The Democratic Imperative
PART ONE
Edward J. Dodson
[An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the socio-political
arrangements and institutions of social democracies]
INCREMENTAL REFORM AND THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRACIES
The programs associated with social-democracy began during the early
nineteenth century, expanded incrementally over the next century, then
accelerated after the Second World War. Many internal and external
factors combined to intensify the role of government in social and
economic matters previously regarded by the enemies of hereditary
power as belonging in the realm of private affairs and sanctioned by
the doctrine of laissez-faire. We have seen the grudging advance of
the welfare state ever since, supported and thwarted on a
policy-by-policy basis by individuals who profess to hold either
conservative or liberal principles. Mostly the political struggle has
been one of who holds power over the division of the spoils.
At and beyond the fringe of our present political parties we find the
countless grass roots, citizen-based groups whose members tend not to
identify with either of the two main parties. Here are also found many
of those who also belong to alternative political movements and
parties such as the Libertarians and Greens. Thus far, the programs
advanced by these parties have not been sufficiently attractive to
mount a competitive challenge in the electoral arena. And so, we find
ourselves troubled by seemingly unsolvable social, economic,
environmental, health, educational and political problems -- with our
elected representatives immersed in posturing to preserve their
political longevity rather than engaged synergistically to promote and
protect the rights of constituents to access the goods necessary for a
decent human existence. For those of us on the fringe who have
accepted a transnational value system and believe: (a) that our
socio-political arrangements and institutions must live up to much
higher standards of participatory democracy; (b) must inherently
protect human rights; must expand equality of opportunity; and, (d)
must maximize individual liberty, the realization of our ideals
demands that we unite to advance institutional changes that will
harmoniously pull us in the above directions. This brings us, then, to
a beginning.
We have for guidance a broad base of philosophical, socio-political
and economic writings. My own thinking has been influenced most by
Thomas Paine, whose collective work espouses an holistic
socio-political system best described by the term cooperative
individualism. On many but not all questions of his day, he attempted
to apply his principles. He was wise enough to admit that the future
would raise many issues he could not foresee, and he trusted in the
democratic system to allow an educated citizenry to decide wisely.
What follows is my attempt to define the principles of cooperative
individualism to which Paine generally ascribed, but did not always
articulate. Paine is not, however, the ultimate test of these
principles; they must stand or fall against the harsh judgment of
historical evidence, reason and our own intuitive moral sense of right
and wrong. Where I have erred in logic, I look for correction.
Although absolute agreement is too much to hope for, engaging in this
type of dialogue can only strengthen the case for systemic
restructuring.
CITIZENSHIP
The Nation-State as a Divisive Factor
One of the greatest hurdles human civilization has to overcome is
the prevalence of nationalism, a force in human affairs that
restricts and diminishes our interaction as global citizens. In many
societies today the problem is exacerbated by ethnocentric
territorialism and by intolerance toward groups of individuals who
do not share the same culture, religion, race or language. Economic
stagnation in the social-democracies is providing a convenient
source of strength to all of the worst forms of human rights
violations.
A successful campaign to purge nationalism from human relations
requires a sustained effort, with education and activism focused on
the subordination of nation-state sovereignty to transnational
(i.e., universal) standards of behavior consistent with the securing
of human rights. The forging of a global movement to counter
nationalistic tendencies is, as yet, in its infancy. At a personal
level, one's attachment to one's own society -- as something
separate and apart from other societies -- is a bond not easily set
aside. How many of us are truly ready, for example, to denounce the
exclusivity inherent in the concept of nation-state citizenship in
favor of rights based on global citizenship? In response to this
question, we ought to debate the practical considerations of
sanctioning a second level of citizenship based on human rights.
Wholesale adoption of this reform would protect the liberty to
travel and live wherever one may wish. Within the United States and
most other federated republics, this dual level of citizenship has
always existed. And, to an extent we seldom express, has been
responsible for a high level of mobility for generations of
immigrants and their descendants. One important result has been the
creation of a small number of societies unique in history that
encourage common values in an environment of pluralism. To be sure,
the process has been painful and not altogether successful. What
must be said, however, is that an emphasis on individual rights as a
central building block of government has assisted many individuals
to overcome the bias and prejudice to which many minorities are
subjected.
History and our contemporary experience demonstrate the very strong
correlation between freedom to migrate and justice. Societies from
which large numbers of individuals wish to but are prevented from
leaving will always be found to have oppressive socio-political
arrangements and institutions. Privilege for the few is the
characteristic readily apparent to the outsider. From the standpoint
of human rights, the only legitimate reasons for restricting the
movement of individuals from one part of the globe to another
involve the health and safety of others. A person infected with a
highly contagious or communicable disease would jeopardize the
health of others and should be quarantined in some fashion. A person
who has committed a criminal license against others must not only
pay a proper debt to society but must demonstrate rehabilitation
before an unwary populace in another part of the world is exposed to
such an individual. Absent these behavior-related issues,
citizenship must protect our human right of equal access to the
earth, the exercise of which is inherent in the right to migrate.
Within the receiving societies, the presence of tensions or fears
that new immigrants will compete for available employment
opportunities or drive down wages or add to crime or the cost of
government are warnings that a difference exists between these
societies in degree only. A society whose socio-political
arrangements and institutions are consistent with human rights, that
secures equality of opportunity and maximizes individual liberty
will welcome immigrants as valued new producers and contributors.
As a long-term objective, we must continually work for a new form
of global government. In order to overcome the intense ethnic (often
tribal) conflicts over territory, these groups must be encouraged to
accept settlements reached under conditions of binding arbitration.
Deep animosities and rivalries will not disappear quickly. Many
groups continue to think of themselves as a people separate and
distinct from others, sharing a history of external domination and
oppression that drives a deeply-rooted need for cultural
independence and territorial sovereignty. Here, expediency is
warranted in order to promote peaceful intercourse between peoples
based on voluntary association. A global fund could be created
(perhaps from rents collected from the leasing of the ocean floor
for exploitation of minerals, or the auctioning of licenses to
commercial fishing enterprises) to provide some level of
compensation to those required to relocate and abandon physical
property, or dispose of their property under conditions that do not
lend themselves to a sale under normal market conditions.
Another element in the struggle to purge nationalism from our
existence is to encourage large nation-states to divide into much
smaller states, so that no one state within a global confederation
is dominant in terms of population, natural resources or development
of physical infrastructure. For those of us living in very large
countries, this would present an opportunity to debate a more
efficient construction of regional states, each eventually becoming
a member state in the global confederation.
RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT
History and experience have also demonstrated that participatory
government, particularly when decentrally structured, is inherently
more likely to yield a higher degree of equality of opportunity and
liberty than any other form. Yet, even within those societies
considered highly democratic in nature, there exists a considerable
degree of frustration over the role played by government at all
levels. Citizens generally feel left out of the process and unable to
influence the actions taken by quasi-permanent bureaucracies,
particularly at levels other than local or municipal. Too often, only
a small percentage of those eligible to vote in elections make the
effort (unless required by law to do so), and an even smaller number
are active in community affairs. To be sure, we have a right to expect
those employed by or elected to government to make sure the public
sector fulfills its responsibilities. Unfortunately, time and
experience have proven that the present constitution of government
interferes with this objective. What is needed to more fully realize
the promise of democracy is take the debate over solutions to a
sustained, higher level that focuses not simply or primarily on
short-run, remedial measures, but looks at the fundamental
construction of our socio-political arrangements and institutions.
Discussion of government today most often focuses on issues. We ask
how government can mitigate the social and economic problems that
plague our societies. The interest of those in government is to
maintain this focus and to discourage measures designed to alter the
structure within which government functions. Those individuals within
government who advance proposals for systemic reform or restructuring
are viewed (by their colleagues) not as citizens to be praised but as
whistle blowers. To be fair, this conflict between those who bring to
any job a high level of motivation and principle-based behavior and
those who do not is not limited to government. Those who are
comfortable in their circumstance or who benefit by the status quo
will often strenuously resist even obviously necessary changes. Their
power to do so, individually and collectively, may be great or small.
Many times only a severe shock to the system opens a window of
opportunity for those who desire to effect structural improvements.
Putting aside for the moment the structural changes needed in the
private sector, there are very specific changes that will materially
improve the performance of government at all levels. The first
objective should be to expand the degree of citizen participation in
the governing process. In communities throughout much of the world,
where authoritarian regimes are not an obstacle, citizens do come
together in civic and neighborhood associations or as members of
political parties. A much smaller number are active in volunteer,
environmental or other public interest groups. For the great majority
of citizens, however, even the fundamental civic responsibility of
voting for elected officials is ignored. For reasons that include
apathy, disgust, a sense of isolation and the challenge of simply
earning a living, many citizens do not participate. Before this
situation can be reversed, we must recognize what the obstacles are
and take action to remove them.
Voter Registration and Voting
In elections in many countries the unfortunate reality is that a
majority of a minority of citizens determine who is elected. In the
United States, for example, far less than half of the eligible
citizens bother to register to vote in most districts. Registering
requires the citizen to be proactive rather than reactive. Now that
computerized data bases can be economically maintained, other methods
of securing voter registrations should be pursued. A registration form
could automatically be sent to anyone who is in the data base but did
not vote in the previous election or has otherwise lost eligibility.
Registration by telephone should be considered, with each citizen
assigned a security number entered over a digital phone. A natural
extension of this process is to permit voting by telephone for those
individuals who work outside of the communities in which they reside
or who cannot conveniently visit a voting location. Another
possibility is to place election ballots within a bulletin board on a
personal computer network for those who have access to a personal
computer connected to the voting location by modem. Computerized
voting stations could be installed in numerous locations so that
citizens could vote wherever they might be regardless of where they
actually reside.
Political Parties and Primary Elections
Our systems of positive law have evolved as powerful means of
distributing privilege; and, to the extent this side of law is
effective, liberty and equality of opportunity are thwarted. Even
under the best of circumstances, where positive law was built on truly
just principles, there would still be disagreement over the degree to
which government versus private initiative should be relied upon to
advance public policy. The practical need to influence public opinion
suggests that political parties will be resorted to for a long time to
come. At issue is whether the general citizenry, who have no
day-to-day involvement in party affairs, should continue to be
empowered to select the party candidates for office by virtue of their
party registration and voting in, what in the United States are
called, primary elections. If, in fact, our political parties are to
be organizations of individuals joined together to advance a
philosophically-driven policy agenda, allowing otherwise uninvolved
citizens to determine a party's candidates dilutes the purpose of the
party. Political parties ought to be democratically-structured, but
only those individuals who have contributed either their time, energy
or financial resources should be considered members of the party and
eligible to select candidates for office. The requirements for party
membership should be left to the party members to determine.
Excessively stringent requirements would, of course, virtually assure
the party a place in permanent obscurity. The right of the citizen to
vote for public officials is appropriately limited to the general
election, where all party candidates and their programs are weighed
one against the other. Under this type of system the candidates are
far more appropriately the representatives of their parties and what
they stand for can be more consistently relied upon as the agenda they
will pursue and support if elected.
Terms of Office
Should individuals be permitted to succeed themselves in office and,
if so, how many times? This is the fundamental issue to be resolved.
On the side of providing for unlimited terms of office is the right of
citizens to select whomever they wish to represent their interests.
Against this position is the advantage of incumbency in elections and
the concentration of political power into the hands of a relatively
small number of entrenched individuals. Tocqueville observed that one
of the main safeguards of American democracy was the frequency of
elections, implying that frequent elections inherently limit the
consolidation of power. Experience suggests that when frequency of
elections is combined with unlimited potential for re-election,
representative government is diminished in no small part by the amount
of time and financial resources devoted to campaigning. What, then,
are the options to be considered for a cleansing of this process and
broadening of the Democracy? In the complexity of our modern world,
serving as an elected official requires an individual's undivided
attention; and, there is a rather long learning curve before one
becomes adequately informed on legislation under consideration. Under
these circumstances, a term of office of less than four years makes no
sense at all. Beyond the local and municipal levels of government, we
ought to consider setting terms in the legislature at six years, but
limit individuals to two successive terms in office. A twelve-year
period within which to affect the direction of governmental programs
is long enough to encourage continuity while reducing the amount of
energy and financial resources devoted to gaining elected office. When
combined with changes in how candidates are selected, the actual
election campaign period can be shortened to no more than a few
months. The public can protect itself from serious misrepresentation
by the recall process, the particular aspects of which might be
structured as described below.
Electing Representatives By Lottery
At the far end of our options is the prospect of electing our
representatives by lottery from the eligible citizenry. Citizens would
be selected to serve at random for a stated term or until 51% of
registered voters proactively withdrew their support. The lottery
system requires that elected offices be treated more like civil
service positions. The minimum requirements for offices requiring
specialized skills would be established by a nominating committee (and
reviewed periodically for appropriateness to current conditions).For
legislative positions the requirements might include meeting a minimum
score on an examination that tests for competency in language use and
an understanding of the governmental process. Successful reliance on
such a system requires that our schools effectively prepare
individuals for citizenship, something that is sorely lacking at
present.
The Chief Executive
Critics of the American political system point out the disturbing
fact that the President is frequently unable to implement the programs
and policies designed by the Executive branch because the Congress is
controlled by the opposition party. Under the constitutional model
that evolved for Britain and has been adopted by many other countries,
a Prime Minister heads the government as the appointed leader of the
majority party (or, coalition of parties). Hypothetically, one
individual might serve as prime minister for decades. Common to all
social-democracies, however, is the assumption that power tends to
corrupt, and that only a separation of powers provides adequate checks
and balances. In the United States, the Executive branch of government
is not empowered to enact legislation (although the initiation of
legislative ideas is considered part of the President's leadership
role); rather, Executive agencies have been created to assure the
proper implementation of legislation. The pros and cons of the two
systems (and variations thereof) ought to be examined and debated.
Common to each system, however, is the question of limited tenure in
office for a President or Prime Minister.
The Courts and the Constitution
A school of legal scholars in the United States, generally described
as conservatives, have argued that the Courts must (under the State or
Federal constitutions) apply a narrow, strict constructionist criteria
to their determinations of legislative constitutionality. There is,
however, an unresolved degree of ambiguity associated with the implied
powers language in the Federal constitution. In response,
conservatives suggest the Courts must refer to the framers' original
intent for guidance. The problem, of course, is that the Constitution
as a framework of government arose out of compromise. Philosophical
and moral principles, espoused by at least some of the framers as
essential to the securing of liberty and of equality of opportunity,
were subverted by the collective strength of interest groups. Other
countries with written constitutions may have a similar problem; or,
conversely, the language of the constitution is strong on principle,
but the protection of the rights guaranteed in the constitution is
weak and inconsistent. Britain and many other countries function
without a formal constitution, and are instead governed by legislative
will subjected to the pressures of public opinion and checked by
traditional values. Our first task is to establish by education and
persuasive discussion a consensus acceptance of the principles against
which any constitution of government (written or informal) ought to be
measured for its degree of justice. A written statement of principles
ought to be prepared, from which a committee could be formed to draft
a transnational Constitution for distribution, subsequent discussion
and possible adoption as a result of political action.
PRIVATE WANTS AND PUBLIC NEEDS
Corporations and Social Responsibility
The function of government ought to be two-fold: (i) to protect the
health and safety of all citizens; and (ii) to prevent the formation
of monopolies, contrived shortages and/or price fixing among
producers. High on the list of relationship issues is what sort of
principles ought to govern the activities of businesses, particularly
those that adopt the corporate form of ownership. We continue to
struggle with the body of law that governs the formation, treatment
and dissolution of corporations. In return for the privileges granted
under corporate charters, what obligations (if any) ought to be
imposed on the corporate owners to act in a manner consistent with
appropriate societal (i.e., human rights) objectives?
Manufacturing businesses that have become multi-national are de facto
global citizens with little or no inherent commitment to the societies
in which they happen to be incorporated. The transfer of productive
facilities from one region or country to another is far easier today
than ever before. Even most LDCs have adequate infrastructure to
accommodate the needs of industry. Corporate executives naturally and
appropriately stay alert to locational opportunities where profit
margins can be maximized because of much lower labor costs, lax
environmental regulations, subsidized land and energy costs and low
taxes. For individual societies and corporations -- and even for the
labor force in a given country -- the short-run result is often an
expansion of employment opportunities, economic growth and maintenance
of or increase in profit margins. As has frequently been the case,
however, the heavy subsidies and tax incentives granted have
left the citizens of the host country with a net loss (particularly in
terms of environmental destruction). While free and open trade
benefits the world's consumers, there is good reason to discuss how a
political party organized around a doctrine of human rights ought to
respond to this and similar exploitative arrangements.
Under circumstances where there are more jobs searching for workers
than workers searching for jobs, the aggregate result of the movement
of production activities is greater efficiency and a net increase in
purchasing power. Under existing circumstances, where industries
invest in new capital equipment or new locations with a net aggregate
reduction in people employed, the longer run result is a concentration
of purchasing power accompanied by an increase in structural
unemployment among a broadening section of citizens.
Government's failure to adopt win-win policies in the regulation of
production and commerce are traced to one major reason: in virtually
every society, tax laws relating to property and income impose heavy
costs on production, trade and consumption while favoring speculation
and hoarding of building sites and natural resources, the selling
price of which increases based on government's failure to collect in
taxation the annual rental value of these assets. This problem
involves a failure of government at all levels and today benefits most
those corporations that function as industrial landlords, meaning
those controlling extremely valuable land in urban centers as well as
tens of thousands, even millions, of acres of forest, mining,
agricultural or grazing lands without market-determined compensation
to society for the monopoly privilege inherent in such titles.
Industrial democracy, characterized by cooperatives and employee
stock ownership programs, mitigate the problems created by land
monopoly by allowing workers to participate in the distribution of
income derived from capital and land ownership. Societal stability
could be enhanced by more cooperative ownership of businesses,
lessening the pressure on executives to pursue short-term profit
maximization demanded by disinterested stockholders. Industrial
democracy would also check the power of executives to compensate
themselves in multiples hundreds of times greater than other
employees. This approach to more responsible corporate behavior is far
more desirable than relying on government to adopt intrusive,
regulatory or social legislation.
Global competition and the revolution in computer and communications
technology have greatly challenged traditional corporate hierarchies
and decision-making processes. More than ever before, companies large
and small must attract highly talented and motivated individuals able
to adapt to constant change. Highly educated individuals have much
greater expectations not only in terms of compensation for their
services but in terms of stimulation, challenge and satisfaction.
Manufacturing industries have historically created many repetitive
jobs and a much smaller number of stimulating career opportunities.
Assisted by computer robotics and other technological advances, the
output of goods from manufacturing and processing operations has
rapidly expanded as a multiple of the direct labor component. To the
extent that tedious, dangerous and mind-numbing jobs are shifted to
machines, this is a development to be applauded and encouraged. The
dilemma, as discussed above, is that under current conditions hundreds
of millions of workers are faced with few alternative employment
choices. Replaced by machines or left unemployed by the relocation of
their jobs elsewhere, they become dependent on social welfare programs
for a subsistence level existence. The decline in purchasing power,
when a company represents a large portion of a region's employment
base, can literally destroy communities. The citizens and leaders of
smaller communities, in particular, must learn how to diversify and
eliminate dependence on just a few sources of employment. The balance
is found when the community protects itself from the downside of the
global economy while creating the appropriate socio-political climate
in which businesses can operate profitably and without subsidy or
monopolistic privilege.
Business Assets and Revenue as Sources of Government Revenue
Economic theory recognizes that when government places taxes on
production or on commerce the net result is a reduction in those
activities. The reason is that these taxes add to the cost of
production, to the cost of doing business. Producers will attempt to
pass on the added costs to their customers, and many external factors
will determine whether or not this can be done. Among the variables
are the level of demand, the availability of less costly substitutes
and the purchasing power of potential customers. What customers are
willing to pay for most goods today is determined by a globally
determined equilibrium between supply and demand. Thus, if taxes must
be absorbed by the producer, profit margins will fall or disappear
unless the producer is somehow able to otherwise reduce the costs of
production. This may involve substituting new capital equipment for
labor, imposing higher productivity objectives on labor; or, if these
strategies are ineffective, relocating or shutting down altogether.
The ideal tax policy toward business is clear. Production and
commerce ought to be maximized, while at the same time pushing that
same business to maximize its use of the locations and natural
resource lands under its control. As discussed above, this means that
the taxes paid to government ought to equate to the annual rental
value of such locations and natural resource lands (i.e., nature)
held. If the need for government revenue exceeds the combined total
rental value of all land and natural resources, any additional taxes
ought to create the most level playing field possible. Existing
business taxes tend to penalize success and reward failure. The
greater a business's expenses and the lower its declared profit, the
lower are the taxes levied. A more efficient approach is to levy taxes
against gross revenue. In doing so, the impact on businesses with
heavy expenses will be greater and on those with lower expenses
smaller. Businesses will then be encouraged by the tax system to
maintain a firm control over expenses. Firms would no longer receive
tax advantages as a result of their borrowing and would, therefore,
borrow only on the basis of sound business reasons. A firm's physical
assets (including plant and equipment) would no longer be taxed, nor
would depreciation taken as an expense play a role in the calculation
of taxable income. From the standpoint of the public interest, no
longer would an army of government auditors be paid to assure
compliance with tax laws.
Individual Assets and Community/Societal Revenue Needs
The same principles of just taxation and economic efficiency apply to
the individual as to companies. Moral sense philosophy (which guided
Paine and others) also serves as the basis for human rights criteria
applied to property. Our birthright as human beings is the right of
equal access to the earth. Titles to nature and forms of other
licenses that restrict equal access create unnatural forms of
property, privileges that are inherently monopolistic. Our natural
right to property comes, on the other hand, from what we produce by
applying our labor to nature and thereafter by use of capital goods
and by trade. Justice demands that government protect our right to use
and/or dispose of our property as we choose (so long as in doing so we
do not infringe on the rights of others). Taxation of property or of
income derived from the use of property is a form of confiscation.
Justice demands, however, that the individual compensate all others in
society for the privilege of monopolizing access to any location and
natural resource received under titles or licenses.
Let us suppose that all individuals and all other groups who control
nature are contributing the full rental value attached to these
privileges -- that holders are competing under the auction function of
the market for titles and licenses. Let us suppose further that, by
consensus and in accord with democratic principles, a majority of
citizens agree that additional public goods ought to be provided and
revenue raised to produce such goods. What should be the guiding
principle for the confiscation of natural property from individuals?
Here is where ability to pay ought to be given highest consideration.
One approach is to institute a graduated tax that exempts all
individuals who earn below a certain level, say, the median income in
any given year. Above that income, a graduated rate would be applied
that increases up to a maximum on very high marginal incomes. To
provide a basis for discussion, I offer the following example of how
this would work in the United States: (a) incomes below $25,000 would
be exempt; (b) a 10% tax on dollars earned between $25,001 - $50,000;
(c) a 15% tax on dollars earned between $50,001 - $100,000; (d) a 20%
tax on dollars earned between $100,001 - $500,000; and (e) a 25% tax
on dollars earned over $500,000. To be sure, there is confiscation
associated with this supplemental means of raising public revenue;
however, the depth of confiscation is moderate and would not (under
the application of reasonableness secured by means of democratic
process) materially impact the individual's capacity to consume.
Protecting the Environment
We have excelled in the exploitation of the earth's resources for
immediate gratification and short-term survival. What many of us now
realize is that our behavior has been (and continues to be) damaging
in the extreme to the operation of the earth as an ecosystem. To
continue on as we have is little short of suicidal behavior. Pollution
and over-fishing threaten to destroy the food chain in the oceans and
fresh water seas. Heavy use of herbicides and pesticides poison the
land and inland waterways with toxic chemicals that are consumed by
animals and enter our own food supply. Subsurface and strip mining
operations pour even more chemicals into groundwater supplies. The
burning of fossil fuels turns our air into poisonous vapor. The
by-product of energy generated by nuclear reactors is a vast
storehouse of radioactive waste for which no safe means of storage has
yet been found.
If we have any reason for optimism it is that a wide range of
nongovernmental groups are focusing time and resources on these
problems. On the other side, despite a quarter century of activism and
the passage of sweeping regulations, the effort to make our activities
environmentally sensitive continues to be thwarted by individuals,
businesses and even governments acting to protect short-term profits,
privilege and political power. Clearly, the struggle to heal and
preserve our ecosystem requires mobilization of the global citizenry
on a scale never before achieved. Steps are being taken in this
direction and considerable examples of progress can be pointed to
within many societies as well as global cooperation among nations. At
issue, then, is how to more effectively shift the balance of power in
favor of our long-term survival.
Once again, an understanding of the economics of taxation will direct
us to press for a dramatic overhaul in the way we raise revenue for
public use, with material benefits accruing to the health of our
ecosystem. Societies are faced with the choice of whether titleholders
to nature are to be permitted to build personal fortunes on the basis
of location and natural resource speculation and control or
acknowledge the access they are guaranteed as a privilege for which
society as a whole is to be legitimately compensated. When the tax
base equates to the annual rental value of nature, the cost of
regulations imposed on producers for protection of the environment
will merely lower the amount a potential user will be willing to pay
for access. If the cost of cleaning up the environment is left to
society, after the fact, the amount of rent users will pay for access
unencumbered by regulations will be higher, but government will then
have the higher revenue to use for remedial efforts. The basis for
public policy, then, ought to be whether certain levels of pollution
control are best handled by individual titleholders (or lessees of
public land) or by government. Water and sewerage systems are a
primary example of how economies of scale are realized by centralized
systems. Regulations requiring extensive refining of fossil fuels or
conversion into natural gas is the type of public policy that will
drive down the annual rental value of fossil fuel-bearing lands.
Learning and Citizenship
One important legacy of the nineteenth century reform initiatives --
whether democratic, utilitarian, communitarian or statist -- has been
an almost universal reliance on education to raise the living
standards of the unpropertied. After a period of limited success with
religious and philanthropic experiments in education, society after
society created systems of publicly-funded education. In the United
States this system was decentrally structured and supported by
broad-based taxes (collected primarily from owners of real estate).
The motivations to establish universal education were both
humanitarian and utilitarian. Industrial landlordism could expand only
so far using unskilled labor; technical and managerial positions
required individuals who possessed not merely basic literacy but sound
foundations in the mechanical and administrative arts. German reforms
of the mid-to-late nineteenth century sought to produce an educated
populace for its bureaucratic, militaristic and industrial State.
Britain was struggling with an increasingly rigid class division
between the propertied and the unpropertied and ended up with the
distinctly two-tiered educational system that continues today. A real
concern of many nineteenth century Americans (meaning those of
Anglo-European heritage) was that the millions of immigrants arriving
from southern, central and eastern Eurasia would jeopardize the
existing system by introducing different social and political values.
Providing public education was a means of Americanizing new arrivals
and bringing them into the mainstream. A system of land grant colleges
established during the century provided additional opportunities for
individuals who settled far from the urban centers to gain exposure to
a liberal education in the Western classics and in agricultural
practice. An explosion in both public and private funds made available
over the last forty-five years for scholarships and financial
assistance has opened the doors to a college or university education
for tens of millions of U.S. citizens and foreign visitors. Similar
and even more aggressive programs were implemented in many other of
the social-democracies (as well as in the former Soviet bloc nations).
Despite the remarkable achievements of the educational systems as a
group, the need for reform has become apparent even to their
staunchest defenders. In the United States, far too many young people
leave our secondary schools ill-equipped for the responsibilities of
citizenship. Millions more do not even complete a full twelve years of
formal childhood schooling. What is clear is that far too many of our
schools are unable to meet the individual needs of youngsters and are
organized to perpetuate failure on the part of those students who do
not mature emotionally, intellectually or physically according to the
norm established based on chronological ages. Moreover, the stresses
of daily life experienced by many students materially affects their
ability to learn. Although this is understood today more than ever
before, the responsiveness from the government and the educational
establishment has been insufficient and has improved the system only
marginally.
One of the reforms discussed more frequently today is that of choice,
meaning that parents and youngsters ought to have many more options in
the selection of an educational opportunity than have traditionally
been available. For the most part, choice has historically involved
the one public school within walking distance or to which bus service
was provided, or paying tuition to attend a parochial school. Access
to privately-operated schools has been largely restricted to
youngsters whose families could afford the expense of high tuition
and, in many cases, full-time boarding. At the same time, all owners
of real estate contributed via the tax system to the cost of public
education. Moving to a voucher system, under which each child is
supported by some minimum amount of public scholarship, while allowing
parents to select the school (and, as they can or desire to, use
their own income to supplement the public voucher) will create a far
more competitive educational environment and stimulate the design of
programs directed to the individual needs of children rather than to
the needs and priorities of administrative bodies.
As we examine the opportunities to reform our educational system, we
ought also to consider a gradual plan to phase out publicly-operated
schools altogether. Moving to privatization is desirable; however,
there are extraordinary dangers in the creation of a system of
for-profit schools that are also owned by disinterested stockholders
whose primary interest is in profit maximization. The ideal form of
privatization is the professional association. Teachers who share the
same educational philosophy should be encouraged to come together
(much the same way as attorneys or physicians do) to form a school.
These professionals would then hire administrators to help implement
policies the teachers decide upon. In our publicly-operated and
parochial schools, as well as the overwhelming majority of
privately-operated schools, the individuals most directly involved in
the process of education are merely hired help who have nominal input
into the development of curriculum, selection of new staff or the
establishment of standards.
At the college and university level many of the same problems exist.
Professors are rewarded not on the basis of their effectiveness as
teachers (or, if you prefer, facilitators of learning) but for their
status as researchers or scholars. How is it possible that students
attending prestigious universities in the United States can complete
their undergraduate requirements without ever encountering an actual
full-time professor in the classroom? Undergraduate education,
arguably the place where our best instructors are needed, is too often
left in the hands of graduate students or part-time faculty, some of
whom cannot even communicate effectively in the English language. The
institution of tenure has also isolated professors from the rigors of
competitive pressures existing in most other societal arenas. Here,
again, the more appropriate structure for colleges and universities is
to have the professors associated as equal partners, each required to
perform at a high level, and that high level determined in large part
by their ability to attract and retain paying students. As was once
written by a remarkable teacher, the difference between an educator
and an educationist is that the former hangs out a shingle and
students come voluntarily, while the latter is assigned to teach
courses to students required to attend.
Where Individual and Societal Responsibilities Collide
We are constantly reminded by the reporting of the news just how
frequently individuals exercise criminal licenses against others.
Social scientists continue to debate the extent to which these
outbursts are a function of neglect or mistreatment during the
individual's early years when nurturing by biological parents and by
others help instill behavior and other values. If one accepts that by
virtue of birth, each individual's human rights are the proper subject
of protection by society, then the system of positive law and
institutions created must (by consensus) establish minimum standards
for nurturing. Where the biological parents fail to meet this
standard, government has the responsibility and should be given the
authority to intervene. In legalistic terms, a child is by nature an
incompetent party requiring parental and societal nurturing until such
time as competency is demonstrated. At that point, what had amounted
to a trustee responsibility by society is diminished. Competency
entitles the individual to full benefits of citizenship (i.e., freedom
of action restrained by justice). The exercise of citizenship is the
exercise of liberty; actions that infringe on the liberty of others
are by definition licenses. What has been most difficult for societies
to resolve is to distinguish between liberty and license and to
structure positive law accordingly. Of almost equal difficulty has
been the question of how to deal with incompetencies voluntarily (or
nearly so) brought on by the actions of an individual who was at one
time fully competent.
As a society, we have yet to come to terms with the two major causes
of voluntary incompetency: alcohol and drug abuse. The minimum level
of societal involvement ought to center on the impact the behavior of
these individuals has on others. An individual under the influence of
alcohol or drugs is far more likely to act in ways that result in the
exercise of criminal licenses -- from failure to provide appropriate
nurturing to dependent children, physical and mental abuse of a
spouse, and assault or worse against others. While addiction to
alcohol and drugs is certainly an illness, the issue facing society is
how to balance treatment of the individual with the responsibility to
protect citizens from criminal license. Does society have the
responsibility (and should government be given enough authority) to
act proactively when the risk of criminal license is high? Or, must
society wait until someone actually commits a criminal license as
justification for isolating that individual from others? We already
make these decisions every day, but the dynamics of our
socio-political arrangements, our institutions and our enforcement
agencies provide neither liberty nor security. When society does a
better job of protecting the human rights of our incompetent members
and in creating a socio-political environment that secures equality of
opportunity, we will experience fewer and fewer cases of criminal
behavior occurring because of an individual's financial desperation or
other anti-societal attitudes fostered by an absence of positive
nurturing and surroundings. At the same time, enforcement of just laws
acts as a break on the individual whose actions exceed the bounds of
liberty.
The issue receiving more public attention and debate than almost any
other is what, if any, rights are possessed by the unborn child. Is
the life growing within the womb of a woman by nature part of that
woman until the child is actually born? Or, is the biological parent
merely a host, who by virtue of pregnancy, acquires nurturing
responsibilities to a human life in the process of formation? Modern
technology has added a dimension by replicating the physical
environment within which human life can successfully develop. The
biological mother is, in fact, no longer absolutely essential after
the sixth month of life. Extremists on one side of the debate take the
position that life begins when a sperm enters an egg and a zygote is
formed; extremists at the opposite end argue that life begins only
after the fetus leaves the womb as a result of the natural birthing
process.
To satisfy the moral principles espoused by the first group, a woman
must primarily be considered a biological host and only secondarily as
a mother. This distinction is crucial, in that if the first
circumstance becomes the basis for positive law, then the decision of
the woman to continue nurturing beyond delivery of the child must be
voluntary. Society would have the primary responsibility for nurturing
once birth has occurred. In the second instance, the decision of
whether or not to accept the condition of pregnancy and the superior
right and responsibility of nurturing would rest with the woman, as
biological mother. In either event, society retains both the
obligation and authority to intervene on behalf of the child as an
incompetent party; however, the responsibility to do so is immediate
and primary when the woman is required, as biological host, to
subordinate control of her body to the rights of the growing child.
From the perspective of public policy, the most important
responsibility of society is to instill sound moral values in young
adults, who, as a group demonstrate a strong desire to experience
sexual fulfillment but who do not yet possess the emotional maturity
and economic means to provide positive nurturing to children. What
must be said, however, is that this responsibility must accommodate a
diversity of sentiment on the subject of sexual activity. Some
individuals believe strongly that sexual activity outside the marital
relationship is morally unacceptable. Others see sexuality as merely
one aspect of our humanity that has no attachment to gender or
formalized attachments. Here, again, the interest of society is in the
health and safety of citizens, and all schools (and specifically those
receiving any form of public subsidy) ought to be required to provide
education on the diseases that can result from certain patterns of
sexual activity and what measures need to be taken for prevention.
When schools are formed by educators with similar philosophies in
mind, schools will advertise to parents that they attempt to instill
particular values in the students, and parents will have the
opportunity to choose which sexual curriculum and value system they
wish their children to be exposed to. Safeguards, in the form of
minimum standards, are appropriate and must be guided by the principle
of protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens from physical or
mental mistreatment.
PROTECTING OUR PURCHASING POWER
By Making Money and Credit a Private Affair
One of the ways governments have historically affected the purchasing
power of individuals is by taxation. As has already been discussed,
when revenue is raised by taxing individual labor or the wealth we
produce these policies represent attacks on natural property. Where
socio-political arrangements allow for adequate debate on public
policy decisions and require something greater than a simple majority
before implementing taxes on wealth, matters of greater public good
may generate a consensus to impose taxation beyond primary sources of
revenue (i.e., the annual rental value of nature and
quasi-monopolistic licenses). The second means by which governments
transfer purchasing power from individuals to themselves is by
requiring the use of paper currency as legal tender and, further, by
the self-creation of credit.
Whether government is in the hands of a monarchy, an oligarchy, a
representative body or a bureaucratic state, one consistent behavior
is the propensity to spend more than is received in revenue. Sitting
governments have always willingly spent to build monuments to
themselves with public money. And, all too often the public is
required to pay for adventuristic wars or colonialism, to the
enrichment of the few and at the expense of the many. We also know
from experience that socio-political power and the accumulation of
personal fortunes feed off each other, with the result that those who
benefit most by government spending (the same individuals, generally,
who meet the ability to pay test) manage to shift the cost onto the
general populace by the mechanism of government borrowing at interest.
A considerable part of the problem in the United States can be traced
to legislative and administrative laws that went far beyond the powers
granted to the Federal government under the Constitution. Although the
constitution permits the government to borrow money, the original
definition of money as gold and silver coinage has been subverted by
the issuance of Federal Reserve notes as legal tender for all
government debts. Not since the early years of the Bank of Amsterdam
in the sixteenth century has any society experienced the benefits of
sound money and honest banking. Within a few decades after its
creation, the Bank's directors discovered the short-run profit
maximization system of fractional reserves. Every banking system
subsequently established has followed the Bank down this disastrous
course, producing frequent and often catastrophic panics. Today, when
the United States government desires to borrow legal tender from
private investors, the Treasury Department offers government
securities for sale which, in effect, are claims against future tax
revenue (and, more frequently, against the revenue raised by the
issuance of more securities). The Federal Reserve Banks have no
reserve requirements in terms of gold or silver or any other
commodities to which the redemption of their Notes is tied. Therefore,
based on some monetaristic model of the nation's aggregate need for
legal tender and credit, they raise or lower the rate of interest
charged to member commercial banks for whatever borrowing these
commercial banks require to meet demands for credit beyond the
deposits of legal tender attracted from private individuals and
organizations. What is also interesting is that if the Federal
government's need for revenue is sufficiently high, the funds borrowed
by commercial banks from the Federal Reserve might very well be
reinvested in the securities issued by the Treasury Department.
The stability of our financial system has often been described as
being dependent upon public confidence. By permitting government to
deficit spend as a matter of normal practice, we are facing a $4
trillion national debt, or approximately $40,000 for every household
in the United States. Assuming an average annual cost of funds of 8
percent, the amount of tax revenue required to service this debt comes
to $320 billion. Before the government is able to spend one dollar on
programs that actually maintain or improve our physical, social or
intellectual infrastructure, each household must be taxed some $3,200
on average. Inasmuch as almost 16 percent of all households receive
incomes insufficient to pay Federal income taxes, the average tax
payment required of the remaining 79 million households is over
$4,000. In no country today is there any serious consideration given
to retirement of national debt, and economists generally seem to be
either silent on the seriousness of this problem or argue that the
debt is not a real drain on economies so long as the debt is not
increasing as a percentage of gross domestic product. Perhaps. We
will, of course, discover in due course whether this economic
principle holds true over the short run, the medium run or the long
run (the long run taking us out to the time when most current
taxpayers have died and the problem is handed to the next generation).
We must introduce measures to reign in the ability of government to
spend without having to gain direct permission from the electorate.
The first step is to prohibit by constitutional amendment the
self-creation of credit. The revenue for all current expenditures must
come from taxation. Physical infrastructure, such as highways, mass
transit, bridges, public facilities, ought to be financed by fully
amortizing securities issued for periods tied to the anticipated life
of the improvements constructed. The annual budget would then include
taxes levied sufficient to cover all interest and principle payments.
Getting the Federal Reserve Banks out of the business of issuing
legal tender can be accomplished by the creation of a competitive
system based on the chartering of banks of deposit. These banks would
have no lending powers; rather, they would take in legal tender and
purchase precious metals and other commodities, establishing for
members a credit line against which electronic purchases could be made
from other members. Over time, a network of these banks would link
producers and consumers together in a system that automatically debits
and credits member accounts when transactions between members occur.
Losses for bad debts become a thing of the past. Eventually, vendors
could condition contracts with government agencies on their membership
in the system. The banks of deposit would earn fees charged to each
member. Many existing commercial banks would become members as well
out of self-interest, with the interesting result that their ability
to create credit on the basis of fractional reserves would be checked.
With a global system established, Gresham's Law is made to work in
reverse: good money drives out bad. Over time, legal tender will
circulate at increasingly deep discounts. A wise decision on the part
of the citizenry would be to press for legislation (or a
constitutional amendment) prohibiting the Federal government from
creating its own bank of deposit, although there is no reason why the
Federal Reserve Banks should not be permitted to do so as a means of
systematically retiring outstanding Federal Reserve Notes. For
transactions of nominal amounts, the U.S. Mint could be contracted by
the Banks to produce gold and silver coins of a standard metallic
content.
PART
TWO
|