What if people had inalienable property and assets instead/aswell as rights?

[muir]

If everyone is wealthy then no one is wealthy.

People need a roof over their head, food in their belly, a caring community around them and a purpose

Give them that and they'll be happy and healthy and THAT is true wealth

True wealth is not trying to make your neighbour feel insecure by buying a flashier car than them...thats the consumerism game that they want us to play and it makes everyone feel bad in the long run

This thread reminds me of the citizens dividend idea:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/citizens_dividends_to_capture_parliamentary_governments/

[h=1]Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments[/h] Citizen’s dividends—the replacement of all government transfer programs with a simple cash dividend paid equally to all citizens—is the single-plank political platform that can, in the present climate, be used by a minor party to capture control of virtually any parliamentary government in the West.
The rationale is simple: Immigrants are not citizens and they would be deprived of public benefits. This would be immensely popular. Moreover, it would “empower” the populace to fight for their “entitlement” to their own country in a manner far more effective than any “get out the vote” campaign.
The response by the political parties now in power—traitors that they are—would, of course, be to fast-track “a path to citizenship” for immigrants, but they would be doing so in an economic environment far from conducive to popular apathy toward such shenanigans.
This can’t work in the United States without the take over of one of the 2 major parties because of the way the electoral system works in the US. But in parliamentary governments, minor parties can get a foot in the door, as demonstrated by the recent EU elections. That’s all it takes because once this idea is aired in the halls of power, it will necessarily attract an enormous amount of attention from the usual suspects:
“Isn’t this racist? Isn’t this inhumane? Isn’t this xenophobic? What about refugees? Why should immigrants pay taxes if they aren’t going to get a citizen’s dividend?”
It would be wonderfully clarifying.
As for the economic effects, I’ll simply point out what should be fairly obvious by now: The current economic crisis is caused by centralization of wealth to the point that the populace isn’t simply impoverished, but is so deep in debt that the consumer base has collapsed. This was caused not by “easy money policies of the central banks” but by the subsidy of wealth built into any society that protects property rights by taxing economic activity. The would-be upwardly mobile pay the bills—not the recipients of the primary government service: protection of unnatural concentrations of wealth. Although it is true that this means the proper source of revenue for the citizen’s dividend would be a net asset tax on in place liquidation value—a tax that eliminates taxes on economic activity—it is not essential to political success that such a tax reform be another plank in the platform of the citizen’s dividend party. That change would come in due course as people were empowered to fight back against centralized wealth’s capture of government. However, once the tax reform is adopted, the populace would be very motivated to maximize the net in-place liquidation value of the nation’s assets. They will become keenly interested in the real externalities of immigration, graphically demonstrated in places like California. They might even start thinking other taboo thoughts about human ecology, sociology, economics and politics.
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 12:54 AM in Economics & Finance
Comments (17) | Tell a friend

 

[sprinkles]

Hmm, if you're saying people will try to defraud it then sure, there's great stories about people behaving as con artists already, catch me if you can is a great one, but it doesnt mean that people dont have inalienable rights are those rights really illusionary somehow?

The idea that they are illusionary or at least empty when you compare them to the availability of assets or property or wealth was part of the reason I hit upon this idea.

Inalienable simply means that under no acceptable jurisprudence are the rights allowed to be legally removed for any reason.

Or in other words, inalienable rights are only inalienable within the legal system which sets them forth as inalienable. Just like you have rules and cheaters that break them - the rules are only followed by the people following them.

 

[Lark]

Partly. Look at it this way. Give me a piece of land say in.. New York. I say I really want a piece of land on the pacific coast. In fact there is a specific piece of land I want. Why does the person who has it now get to have it? Does someone think they are more deserving than me that they get to have that land? The same with the area in which I live. The amount of stores I have to choose from etc. There will always be something that someone else wants that they dont have. To include people and possessions. This is human nature fact.

Hmm, I dont really think its human nature and fact but anyway, I agree that its the prevailing norm at present, I also dont see what the problem is with it or at least I dont see how it invalidates the idea of an inalienable asset or property. If you want to use this example here, perhaps you could trade deeds but not revoke or dispose of deeds finally, you understand? You may not find yourself with no property but you need not find yourself with the same property, if that makes sense.

Its in the same field of ideas as assets based welfare, everyone by virtue of being born after the time the title deeds to "the earth", and I appreciate this is an abstraction, were passed out will receive a dividend as compensation for being deprived of their birthright.

However, its not a benefit like state benefits, you need to make use of it, its like the talents given to tenants in the bible, if people want to maximise their welfare they will do something with it rather than bury it in the ground but of course they can if they want, if they do the equivalent of this then they will subsist on their own "returns" and that'll be the end of it but they will have "means" of a kind to use as they want.

Its not about egalitarianism, which I think can be discussed as a social good or bad but is a different question, but it is about distribution and redistribution or maldistribution of resources in the economy. You cant play monopoly unless you all start with a share, even if the goal is that everyone end up with different shares by the end of it, you know?

 

[Lark]

Man shall live by the sweat of his brow. I do not think our culture is ready to take on such noble ways of living. Look at Missouri: people from every political group in the country are rushing in to show they do not believe in equal rights' implementation. They are asking for what they have already. People are selfish. They use excuses to show their true colors, then hide behind a color they believe in when the excuses die down. This is true everywhere in the world.


What about minorities? Elderly? Maimed? Sick? We have programs to help those in need. Destroy that which is, and one had best have a way to replace it all. When the minority groups come expecting better treatment, what would one do?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Lark]

People need a roof over their head, food in their belly, a caring community around them and a purpose

Give them that and they'll be happy and healthy and THAT is true wealth

True wealth is not trying to make your neighbour feel insecure by buying a flashier car than them...thats the consumerism game that they want us to play and it makes everyone feel bad in the long run

This thread reminds me of the citizens dividend idea:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/citizens_dividends_to_capture_parliamentary_governments/

Citizen’s Dividends To Capture Parliamentary Governments

Citizen’s dividends—the replacement of all government transfer programs with a simple cash dividend paid equally to all citizens—is the single-plank political platform that can, in the present climate, be used by a minor party to capture control of virtually any parliamentary government in the West.
The rationale is simple: Immigrants are not citizens and they would be deprived of public benefits. This would be immensely popular. Moreover, it would “empower” the populace to fight for their “entitlement” to their own country in a manner far more effective than any “get out the vote” campaign.
The response by the political parties now in power—traitors that they are—would, of course, be to fast-track “a path to citizenship” for immigrants, but they would be doing so in an economic environment far from conducive to popular apathy toward such shenanigans.
This can’t work in the United States without the take over of one of the 2 major parties because of the way the electoral system works in the US. But in parliamentary governments, minor parties can get a foot in the door, as demonstrated by the recent EU elections. That’s all it takes because once this idea is aired in the halls of power, it will necessarily attract an enormous amount of attention from the usual suspects:
“Isn’t this racist? Isn’t this inhumane? Isn’t this xenophobic? What about refugees? Why should immigrants pay taxes if they aren’t going to get a citizen’s dividend?”
It would be wonderfully clarifying.
As for the economic effects, I’ll simply point out what should be fairly obvious by now: The current economic crisis is caused by centralization of wealth to the point that the populace isn’t simply impoverished, but is so deep in debt that the consumer base has collapsed. This was caused not by “easy money policies of the central banks” but by the subsidy of wealth built into any society that protects property rights by taxing economic activity. The would-be upwardly mobile pay the bills—not the recipients of the primary government service: protection of unnatural concentrations of wealth. Although it is true that this means the proper source of revenue for the citizen’s dividend would be a net asset tax on in place liquidation value—a tax that eliminates taxes on economic activity—it is not essential to political success that such a tax reform be another plank in the platform of the citizen’s dividend party. That change would come in due course as people were empowered to fight back against centralized wealth’s capture of government. However, once the tax reform is adopted, the populace would be very motivated to maximize the net in-place liquidation value of the nation’s assets. They will become keenly interested in the real externalities of immigration, graphically demonstrated in places like California. They might even start thinking other taboo thoughts about human ecology, sociology, economics and politics.
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 12:54 AM in Economics & Finance
Comments (17) | Tell a friend

It is similar to the citizen's dividend idea because they are both assets based welfare ideas.

The thing is with citizens dividends or citizen's wage ideas is that they can be cancelled at a stroke, the labout administration in the UK was in the middle of a massive, revolutionary I would say, restructuring of the welfare system with their baby bonds, which would mature at eighteen of the coming generation and constitute a replacement of state funded higher education for those that wanted it, capital for those who didnt want education or a consumer ticket for that portion of the population which will never know better but the bankster crisis ballsed that up entirely and when the conservatives stole the government with liberal support they wiped the whole thing out at a stroke and translated it into a big payment to the banks and their boardrooms.

The idea of inalienable property or assets I think is more radical and could actually make inalienable rights a reality rather than vague theory.

Some of the greatest ideas I've heard from the most unlikely sources have been Charles Murray's endorsement of citizens dividends or Samuel Brittan's writing from throughout the new labour period supporting the same, he cites a source which looks forward to a time when all citizens have at least three sources to support themselves assets, wages, capital rather than as it is at present were people rely exclusively upon one or the other and it reflects social class accordingly. It sounds like a good idea to me. Not as neat as most anti-capitalist schemas but you know.

 

[muir]

It is similar to the citizen's dividend idea because they are both assets based welfare ideas.

The thing is with citizens dividends or citizen's wage ideas is that they can be cancelled at a stroke, the labout administration in the UK was in the middle of a massive, revolutionary I would say, restructuring of the welfare system with their baby bonds, which would mature at eighteen of the coming generation and constitute a replacement of state funded higher education for those that wanted it, capital for those who didnt want education or a consumer ticket for that portion of the population which will never know better but the bankster crisis ballsed that up entirely and when the conservatives stole the government with liberal support they wiped the whole thing out at a stroke and translated it into a big payment to the banks and their boardrooms.

The idea of inalienable property or assets I think is more radical and could actually make inalienable rights a reality rather than vague theory.

Some of the greatest ideas I've heard from the most unlikely sources have been Charles Murray's endorsement of citizens dividends or Samuel Brittan's writing from throughout the new labour period supporting the same, he cites a source which looks forward to a time when all citizens have at least three sources to support themselves assets, wages, capital rather than as it is at present were people rely exclusively upon one or the other and it reflects social class accordingly. It sounds like a good idea to me. Not as neat as most anti-capitalist schemas but you know.

Perhaps you could post a break down of the ins and outs of it in the 'possible solutions to the worlds problems thread' as well?

There's also this which i think is similar:

European Citizens Initiative for an unconditional basic income

This is a campaign to get a million signatures to pressure for the creation of a annual payment of money to every citizen of the EU. if you live in the EU then sign the petition at the website below!

http://basicincome2013.eu/

[SIZE=+1]The Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) is a recurring, universal payment to everyone - as an individual right, without means test or any obligation to work or perform other services in return, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society. The current social security systems are demeaning and inadequate in addressing the roots of poverty. UBI would transform social security from a compensatory system into an emancipatory system, one that trusts people to make their own decisions, and does not stigmatize them for their circumstances.

If we collect one million statements of support for Basic Income from the 500 million inhabitants of the European Union, the European Commission will have to examine our initiative carefully and arrange for a public hearing in the European Parliament.[/SIZE]

 

[Eventhorizon]

Hmm, I dont really think its human nature and fact but anyway, I agree that its the prevailing norm at present, I also dont see what the problem is with it or at least I dont see how it invalidates the idea of an inalienable asset or property. If you want to use this example here, perhaps you could trade deeds but not revoke or dispose of deeds finally, you understand? You may not find yourself with no property but you need not find yourself with the same property, if that makes sense.

Its in the same field of ideas as assets based welfare, everyone by virtue of being born after the time the title deeds to "the earth", and I appreciate this is an abstraction, were passed out will receive a dividend as compensation for being deprived of their birthright.

However, its not a benefit like state benefits, you need to make use of it, its like the talents given to tenants in the bible, if people want to maximise their welfare they will do something with it rather than bury it in the ground but of course they can if they want, if they do the equivalent of this then they will subsist on their own "returns" and that'll be the end of it but they will have "means" of a kind to use as they want.

Its not about egalitarianism, which I think can be discussed as a social good or bad but is a different question, but it is about distribution and redistribution or maldistribution of resources in the economy. You cant play monopoly unless you all start with a share, even if the goal is that everyone end up with different shares by the end of it, you know?

I understand. Part of my point is this. Trading deeds... who dooled out the land in the first place? Why did I get land next to a trash dump when someone else got land in a nicer area? Who decides that? Why does person x get have art from x artist? What you say they traded services? Hmmm absent money it still sounds like capitalism.
I honestly dont see why people cant see this very simple concept in my mind. But it is what it is.

 

[Lark]

I understand. Part of my point is this. Trading deeds... who dooled out the land in the first place? Why did I get land next to a trash dump when someone else got land in a nicer area? Who decides that? Why does person x get have art from x artist? What you say they traded services? Hmmm absent money it still sounds like capitalism.
I honestly dont see why people cant see this very simple concept in my mind. But it is what it is.

In some ways I think the discussion should have moved on from talk about capitalism, at least in so far as an idea that some sort of gift relationship could replace economic transactions entirely or substantially, which seems to be the idea of most unreconstructed communists.

There's always been capitalisms rather than capitalism, the differences matter, one cant be easily substituted for another but the worse aspects of all of them can be shaved away I would say. Its not as easy as tax the rich and give the proceeds to the unemployed or state employees but its not impossible.

 

[muir]

The...i guess you'd call them 'libertarian capitalists' are coming up with all sorts of incredible ideas based around the internet

I'm not a capitalist but i can't help liking the sound of a lot of their ideas

For me the struggle is really one of centralised power v's decentralised power, so i can sympathise with the libertarian capitalists quest to wrestle power off the governments and decentralise it down to the people (but i am skeptical of ever eliminating poverty for as long as money exists...however there are degrees of poverty...)

So for exmaple they are talking about decentralising the internet away from central servers to take access away from the state and its instruments such as the NSA

Then they are talking about decentralising money away from the central bankers through crypto-currencies such as bitcoin (being the most famous one and the benchmark). i love the idea of crypto-currencies but i am wary because the long term plan of the globalists has always been to create a cashless society where people are micro-chipped (RDF microchip put into their hand) so that their digital money is stored on the chip.

Crypto-currencies do take power off the central banks but are also a step closer to that cashless society so its difficult to say at this stage if they are the silver stake needed to slay the monster, but the libertarians are going wild for them

Then there is the decentralisation of credit away from the banks through crowd funding (where the public funds projects and business start-ups instead of the banks)

There are decentralised market places such as 'the silk road' and decentralised payment methods and the manufacturing of goods is being decentralised through 3D printers

So in true anarchist style a new system IS emerging from the shell of the old which is very exciting to watch but i just hope it is not subverted by the powers that be

If we can get to a point where we can buy day to day goods easily using crypto-currencies and we can ditch the banks and the bankers and the government interference then we could create a very interesting free market situation all occuring spontaneously and arising organically from the internet