Who is more Fiscally Responsible – Citizens or Elected Politicians?

In the blog-series ‘Democratization – Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG’ I briefly discussed an argument against direct democracy (placing authority directly in the hands of citizens rather than elected politicians) that dates from the time of Plato – the argument being that citizens would make ‘bad decisions’ and don’t possess the necessary intelligence, knowledge and skills required in political decision-making.

I came across the following information when browsing through the comments on a blog regarding the implementation of a Basic Income in Switzerland:

"Switzerland is an interesting laboratory for direct democracy.

I dimly recall a very interesting study by (I believe) University of Zurich (maybe 20 years old).

They analyzed for each of the 26 Swiss cantons (=states): (1) influence of direct democracy on canton politics (which varies by canton. Some cantons don’t have all that much direct democracy. Others such as Appenzell-Innerrhoden don’t even have a parliament because EVERY single law is passed directly by the people). (2) fiscal situation of the state.

The highly fascinating result was this:

the stronger the people can directly influence public spending and taxes, the healthier the canton’s budgets (!!). The people tended NOT to spend more than they had. Rather, the professional politicians (or the canton’s that gave elected officials greater power) tended to be more fiscally irresponsible."

Naturally, my interest was peaked and I went to search for studies about this topic. And, yes, you guessed it – I found the material supporting these claims. I think we can all agree that when states spend beyond their means – we have a case of bad political decision-making. According to the logic of the argument that it would be dangerous to have citizens directly participate in politics, we would expect citizens’ involvement within budgeting decisions to exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility. And yet – here we have an example that not only shows that citizens wouldn’t make matters worse – but that citizens would do better than elected politicians when it comes to balancing the budget.

If at any point it is relevant to ask the citizens for their direct input on a particular topic to increase democratic practices, it would be: how should we spend public funds? Voting a person into office is one thing – but it is the budget that really determines political policy for the coming year. Mandatory budget referendums should be a minimum requirement for any regime to qualify as a democracy, really. When the extent of your political participation is to vote someone into office – then all you have is ‘hope’ that the people in power will use public funds responsibly and for the purposes that you expect them to. Mandatory budget referendums would create a point of direct accountability towards the citizenry that once politicians are in power, they are indeed acting out their mandate on behalf of the people. It would immediately reduce corruption and prevent budgetary deficiencies down the line, where one is suddenly told that the retirement age has to increase and austerity measures are being implemented because there are insufficient public funds and one only then starts wondering ‘well, where did all the money go?’. 

The fiscal problems most countries are experiencing today could have been prevented. It is now a time of walking through consequence that has already been created and yes, it is worthwhile looking for solutions to address current problems head-on – but it is most important to prevent the same scenario from taking place again. In Dutch there is a saying ‘a donkey doesn’t bump his head on the same rock twice’ – seems like humanity can learn a thing or two from donkeys since we have this tendency of not even looking at what it is we bumped our heads on and why – but simply try to put some ice on the wound. However much we may be upset with governments and politicians – we are the ones who gave them the power to do what they did. The consequence that is here is as much ours as theirs – and rightfully so. If anything – let us at least learn from our mistakes – otherwise all the troubles we’re going through will really be for naught. Let us at least enshrine solutions within the constitution and develop new political practices that we can pass on to the next generations, because surely, part of the consequence we are experiencing is due to continuing traditions from previous generations, but that doesn't prevent us from rising to the occasion and creating new traditions to shape a better future.

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 5 - Kill or Be Killed

This post is a continuation to the blog-posts:

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 – Sustainability vs Full Employment
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 3 – Tools of Intervention
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 4 – Abundance of choice vs Sustainability

Please read them first for context.
 
Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Here we’re looking at the false dilemma presented to justify military forces to remain active, for funds to be invested in them, by feeding the fear of terrorism and war visiting upon us.

It would seem to me, that so long as there are guns, so long as machines of warfare are produced and placed in the hands of some or other military force – that then, we can expect these arms to be utilized at some point in time. Even if they are said to only be meant for ‘peace operations’ – to go to some other country and break up quarrels there – you’re trying to fight fire with fire. So-called legitimate armies only perpetuate the production of arms – which can really end up anywhere. What use do we have in the 21st century to shoot people with bullets? Why have we not yet stopped global weapon production? If Human Rights are at all regarded as important – and if you value your own life – you have reason to do so – then isn’t the production of deadly weapons the first gross violation of these rights? Really – if we were actually interested in peace operations – we wouldn’t shoot bullets –but we’d use tranquilizer guns. When people revert to violence to solve a conflict, obviously, they’ve been unable to communicate and direct their problems effectively. Is it really going to solve ANYTHING to go kill them? Is it really those individuals that are the problem that they must be taken out, done away with – or are they just so tired of a particular problem that they see no other way than to take out their rage through aggression on others? Are we solving anything by taking out the individuals without addressing the real issue? If you must bring guns – then at least just use tranquilizer guns – it will stop the fighting all the same – people can’t kill when they’re sleeping.

Anyhow – we’re not going to create peace on Earth if we’re going to continue producing the means with which to wage war. We suggest within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal that all countries dismantle their weapon-production industries and declare an overall ban on weapons. We should be ashamed of ourselves that we haven’t done so already – it’s the minimum requirement for peace AND the first step in honoring the right to life. Military spending could then be re-allocated towards funding a Living Income Guaranteed, or taxes could simply reduced.









Rather than meddling in foreign affairs under the banner of ‘promoting peace and democracy elsewhere’ – would it not be more productive to stand as an example within one’s own country first – to create a political and economic model that is sustainable and honors the rights of each citizen – and show other countries how they can achieve the same?

One can point at the waves of democratization, but they were never genuine – western countries going to undemocratic regimes and forcing them to ‘democratize’ or else they won’t receive any more funding – and what’s more – “please arrange your economy so that it will better suit our needs”.

In the meantime, which of the countries maintaining armies for so-called peace operations and which of the countries ‘helping other countries become democratic’ has in fact eradicated poverty at home? None.

One cannot claim the right to instruct others when one hasn’t absolutely proven to stand as an example of peace, support and care oneself. Allowing poverty and destitution within one’s own country deprives one of this right.

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment

In my previous blog, I discussed what false dilemmas are, how they are used in our everyday life, how easily we get swayed by false dilemmas and what the consequences are of their use. I also discussed how one is able to broaden one’s view of a situation, taking a step back so one has a more accurate view of the whole picture when faced with false dilemmas.  I gave 4 examples of false dilemmas dominating discussions on very real problems that require direction and solutions. Within this blog I’ll take each example and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside of these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”

She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.

With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.





http://livingincome.me/ 

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1

One of the ways in which we limit our ability to address problems and steer ourselves towards solutions without entering into an endless debate, is through our acceptance of false dilemmas at face value.

What is a false dilemma?

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

•    Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.
•    If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
•    America: Love it or leave it.
•    The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.”

(Normand Baillargeon, A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense. Seven Stories Press, 2008)

It seems easy enough to spot false dilemmas and yet, they seem to dominate the discussions about some of the most important issues we require solutions for. Have a look:

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

Do you start seeing to what extent false dilemma’s – the ‘either/or’ presentation of options – is thoroughly ingrained in media, in politics, in every day life discussions?

On the one hand false dilemmas are used to manipulate those presented with the false dilemma to choose the option that the presenter of the dilemma wishes – but on the other hand – it also encourages stagnation and paralysis. Because what happens, is: you have groups who have an interest within the one option, or who support the one option – and you have groups who have an interest within the second option, or who support the second option. And now there is a back-and-forth quibbling, to put it plainly, about which option to choose, about which group ‘loses’ and which group ‘wins’. Of course, no one wants to lose, or be the one to sacrifice their interests for the other group’s or the other goal – so everyone is fighting, but in the meantime, you maintain the status quo, because there is no movement, there is no common solution – there is just a debate, a discussion, an argument, when what is really needed is direction and action.

We tend to so blindly accept information the way it is presented to us – without critically thinking for ourselves and seeing if there are no alternatives. No, instead we immediately position ourselves on one or the other side of the dilemma and feel good about ourselves for ‘taking in a position’. But what does it matter to take in a position, if that position is not going to lead to a solution, but simply perpetuates a back-and-forth dynamic that can only lead to losing? Either ‘our group’ wins over the other, then the others lose out, or the other group wins and then ‘our group’ loses out – or no solution is reached and everyone keeps quibbling, then everyone loses out, because nothing gets directed – or both groups go into a ‘compromise’ and don’t really take on either issue, but just do ‘ a little bit’ on both fronts to please everyone – which seems like a ‘win-win’ solution – but it actually isn’t – because everyone is compromising.

The first thing to do is to take a step back and allow yourself to see the bigger picture. Because – what is presented with a false dilemma? You’re presented with a zoomed-in picture that shows two doors, two options. Now, instead of trying to break your brains over figuring out which of the doors represents the lesser of two evils – take a step back – zoom out the picture and suddenly more becomes visible within the frame – there might be a third door that had not been mentioned or there might be a pathway going around the wall that the doors are in, making every door entirely irrelevant.

In my next post, I’ll go over each of the examples and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Day 255: How will Companies be Nationalized and What does it Mean? LIG

How will companies be nationalized and do you foresee any resistance?

Within LIG, nationalized companies would not be owned by the government – they would be owned by each person of the population directly. One of the great down-sides of nationalizing companies as how it has been done in the past, is that the government owns the companies, and thus – the companies are managed in a way to benefit the government, often creating inefficiencies due to corruption and fraud. With LIG – the government would be the vehicle to transfer the company from the private to the public sector – but the company would not be owned by the government, where the government then supposedly runs the companies ‘on behalf of’ and ‘in the interest of’ the people. No – each citizen would become a shareholder of the company and have the ability to perform their shareholder duties. The Liquid Democracy platform would herein be beneficial to allow such large numbers of people to participate in events such as annual shareholder meetings.

In terms of the process of nationalization – herein the laws of a specific country must be consulted. In countries where nationalization occurs through providing compensation to the current business-owners, we suggest this would be the last investment for which personal income taxes would be required. The government would then purchase the companies on behalf of the people, however still with taxpayers’ money – which implies the company belongs directly to the people.


What does it mean in effect that a person owns an equal share in a country's national companies?

We suggest that every citizen becomes shareholder of those companies that are nationalized as part of a nation’s national heritage. In being a shareholder, each citizen owns an equal part of the company and hence:
-    Each citizen has an equal vote in important decisions, such as nominating directors.
-     Management and daily operations are likely to remain as they are.
-    The companies and their management are directly accountable to every citizen.
-    Citizens can submit shareholder resolutions.
-    The companies serve the interest of the shareholders, which means: they serve the population as a whole.
-    Government officials play no privileged role in the management of the nationalized companies – they are citizens and thus their role equals that of every other citizen.

In terms of receiving dividends, every citizen has a right to receive a Living Income Guaranteed, funded by the profits of the nationalized companies, when they have no other means of supporting themselves (as determined by the particular means-test of the country).

So the share-income from National companies does not work as stock dividends do in today's world, if those who have sufficient means to support themselves have their Shares but don't get LIG?

Correct.

Day 254: Only for the Brave: Living Income Guaranteed and the End of Warfare

Q: Within my studies I touched upon international relations and there is a point I learned about which I see could be a concern regarding the point of the redirection of military budgets.

The point is similar to a point in the animal kingdom where the majority of decisions/disagreement/tension is resolved not through actual violent interaction, but rather through intimidation with large size, vicious displays etc... where one animal simply submits within self-preservation.

The USA has a large capacity for such intimidation which can be seen as preventing attacks from its smaller and less capable 'enemies' due to the fact that the US can annihilate them and they do not have the means to prevent this or retaliate in any substantial way. If the USA redirected the military budget, many could look at this as a form of weakening/weakness placing the USA in a more vulnerable position to be attacked due to its lessened ability to intimidate others or defend itself.

A: The offense-defense game in international political affairs is played by creating a continuous process of intimidation through potential military interventions by the world’s hegemons/ world powers upon nations that represent an obstacle to their expansionist greed. This is how ‘pseudo enemies’ are deliberately created to give continuation to a warfare industry that enables profit to be made upon these constant calls for the necessity to intervene in the name of peace and democracy in other countries or defend themselves from 'potential terrorist attacks' which is mostly a fabrication of such threat to keep the military industry in place.

  This continuous provocation forces the nations ‘under the mire’ to arm themselves as well to have the means for defense. This ever present tension between nations is what creates the belief that each nation should always be ready and prepared to go to war, when in fact wars only represent the interests of a few that benefit from it, since war is always implying death and destruction using the public’s opinion as manufactured consent to support it in the name of fighting against terrorism and national defense; other reasons include fighting certain nations that do not comply to the views of imperialist-powers and so represent  an obstacle to their own imperial position. However throughout history we’ve witnessed how wars are justified consent to commit crimes against humanity including the use of tax payer’s money to fund such destructive enterprises.

 For example, If the USA redirected their military budget to fund a Living Income Guaranteed,  those with common sense would not perceive it as a weakness, not intimidating and invading others  for the sole profit of few corporate elites, realizing that the nation is already having a weak economy due to most of the funds being directed for military purposes for the illegitimate benefit of a few, instead of strengthening the economy at home if such funds would support individual's financial security.

Q: I can see a point of fear wherein citizens might resist this point due to being seen as a militarily weak country vulnerable to being taken over, having resources taken or populations enslaved, much like the US and other countries have perpetrated in weaker countries in the form of such things as colonization in all its dimensions.

How can this fear be addressed?

Do you think that this is a real threat that could actually happen? If so, what do you suggest as a counter measure?
A: The fear of attack from outsiders is a propaganda-point in order to gain public support for wars that only have economic interests for few elites behind them. Instead of going to wars, the US and other power nations could focus on signing International treaties and create a sustainable global economy through implementing LIG in each nation, so that no wars are required to keep a non-sustainable economy at survival state. When the people of imperialist regimes grasp the real agenda behind the militarism and wars and do not participate in invasions and occupations, other countries no longer feel they have to protect themselves from the bullies/power nations of the world, the propensity for war will be significantly reduced.


For context:

Living Income Guaranteed - the Proposal: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Living Income Guaranteed YouTube Channel - watch the hangouts: https://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch 

Living Income Guaranteed Website: http://livingincome.me

Day 253: Living Income Guaranteed and Means Testing

Q: What information will be gathered to determine whether a person can receive a Living Income Guaranteed?


A: This question pertains to another question, which is: who will receive a Living Income?

The purpose of LIG in its most basic form is to provide a Living Income to those individuals who are unemployed or retired. Similarly to how the system works in most countries today – if you are unemployed and want unemployment benefits you require to register yourself as unemployed. Therefore, those who are registered as unemployed will receive a LIG. Those who retire and wish ‘retirement benefits’ would also make it known that they are retiring – hence with LIG – those registered as retired will receive a Living Income.

If within a country it is seen that it is viable to extend LIG to a wider range of recipients, additional criteria can be specified, for instance: anyone who is a student, or even every child (where the funds would first be available to the parents and only at a certain age become available to the child) in order to replace child support grants. Within such a system, additional information will have to be available – and thus, a greater degree of information integration should be in place. In some countries information integration is already quite extensive and if the resources are available, it would be a viable option. Other countries will first require to grow their economy and information infrastructure in order to expand LIG to a wider range of recipients.

Another way of expanding LIG is to tailor the Living Income to individual needs. For instance, an unemployed person with a chronic medical condition that requires continuous treatment will have higher monthly expenses than a healthy unemployed person. Where possible, the Living Income received by those two individuals could be different in order to provide each one with a more equal living standard. Such individual tailoring will require even more information access as it requires a detailed overview of every person’s expenses. Whether such expansion of LIG takes place will depend on the will of the people: a more equitable distribution of LIG is possible, but it would require individuals to allow a greater degree of information transparency. In many countries the tax return system is already so detailed that such information sharing would not be seen as an issue. Of course – in order to not make LIG too expensive, it would again require a certain level of automatization and integration of information, interlinking the information that is available by various institutions through for instance an electronic identity card, a card with a chip that can be linked to bank accounts, etc. This would allow the LIG allocation system to run the relevant calculations and equations according to the information attached to each person’s ID. Instead of going through the tiring and costly process of completing forms, each one would for instance have an ID card reader at home, place the ID card into it and upload the information to the LIG allocation system. Again, where such technology is not yet being deployed, an online system that ties all the information of an individual together by ID number can be used.

One must remember that information sharing is generally resisted by individuals when it comes to income tax collection. The tendency exists to hide information in order to not be charged a higher tax rate. With LIG, we suggest no personal income tax be charged and information sharing would be done from the perspective of receiving benefits in the form of Living Income. As such, we don’t foresee great resistance towards this point. Also to remember that eligible citizens would have a RIGHT to a Living Income but not an obligation to claim this right. Hence, if a person declines the right to a Living Income, one would not share one’s information and this person will not be taken into account by the LIG allocation system.

Recipients of LIG are not required to show that they are actively looking for employment and there is no limit to the period of time that one is supported by LIG.

The question also involves a second question: How can it be verified that a person truly deserves a Living Income?

What would happen in a scenario where a person registers as unemployed in order to claim a Living Income when the person is in fact still employed and receiving an income at least double the Living Income? This pertains to information integrity and would be the responsibility of the institution that registers a person as unemployed. Measures can be taken to contact the previous employer in order to verify the person is indeed no longer employed and bank account transactions can be monitored. Another scenario is where a person is registered as unemployed and works ‘under the table’, where the combined income of LIG and the wage received enable a person to live a luxurious lifestyle. Such points will only effectively be eradicated once money is entirely digitized and no transactions can take place without there being a record of it in the system – which is a point that any country that implements LIG should work towards in order to minimize abuse of the system. One must remember however that employment in informal commerce is often motivated by the need to survive. With LIG, such motivations would fall away as one can live a dignified life through receiving a Living Income.


For more information on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal - please read this Document and visit http://livingincome.me.