; and thus a few people are permitted to deprive miners of work and make coal artificially dear. ... read the whole article Henry George: Political Dangers (Chapter 2 of Social Problems, 1883)
Mason Gaffney: Geoism, Recession
and Control of Monopolies ... When GDP is adjusted for the dollars
spent on the criminal justice system and clean-up costs for preventable
environmental disasters, then I might have some faith in this as a
bellwether of wellbeing. ...
Only around 25-30% of households own their own homes. By good fortune, I just read something that helps resolve the difficulty. It seems that a great deal of anti-trust legislation from the Progressive Era had been aimed at monopoly in the flicks, which had started with Thomas A. Edison, who was as much a patent-litigation bully as he was a pure inventor. Much of this legislation became unravelled under President - guess who? - Ronald Reagan, spawn of the "entertainment" industry, and political voice for same. Vertical integration and media mergers and monopolization then ran wild. Disney under Eisner, of course, has played a role in this. Disney as real estate developer throws its heavy weight around brutally. This question arose in connection with Georgist taxation, and what it would do about Mr. Eisner, and overpaid CEOs like him. The answer, I think, is that "Georgism" involves more than taxation. It also involves promoting competitive markets and smiting or breaking up mergers, monopolies, and restraints of trade, by various means. It was, after all, part of first the Populist, and later the Progressive Movements. "Georgism" may be construed narrowly as a limited fiscal reform. Some of its votaries present it that way. As such, it is rightly suspected of being a bit cranky, and too limited. I see it as a broad front program to limit centralized monopoly control of industry, and promote free entry and free competition with proper regard for both consumers and workers. Some free market purists may look askance at anti-trust actions. Consider, however, that we are dealing with people who hold patents, which are inherently anticompetitive, especially when used as clubs in the Edison manner. Consider also we are dealing with corporations, which are inherently combinations of capital made possible by the device of limited liability. When government gives an anticompetitive privilege, it seems fitting that government should limit the resulting abuses of power. Read the whole article Mason Gaffney: Economics in Support of Environmentalism
1. Common Property in Land is
Compatible with the Market
Economy.
2. The Net Product of Land is the Taxable Surplus A. To socialize the taxable
surplus, land rent,
effectively, you must define
and identify it carefully, and structure your taxes to
home in on it.
B. Taxable surplus is also what you can tax without driving land into the wrong use. C. To tax rent we must be sure there is rent to tax, and we must adopt public policies to husband and maximize it, and avoid policies that lower and dissipate it. i. Avoid "perverse subsidies."
ii. Avoid letting lessees of public land conceal their revenues. iii. Avoid letting lessees or taxpayers pad their costs to understate their net revenues. iv. Avoid dissipating rent by allowing open access to resources like fisheries, v. Avoid trying to distribute rents to consumers by capping prices below the market. D. Raising output by removing
tax bias
E. Maximizing public revenue. F. Sustaining the tax base 3. Taxing the Net Product of
Land Permits Untaxing Labor
4. Taxing the Net Product of Land Permits Untaxing Capital 5. Taxing the Net Product of Land Provides Ample Public Revenues: a Master Solution to Many Problems A. Public revenues will support
the ruble.
B. Your public credit will, of course, recover to AAA rating when lenders see that there is a strong flow of revenue to pay public debts. C. Never again need you bend to any "advice" or commands from alien lenders, nor endure patronizing, humiliating homilies from alien bankers, nor beg any foreign power for aid. D. If you again feel the need (as I hope you will not) to rebuild your military, you will of course require strong revenues. E. Strong national revenues are required to unite Russia, and keep it one nation. Summary
1. Common Property in Land is
Compatible with the Market
Economy.
You can enjoy the benefits of a market economy without
sacrificing your common rights to the land of Russia. There is no need
to make a
hard choice between the two. One of the great fallacies that western
economists
and bankers are foisting on you is that you have to give up one to
enjoy the other.
These counselors work through lending and granting agencies that seduce
you with
loans and grants to learn and accept their ideology, which they
variously call
Neo-Classical Economics, or "monetarism," or "liberalization." It is
glitter to distract you and pave the way for aliens to acquire and
control your
resources.
To keep land common while shifting to a market economy, you simply use the tax system. Taxation is the form that common property takes in a monetary, market-oriented economy. To tax is to socialize. It's then just a simple question of what you will socialize through taxation, and how; but in the answers lie success or failure. Not only can you have both common land and free markets, you can't have one without the other. They go together, like love and marriage. You need market prices to help identify land's taxable surplus, which is the net product of land after deducting the human costs of using it. At the same time, you must support government from land revenues to have a truly free market, because otherwise you will raise taxes from production, trade, and capital formation, interfering with free markets. If you learn this second point, and act on it, you will have a much freer market than any of the OECD nations that now presume to instruct you, and that are campaigning vigorously to make all nations in the world "harmonize" their taxes to conform with their own abysmal systems.
The very people who gave us the term laissez-faire -- the
slogan at the core of a
free market economy -- made communizing land rents a
central part of their
program. These were the French economistes of the 18th
Century, sometimes
called "Physiocrats," who were the tutors of Adam Smith,
and who inspired land
reforms throughout Europe. The best-known of them were
François Quesnay and
A.R. Jacques Turgot, who championed land taxation. They
accurately called it the
"co-proprietorship of land by the state."
Since their time we have learned to measure land values, and we have broadened the meaning of "land" to comprise all natural resources. Agrarians will be relieved, and may be surprised, that farmland ranks well down the list in terms of total market value. Thus, a land tax is not primarily a tax on farms; only the very best soils in the best locations yield much taxable surplus. ... Another natural resource (hence
part of "land"), whose
nature and value the mass
of people are only slowly realizing, is the radio
spectrum. In this age of
communication its value is vaulting skywards even faster
than the rockets
launching the satellites that direct and relay signals
through the spectrum. Each
satellite requires a spectrum assignment, or it is nothing
but space junk. One
minor American entrepreneur, Craig McCaw, collected a
bundle of spectrum rights
for cell phones, and a few years ago sold them to AT&T
for $12 billions. Then Mr.
McCaw went partners with Bill Gates, perhaps the richest
American, in a firm
called Teledesic, to launch hundreds of satellites and
amass radio spectrum
rights around the entire world, including your part of the
world, in the hope of
dominating worldwide communications. Radio spectrum is a
natural resource, and
it belongs to the government, even in the capitalistic
U.S.A. When Teledesic
comes calling, under the auspices of our Vice President Al
Gore, don't sell
anything cheap! In fact, don't sell anything at all, but
lease it for a limited time, so
you may gain from future rises in value. And don't stint
on the professional help
you should hire to protect your interests: these lease
contracts are complex, and
are worth Billions if you play your cards right.
Avoid "perverse subsidies." These are subsidies that encourage harmful things like
Cape Breton Island, the northern tip of Nova Scotia,
contains the most
polluted area in Canada thanks to years of subsidies
to sustain its
uneconomic, obsolescent coal and steel industries
that employ just a few
people by fouling one of the most scenic jewels in
North America.
We have mentioned how we actually subsidize people to withdraw scarce water from our overdrawn rivers in the arid U.S.A. The so-called water "shortage" in the lower Colorado River is entirely an artifact of such misguided policies: every major agency drawing on the Colorado is actually subsidized to do so, when they should be paying for the privilege. If they paid, they would stop wasting water, and would enrich the Treasury, which could then abate taxes on work, trade, and saving. The U.S. Forest Service has turned a great national asset, our national forestlands, into a drain on the Treasury by subsidizing forest roads in subeconomic areas. It makes money selling good timber in good areas, but then spends $10 on roads into subeconomic areas to get $1 in revenues from sale of timber to private parties, destroying scenic values and watershed protection. Perverse subsidies like those are unspeakably foolish and wasteful. They "dissipate rent" so there is none left to tax. Avoid letting lessees of public land conceal their revenues. Many minerals and hydrocarbons on public lands are leased by private firms, subject either to "royalties" or "severance taxes" based on the value of output. Many of these private firms are "vertically integrated," meaning they own the downstream firms, often in other countries, to which they sell. They grow skilled at shifting profits away from where taxes are higher to where they are lower, by rigging the internal transfer prices. That is, they sell to themselves at artificially low prices, so your share of their revenues disappears. What they call "world market" prices are really their own internal prices, adjusted to help them steal from you. You must guard against that. Avoid trying to distribute rents to consumers by capping prices below the market. This, of course, is the history of energy prices in Russia; it has also been used, in milder forms, in Canada and the U.S. What is wrong with it? In a word, it fosters wasteful use, and aborts a lot of economical production. In addition, it leaves a lot of rent in private hands, untaxed. It is easy to understand the dire need for guaranteed fuel in a northern continental winter climate. You mustn't let people freeze, and they will bless and support you for keeping them warm. As society gets better organized, though, you can gain by guaranteeing the poor a minimum cash income with which to buy fuel and other needs at market prices, rather than lavishing them with free fuel that you might be exporting to meet other urgent needs. You can provide the cash income from the rents created when fuel prices rise, and have a lot more to spare from the resulting net gains, which I next explain. ... Note, finally, that a cap on the price of G [gross revenues], such as discussed above, has the same effects as a tax based on G. Read the entire article Jeff Smith: What the Left Must Do: Share the Surplus
What does the central bank, the private consortium dubbed the Federal
Reserve, lend to the US? Nothing. Given the power to create money by
Congress (which the Constitution had given to Congress), from no
savings at all but merely from legal
standing, it manufactures credit, which the US borrows, at interest.
The US exempts this interest from its income tax; people who hold US
bonds – mainly the wealthy – keep this income tax-free.
The much and justifiably criticized corporation is in essence its corporate charter, given value by limiting the liability of managers, directors, and investors. It’s worth at least the cost of the insurance payments not made by the corporation, which would equal the costs imposed upon worker, customer, and nature. As the “need” arises, legislatures extend limited liability even further: Congress legally lowered the greater risk of nuclear power to benefit Westinghouse, of the Valdez oil transport spill for Exxon, and the Y2K software design bug for Microsoft. Politicians define legally “safe” amounts of polluted air and water for GM and Monsanto, keeping safe the wealth of those responsible. Not to be outdone by any legislature, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of compensating landowners for environmental “takings”, but has remained silent about landowners compensating the public for any “givings”, as when site values skyrocket near a new light rail stop. Molly Ivins wrote, "Henry George must be in his
grave
spinning' like a cyclotron. We, the people at large, make the land more
desirable; and then the landowners want us to pay them because we won't
allow them to poison the air or to pollute the rivers." (1995 March)
That’s how great fortunes are
made: by sloughing off private costs
(which become “negative externalities”) while soaking up public
benefits (some “positive externalities”). Land titles, corporate
charters, and other privileges – mere pieces of paper – are worth
trillions each year. The corporations – from the Federal Reserve to
Exxon (both founded by the “oiligarchy”) – that receive these
privileges make their owners rich or richer. Their wealth is not
compensation for the exertions of either labor or capital, not profit
in the market from output, but rent from present lobbying of
legislatures or past conquest of others’ lands. Thus laws (“privilege”
means “private law”) funnel multi-trillions of dollars each year from
the many to the few.
Jeff Smith: Sharing
Natural Rents to Sustain Human Society Rentiers become the elite or rise higher up among the upper echelon, the puppeteers of our puppet state. Their ranks grow with every techno-advance that spurs a new monopoly and pushes up locational values. Read the whole article To get rich, or more likely to stay rich, some of us can develop land, especially sprawling shopping centers, and extract resources, especially oil. While sprawl and oil depletion are not necessary, they are more profitable than a car-free functionally integrated city. Under the current rules of doing business, waste returns more than efficiency. We let a few privatize rent -- ground rent and resource rent -- although rent is a social surplus. As if rent were not profit enough, winners of rent have also won further state favors -- tax breaks, liability limits, subsidies, and a host of others designed to impel growth (20 major ones follow herein). If we are to sustain our selves, our civilization, and our eco-system, we must make some hard choices about property. What we decide to do with rent, whether we let it reward our exploiting or our attaining eco-librium, matters. Imagine society waking up to the public nature of rent. Then it would collect and share its surplus that manifests as the market value of sites, resources, the spectrum, and government-granted privileges. Then we could forego taxing labor and capital. On such a level playing field, this freed market would favor efficiency -- the compact city -- not waste -- the mall and automobile. ... Drawing their cue from the public, governments tolerate "rentention", the private retention of publicly-generated land values. Lacking this Rent, states turn to taxes. But to grow the economy, all governments -- left, right, or undecided -- hustle to stimulate development; they cut taxes and slop subsidies. Going beyond the call of duty, the state excuses producers' their routine pollution and limit liability, thereby cutting the cost of insurance. Companies that don't impose on nature, worker, or customer are not benefited at all but lose a competitive advantage. On this tilted playing field, one with the lumps of subsidies and the tilts of taxes, technologies lean and clean have a hard time competing as suppliers of materials, homes, food, rides, and energy. ... Now wipe out the taxes, subsidies, liability limits, and rent retention. Instead, replace all that with running government like a business. Charge full-market value for state acknowledgements (the seven secret subsidies):
Collecting rent for government-granted privileges would not only raise trillions but also whittle corporations down to a competitive size, less hazardous to democracy. Besides charging what privileges are worth, government should also replace license with responsibility ("internalize the externalities"). To temper the temptation to use lands both fragile and valuable, society could impose surcharges - an Ecology Security Deposit, Restoration Insurance, Emission Permits, and fines when users exceed standards. To minimize all these charges, producers would seek sustainable alternatives. Getting and sharing rent from land titles is the centerpiece of this geonomic revenue reform. Each phase of such a revenue shift motivates sustainable choices in its own way. ... To sustain that which we love, we must transform our relationships to nature, to government, and to each other. We need to become geonomists in worldview, theory, discipline, and policy. Geonomics creates an economy that's not at war with but aligned with the natural world. .. Read the whole article Jeff Smith: Subsidies at Their Worst: Privileges Money is the mother's milk of
politics. Yet the milk invested by
lobbyists and those they represent is a drop in the bucket compared
to the flow they get back from the public tit, thanks to the milkmaid
state. Politicians grant well-connected big businesses:
a. direct cash outlays, such as cash to corporations for advertising overseas, b. lucrative contracts, such as with weaponeers et al campaign contributors, and c. tax breaks that burden would-be competitors, such as tariffs that protect GM and Ford but not autoworkers. Even if we were to abolish subsidies (a) and taxes, eliminating the advantage of tax breaks (c), and negotiate responsible contracts (b), that'd still leave in place d. seven subtle privileges, mere pieces of paper that government grants its customers at nowhere near market value, positioning the privileged to claim all the surplus value of society.1. The corporate charter's salient feature is to limit the liability of those choosing to profit by putting others at risk. ... Land titles are the granddaddy of all privileges. Historically, titles preceded all others and created a class of elite owners with the power to win the six other indirect subsidies, along with the more direct ones – grants, contracts, and tax favors. To undo and reverse this history, it's necessary to collect and share the natural rents from all seven inconspicuous privileges. For these pieces of paper, government should charge full market value. ... Getting a Citizens Dividend would not only eliminate poverty, it'd also erase any rationale for subsidies - direct or indirect - to the poor or to the privileged. Repealing the free ride of privileges would be like repealing capitalism. Without those subtle detours imposed upon public revenue, owners would have to work to amass a fortune, and work is one of the worst ways known to strike it rich. What you can do: Dry up the milkmaid state. Dispense with the notion that the state must meddle in enterprise. Dispense the notion from others, too. Focus government on its lone raison d'etre - defend rights. Demand your right to a fair share of natural revenue. ... Read the whole article Fred Foldvary: Underprivileged or Rights-Deprived? Poor folk are often labeled
"underprivileged" and richer folk are called "privileged." For example,
there is a book titled "One Nation,
Underprivileged: Why American Poverty Affects Us All."
But "privileged" and "underprivileged" are confused and misleading
expressions. If you think the poor are "underprivileged," then you
don't really understand poverty.
What is a "privilege?" The term originally meant "private law." A privilege is a special advantage or prerogative or immunity or benefit given only to some people only because they have power or are favored by those with power. If everyone is entitled to something, like freedom of expression, or if everyone may obtain an item such as a passport with the same rules applying to all, then it is not a privilege but a right. Whether a rich person is "privileged" depends on how he got the money. ... So if a person is poor, it is not because he is lacking in special protections, subsidies, and other privileges. A person is usually poor because he has been deprived of the natural right to work. Governments world-wide impose barriers between labor and productive resources, keeping some workers deprived of labor and others who do work deprived of their earnings from labor. Taxes on wages create a wedge between the cost of labor to employers and the take-home pay of the worker. More costly labor results in less employment. Taxes on the income from capital goods and on the sale of goods has the same effect. There are unemployment taxes, disability taxes, and payroll taxes that increase the tax wedge. On top of that, there are minimum-wage laws that prevent the least productive workers from getting hired. There are permits, zoning, and other rules and costs that also prevent some workers from becoming self-employed. Deprived of the full natural right to peaceful enterprise and labor, and the natural right to fully keep one's earnings, the poor have little or no income, and depend on charity and governmental assistance. To call them "underprivileged" is a lie. The rights-deprived poor do not need privileges. They just need government to stop interfering with their right to work and save! The biggest privilege world-wide is subsidies to landowners. ... There has been confusion about what is a right and what is a privilege. ... Some consider a patent a privilege, but it too is a right. ... Some also consider a corporation to be a privilege, since the firm has a charter from a government. ... Real privileges are favors arbitrarily given to some groups and not others. ... The really underprivileged folks are all consumers, taxpayers and those who are restricted from peaceful and honest practices or have to pay extra to the government while others are unrestricted and non-taxed. These people lack privileges which others have. The proper remedy is not to expand privileges, but to eliminate all governmental privileges. That is why libertarians and geoists alike have the motto: "Equal rights for all; privileges for none!" Read the whole article Bill Batt: The Compatibility of Georgist Economics and Ecological Economics The Georgist approach to
taxation had many names: his contemporary
Thomas Shearman wrote two books calling it the “natural tax,” 41 and
more recently it has been referred to as the “incentive tax” 42 and
ground rent.43
It should be noted once more that, by whatever name, the “land tax,”
“site value tax,” or “single tax” to George covered a far wider scope
than simply locational sites, even though today this is the base that
is given the most attention. It covered any natural factor element that
humanity chose to put into service. Today, some of these parts of
nature which have come to be “owned” by private corporations (at least
insofar as their license to such use have become entitlements) are
worth millions. The electromagnetic spectrum that has been parceled out
to the communications industry has sometimes been “auctioned” for
one-shot revenue gains, is now for all practical purposes a freehold
title
in the hands of those industries.44 Were
those spectrum bands retained by governments and “rented,” the revenue
would likely be far greater. Whatever increased value now results
accrues to these private owners instead of to society.
So also in the case of the auctioning of “pollution credits” or tradeable permits, what in fact constitute the right of power industries to treat the air as a dump to the full extent which environmental tolerances allow.45 These “credits” are now “owned” by the private sector and traded back and forth among corporations, even though all people experience the consequences of its treatment. Airport landing slots, “prime time” broadcasting, and many other time-sensitive dimensions have all been handed over to the private sector with nominal benefit to the public. London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been a strong supporter of renting the landing slots at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, and is at this very time exploring a rent recovery scheme to pay for the upgrade of components of the Jubilee tube line.46 ... The theme of economic justice
runs throughout Daly’s work, evident of course in the title For the
Common Good.122 But the formulations of justice are not explicit. One
looks in vain for a statement of what if any entitlements people should
possess by virtue of being human, or what nature or posterity is due in
turn. Absent is anything that Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon
calls “rights talk.” 123 But it is clear that the ecological economists
are struggling mightily with these questions. They are boldly posed
elsewhere in the writing of Joan Martinez-Alier, a Spanish scholar who
is widely known in the movement not just by his own writing but as
editor of the journal Ecological Politica. In one article, he sees an
ever-widening standing for environmental claims, as the environmental
movement evolves from one based on the efficient and sustainable use of
natural resources (the “gospel of eco-efficiency,” in the tradition of
Gifford Pinchot), later to the “cult of wilderness” (in the tradition
of John Muir and Aldo Leopold).” 124 They are evident also in the work
of Bernardo Aguilar, particularly with reference to north-south trade
arrangements which essentially exchange natural resources for developed
nations’ currencies. 125 As people come to understand their
relationship and dependence upon their natural environment, he
envisions an unfolding pattern of litigation to preserve the sanctity
and protection of peoples dependent upon it. Distant corporate
interests will be blocked from exploiting the lands of local
populations who are otherwise left with the liabilities of their
repair. ... read the whole article
Hanno Beck: Bathroom Policy We were four college sophomores.
And we were not going to live in a
dorm, no sir, we figured that we were smart, mature fellows and so we
arranged to rent a house. Each person would have his own private
bedroom and we would share the bathroom. Four guys, one bathroom. That
sounds reasonable, right?
But let me tell you about Edward. Nobody wanted to use the bathroom after Edward, because something would be finished, gone, used up. No toilet paper? No soap? Edward somehow seemed always to be the last person to use these things. It reduced the value of the bathroom for the rest of us, yet we got no compensation. Edward was a taker. That felt unfair. ... Our planet's natural resources are
a common heritage for all humanity,
just as the bathroom was a common resource for the four of us in
college.
Those who take, monopolize, and
pollute, are imposing costs on the rest
of us and on the economy in general. We are forced to be less
efficient, or forced to endure hardships, so that the takers,
monopolizers and polluters can benefit. That is not fair.
Is there a solution? Of course there is. It's a simple solution. To respect our common interest in our planet's resources, those who take or monopolize or pollute more than their fair share of our planet should compensate those of us who they are taking from. ... read the whole article Peter Barnes: Capitalism 3.0 — Chapter 5: Reinventing the Commons (pages 65-78)
Peter Barnes: Capitalism 3.0 — Chapter 6: Trusteeship of Creation (pages 79-100)
|
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|