‘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.
For more information regarding the
Seldonian insights, please see --
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment