What you see here is a project that I
have been working on for a number of years. It is an attempt to make
human society not only better for all human beings, but to protect the natural world as well.
In order to illustrate these concepts, I have created an imaginary country called the Republic of Star Island. Click on the link below to take a quick journey through the fictional republic.
 |
| Welcome! |
(A fair warning: The spreadsheet might seem a little bit complex and scary. That's because running a country is a hard thing to do. A country needs a lot of bits and pieces to work properly, and I have tried to show every bit that I can in this sheet.)
Here are some proposals for laws in the republic.
Proposed Laws
Here is some information about the way that government would be elected, and how it would operate.
Council Proceedings
All money in Star Island is generated by producing real goods and services. There is a finite amount of growth that can be achieved on a planet with limited resources. The primary purpose of a corporation, according to the laws of Star Island, would not be to continually increase its profits. A corporation's primary purpose would be “to do good work, ethically”. If they do that, they are guaranteed to continue to exist and prosper.
There would be no central bank in Star
Island. Citizens are responsible for their own finances, but may form
co-operatives to manage finances, or to fund projects that require
massive amounts of funding.
The government itself would operate as
a collective for this very purpose. The purse strings are not
controlled by any one body, but are beholden to the vote of all
elected councilors, and the citizens they represent. Citizens can
communicate with their representative councilor at any time to lobby
for budgetary spending on whatever the needs of the community are at
a given time. This means that power rests with the people, and not an
elite, small core of powerful individuals.
Money is created into the economy based on effort given forth by work; not by magic, which is essentially how fiat currency is created now. A further explanation of how this would be done is here.
The reason this would be done is
simple: Putting too much power in the hands of one or a few bodies,
be they central government banks OR private banks, puts the entire
nation at risk if some disaster is to occur. Spreading out control of
the economy, so that each individual has some measure of control,
spreads out the risk involved, and ensures that financial and other
disasters' impacts on society can be minimized, or at least dealt
with before a domino effect ripples through the entire society.
This approach to management of resources and money is proposed because of the impact that has happened in the real world by the banking sector, which caused the global economic crisis, and the impact of the industrialized world in general on the natural environment.
Our continued desire to have more is
not compatible with a world that has finite resources, which is why
the sub-prime mortgage crisis occurred. People could not pay their
debts, and economies around the world collapsed as a result.
This approach to society does not mean
that people who desire things like million-dollar homes or sports
cars cannot have them; it simply means that in acquiring them, they
must also understand the impact that the production of these things
has on society and the environment at large.
"Whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you do for me."
--Gospel of Matthew, 25:40--
Star Island is committed not only to being environmentally responsible, but for caring for the needs of all its citizens through social programs. This society welcomes all, regardless of their ability, background, or beliefs. All citizens are encouraged to grow and reach their potential. If you are unemployed, the community as a whole will help you to become employed, and provide employment supports in the intervening time. If you are injured or sick, our public healthcare system will assure that you get the care that you need. Medical costs should never hamper our ability to live successful lives. If you have a physical or mental disability, it will not hold you back from reaching your full potential in Star Island. If you want to raise a family, you will be allowed to do so without fear that you will lose your career by being a parent.
My city designs are intended to make a world where you don't need a car to live a happy life, but can still have one if you want to. If you do own a car, I believe that you should be able to collect the exhaust fumes that our vehicles produce, and turn them into something useful, instead of something destructive. Take a look at this for an explanation.
"Whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you do for me."
--Gospel of Matthew, 25:40--
Star Island is committed not only to being environmentally responsible, but for caring for the needs of all its citizens through social programs. This society welcomes all, regardless of their ability, background, or beliefs. All citizens are encouraged to grow and reach their potential. If you are unemployed, the community as a whole will help you to become employed, and provide employment supports in the intervening time. If you are injured or sick, our public healthcare system will assure that you get the care that you need. Medical costs should never hamper our ability to live successful lives. If you have a physical or mental disability, it will not hold you back from reaching your full potential in Star Island. If you want to raise a family, you will be allowed to do so without fear that you will lose your career by being a parent.
My city designs are intended to make a world where you don't need a car to live a happy life, but can still have one if you want to. If you do own a car, I believe that you should be able to collect the exhaust fumes that our vehicles produce, and turn them into something useful, instead of something destructive. Take a look at this for an explanation.
I hope that you have enjoyed my project. Please feel free to give me feedback at dave.b.eckert@gmail.com.
Reasons that I made this project
Reasons that I made this project
I like it so far.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have not yet read it in its entirety; I am at the "resource tax" part.
I do actually see where you're coming from, regarding the funding coming from resource-taxes that are consumption-based.
But, even though the political economic structure of this society (as a whole) definitely is more just and seemingly democratic, I would be a bit concerned regarding one specific aspect of it:
The consumption-based resource-tax is definitely a good idea and will most likely result in the desired effect to reduce consumption (at least wasteful consumption) of finite resources very efficiently, but wouldn't it also produce the undesirable effect of acting in a regressive manner in how it will unequally affect each individual member of this society, kind of like the effect that a flat-tax on income would generate?
As in, segments of society that are less well-off, financially, will actually be facing a heavier load, the way I see it.
Someone earning a modest income will "feel the pinch" of an x% tax more than a millionaire paying the same x% tax of HIS/HER income.
Hypothetically, let's say that the tax is 10%: Ten percent from someone with an income of, say, $20,000/year will be felt by this person far more than ten percent from someone with a $2million/year income.
The less wealthy taxpayer will feel the effect of that amount, financially, in his/her every day life much more than the wealthier person who wouldn't really feel the pinch as much.
Unless I am misunderstanding, and this tax will be strictly an industrial tax, which would be a different story, and would make my above concern pretty much a moot point (although it would probably be wise to have some kind of safeguard legislated, so as to prevent attempts from industry to somehow dump the tax burden on the consumer).
Or unless I am misunderstanding it in a different way, and this tax, if applied to regular non-industrial consumers, would somehow be a progressive one, where the percentage of the tax would increase progressively, the higher the income of the person paying it.
What do you think? I do like the idea, but is there a way to address these issues, if they are applicable?
(I'm going to continue reading the rest).
I LOVE the idea of (since this society is not a moneyless society) of there not being a central bank.
ReplyDeleteI agree definitely with the liberalization of drug laws, to legalize
and regulate all drugs, medical and recreational.
This would immediately eliminate the black market, gangs and mobs. (Prohibition never works, as the Al-Capone 1920's days of alcohol-prohibition showed)
This will also drastically reduce kids' ability to access drugs, as it is much harder to do so when you have to produce I.D at a store, instead of going down the street corner to a drug-dealer who couldn't care less how old you are.
The government's only job regarding drugs (besides regulation in terms of quality so you always know what you're getting, unlike buying them illegally where they could be laced with who-knows-what) should be to have education campaigns that tell the people (based on ACTUAL scientific evidence) what would happen to them if they took this or that drug, but the ultimate and final decision regarding what you can or cannot put in your own body should be solely up to the adult individual.
As long as you don't hurt or harm or infringe on anyone else's rights or freedoms, you should be completely free to put whatever you want into your own body.
The "crime" should not be "possessing" or "consuming whatever substance" privately; rather the "crime" should be, for example, "getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated and harming someone", which "harming someone" is already a crime in itself.
There should also be clinics and centres that are available for those who, by choice, decide they need help with an addiction.
Being an addict does not mean that you are non-functional.
Many people who are addicted to, for example, opiates are normal functional people who go to work and live regular lives, and just decide that, instead of having a glass of wine after work, they prefer a different substance. The only reason that some of them, in our current society with our current laws, lose their jobsand money and become homeless and non-functional, is because of the illegality of their drugs. Having to buy them illegally from a black market that exploits these people by charging them unregulated prices that become exorbitant make them unable to get their substance of choice, causing severe drug withdrawals, inability to go to work or even function and destruction of their lives. If they CHOOSE to, in a society where they can just buy their drugs from a store, to just buy their drugs and function properly, that should be their choice.
If, at some point, for whatever reason, they decide that they would like to stop using their preferred substance, they should be able
to (just like anyone else with any other kind of medical condition) go to a clinic and receive the help they are seeking, like any other medical patient.
However, if they prefer to be able to buy their drugs, like any other cigarette smoker, and do them and function and go to work..etc, then that should be their choice as well.
Substances and drugs are not a criminal issue at all. They are merely a public health thing.
What I have just described is called "Harm-Reduction" method (as opposed to "Prohibitionist"), and it is much more spectacularly successful than prohibition.
Countries that have done this (Portugal is just one example) and legalized, regulated all drugs and substances have seen a dramatic and rapid drop in overall drug-consumption and teen/minors drug-consumption (I guess making them legal also makes the novelty wear off and they don't seem so desirable anymore).
Also, in today's society (rather than the Island), the legalized drugs would be regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes, and the HUGE amount of tax money would go to fund other useful things, like the drug education campaigns, healthcare...etc.
Same goes for prostitution.
ReplyDeleteAs for income:
I would actually implement a non-means-tested GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income) for all citizens, regardless of income, thereby eliminating "social assistance" and the need for minimum wage laws. This funding would come from the enormous savings that a GMI would generate by also eliminating the huge bureaucracy that means-tested social-assistance requires.
It would also free all citizens from the class-based "stigma" of needing assistance.
Citizens would evolve to work with the motivation of improving themselves, pursuing their passions and skills and progressing humanity, rather than of fear of death, hunger, homelessness and poverty.
Critics will assert that some will not work. However, experiments with GMI done in Manitoba and some other places showed that this was actually completely untrue, and the opposite happened: people were more motivated to work.
Also, even if a few decide not to work, that doesn't really matter.
The "undesirable" jobs would be replaced by technology.
Poverty would be completely eradicated.
So, yeah, overall I think the Island is a great idea. I would only change the aspect regarding the GMI.
It's definitely a step forward.
Good work on your blog!
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog, Ammario.
ReplyDeleteLet me attempt to address your concerns. The tax is not meant to be a flat fee at all. It's based on how much of a particular resource you use. In the little spreadsheet that I included with my blog, I posted some experimental rates for things like electric power, and tax per kilogram (or per 1,000 L (one tonne), in the case of water).
The annual water bill for a family living on $20,000 a year might be in the neighbourhood of $1,600, based on my model. (In the case of water and power, these are actually classed as government-owned utility bills, rather than taxes). I think that this is at least comparable with today's current rates in Ontario. $1600/year, or about $133 per month, seems to me to be reasonable, assuming a family of four individuals living under one roof, with the indicated water usage (that statistic I calculated based on this calculator: http://www.cbc.ca/pei/features/watercalculator/.) I used a basic average of 300 litres per day for a typical North American middle class person.
The other categories which my model would tax individuals and businesses on would be electric power, of course, as well as fossil fuels, fuels made from algae (which would largely replace fossil fuels in my model), and metals that you would purchase (everything from aluminum foil to batteries).
I calculate that, for a family of four, based on my estimates, these taxes on average would total
ReplyDelete1600 for water, $1,320 for fossil and algal fuels (assuming one vehicle), $2,550 for power, and $120 for metals purchased. That adds up to a total of $5,590 in taxes, and while that may be more than 25% of the $20,000 in income this hypothetical family of four makes, please also remember that I have made no mention of other taxes that a family of four would typically have to pay in a community, such as property tax. There is none. There is also no income tax.
I think that not having those particular burdens to worry about (as well as not having to file an increasingly complex tax return every year) would be a welcome thing for a family.
So, assuming that we take that $5,590 away from a $20,000 gross earnings, that leaves $14,410 in actual living expenses for the family, or about $1,200 a month.
My other estimates for costs the family would incur on a monthly basis are $400 per month for food, and $500 per month for rent. While these numbers may seem restrictive for a family of 4 to live on in Canada, I also want to say that food would be cheaper in this fictional place, as it would be almost all locally grown. The food miles accumulated would be very small indeed, so 4 litres of milk might only be $2.00, and a loaf of bread might be $1 or less. A lot of this depends on the scale of the farming, of course, but this is what the city would aim for. Cheaper everyday items would mean that a family actually could survive quite comfortably without needing to see a constant wage increase, which would ultimately drive up labour costs, and therefore prices ad nauseum.
Now I'll step away from the $20,000 family for a moment and talk about the $2 million earner. They might buy a pleasure boat with their money, costing, I don't know, $100,000? If even 20% of that cost were reflected in the cost of the metal, that's a full 20 grand in taxes they are paying for a frivolous toy they want. This individual might live a lavish lifestyle, but even if s/he spent $1 million a year, I'd wager that the resource taxes incurred would eat up the other million they made, because they are paying for the resources that other people might think they are squandering. That money would go back into the system, which would also be able to provide grants to low-income individuals and families for other things that they might desire, such as after-school programs for their children that they might not be able to afford on their own.
It's not a progressive, or rated, tax, in the sense that we currently have in Canada. It doesn't have designated brackets. You get taxed out of it what you put into it.
ReplyDeleteNow I will address your remarks on the other items.
I'm happy to have someone “agree completely” with my stance on liberalization of drug laws. It's long-needed so that police can spend their time on other, more serious crimes (like election fraud LOL).
Education is a key to a healthy society – that I also agree with you completely on. I would envision a college-level biology/chemistry class that would educate potential users on the benefits and side effects that have been documented with each substance in question. It would allow responsible, informed adults to make their own choices about what they put into their own bodies.
I'm also right with you when you say:
“The "crime" should not be "possessing" or "consuming whatever substance" privately; rather the "crime" should be, for example, "getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated and harming someone", which "harming someone" is already a crime in itself. ”
I've been tweaking my budget sheet to include funding for some of those things that you mentioned, such as clinics and detox centres, as well as safe injection sites, for those who really need it to have any chance to survive. I've watched a number of documentaries on substance abuse, and I have to say that I agree that they need a slow weaning off of whatever they use. Cold turkey would probably kill most addicts. I speak from personal experience, although my abuse was a perfectly legal prescriped drug that I unfortunately came to rely upon at one point in my life.
So, harm reduction I am onside with.
ReplyDeletePart three: Ah, yes, the guaranteed minimum income. I actually included this in my budget. It's under the heading “Ann. Min. Liv. Exp.” in the spreadsheet. In the event of unemployment, and upon registering this unemployed status, an individual would receive a basic living amount, paid for by what I call the “citizens' tax”. This would be a small yearly tax, only paid by those with employment, in order to help those without get back into the system. It would provide them with rent, food, and transit coverage, so that they could focus their energies on the important things: looking after their children, looking after themselves if they have health issues (especially ones that lead to or were caused by employment), and looking for another job when they are capable of doing so.