The Allocation of Land

“Buy land, they're not making it any more”

This Mark Twain quote is not strictly accurate as to the production of land but the sentiment is sound none the less. Reclaiming land from the sea is expensive and also finite. Land on other worlds will be of no use for many generations at least. Populations continue to grow, needing places to live and things to eat increasing the burdens on the land. Technology is also improving making labour more efficient thus increasing the surplus wealth in society. Even in a static population the increase in surplus wealth in society puts a greater demand on land for more production and more luxurious living. The value of land will continue to increase steadily for the foreseeable future.

Land is needed in order to have a place to live which is one of the most basic human needs. Food, cloths and warmth are all very cheap in comparison to shelter. Capitalist mechanisms for the allocation of land have many advantages but unfortunately also have a few concerns, the primary ones being socio-economic. High land and housing prices make the outright purchase of either impossible for most people in society despite it being requisite to those not being supported by parents, state or partners. This means most must either rent or loan, both of which increase the wealth gap in society and cause money to aggregate. With land being such a fundamental requirement for human existence it is the foremost issue to suitably resolve regarding the wealth gap, the economy and capitalism.

I believe people do have the right to privacy and should be afforded the ability within society to have place they can call home, far from Thomas Moore's utopian ideals. I believe it is economically and socially detrimental for a nation to use a system that requires rent or loans to obtain privacy or shelter. I also have some fundamental philosophical objections to the notion that an area of land can be owned in the same way objects can be, it has a similar feel to the idea of trying to claim ownership of a moment in time. I will propose a system which retains the benefits of capitalist land allocation that does not contribute to widening the wealth gap. This system will offer all the benefits of private property yet reflect my moral position on the ownership of land. To describe this system I feel I must first make an attempt to clarify and justify my position on land ownership.

Societies control areas of land we call countries, the further back in history you go the more the sizes of these areas diminishes. Territorial pack animals control much larger areas than individual territorial animals. It is the size and strength of the social organization that dictates the area of land it is able to have control over. Nations have grown in size with improvements to transport, communication, warfare and social systems. It is the entity we call society that could more reasonably claim ownership of the land contained within its borders than any individual member of that society. Certainly that society is well within its rights to allocate the land between its members as it sees fit, if the society elects a capitalist distribution method that is a perfectly reasonable distribution method. It is not the method of distribution but the concept of ownership I have an issue within this context. The capitalist system of land allocation assumes ownership by the individual rather than the society. The control of the land that the individual assumes belongs to them cannot rely on that individual and must always be dictated by the abilities of the society. Should the society collapse or become conquered by another nation any ownership of land by an individual is meaningless.

When society allocates land to individuals or businesses, by any mechanism one can conceive, it is a better reflection of reality to say that society has afforded priority of control and responsibility for that area of land to the individual rather than ownership. This view changes little in capitalist society and is almost an argument about semantics. The main use of this view of land ownership is to use it as a guide to develop alternate methods of land allocation. Systems tend to be most robust when they represent or mimic the naturally present forces and trends. The main aim of a land allocation system within a society should be to make the use of land as attainable to the masses as cloths, food and warmth are. The second aim of such a system is to stop it contributing to the wealth gap and the aggregation of wealth. The final and least pressing of aims is to have the system more clearly demonstrate a retention of state control of land used for private businesses and residences.

The system I shall propose cannot be implemented immediately in any capitalist society. This is not however a major concern as the route to making this a possibility is a pragmatic thing for any state to be doing. Communist states are in a better position to make the changes quicker but would still be wise to take some time in order to not hamper business and industry, particularly those under overseas control. The route a capitalist society would need to follow in order that they might adopt my system of land allocation is to purchase all the land within their borders. This would be expensive and so a small portion of the nations budget should be set aside for this purpose and done gradually. The land that the state purchases would then be rented by state to those who wish to make use of it. Bidding systems could be used in order to retain the capitalist mechanisms on the acquisition of land, however the rent paid would not widen the wealth gap but instead effectively reduce it. Rather than rent going to capitalists it would go to state and act most like a tax. Government spending is generally to the advantage of the poorest in society and thus any non-disproportional tax reduces the wealth gap. The state purchase and rental of land can occur alongside traditional capitalist land allocation methods and can happily progress over time to a situation where all of the land is owned by the state. I shall give an example to describe the details of state land rental where state has achieved total ownership of the land according to present capitalist systems with all residential and business plots sublet by state.

When an individual wishes to purchase a place to live in our example they chose from the currently available homes in the area they wish to live, much like the present system. They then place an offer on a home that is not a nominal figure but one per unit time, say a month. The previous owners select the bid they wish to take the home and the control of that piece of land moves from the previous owners to the chosen bidder (generally the highest). Let us say the new owner made a bid of £100 per month they are then entitled to priority control over the plot at exactly £100 per month, until they sell or die. Let us assume that the new owner lives there for a few years and makes good improvements to the property increasing its value before they come to sell and move on. When the property is put back on the market the difference on the buy and sell prices carries over with the individual. Let us say that the property sells the second time for £110 per month this means that state pays £10 per month on whatever property the seller next controls. This is an important mechanism to include with the bidding system as without it there is no incentive in society to maintain properties and could cause a gradual decline in infrastructure. This means it would have to work both ways, so if the new owner only managed to sell the property on for £90 instead of £110 they would then have to pay an additional £10 to state on the next property they occupied. Couples purchasing together would be able to combine their totals, should they split up they would split the modifier between them. Each person in this society must therefore have a personal running total representing their effect on property during their life. A high discount on rent implies a person has done much improvement in the places that they have lived in.

When a person dies their accrued discount or otherwise should die with them so as to avoid a new inheritance based mechanism increasing the wealth gap. This is not to say that a family home cannot remain in the family however. Upon the death of a property controller the plot is put up for auction, the persons named in the will or the next of kin are then allowed to match the highest new bid and retain the property. The old owners running subsidy would be gone but the new owners subsidy would apply to the newly determined rent.

Although all persons would be renting where they live and work from state they would be offered all the same privileges of ownership. The property is entirely under the control of the most recent bid winner and they can do all the same things one can now with their homes. Paying ongoing rent rather than a lump sum while retaining effective ownership enables people with no capital to get on the property ladder and gain benefit from improvements made. This is the main social benefit of the system however the profits of the land flowing to state rather than capitalists is also of huge economic and social value.

While this solution is simple and elegant for private residences it does not translate quite so well in to the business model. The main difference between the two is that people live reasonably similar lengths of time, always finite, while businesses are able to exists as long as the society does. The value of money changes over time, as does the value of land irrespective of improvements made to the specific property. The longer a place is occupied by the same residence with the same fixed rent the greater chance there is that the rent paid does not reflect the actual value of the property. When costs are not reflective of value the economic system becomes distorted. Averages, self interest, common sense, scale and finite life expectancy mean that the changes of value over time are not a social or economic problem for private residences. Businesses and industry however can, and do, often exist for longer than people, and if occupying the same plot have greater chances of distorted value compared to rent. The scale of businesses and industry is also generally much greater than individuals and thus have a much greater impact on the economy. It is for these two reasons that the allocation of land must be subtly different for private residence and business.

The most obvious solution is to set a time period for the rent a business pays to control a plot. This would mimic the finite life span of people and also be more predictable. They could be much shorter on average (compared to life expectancy) thus allowing the economy to be smoother due to more small adjustments. The issue with forcing businesses to re-auction their premises every number of years is the foul play it enables for competitors. It is always costly to relocate and as such if a competitor makes an appropriate bid that is lower than the cost of relocation but greater than what is presently paid they will, at no cost to themselves, cause harm to the other. While underhand it is the sensible play in businesses terms and will therefore occur. It would either make rents for business plots to artificially inflate or it would cause a lot of needless relocation. Both of these costs incurred by industry ultimately falls on the people in society.

My solution to remove the incentives for industry to act in a socially detrimental manner is unfortunately quite vague as it resides in the politics of the society. I would suggest a political, ideally democratic safe guard over industry. Essentially companies still rent premises for a predetermined period at a set price. Rather than be forced to re-auction after the period is up, even with priority on retention with a matched bid, the business would only be required to do so should a political body require it. Clearly this could allow corruption with payments made to politicians to allow a property to be kept at a below real value rent. This however is a problem of the political system rather than the allocation of land and need not be an issue with appropriate changes made there.

Assuming therefore that an unbiased political choice could be made with the aim of benefiting society by those who are effected by the industry, either the radius of their workforce or catchment area for the services they offer etc, companies are provided a safeguard against aggression from their competitors. Companies that are seen to enhance the local communities will not often be required to re-evaluate the terms of their rent. Those companies that are getting a good deal on their property will work harder to retain it and thus act as a rebalance on the economy.

With companies we do not need worry about those who stand to lose on their properties as that is what capitalism is all about. Those companies that make poorer choices and suffer financially for them are less likely to survive leaving better companies in society that offer better, cheaper services. For individuals this is worse, a person who lives in an area where the prices of property fall will be burdened with extra costs on all their future homes should they choose to move. This is similar to negative equity in present capitalist land ownership systems. The inflation of money eases the burdens on people in these situations which is fine for now. I believe the economic system that serves society best runs at a very low rate of deflation for the majority of time. This claim requires epic justification for which now is not the time. It does however pose more of a problem for those people living in areas that lose value than an economy under inflation which is relevant to this essay. As I believe in both deflation and this method of land allocation I need to make some provision for those who are unfairly penalized as a result of the combination of my two beliefs.

I have been having great difficulty in fully grasping the economic outcome in a society where state owns all the land if it were to reduce the rents on land across the board by a percentage. I would be most interested to hear any additional or alternate views regarding this thought experiment. This is my current prediction: Obviously government then has less income if it reduces rent on land and must be able to support that for it to be practicable. The effects on government are like any present government tax cuts and need no further discussion, I'm quite sure suitable literature on the subject exists should one wish to read more on the matter. More interestingly the velocity of money would increase as both people and companies have more disposable capital from the reduced rents. An increase to the velocity of money is a factor that causes inflation with more immediate demand for goods and services that may be unavailable. Paradoxically however the value of land falling in relation to all other things implies that the same quantity of money is able to purchase more than before. When money increases in value it is deflating in nominal terms assuming other factors remain constant. I am inclined towards an overall inflation occurring should the price of land be reduced as the deflationary mechanisms seem spurious. No real value has been added to the society at any point, no new technologies have been created to improve the efficiency of labour or the use of materials which are the only real ways of increasing value within a system. The state has less money and the public has more if rents on land are reduced, which is a movement of value but not a change in it. As such I feel as if the overall outcome of a reduction of the rent on land by state initially causes inflation (although it will depend somewhat on how state affords the reduction) as the economy speeds up, company profitability increases and demand is greater than supply. This however is just a period of readjustment for the societies economy and will neither last all that long or be a permanent alteration. As some of this new wealth in the private sector is reinvested to meet the new demands the various prices will fall again as the supply is greater and the production methods are improved. After the initial surge will follow a culling of the companies that failed to make use of the injection of capital to improve leaving things in a fairly similar way to how they were before the rent reductions.

This period of readjustment will last for longer than it takes for the value of land to return to a similar value relative to other commodities in society as it were prior to the reduction. After a reduction in rent, the value of land being lower relative to other commodities will encourage businesses to expand to larger premises and people to move. This demand on land will increase the value of it thus quickly returning it to the original relation of values. The difference is that state will be paying a much greater subsidy to all those paying rent than before as almost all new rents would be greater than old rents for moves made during the transition. This being the case the rents will continue to rise to point above the original as people can afford to pay higher costs with their larger subsidies. The final equilibrium point is not when land value return to their original value in nominal terms but when state is gaining the same revenue in relative terms from the point at which the rent reduction was made. The subsidies offered by state last only as long as the person or the business and therefore have a tendency towards zero. This means when state land rental subsidies are high land will slowly deflate in value as the subsides fall. During this period state will be gaining the same income from the rent of land but both rent and state subsidy will fall and it will last roughly as long as average life expectancy.

The whole transition from start to finish will take somewhere in the region of fifty to a hundred years, most of which will be the end phase where government income from rent is constant yet nominal rents deflate (assuming other factors are interfering) alongside most other commodities. The first portion of the transition will be the state reduction in rents causing inflation in society and a much greater inflation specifically on the value of land which continues over a few years to the point at which state income from rent is equal to what it was prior to the reduction. As a way to stimulate an economy sparing use of rent reductions seem a very sensible approach as they self regulate and have a very long gradual recovery period. The government cannot however artificially control the value of land as the market will always readjust to what the correct value is according to other commodities. The more a government tried to resist this readjustment the greater the economic consequences.

The main uses for altering the rents on land is to stimulate an economy (or perhaps rein an out of control one in) and to ease the burden on those people unfortunate enough to be trapped in their present residence while losing value. By changing the rent on land the economy is moved out of equilibrium meaning that it will be less stable, the more drastic the changes the greater the instability, which is detrimental to society. I think therefore in a society where state owns the land and rents the use of it to people and companies it is wise to reduce rents by a small percentage either to offset a large ( greater than a percent) deflation or when people are feeling trapped in their homes. It is somewhat playing with fire and needs appropriate caution, a much better all round solution to negative equity is a general improvement of social conditions. Lower crime, higher minimum wages and employment serve to help preserve and increase the value of the cheapest areas.

While I spent rather longer than intended examining the consequences of reducing rents on all land within a society it is an interesting economic tool that may have many applications. A state that owns all the land and rents it to the population will gain huge revenue from that and may need no other taxes. It might transpire that a system as such is entirely self regulating and allows the nation to tax themselves accordingly simply by where they elect to live. Interesting options open up for state budget management and tax rebate mechanisms if revenue is drawn from rents as well as income taxes and other traditional sources. All very interesting these fanciful economic systems may be they are of no practical relevance now, regardless of how well they may theoretically work. The relevant potion of this essay regarding present economics is the advice for government to invest in land wherever it has spare capital to invest, this is sensible in the long term and ultimately allows for the capacity to adopt my land allocation system should these ideas be sufficiently convincing.

Is Organized Crime of Benefit to Society?

Organized crime is often cited as the worst form of criminal activity, more so than petty crime or crimes of passion. Rather than extol the virtues of organized crime this essay will be looking at the assumptions people make regarding it and determining their validity. Before proceeding any further I feel a disclaimer is required as I have no experience of actual organized crime. Much of my understanding of the topic is inferred from works of fiction such as Shantaram, The Wire, Sons of Anarchy and so forth. The limitations and more fantastical elements of these fictions are appreciated and so I shall construct my arguments based on logic and common sense rather than observation.

Organized crime is essentially the application of economies of scale to criminal activity. Pack animals work together so that they can catch bigger prey, too large to tackle alone, that offer more returns for their labours than more manageable small prey. While petty criminals might resort to mugging people on the street, such activities do not provide efficient returns to organizations in much the same way that prides of lions don't hunt rodents. It is logical to assume therefore that organized crime only exists in order to perform more complicated or taxing crimes that offer greater returns. The greatest returns are always to be found in areas of higher wealth density, stealing from the rich is more profitable that stealing from the poor. Generally I think it is reasonable to assume that those people who are criminals are more likely to come from poorer backgrounds and more likely to remain in poverty if not involved in crime. While neither of the suggestions that organized crime target the wealthy, nor that criminals are initially poor are universally accurate they are the trend and thus from an overall point of view do form the basis of a valid argument. The argument is simply that organized crime acts as a wealth redistribution mechanism.

Although a narrow wealth gap is certainly advantageous to society it is not the case that this is independent of how it is achieved. Crime of any form can also be obviously detrimental to society and so comparing the benefits of a small wealth gap and offsetting the drawbacks of organized crime is essential before this may be used as a sensible argument in favour of organized crime. Being so driven on a goal, such as a narrow wealth gap, that one turns a blind eye to the manner in which that goal is reached is a treacherous path to tread. I see no sensible way to make a meaningful comparison of the pros and cons of this argument and so the only conclusion that may be drawn is that organized crime has both advantages and disadvantages in society. Nothing may be said regarding the overall benefit, or otherwise, to society that these facets incur.

Criminals are what society constitutes as the spectrum for immorality, excepting infidelity. The terms immoral and moral are misguiding in the sense that they appear as if they should be directly opposed. Amoral and moral are in reality more akin to direct opposites of each other. The amoral person is very rare and I believe the result of biological differences to people with morals and empathy. Those we label as immoral simply have values that lie outside those considered to be socially acceptable by the majority of persons. Morality is a socially democratic and culturally evolved phenomenon. This is because although morals can based on certain principles, such as freedom, without a predetermined foundation no absolute morality can be defined. Criminals can be relied on about as much as a law abiding citizen to have some degree of morals, albeit differing ones. This does not however make criminal activity moral or acceptable in society. What it does say is that criminals will be motivated by codes of conduct and their personal moralities, which in turn tend to be close approximations to the associated criminal culture and thus similar to their peers.

In organized crime much of the ethical codes arise from protecting the interests of the organization. A criminal organization is best protected when it minimises the number of enemies it has and the number of crimes it performs. It is also wise for a criminal organization to be trusted, feared, respected and secretive. They are all ways of reducing the risks associated with larger scale criminal activity. Some of these desirable criminal interests can be good for society and others much less so. The less desirable aspects are the shows of strength through violence and intimidation which I will come to in a moment.

First however I shall discuss some of the ways in which criminal organizations can reduce their risks while also benefiting society. The IRA in their prime are not really in the scope of this essay as they were politically motivated rather than profit motivated. They do however provide a good non-fiction example of interaction between society and those outside the law, yet not without morals. The IRA needed public support and as such could not succeed if they alienated the public. They were able to offer a vigilante policing service to communities that is a far more effective deterrent against petty crime than conventional policing methods. A low chance of a small prison sentence compared with a high chance of having ones knee caps shot for dealing drugs is significant! Policing communities is an effective strategy for any criminal organization to adopt as it is something the state is unable to compete with. An area free from petty crime draws less attention from the authorities but more importantly is the acceptance of the local residents which reduces the chances of people alerting the authorities or standing as witnesses. Petty crime heavily affects communities where as most organized crime will be targeted at organizations (legitimate or otherwise), high worth individuals and controlled markets. Organized crime constitutes a much greater value of the total profits from crime than petty crime. This may make it seem like a greater priority for police to target than petty crime however I would strongly argue that petty crime causes greater overall suffering for the public. An increase in organized crime should come with a reduction in petty crime and thus an increase in the general quality of life. This is a trend at best however and cannot be relied upon, particularly given the scale of some of the atrocities caused by organized crime.

Reducing other crimes is probably the most advantageous thing a criminal organization can offer a community but it is certainly not the only beneficial thing that they can do in order to keep their enemies and profile low. Most of these are the sorts of things normal citizens do in order to make social relations easier and do not need detailed examples to be appreciated. The aspects of criminal ethos that are intimidating, destructive or violent initially appear to be very bad for society. Generally however these acts are intended for the competition and crime targets rather than all and sundry. The competition for organized crime is only really other criminals as legitimate businesses are playing a game with different rules. The aspects of organized crime which are most feared by the lawful public are those which are mostly aimed at other criminals and criminal organizations. The fact that organized crime may help reduce petty crime has been discussed, the fact that organized crime is self regulating to some extent and tends to avoid harming lawful citizen is reassuring but certainly no argument in its favour.

My last point of discussion is the services which organized crime offers to society. Generally the services afforded from organized crime are unlawful such as trade in controlled substances and merchandise or gambling and prostitution. I will debate the morality of these industries in detail in a later essay as they are of great social importance. It is clear at least that there is a demand for these commodities and services within society. I tend to view crimes as those things which hurt others or reduce their freedoms, certainly these kinds of act are more detrimental to society than paying for sex or taking illegal drugs from a material or economic view point. Whether it is right or wrong, organized crime provides desired services to society. The proportion of people in society who wish to make use of the services of organized crime does not really matter in making an argument for those services to be available, provided they do not negatively impact on others. If one can produce a valid argument in favour of an illegal trade or service then one has also found a valid argument in favour of organized crime. Organized crime is only one solution to a demand in society for an illegal trade or service, state sanction is a much more pragmatic approach if such an argument can be made.

Having explored three areas in which organized crime is not as bad as it may appear in social terms I have still failed to find any solid arguments in favour of organized crime within society. My three main arguments are the reduction of the wealth gap, the providing of otherwise unavailable services and a reduction in petty crime. All other points made were simply illustrations of how certain aspects of organized crime are not as bad as generally perceived. 'Not as bad' still implies some degree of bad and is thus no argument in favour of organized crime. The three main points can all be advantageous to society but each may also be achieved via alternate lawful routes. I must conclude therefore that organized crime is not a thing that is always beneficial to society. It may be fair to suggest however that organized crime is less detrimental to society than petty crime which is still a surprising conclusion to draw. I would firstly justify this with the differences in wealth redistribution properties between organized crime and petty crime, and secondly with a utilitarian view on human suffering with a strong emphasis on valuing lawful citizens quality of life.

The only point at which I could argue that organized crime is a positive thing for society is when that society is suffering a collapse. When government lose control it is only the morality and structure of criminal organizations that will prevent society falling into total anarchy. When it is every man for themselves the criminal organizations are the only remnants of civilization. As such, what criminal organizations achieve is a counter balance or negative feed back mechanism on a decline in civilization. This is another surprising conclusion to draw and hopefully something that will not have to play a part in the continuation of civilization. It is most useful when the argument is turned around as it shows quite clearly the best methods by which all crimes to make profit can be reduced in society, petty and organized alike. A narrow wealth gap and minimal restrictions on commodities and services within a society are the most effective ways to target the causes of crime. It stands to reason that if organized crime is a negative feedback mechanism that operates on the decline of society, one will reduce the level of organized crime by reducing those things that it operates as a counter measure to. Targeting the causes of crime in society is in turn is a more effective way to reduce crime than by catching and punishing individual criminals which is essentially ones aim by increasing police budgets. Like dentists always say, prevention is better than repair.

While I have offered no moral arguments for the legalization of any restricted commodities a very practical argument has been made where one assumes that members of society will find ways to do what they want to. With that being the case it is better to provide some form of sanction so as to reduce criminal activity otherwise supporting that demand. Additionally a state sanction allows for support, consistency, tax revenue and monitoring all to improve the overall affect of that commodity on society. As for the merits of a reduced wealth gap, I believe one can relate back all social ills to a large wealth gap to a reasonable extent. Discussion on each social issue as a justification on a narrow wealth gap would be significantly larger than this essay currently and is a prevalent theme throughout my writings (perhaps with bias resulting from my socialist views) . For the purpose of this essay we can assume that a narrow wealth gap (to a point) is a socially good thing and as such is an ideal candidate for a plan specifically aiming at reducing organized crime.

While I never seriously thought there could be a case supporting organized crime within society I wished to do this article to illustrate the advantages of logically analysing systems instead of ascribing to general assumptions regarding those systems. Primarily in this case it is the discovery of a logically consistent mechanism by which organized crime can be reduced in society that, while coming to many of the same conclusions as other arguments, approaches the subject from an opposite direction, like reversing a mathematical equation. By reaching the same conclusions from different reasoning paths one can doubly validate an argument.

Sustainability

Sustainability is the third and final fundamental principle upon which my visions of utopia are based on. Freedom relates to the individual and equality relates to the whole collective of individuals, both of which are human factors. Sustainability is the only non-human factor that is needed, largely because the scope of sustainable practices is huge. Sustainability protects the environment in which the society resides and draws its sustenance from, which in the current global economy, with present industry practices, is the whole planet. It is far easier to make an argument for the necessity of sustainability within society by defining unsustainability. Any recurring process which is not sustainable must cease to occur with the passage of enough time. It is as simple as that. I shall return to a quote I have previously used from Bertrand Russell;

"To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationship, it will be essential to recognize the necessary limitations of men's power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other."

Russell is very clear in this statement in the difference of importance between limitations on an individuals freedom over the environment and individuals freedom over each other. The former is essential while the latter is only desirable. To appreciate the gravity of this statement I shall remind the reader that laws against rape and murder are the present manifestations of the desirable limitation. To Russell, well before peak oil was even predicted, conserving our environment was far more important than preventing rapes and murder. This seems cold or perhaps immoral, largely this is my fault in how I have chosen to analyse the sentiment to illustrate my point. It is however both the utilitarian and the pragmatic approach, and I entirely agree with Russell. As time progresses and more of the unsustainable human processes are forced to cease, human existence will tend towards a far more primitive existence capable of supporting far fewer persons. In these terms the loss of billions of people and the further loss of all those persons potential progeny clearly outweigh the ill deeds we do to each other, not to mention the reduction in quality of life for those who remain. How society would revert is hard to imagine and would certainly be a gradual uncertain transition. This inability to truly conceive or appreciate the ramifications of continued unsustainable action is largely to blame for the popular view not being more in line with mine and Russell's.

In reality we have always on the clock as the sun will pose many problems for us. The sun's expansion is likely to make the Earth too hot for life in around a billion years, for which fantastical solutions exist such as altering our orbit with asteroids. After that hurdle the sun will burn out it another four to eight billion years removing the energy source for life. Even if we had the technology to move the Earth and provide sufficient power to fuel it or resettle the populace on other worlds it is all just a game of prolonging the inevitable entropy death. No fuel is entirely renewable, a perpetual motion machine is impossible. Solar power is called renewable as we shall have access to it for significantly longer than fossil fuels. The same is true of nuclear fission and even the holy grail of fusion, both still require raw materials to work. Their relative abundance and power yields are just many many orders of magnitude greater than those we call non-renewable energy sources. They are more sustainable than the alternatives which is really the aim when finding power sources. So much so that they could last until the more cataclysmic issue of the Sun. A sustainable practice is therefore one that can continue to occur at the same rate for longer than is relevant.

Such a ridiculously long way into humanities future is impossible to account for with understandings and capabilities both likely to be utterly different from those now. Logically the solution is to base present actions on current technology and understanding and consider shorter more practical time frames upon which to measure sustainability. A thousand years is a very long time in terms of human civilization but tiny in terms of ecosystems. It is still a fairly reasonable figure to use to look at the sustainability of human action as it lies between the two elements. As complete sustainability is impossible to achieve the goal is improving the sustainability of thing relative to what ever the current level is, making processes able to continue for longer. As relative sustainability is the only real measure, a nominal figure serves to align the units and make them sensible, it also sets a realistic bench mark to aim for initially.

Say fossil fuels used at the present rate would last for 100 more years they would have a 0.1 measure of sustainability (as in this process can continue for 0.1 of 1000 years before it must cease), compared to say solar power which has at least 1,000,000 on the same scale. Sadly the two are not directly comparable as solar can only really provide electrical power, not plastics or a transportable, reliable fuel.

When looking at specific industries many factors can be ignored. The felling of the rainforest for timber is mostly an unsustainable process as the forest is unable to regrow. The cutting down of every tree in a large area has a measure of sustainability of about 0.05 to 0.5 based on current timber consumption and rainforest area as these are the limiting and relevant factors. Although fossil fuels are widely used within the process and therefore add to the unsustainability of the overall process they are not the aim of that industry. The responsibility to make machinery and electricity sustainable rests with the industries who produce them more than those who use them. If we were to also consider the use of fossil fuels in the acquisition of timber we would not be able to give it a value much greater than 0.1 as that is the value we gave to the sustainability of fossil fuels. A process is only as sustainable as the least sustainable part of the overall process. This means that the most important issues to address are the least sustainable ones, processes which have values in the vicinity of solar power are not worth any immediate attention at all and are of a lower priority than colonising space or relocating earth! Much like quality of life within society the optimal way in which to improve sustainability is by raising the bar across the board. Society is best when no citizens fall below a ever rising bar for quality of life and when no process falls below an ever rising bar for relative sustainability.

There are a number of different ways to look at the sustainability of processes. Quantity of stuff and rate of consumption of the stuff provide for a reasonable approximation in the most severe cases. Whatever the stuff in question, it will also have a rate of formation. When the rate of consumption is a significant number of orders of magnitude greater than the rate of formation it is reasonable to consider that stuff to be a static stock pile. The rainforest can regrow if only a few trees are taken here and there, at which point the rate of consumption could equal the rate of natural formation and no replanting measures would need to be taken. The rate of consumption is the most relevant figure in looking at sustainability, not the actual quantity of stuff. This immediately gives two ways to tackle a sustainability concern, either by reducing consumption or increasing the rate of formation. This assumes that the problem is the loss of a useful resource rather than the propagation of harmful substances, such as processes which evolve carbon dioxide that above certain levels harms the environment. While this is essentially just the reverse of the the previous example it does allow for different approaches. We cannot really increase the rate of natural formation of fossil fuels, nor reasonably create them ourselves in an efficient way and as such are options are to find an alternative or reduce consumption. With carbon dioxide we can tackle the problem by reducing emissions via alternatives or consumption reduction or by directly removing the compound. The latter example is considered far less often as it is more fantastical but it does offer some significant advantages over reduced consumption or alternatives, both of which can cause uncomfortable social transitions and a reduction in freedom and quality of life. Imagine if we engineered a cell which could produce oil as a bye-product and consumed abundant resources such as sunlight to do so. This could solve much of the problems linked to a shortage of fossil fuels but would not tackle the pollution issues. By removing the pollutants in a separate process (perhaps also using engineered cells) rather than trying to reduce their formation we would be able to take full advantage of fossil fuels without any concerns for the environment thus increasing freedoms. Our broader options for these situations are to not damage the environment, or repair the damage that we do.

Recycling is a way to effectively increase the rate of formation of something which is being used. This works very well with substances like steel, acceptably well with some plastics and not at all with fuels used to obtain power. In the latter case you would always need more energy to undo the process than it can yield and therefore achieves less than doing nothing. With plastics it is often more expensive to recycle them than to simply use fossil fuels to make more. This will become less cost effective as supplies run lower and increase the economic viability of recycling. One of the few reasonable uses of subsidy and tax incentives which interfere with free market economics is to increase the viability of recycled commodities produced from finite raw resources. Reusing materials is a way in which consumption can be allowed to sustainably exceed natural formation of the raw material and should be encouraged where ever it makes environmental sense to do so.

Capitalism will eventually come to the aid of unsustainable practices but only when supply cannot meet demand, which can occur long after an unsustainable process starts. As so much infrastructure is based on the use of fossil fuels capitalism may be a little late in finding an alternative. It is hard to predict exactly how global society will transition out of a reliance of fossil fuels, we may adapt seamlessly with new technologies or chaos could ensue and put humanity back severely. Capitalism can be relied upon to achieve the best solutions for public demand but not to ensure the fundamental things upon which society relies without some action from state. Even if capitalism does offer a smooth transition out of fossil fuel usage there are many other unsustainable processes occurring which are either important to society or detrimental to the environment. Is it wise to leave all of the foreseeable and unforeseeable sustainability problems till the last minute? Capitalism is amazing at what it does but the mechanism by which it works is not responsive enough to offer the best chances to society. Fortunately it is quite practicable to use fiscal regulation to kick start the workings of capitalism at the beginning of any unsustainable practice. The difficulty lies in getting a global consensus, or even enough nations to make a difference (and be able to support humanity better when the forced decline of a process does cause social turmoil). Nations should lead by example both in nuclear disarmament and sustainable practices, even if one makes little practical difference the social effect would be far more significant.

I will offer now a brief summary of the technical aspects of sustainability as the ideas read a little disjointedly and lack emphasis on the main points. Society will ultimately be forced into changing all of its unsustainable processes. Capitalism offers a good mechanism to find alternatives but given the potential gravity of the changes and the nature of capitalisms solutions it is unwise to rely on this alone. The best way to implement a more sustainable system of processes is to target the least sustainable on a continual basis, thus ever increasing the overall sustainability in society with sensible priority. This can be done with subsidy on sustainable alternatives and taxes on those who continue to produce unsustainably, this can mimic the environment and the future desires of people contributing their choice to the free market. Sustainability does not have to make living more arduous and constrained, rather than seek to prohibit or make unaffordable any unsustainable activity it is possible to employ labour to undo the detrimental effects of unsustainable processes. If pollutants are removed rather than never being created the end result is the same yet the former offers many more options. As we cannot achieve perfect sustainability we must set an arbitrary level of acceptable sustainability, such as the millennia I previously used, which should also continually raise as the least sustainable practices improve. This arbitrary level would be the point at which a process could be described as sustainable, this would hold little meaning but be useful as a technical description. Sustainability needs to be considered as individual processes and not in terms of a company or even an industry (while industries tend to have one main process they all really use many other smaller processes), the main example of this which is to be found in almost every industry and company is the burning of fossil fuels in combustion engines. Those who make use of the process should incur a tax penalty and those who offer alternatives a subsidy (assuming it is a sensible alternative).

With the technical aspects of sustainability looked at we can move on to a justification for making it a social aim. Society is there to serve the best interest of those who live within it. Taking measures to increase sustainability is unlikely to be in the best interests of those living in the society at that time. I wouldn't like to guess at the ratio of people who deeply care about things after they die compared to those who are indifferent about events after their death. In a perfect democracy if those indifferent to posthumous events are the majority then, if no compromise were possible, you could reasonably argue against any process that could be achieved more efficiently but less sustainably. I would like to think that a majority of people do care about the future of humanity and the planet, but relying on this good will alone could easily be too little too late and just not a risk worth taking. I believe you can justify the enforcement of sustainable practices within society, if not strictly for the good of individuals within the society but for the entity which we define as society as a whole.

Firstly, a society is not a disposable thing. We have disposable nappies and containers, disposable gloves and contact lenses, paper towels and so forth. We do not however have disposable cars because of the work and resources required in their creation. Society is the largest thing that humanity has created, even if not in quite the same manner as a car. To design a society with a shelf life seems like a very poor effort. Why go to the trouble to do things differently if you will need to go through all that trouble again when you are forced into doing things differently? My foremost objection to Plato's republic is not the assumption that people need herding like sheep, which I do still find abhorrent in light of my human fundamentals and rather arrogant. My objection is simply Plato's admission that his social system was destined to fail after a period of time. Sustainability of resources and the environment were not a concern in that era yet Plato failed even to create sustainable systems of governance. Given two similar options of any commodity in both price and function one will always sensibly choose the one that will last longest. Choice of society is no different to choice of commodity. Obviously in this case we have already asserted that sustainability comes at the cost of freedom and luxury and thus the societies cannot be exactly the same rendering the thought experiment less meaningful.

A better analogy is two tools, both perform the same role yet one is much better engineered and consequently more expensive to purchase. Assuming you will continue to require this tool then it is always best to pay more for the better product if the ratio of the two costs is lower than the ratio of their shelf lives.

Tool A costs $10 and will last 5 years while Tool B costs $25 and will last 50 years. To use tool A costs $2 per year while tool B only costs 0.5$ per year.

A completely sustainable society could last indefinitely in principle and by this same logic would make almost any immediate cost worth paying. The problem with the logic is that the user of the tool is analogous to the entity we are calling society (independent of the systems it may operate) rather than the people within it. While sustainability is demonstrably better for the mystical entity society it cannot be shown to always be the case for those living within it at that time.

My moral argument to relate this issue to people rather than a system uses the principles of equality and freedom, the two human fundamental factors upon which my utopia is based. If present society consumes a stockpile of natural resources then the ability to use those things in the future becomes impossible. This removes a freedom from future inhabitants of the society, it also means that there is inequality of opportunity as the ability to do things changes over time. One could argue that unforeseeable events can also alter the levels of freedom and equality between members of the same society at different points in time and so why bother with the effort of sustainable practices. That kind of logic is akin to killing yourself now as you will eventually die anyway. The notion of certain things being outside our control is accurate but it does not then follow that we shouldn't pay attention to those things we can affect.

The trouble with a justification for sustainability in society which is based on the equality and freedom of future generations within that society is that it places the same rights on both real people and potential people. This is a very hard stance to take, especially with the uncertainty of the future. You could end up lowering the quality of life for real people now to benefit people who never exist. I do not think potential people should command the same rights as real people but I do think they deserve consideration, the best term to describe this technically would be 'potential rights'. For society to be able to offer potential rights to potential people it must not knowingly remove its ability to offer them. While in practice it amounts to very much the same thing as considering potential people to deserve the same rights as real ones it is ethically more reasonable and logically more convincing. This is mostly achieved by removing the uncertainty of the future from the equation. The practical difference between actual rights and potential rights for future people in society is that while neither is able to reduce their sustainability, the former must make attempts to account for the continued future while the latter only need consider the immediate future. The former is almost forced into trying to make everything static which is impractical and likely not very beneficial overall. It is only the repeatability of processes which society wishes to make sustainable, it does not gain any advantage from stagnating any other changes.

This gives us three justifications for sustainability being desirable in society. The first was that from a design and efficiency perspective a society system with a short life expectancy is undesirable. The second was that those who invest in society with their creativity, labours and offspring will very likely desire the continuation and improvement of society so as to conserve their posthumous immortality. This can be considered as their justification for existence and without assurances of a continuation of society their life holds less meaning. The final argument was that an unsustainable society would guarantee the removal of freedoms and equality from potential people, and while we have no moral obligation to provide these benefits to potential people we are bound to avoid knowingly removing them. The first justification does not account for people and the second is only valid when held as a majority opinion. The final argument alone should be sufficiently convincing, the others simply add weight to the requirement.

In this essay I have highlighted the need for sustainability in society complete with justifications and a few methods of implementation. I have not made any suggestions for how a society may set this in motion, particularly within an ideal democracy as I have described in other essays. If one is to base a society on freedom, equality and sustainability but ensure complete democratic rule the fundamental principles need to be enforced at a level above the democratic governance. This I shall discuss at a later stage as it relates specifically to my utopian vision where as the content of this essay is as applicable in a utopia as it is now. I am a chemist and as such have a very neat view of equilibria, when a system is at equilibrium it is stable despite many reactions still occurring. Other systems not at equilibria will either change until they reach an equilibria or burn out. This is true of all systems and applies as much in chemistry as it does in economics or the environment. The trick is to set the conditions to ensure an equilibrium can exist and that the equilibrium point is a desirable one.

Q&A on Utopian Democracy

This is a conversation I had with a local politician over the course of several e-mails. The conversation began by me sending them a link to my Utopian Democracy essay, their first response was in the form of a number of points regarding the essay which lead the discussion. Sadly it does not read as well as it might, firstly as I am useless with computers I have had formatting issues as you shall see, and secondly due to the varying chronology of the piece. The ten original points have been numbered and the replies tend to be chronological between the numbers. Hopefully it is still interesting to hear the critique of a sensible and relevant person and useful to have some of the less clear aspects of the essay in question expanded upon. While I often related other essays in my writing I imagine this particular piece won't make much sense without having read Utopian Democracy.

  

1.

Them: I share some, but not necessarily all, of the views expressed in your essay. My doubts lie more in the practical aspects of applying your proposals. I have made a few relatively random comments below about them.

Me: In general I agree with this sentiment, much like any building or machine – the design takes far fewer man hours than the construction which is the real work load. All of my views are end game ones in that I think we should aim towards them with gradual change rather than up-heave the present system and try to adopt a completely new one.

Them: Noted. I think this is both sensible and practical.

2.
Them: With regard to voting electronically, I think there is a long way to go before this can be achieved without the risk of disenfranchising an element of the population. If people are allowed to vote electronically, measures need to be in place to cater for people who are unable to cope with this. It is not just a generational thing.

Me: This is an excellent point I had not given enough thought to as I had assumed a primarily generational thing and by the time it had become widespread there would be less need of such provisions. With slow enough movement towards these ends I envisage education catering for this inability in society. If electronic voting were implemented faster however we already have infrastructure in place. ATMs could potentially be programmed to cope or similar machines could be placed in post offices / libraries to cater for those without internet or who need assistance with the technology. Is there any specific demographics you have in mind other than the elderly who are generally less competent with computers?

Them: There are always likely to be certain people who, for one reason or another, cannot be accommodated by a system installed that suits the majority. Looking at your suggestion above, it would not be suitable for people with mobility problems who were not computer literate. I accept that in the long term the number of people lacking computer literacy should reduce.

3.
Them: I was once opposed to proportional representation, on the grounds that
it could give too much power to minority political parties. I now
accept that these days all parties are minority ones. If the turnout at
general elections continues its present path, a party getting 100% of
the vote could still have been elected by a minority of the electorate.
This will be even more pronounced if present plans to introduce
individual voter registration are implemented.

Me: Surely if proportional representation were perfectly in place then the correct amount of power would be in the hands of minority political parties?

Them: I disagree here. I hope a simple example will illustrate why. Let’s assume that there are (say) just 3 parties, one of which always gets 5% of the popular vote. If the votes between the other 2 parties were to be (say) 55% against 40%, the smallest of the 3 parties would have no power. However, if the split were to be (say) 49% to 46%, then the smallest party can decide which of the two largest party to support. It then has real power – or at least more power than in scenario 1. We only have to look at the present situation in the UK to see that it can happen.

Me: Ah, I see what you mean. Yes in this case it certainly does empower the minority when the two major parties are generally opposed. It is not however relevant if votes are on single issues and not parties hence my oversight on this account.

Me still: Would you suggest a two horse race where parties are concerned, like they operate in the states, to remove this problem? It is evident that this is not a problem of proportional representation as the system we operate under now in the UK is neither proportional nor protected against minority parties having significant sway.

Me some more: The problem seem to me analogous of companies with large market share, they prevent small ones from offering much competition and are enabled to maintain high market share even with worse products/services. If we had a system of twenty parties each with 3-7% of the total vote the democratic process would be more just. The beneficial evolutionary mechanisms of capitalism break down as companies tend towards monopolies, which is what out political parties are doing thus reducing the effectiveness of democracy.

Them: I do not advocate just having two parties and not just for it being impossible to achieve it. Copying the electoral process from the USA is certainly not something I would support. I agree that having 20 parties with 3 - 7% of the vote would be more just. Getting the 20 parties would not be difficult; the problem would be getting the electorate to spread their votes equally between. I am afraid that my thinking usually comes back to the practicalities.

Me: Another note on this is that proportional representation would allow the formation of more small parties that were not as polarized as they tend to be in the present system. In an economic/consumer way of looking at it is only to the advantage of the voter to have more variation and competition among parties.

Them: Agreed.

Me: Your point about voting registration rings true and sadly also applies to the introduction of electronic systems, the only counter to which I can see is a proactive issuing of voting eligibility from state at it's expense. I certainly agree with the superficial problems that exist in having proportional representation but the inherent ones that are created by not having it are not soluble like the superficial ones, and it is for that reason I can see no other “perfect” remedy.

Them: I accept that very few things in life are ‘perfect’!

4.

Them:I agree with your comment about the difficulty of enforcing election manifestos. How does one define the change of circumstances that would make a failure to abide by manifesto commitments acceptable?

Me: In my utopian end game this is not an issue as there is only voting on issues and none on people or parties. In present politics the only sensible and fair solution is to allow court and jury to determine questionable cases. This I accept is a costly and tedious process but ideally would result in acting as a deterrent rather than common practice.

Them: Only time would tell on this point.

5.

Them: There are, I can assure you, still some straight talking and honest
politicians around, particularly at a local level. I am married to
one!

Me: Yes, that I could tell! I intend no offence to any individuals, speaking in general is a dangerous thing to do when people are concerned. I may have perhaps been more accurate in phrasing the sentiments as such; “The Machiavellian rules ensure that the level of dishonesty in politics correlates with an increase in level of power, this is not to say that the most powerful is the most dishonest, only that it is most likely the case”.

Them: Sadly I have to agree.

Me: Still, hardly an inoffensive sentiment. In the present political system I find myself drawn to those people for their integrity and not their policies for that is the pragmatic approach. It is for this reason I will feel very safe in placing my vote with you in the future. It is because of this communication that I feel I know you enough to judge this is the case and vote for the individual and not the party or the policy.

6.

Them: Where I have my doubts is over single issue voting. You refer to 'most major choices' being voted on nationally. What is not clear to me from your essay is who decides on the non-major issues. Is this to be your Utopian parliament?

Me: The executives running the branches of government, NHS, education, transport etc work to guidelines which may be altered by national vote. These executives are voted in and may also be voted out although there would be no term of office.

What is your objection to having a specified or maximum term of office? It seems to me that this would provide an extra safeguard for the system.

Me: That same safeguard can be just as effective if done as an allowable approval veto from the public. The reason I do not like to set arbitrary time limits on terms of control is simply the short term changes it provides more incentive for. Choices that consider the long term as generally far better for society. This is one of the most significant advantages China has had over western democracies for many years. They build for the future, our frequent change of political opinion in power makes for much undoing previous things and making quick fixes.

Them: I note and accept your point about having no fixed terms should produce long term policies and benefits.

Me: In the case of these branches the executive is afforded a high degree of control, only required to implement initiatives that are voted in. They would have control over how they allocated most of their budget although I imagine they would have little scope to drastically change things based on the guidelines.

Me:In terms of what is an issue that can be locally varied rather than require national vote these will be things that are either passed down from the higher parliament as the result of a national vote or when it relates to a specific thing that affects no other region. There are similarities between my hierarchical satellite system and that of the USA, the various states having differing rules on certain things and some of the direct democratic properties too.

Me: Other than that all issues are major issues and will come to main parliament, should they vote it through it will then go to national vote and if it goes through again it will be passed to the appropriate branch of government to enact. Parliament only really acts a a filter to prevent vast numbers of votes needing to be continually taken. It would also serve as record of debate in podcast or televised form so people could look at the discussion to help with their choice.

Them: Noted.

7.

Them: Who would decide on the wording of the questions put to the electorate on the major issues? Whoever does this is in a very powerful position.

Me: Yes, very much so. Part of the solution to this is ensuring that those who have such roles are not afforded other powers or responsibilities. My utopia is a complete vision that is intended to work as a whole system, aspects of the utopian democracy sadly suffer from more capitalist issues (not that I am against capitalism, I am for it in very much the same way as I am for democracy – yes but not this one!). Divorcing wealth from power and reducing the wealth gap are huge social issues I rank above most others and would externally solve many of the issues in politics.

Them: I agree 100%.

Me: As for how it is done, the parliament must vote on which way to phrase the question or issue. Any person within the parliament is entitled to suggest a wording although this is an area which could change. Charging a neutral office, such as that of the chair, with offering a suggestion on how to phrase votes that are as neutral as possible to be voted on alongside other suggestions from within parliament may be helpful too.

Them: From my experience of chairing meetings, I agree that this may well be helpful.

8.

Them: If I have interpreted it correctly, the 'witnesses' would consist of
one per particular field. You say that they would have significant
influence on the parliament. Is this not dangerous as if they were able
to exert such influence, how easily could they be voted out?

Me: The ease in which any official may be voted out would as easy as any other change. The motion would be suggested in parliament followed with some justifications and defences. It would then be put to the parliamentary vote and then onto national vote if successful. The results of the national vote would come in and that would be that. I see no reason the process should take longer than a week.

Me: I think I suggested multiple persons occupying the role, just a requirement of one for sittings of parliament. The more the merrier in terms of effect and so cost and time constraints are the only limits. These people would hold much power but would be voted in. I imagine Sir David Attenborough to be the sort of public figure that may end up in one such role, trusted and wholesome. These witnesses are there for their wisdom, not their politics. I appreciate this is one of the most fairy tale aspects of the system and will refer you to the answer regarding the power of the persons wording the vote for much of my solution, the rest being the ability to both vote these persons in and out.

9.

Them: The regional representatives in the second of your groups would, you suggest, represent areas similar to the present ones for the most part. Would these be like current MPs, except that they probably not be able to decide on most major issues?

Me: Yes, these are the closest my system has to an MP in that they are elected persons to represent smaller areas. They would help decide which local issues were put to local vote and also which issues they wished to be carried forth to the higher parliament. As these persons would be politically minded but performing the equivalent role of the jury in the main parliament they would be more able to act like current MPs.

Them: Would these representatives replace MPs and/or county, district and unitary councillors? In other words, are you creating another layer of bureaucracy? I assume not, but I’m not sure how much of the current system yours would replace. Presumably all of it?

Me: Yes, my system is intended as a complete replacement. Any way I could find to allow a gradual change from one system to the next would be ideal. Change needs to be fluid and not abrupt to work in these kinds of situations.

Me: Depending on the size of the system the number of layers would change, all those in the middle parliaments would be like MPs. I didn't feel the need to get random people in to perform jury style politics in the middle level, perhaps that would be useful at some of the higher “middle” levels. Perhaps the whole jury idea is also optimistic fantasy and allowing the elected representatives of the lower levels in the main parliament the vote on what was put to national vote would be a more effective system. The main point is that those in parliament only choose what to put to national (or local) vote, not the outcome of that vote. Exactly how that is done is less important. Either way, my system would significantly reduce the power of politicians.

10.
Them: What is not clear to me from your essay (it may just be me) is who would decide on the size of the national budget and how this would be divided between different national needs. Would this be put to a vote
by the electorate, as this is one of the most major issues of all? I would have serious concerns if this were to be the case. I am confident that such vote is likely to be be in favour of the lowest tax take option, which could have serious consequences. I am of the school of thought that says that taxation is the price you pay for living in a civilised society.

Me: I wholeheartedly agree with you on the taxation front and certainly there is always the concern people will look to secure their own interests at the cost of others or the general good. The full answer to this question is quite long so I shall try to be as succinct as possible.

Me: I have begun an introduction to economics which does not include a full description of how I would set up an economy and fiscal policy to optimally benefit a society but it eludes to many of the main changes. If you are interested it may be found in the blog archives but the combined three parts are rather long so perhaps an necessary tangent.

Them: Interested but with time constraints at present!

Me: Part of the problem with peoples choices are the incentives the economy provides. Changing the economy is a far harder challenge than changing politics for several reasons however doing so can remove a lot of the problems we find in most other areas of society. I am of the controversial opinion that, if set up to cope with the differences, operating an economy under a minimal level of deflation serves the society best. It forces people to look at the long term and not the short term.

Me: I am in favour of progressive income tax and generally in favour of taxes that hit places of high wealth density.

Them: Agreed.

Me: Part of my overall utopian vision exists within an essay not yet put together which details the use of tax. I just began to explain the mechanics of it and realised I would basically end up writing the article so shall just summarise again. I would link minimum wage to an upper threshold of earning, for example say twenty fold difference, with a progressive tax system to make this a smooth transition.

Them: Agreed.

Me: Although rather technical for common politics it could easily be graphically and fractionally represented for ease of use and understanding. The control the populous would have over this would be to change the steepness of the curve, to alter the upper and lower limits and so forth. They would have less control over how much they ended up paying as that would tend to be based on the cost of government and it's revenue. With the added benefit of deflation things could be done “not on credit” as it were and taxes could be used to retroactively pay for government expense. As such, the taxation levels are set, the income is known and the state bill is ready so each person is able to pay the required amount based on their earnings. These are obviously more serious changes that would need to happen to have any effect on this particular issue of my democratic system. This has prompted me to get the related article written so as to help make sense of the various suggestions I have made so far.

Me: No vote would exists that was lower taxes; yes or no, it would have to come with an option for where to make that saving. The hope is that by empowering people and providing fully functioning systems to operate change they will chose to not cut money from the NHS to lower taxes and such like. This is wandering into the realms of sociology but I do tend to think if you fully empower people the majority will chose to put more money into the most beneficial of social enterprises such as education and health.

Them: I would like to think that you are right but I am afraid that I have my doubts. Opinion polls cannot be trusted on such issues, in my view, as they do not come with a price tag attached.

Me: My intention is more of allocation of the money and not as much how much to put back into ones pocket. With a sensible proportional tax system the cost of things will naturally fall most on the fewest, as such it seems inevitable that an increase in taxes will be voted on for desired services. I imagine if I went into town with a collection box guaranteeing that for ever £1 that was donated a millionaire would give £1,000 I would get a vast quantity of money from the public. People are happy to pay if they think it is a good deal, which my system would demonstrate quite clearly I think. With a wage cap based on national average earnings and a process for democratic adjustments on general asset allocation I believe we would arrive at a point where a similar number of people lay either side of average earnings and thus an ideal wealth gap. It also means people will have the services they wish for in society, directed most by those who need them most. I could demonstrate this mathematically using game theory should you remain unconvinced.

Them: On your final point about the allocation of the tax bill between taxpayers and the services that it pays for, I cannot argue meaningfully against it, although I am not 100% convinced. Sorry if this sounds like a cop-out!

Me: Not at all, this is in fact as far as I would promote my utopia. I have no meaningful arguments against it in principle yet I remain unconvinced as to whether it would solve all the issues it claims while creating no new ones in practice. On a more personal note I think true conviction where other people are concerned is a very dangerous position to hold. History is littered with examples of those people who thought they were doing good but ended up remembered as villains.

Them: How would the total size of the tax cake be decided and how often? Long term decisions rather than annual short term ones?

Me: Quite the opposite I would suggest. The longest period in which any part of the budget should go between reviews is a year, ideally monthly. I envisage things being tweaked, lots of incremental changes to occur rather than occasional drastic ones. When things are running smoothly I also imagine these tweaks would oscillate about a pretty steady base rather than continue increasing or decreasing. This would allow for better social adjustment to changes and encourage a more stable economy. Getting to a harmonious stable economy using such a system, especially with inexperienced citizens in terms of democratic control, may well prove difficult. The split of the tax cake would begin life pretty close to what ever it looked like at the time of first using the proposed system. It would then gradually morph to represent public demand.


Them: The only further comment I have is on the length of the budgeting period. I believe that a year is the minimum period for the size of the budget, accepting that internal adjustments could and probably should be made within the course of that year. Otherwise it is difficiult to plan strategically. I accept your point on how to vary the split of the tax cake between taxpayers.

Me: Safe guards upon fiscal policy would likely need to be implemented during the transition period. Limits to degree of change per unit of time could solve some of the problems but could easily bring more with it such as an inability to appropriately respond to changes in the global economy. Without a safe guard in place I imagine if the UK was presently using my democratic system then we would have destroyed our entire economy by savagely taxing the finance sector to the point of sending large chunks over seas. With the UK finance industry accounting for most of our exports we could wind up among the poorest nations in Europe.

Me: Essentially this is a huge issue that cannot be solved in the realm of politics alone. There is much to say on this and will likely only be fully answered when I have completed all the essays in my utopia series (of which I am around a quarter done that are on the blog).

Them: Good luck!

Me: Thank you!