‘Dialectical Method’, version 4.1, by Karl Seldon, just posted to dialectics.info site.

 

‘Dialectical Method’, version 4.1,

by Karl Seldon,

 just posted to dialectics.info site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

 

FYI:  version 4.1 of a new text by Karl Seldon, entitled ‘Universal Algorithmic-Heuristic Categorial-Combinatoric Ideographical  Dialectical Method’, was posted today to the http://www.dialectics.info website. 

 

This is a substantially-expanded text, of ~ 211 pages, incorporating much breakthrough content that was not covered in the earlier versions.

 

Links –

 

Welcome to Dialectics.info

Applications(dialectics.info)

Universal_Algorithmic-Heuristic_Categorial-Combinatoric_Ideographical_Dialectical_Method_version_4.1_(dialectics.info)

 

 

 

For more information regarding the

Seldonian insights, please see --

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ Series, Episode 4, Draft Script -- ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’.

‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ Series,

Episode 4, Draft Script -- ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’.

An introductory episode has been recorded and posted to YouTube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4mJHJO3bMw

Episode 4: Pillar III -- ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’.

 

[Introduction] In this, 4th, episode, we introduce the 3rd pillar of ‘Generalized Equity’ and of ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’, which we have named ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’.

[Episode 4 Main Text: ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’ Overview.] This “Pillar” calls for a kind of ‘Public Venture Capital’.  It would enable capital-lacking workers to self-organize as ‘Citizens Stewardship Collectives’. 

  

Such a ‘Citizens Collective’ would, if underwritten by a ‘Social Bank’, receive the funds required to procure the means of production, etc., called for in that Collective’s Business Plan, and would thereby become a ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity Socialized Producer’s Cooperative’.

A good example of an existing institution that approximates this “Pillar” of ‘Generalized Equity’ is the Mondragon cooperative -- a worker-owned, international, highly-diversified producers’ cooperative.  

 

Each ‘Social Bank’ would itself also be a particular kind of -- democratically self-managed -- ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity Cooperative’, chartered by the Office of the popularly-elected National Custodian of Social Property.  

 

Such a ‘Social Bank’ would fund a Citizen Collective’s Business Plan if that bank so decided, by majority vote of its own member-owners.  The ‘Social Bank’ member-owners would tend to so vote if they found that the Collective’s Business Plan and By-Laws met constitutional and statutory requirements.  These would include requirements for internal democracy, including ‘recallability’ of elected managers.  The ‘Social Bank’ member-owners majority would also tend to vote to fund a Citizen Collective’s Business Plan if they also found that this Business Plan, and the resumes of its would-be ‘Citizen Stewards’ -- the member-owners of that Citizen Collective -- convinced them to risk their Social Bank’s own solvency by underwriting that Business Plan.  Thus underwritten, a ‘Citizen Stewardship Collective’ would become a ‘Citizen Stewardship Cooperative’. 

 

Each Steward member-owner of that Cooperative would enjoy two streams of monthly income -- an equal share in the net operating surplus of their Cooperative, and compensation for their time worked therein, in proportion to the value of their skills.  That value would be determined by market competition for citizens bearing such skills.  

 

This competition for workers would ensue among ‘Stewardship Cooperatives’, among remaining capitalist enterprises, and between ‘Stewardship Cooperatives’ and remaining capitalist enterprises.  This competition would help to place a floor beneath the capitalist “race to the bottom” in terms of the treatment and compensation of majority-class wage and salaried workers.  It might even promote a kind of “race to the top”, or at least a ‘race to hire/higher’.  In part, because the remaining capitalist firms would have to compete for workers with ‘Citizen Cooperatives’ in which the workers themselves democratically decide how they are to be treated.    

 

A Citizen Stewardship Cooperative would also compete, with remaining capitalist firms, and with other ‘Stewardship Cooperatives’, in its chosen product and/or service market or markets. 

If the Stewards in a given Cooperative were too easy on themselves, and/or not good enough to their customers, their Cooperative would likely fail, become insolvent, and be dissolved. 

 

Each ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity Producers’ Cooperative’ would hold its means of production, not in local ownership, but in Stewardship, as an in-kind loan or rental to them from and by their society.  Each ‘Stewardship Cooperative’ would therefore pay a monthly ‘Social Rent’ on those means of production.  This would incentivize economy in the use of means of production.  It would also help to finance the ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’ trust funds.  A fixed share of that ‘Social Rent’ would also form the main income of the Citizen Stewardship Cooperative’s underwriting ‘Social Bank(s)’.

 

 

The human right of ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity’ also constitutes a new constitutional property right.  It is a right of each citizen to “individual property” in the form of that citizen’s ownership of that citizen’s membership in the ‘Citizens Stewardship Collective’ which that citizen co-founded, or into the membership of which that citizen was later inducted, by super-majority vote of the then-existing members. 

 

When that ‘Citizens Stewardship Collective’ becomes a ‘Citizens Stewardship Cooperative’, that citizen’s right of membership entails the right to an equal share in the monthly net operating surplus of that Cooperative, and the right to work in and for that Cooperative, with fair compensation for that work. 

 

This “individual property right” in such membership would not be revocable, except by constitutionally-stipulated due process of law, including trial by a jury of peers.

 

Each ‘Citizen Stewardship Cooperative’, if found to produce externalities beyond the constitutional and statutory limits would also -- no less and no more than remaining capitalist enterprises found to produce externalities beyond those limits -- be required to determine its ‘annual externalities budget’ in negotiations with its internalized ‘Citizens Externality Equity Public Board of Directors’, as an aspect of the ‘Citizens Externality Equity’ constitutional human right/property right of all citizens. 

 

That Public Board would be elected by the citizen-public residing in the area of impact of the externalities produced by that ‘Citizen Stewardship Cooperative’. 

 

As with remaining capitalist firms, if those negotiations deadlocked, they would escalate for adjudication to the “nearest” ‘Tribunal for Externality Equity’ having jurisdiction for that area of impact.  That Tribunal would consist of elected, term-limited, and recallable justices, chosen by the electorate of their geographical area of jurisdiction.  The losing party would be required to pay all of the costs of the litigation, to discourage frivolous litigation.

 

 

[Announcer] Detailed exposition of these proposed three new constitutional human rights, new property rights, and new enabling social institutions, designed to support these “Three Pillars”, is the purpose of this series.  Future episodes will focus, in turn, on each of these “Pillars”, in more detail, as well as to their interactions and to their unity as a new socio-political-economic system.

 

 

                        SOME EXPECTED QUESTIONS, AND OUR RESPONSES.

We have stated, and responded to, key ‘FAQs’ we anticipate listeners and viewers will want answered.  We encourage you to send your actual questions, if not covered by these FAQs, incivilities excluded.

Expected Question: With regard to ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’;  suppose that a member of a ‘Stewardship Cooperative’ became totally uncooperative and/or disruptive within that Cooperative -- how would that problem be addressed?

Response:  The right of each Steward of a ‘Stewardship Cooperative’ to membership in the undergirding ‘Stewardship Collective’ would be an ‘Individual Property’ right, one that would not be revocable except by due process of law.  If a majority of the members of a given ‘Stewardship Collective’ voted to revoke a given membership, then that member’s ‘Individual Property’ in that membership would be revoked, but subject to appeal by the revoked member.  That revoked member could opt to appeal revocation to the ‘Tribunal for Stewardship Equity’ with jurisdiction for the principal locale of operation of that Cooperative.  The Justices of that Tribunal would be popularly elected by the Citizens of their jurisdiction, and would also be mandated, term-limited, and recallable by their electorate.  The losing party in the appeal would be required pay all of the court costs of that appeal.  If the revoked member disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision, appeal for a trial by a jury of peers would be an option.  Also, the Tribunal would not be limited to a “yes-or-no” decision on the revocation of membership.  If the majority of the Justices held that the revoked member and the rest of the membership were both partly at fault for the conflict(s) that led to the revocation, then the Tribunal could order the ‘Stewardship Collective’ to pay a fraction of that revoked member’s former share in the monthly net operating surplus of that ‘Stewardship Cooperative’ to that revoked member, while that Cooperative continued in operation, to the extent of that ex-member’s longevity.

The fraction ordered would reflect the Tribunal’s view of the proportion of culpability of the former member versus of the rest of the members for the conflict(s) that led to that membership revocation.

Expected Question: How might we implement some of these reforms on a smaller geographical scale, say at the scale of a single city, county, or state, so that they would be tested and perhaps thereby improved in detail for a scaling up ultimately to the national scale and beyond?

Response: ‘Stewardship Equity’ might be scaled down as a ‘Public Venture Capital’ fund, administered by municipal officials popularly elected for that task.  If this implementation developed a city-level critical mass of cooperative enterprises, then a similarly scaled-down version of ‘Citizens Externality Equity’ might also be implemented, with cooperative enterprises filling-in the gaps left by the expected flight of private and corporate capital in response to that local ‘Citizens Externality Equity’ implementation.  Without the support of new constitutional amendment and new federal statute law, such local implementations of ‘Citizens Externality Equity’ would likely come under attack by State Supreme Courts, and, ultimately, by SCOTUS.  Effective defenses against such attacks would be needed.

 

 

 

SOLUTION –

 

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’; 

 

BOOK:

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free of Charge Download of Book PDF --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

 

Hardcover Book Order --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

For more information regarding the

Seldonian insights, please see --

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ Series, Episode 3, Draft Script -- ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’.

‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ Series,

Episode 3, Draft Script -- ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’.

An introductory episode has been recorded and posted to YouTube: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4mJHJO3bMw

Episode 3: Pillar II -- ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’.

 

[Introduction] In this, third, episode, we introduce the second pillar of ‘Generalized Equity’ and of ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’, which we have named ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’.

[Episode 3 Main Text: ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’ Overview.] The ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’ “Pillar”, to be financed, primarily, from the proceeds of the other two ‘Pillars of Generalized Equity’, would make every child born, every new citizen, a de facto “Trust Fund Baby”, equipped with an absolutely portable, personal “social safety net”, regardless of which “side of the tracks” that baby was born into, or which employer(s) that adult citizen later works for.  A good example of a proposal that approximates this “Pillar” of ‘Generalized Equity’ is the recent “Baby Bonds” proposal.

 

The ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’ human right constitutes also a new, constitutional property right -- a right of personal property.  It is also surrounded by built-in “moral hazards” mitigations.  This is because that personal property is sourced in and converted from social property, property that belongs collectively to all citizens. 

 

By “moral hazards”, we mean perverse incentives that might unintentionally reward personally and socially destructive behaviors -- such as spending the social funds provided on illegal drugs.

 

In general, “moral hazard” is lack of incentive to guard against risks, and against the costs of those risks, because one is shielded from those costs by others, or by society as a whole.

 

Via ‘Birthright Equity’, society would ‘self-invest’ in every new citizen born, enough to give each new child the wherewithal for a socially supported decent start in life, regardless of the resources of that child’s birth family.

 

 

Thereby also, each new citizen would be more likely to feel valued by their society.  They would likely so feel because each would experience, by society’s grant to them of their ‘Birthright Equity Social Trust Fund’, material proof of their valuing by society, even if not by their birth family.  No child would be abandoned by their society, to fend for themselves, if they lacked parental support.  No child would be treated, as so often today, in a desperation-inducing and crime-breeding manner, as if the police, and as if society at large, would rather that they died young -- very young -- or that they were already dead, or that they had never even been born! 

 

And, each new citizen would thereby also have “skin in the game”; would have something to lose should they nevertheless turn to an anti-social life of crime.  That is, if convicted of a crime, by a jury of their peers, such a citizen’s ‘Birthright Equity’ trust fund would be liable for the cost of jury-determined reparations to their victims.  If that ‘Birthright Equity’ trust fund were to be exhausted by such reparations, for example, due to very serious and/or repeated victimizations of others, then such a citizen would have to fall back upon their own earnings and, in the last analysis, upon much more meager general social welfare provisions.

 

 

                        SOME EXPECTED QUESTIONS, AND OUR RESPONSES.

We have stated, and responded to, key ‘FAQs’ we anticipate listeners and viewers will want answered.  We encourage you to send your actual questions, if not covered by these FAQs, incivilities excluded.

 

Expected Question: With regard to ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’; how could our society possibly afford the gigantic cost of this ‘pillar of generalized equity’?  To provide the approximately 327 million U.S. citizens each with a Social Trust Fund worth as little as 10,000 dollars would cost 32.7 trillion dollars, while U.S. GDP is only around 22 trillion dollars annually?

 

Response:  Clearly, the transition to “full coverage” of access, for each citizen, to essential life-opportunities would have to be scaled-up over time.  We favor initially limiting coverage to each year’s increment of newly-born citizens, so that future generations are covered first.  With new births in the U.S. at around 4 million babies per year, an initial level of the ‘Birthright Equity Trust Funds’ at 10,000 dollars per birth would require funding of 0.4 trillion dollars per year.  To avoid opposition to a “redistributionist” funding of ‘Birthright Equity’, we also favor a plan which adjusts the level of coverage for new-born citizens in proportion to the growth of the flow of funds to the ‘Birthright Equity’ pool from ‘Citizens Stewardship Equity Social Rents’, and from ‘Citizens Externality Equity’ pollution fees and fines.  In this way, the new system would be largely self-funding.

 

Expected Question: With regard to ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’; how would it ensure that the ‘Social Trust Fund’ monies are not spent on frivolous or damaging forms of consumption?

 

Response: Desired expenditures from a citizen’s personal ‘Social Trust Fund’ would be applied-for by that citizen to the ‘Commission for Birthright Equity’, which, per its constitutional amendment and statutory guidance, could approve or disapprove that application.  That citizen would have standing to appeal an unfavorable decision by the Commission to the “nearest”  ‘Tribunal for Citizen Birthright Equity’ that has jurisdiction for that citizen’s locale of residence.  The Justices of that Tribunal would be popularly elected by the Citizens of their jurisdiction, and would also be mandated, term-limited, and recallable by their electorate.  The losing party in such an appeal would be required to pay all of the court costs of that appeal, to ‘dis-incent’ frivolous applications and resulting frivolous litigation.

 

Expected Question: What are some local examples that could evolve into ‘Citizens Birthright Equity’-like programs?

 

Response:  Examples include municipal, county, or State level “Baby Bonds” programs, and city-level Guaranteed Monthly Minimum Income legislation.

 

Expected Question: How might we successfully scale down from the concept of a national scale ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’ human right and property right, to, say, one at a municipal scale?

How might we fund such a scaled-down version of ‘Birthright Equity’, at that level of a single city, as distinct from how it would be funded if instituted on a national scale, together with the other two “Pillars”?  How might we preclude, with a municipal-level, scaled-down version of ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’, a “gold rush” of people crowding into a municipality that was testing that ‘Citizen Equity’ benefit, from other cities not offering any such ‘Citizen Equity’ benefits?

 

Response:  This is a difficult problem, in relation to existing constitutional and statute law, because it might involve breaches to the principle of the “equality before the law” of every citizen.  With a full national ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’ system, no citizen would be excluded from ‘Citizen Birthright Equity Social Trust Fund’ coverage.  But, on any smaller scale, given the right of citizens to free movement, and to taking up residence in new localities of their choice, such local ‘Birthright Equity’ benefits would involve exclusion of “outsiders” and “interlopers” from coverage, to avoid unjust exploitation of this ‘Citizen Equity’ benefit by them.   If the ‘Social Trust Funds’ were supplied via municipal-level taxes, at least each tax-paying resident of the municipality should have to be eligible, or at least each of their newborn children should be eligible, for a ‘Social Trust Fund’.  But if such ‘Social Trust Fund’ eligibility would accrue immediately to anyone who newly established residence in that municipality, a “gold rush” could be expected, in which non-residents would, perhaps only briefly, become residents, obtain their ‘Social Trust Fund’ monies, and then perhaps quickly move out of that city -- move on, or move back to the city from which they came.  This would likely lead to quick exhaustion of the ‘Social Trust Funds’ monetary wherewithal, and to its accrual mostly to citizens who were never real, contributing residents of that municipality at all.  But restricting access based upon, e.g., cumulative taxes paid to, or duration of residence in, that municipality, might run afoul of the principle of the “equality before the law” of all citizens, and be challenged in court.

SOLUTION –

 

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’; 

 

BOOK:

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free of Charge Download of Book PDF --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

 

Hardcover Book Order --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

For more information regarding the

Seldonian insights, please see --

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!