a 'fair' manifesto - survival of the just

Subtitle:

the Enlightenment; Gandhi & Marx vs. Rand; greed, plunder & rapine

Theme:

"Into every life a little socialism must fall."

Cooperation trumps confrontation.

Morality [1]:

"Do unto others ..."

"Do no harm."

Legality:

The 'basic' crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder.

Lying is an assault against integrity; lie2 -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives.[POD]

All cheating = rip-offs are theft; super/'windfall'-profits, crooked deals, depressed wages/conditions, etc..

War is murdering theft; violence is a resort of the IQ/morality/legality-challenged.

Status summary:

Starting possibly with Thatcher (Fraser was criticised for wasting time, so the theory must have been available '75+/-) we have been forced to endure a so-called 'free-market revolution,' comprised of neoliberalism + globalisation + resource-wars all foist upon us, often totally independent of the sheople's wishes. Proof: What the IMF *forced* upon so-called 'developing' economies was done to us apparently *voluntarily* by both political 'sides' i.e. in Aus by both Lib & Lab, more generally by so-called conservatives & progressives. More proof: Bipartisan *anything* = un- and anti-democratic; the voters even if fully & honestly informed (we're not) have/are offered *no* choice. Final proof: Thatcher's screech: "TINA!" = Totally, cruelly, maliciously wrong; of course there are alternatives.

Argument; what's needed:

'Correct' income distribution by a properly progressive income tax for individuals and an income/super-profit tax on corporations, an appropriate capital gains tax on all but the family home/farm & a gift/inheritance tax above a certain (not overly-generous) minimum. Where appropriate, reverse iniquitous privatisation(s).

Grounds: Thatcher's wily "There is no community, only individuals" means no dynasties either, let alone any 'free lunches'.

By all means, let the profit-motive rip (within reason, like not forcing anyone into deprivation), let the fat-cats keep their rather pointless scoring - but then recover all drastic excesses. Use the so-generated surplus to save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere (it's only 101% critical for our collective survival). Gated communities just won't/can't save anyone, once the climate well & truly crashes (see melting Arctic ice, already happening).

Thatcher's "TINA!" is wrong; money creation to be by the commune, all interest flows to the commune, commune creates the bulk + interest & 'gives' that interest-portion to the government. The government's spending on *required* services & *shared* infrastructure provides the mechanism for paying the private-sector interest-component, thus avoiding the 'compound interest' paradox. Inflation target is to be 0% and population across the world should be encouraged to steadily fall towards (or below) the sustainable level. 'Sustainable' must imply *no* mining (sooner or later), that will anyway be *forced* latest when exhaustion is reached.

Possible theory sources:

1. Michael Hudson (tax property)

2. Ellen Brown (community banks)

-=*=-

So-called 'free-market' systems are failing; the *non-duplicable* 'required/normal' utilities (water, sewage, elec./energy, comms = road, rail & airports + phone, new = internet) + health. *For profit* privatisations are leading - you might have guessed - to more profit and less (egalitarian) service.

Another name for these vicious 'free-market' processes is financialization (note: "makes economic rents (= rip-offs) possible"); all possible income-streams are being purchased with borrowed money up to their full carrying capacity - less the grossly excessive management overheads (obscene CEO & lessers' 'remuneration' packages.)

Another term for this is 'misallocation of resources,' and in a world of *guaranteed* limited resources any 'wastage' amounts to a crime, not to mention higher prices = super-profits being ripped off the 'lower levels' to add ever more to the fat-cats' already obscenely over-full cash-coffers.

The 'free-marketeers' (Randians?) may have some point pushing their profit motive, but IMHO they've gone totally overboard. The priority *must* be directed to egalitarian delivery of required services at the fairest price. Obviously, extracting profits from health-care means higher prices and/or lower service = inhumane nonsense (inhuman adj. brutal; unfeeling; barbarous. [POD])

What is so outrageous is that one could see the resulting mess coming - for example, they trumpeted that we had/were getting a 'consumer-led' economy, whilst simultaneously *reducing* the sheople's incomes by off-shoring etc, and depressing conditions on remaining jobs - a guaranteed contradiction. Similarly, by a) flogging off the sheoples' utilities, govt. income-streams were ditched, b) by cutting taxes (mostly off the rich), govt. income was further reduced, forcing govts. into deficit = borrowing, all the while viciously cutting services = reducing lifestyles. Now we have govts. in debt almost everywhere; a spiral to the bankrupt-bottom. How clever was/is that? TINA, indeed!

Following the expression "Fair go, ya mug!" the profits of our collective efforts (workers + bosses, 'investors') must be equitably shared.

Following the expression "A fair exchange is no robbery," prices must be fair, not hide externalities, and profits must be reasonable - or taxed away if not.

Following the expression "There's nothing new under the Sun," there's probably adequate theory already available to solve our problems, restore humanity's track towards the Enlightenment and a well-earned relax for the currently fat-cat-oppressed. Brown & Hudson have given us some tips, where's the rest?

-=*=-

Musing; why does any of this matter?

Some accuse critics of financialization (-> rip-off profits & the rich getting ever-more obscenely richer), of the 'politics of envy.' IMHO incorrectly, but much more: the current system is deliberately, maliciously ignoring the biggest problem we face, namely the excess-CO2 climate-change catastrophe which, so far lacking effective countervailing action, is getting *less* avoidable thus *more* inevitable; something *must* be changed. Otherwise, the (irrevocable) end coming up?

How ignominious, to be shoved over a cliff and down the gurgler, all for ever-more profits to the ghastly mega-greedy.

Fazit: Freedom is fine and required;

  "... be free,
be whatever you are,
do whatever you want to do,
just so long as you don't hurt anyone." 
[Haîr/my conviction]

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] From my side-bar, musing; morals:

"Do unto others ... " is both necessary and sufficient; 'enlightened altruism' works in any size group, providing the members unite to 'enforce' it. Just as eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - when those (human) parts cooperate. "Me, me me!" is a recipe for eventual disaster; any and all rippers-off must be rejected. Truth is more beautiful than brutal; lies are deployed only to deceive - all liars must be identified, and immediately thereafter any communication with such liars terminated. Note Lakoff-framing and avoid the negatives; merely conversing with a propagandist will extend his/her/its platform - simply point 'em out, then turn 'em off. Our future depends on eliminating most/all error and becoming strictly sustainable.