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!  

How Capitalism Can Work

Capitalism is under attack in many countries as I write this. Protesters are up in arms about the way in which the economy works, how it generates a flow of money to larger concentrations of money, helping the rich get richer. Capitalism is however the economic equivalent of evolution and a fantastic method of improving technology and quality of life. I have provided a complete yet relatively brief overview as to why wealth tends to aggregate in my series on economics which may provide useful reference. This essay will specifically detail some changes that societies can employ to remove the detrimental effects of capitalism. We have seen how nations which do not make use of the competition mechanism of capitalism frequently suffer economic collapse from stagnation in industry. China is of course a bit of an anomaly in this regard and for that reason I would love the chance to study the mechanics of their political and economic systems fully.

China aside, it is dangerous to remove the capitalist element from an economy and I believe unnecessary to do so. I will jump directly into the proposed changes and assume the reader can appreciate the advantages of retaining a capitalist element within the economy if the detrimental side effects are gone. I touched on many of these suggestion within the final part of the economics series but both in general terms and very briefly. They were also linked to a broader subheading, where as in this essay I will specifically detail how they allow for capitalism to function as it is more relevant in the current climate. This whole crux of this essay may be summarised as follows; the most significant problem posed by capitalist systems is that they contribute to the aggregating tendencies of wealth. This will help to continually widen the wealth gap and with that bring all the associated social and economic ramifications.

The argument that capitalism appropriately rewards people for their labours is inaccurate. It does stand to reason that people of certain professions will be paid relatively appropriate amounts compared to each other based on their skill within that industry, but not compared with the rest of society. The best few people will always be worth significantly more than the next ability group of people, the difference in pay between other skill levels will decrease as you lower the skill. If plotted on a graph it would look like the inverse of half a normal bell curve distribution. I expect a comparison of professional footballers would be a good example of an industry where pay does reflect natural variance better than others. The top end will still be skewed by the aggregating properties of wealth, but indirectly, so much less significantly than those investing capital. The argument breaks down when people are able to invest their excess earnings and gain a return on them. As capital aggregates, those who have it at their disposal will tend to obtain a greater return than is appropriate for their labours. This is where ability or usefulness to society are no longer appropriately rewarded by capitalist systems. Once a capital threshold is breached ability is no longer as relevant and wealth may be sustained or increased with significantly decreased aptitude. Inheritance is an example where wealth my come into the hands of unworthy ability. The only currently valid argument for capitalism is the incentive it places on industry to provide quality goods at low prices. This article will only be focusing on how to stop capitalism from contribution to the aggregation of wealth and so will be unable to provide a complete solution to the aggregation of wealth. As such I will not be able to demonstrate how capitalism could offer an appropriate and fair wage to all abilities and provide a further argument in capitalism's favour. The advantages of the evolutionary mechanism capitalism places on industry are so great that alone it would suffice to warrant retaining capitalism. Even so I believe it is possible to reach a point where capitalism provides fair wages, but you shall have to trust me on this for now if you require the extra persuasion.

The first and foremost idea is essentially a combination of capitalism and communism within an area of economics that allows for all the positives of both ideas with all drawbacks removed. With all the recent coverage of Qaddafi I have stumbled upon a commonality of our views in this area. I intend to read further on this topic as I am discouraged when I find I share views with those who are able to act immorally. The area to which a blend of capitalism and communism can best be applied is the business model within society, the difficulty is how this new model may be implemented. This was previously touched on in my economics series in terms of profit sharing in companies however the optimal mix of communism and capitalism within the business model is a more radical suggestion than the more commonly, and beneficially, practised profit sharing.

The optimal situation from the perspective of the whole society viewed as one entity is where company ownership is based entirely on the proportion of time spent working for that company. Wages would still be paid and still used to reflect the responsibility, difficulty, danger, unpleasantness and other non-monetary incentives/disincentives a role can offer. Wages would still provide the stable part of peoples income with minimum wages set so as to easily cover the costs of living. The equivalent of shares that are sold to those with capital would no longer exist, these shares would be allocated to the employees. Dividends would be paid on these shares and be comparable to profit sharing schemes. The company would decide how much of profit would be reinvested into the company and how much would be given out as dividends. Shareholder veto would empower the workforce yet infrequently tamper with the benefits of executive management. Instead it would act as an incentive to socially beneficial business practices.

An example may make this description easier so let us assume a company with one hundred employees, each of which works the same twenty five hour week. There is one managing director who earns $100,000 annually and eighty workers at the bottom of the organogram who each earn $20,000. The remaining workforce are in the middle of both the organogram and in their pay. After wages, running costs and other expenses for the year have been paid the company made a profit of $1,000,000. The company then elects to reinvest 80% of profits into the company leaving 20% to be paid as dividends to the workforce netting each employee an extra $2,000 bonus. This is only a 2% bonus on the pay of the managing director but it is a 10% bonus to the lowest paid. As you can see the way in which the capital is divided is a dispersing process on wealth, always giving relatively more to the least wealthy.

Forcing companies to adopt such systems may cause issues with workers forcing high dividend returns on profits thus lowering reinvestment leading to a stagnation and ultimately failure of the company. Companies would be forced into ensuring the entirety of the workforce was contented to deter from such things, which would lead to better working conditions. Money and capital would no longer be the only source of power in the business world – time investment would count as well. The natural equilibrium for such a system is one where wages vary although I suspect by rather less than they often do at present. At equilibrium people would mostly be content with their pay relative to others. Those getting less would be happy knowing their job was less stressful etc. Rich and poor would still exists, the super rich would however vanish. The poor would work for the rich, themselves and each other, but the rich would no longer work for the super rich as they do now. The profits of business tend towards the pockets of the capital owners and not towards those who perform the labour in the present system. In my proposed system the profits are directed back at those who perform the labour and not those who provide the capital.

Another advantage of this system is the way in which in aids the principle of the division of labour within industry. At present there are few incentives to the worker to do the best job they can. They work for others who will have full control over the returns on that labour. The workers performance has little baring on the overall performance of the company, which in turn has little baring on their income (unless the company fails and can no longer employ people). On the whole workers are offered incentive enough to work hard enough to avoid disciplinary action but not to do their best job. It is only a worker's ethics that will provide an incentive to do the the best work they can when they are paid a wage and have no steak in the company, and not all persons posses a work ethic. If, however the entire workforce stands to directly benefit from the performance of the company and effectively has a share of ownership of the company while working for them then they will be far more inclined to perform their role to the best of their ability. All the parts of the machine will work in harmony towards a common goal rather than antagonistically for their own ends. While bad eggs may still exist they will be less tolerated by their fellow worker as well as the management and as such far less common place. By having company ownership based on proportion of time worked for that company the detrimental effects of capitalism are reduced without losing any of it's merits and the efficiency of the division of labour is increased thus yielding greater advantage to society.

Such radical change would be disastrous if implemented over night and needs instead to be slowly integrated. The only sensible way to achieve these ends is by offering tax incentives to companies who adopt systems like those suggested or take steps towards those ends. These incentives could be strengthened gradually over time, perhaps even with additional taxes for non-compliance. An immediate solution is not possible if we wish to retain economic stability alongside social stability. The differing policies of nations in the global economy make such transitions even harder. If a nation is too extreme with it's commercial taxation and legal obligations they will scare away industry and seriously damage their economy. This is the problem faced by England in light of the recent financial collapse in that the public wish to impose heavily on the finance sector however that sector accounts for the most significant portion of our exports and economy. If we managed to scare away all the large financial companies to other lands with more favourable rules and tax then England would be well on it's way to becoming a poor nation on the global scene. The only real solution to enacting economic change within a global economy is to slowly lead by example. The German economy is one of the best of the western developed countries post financial collapse, this is because they have built up a manufacturing industry renown for good quality that creates real commodities (compared to the whimsical commodities produced by the labours of the finance sector). While improving social condition are unlikely to convince other nations to adopt similar business models, the improving quality and cost of goods produced by companies using these models offers more convincing persuasion as they gain market share. Some of the other suggestions I will make in order to fix capitalism will build on this business model, that is a blend of both communist and capitalist ideas, by continuing to divorce wealth from power, reduce the wealth gap and stop wealth aggregating.

Monopolies do not partake in the evolutionary mechanism of capitalism as there is no competition to force improvement. This was also discussed in the economics solutions essay but now that we have a new business model in which we can view potential changes, which I shall call the cooperative business model, we are able to show how the problems can be solved while aiding the new model. It was also noted that companies with significant market share begin to move away from the beneficial capitalist model, increasingly so as they tend towards monopolies. As companies grew beyond a determined percentage of market share it would be more pragmatic and democratic to begin to empower the employees of that company rather than have state purchase part of the companies in question or simply raising corporation taxes. There are issues with requiring companies to effectively give shares in the company to employees, such as the need to have a different approach to national companies and foreign ones, and also the need to vary the threshold of acceptable market share from industry to industry. The benefits of using market share as an excuse to increase employee ownership of companies include speeding up the process by which the cooperative business model is common place in society, affording non cooperative model companies the option of remaining set up as they are, removing extra administrative duties from state who lack expertise, and allowing change to occur without retarding the operations of the company.

Just for the sake of some numbers we shall say that for the industry of company A the threshold of socially beneficial market share has been set at 20% or less. Upon company A exceeding this they would be forced into ensuring that employees were all afforded an equal minimum of shares to give employee ownership (accounting for only the minima of shares, not those already owned) equal to the degree the threshold has been exceeded by. Let us say that company A grows by 1% annually for 5 years and began at 20% market share. If the company has 100 total employees and 1,000,000 shares then assuming no further shares are made in this period the company would need to ensure each employee received 100 shares per year for those 5 years. At the end of the 5 years the company would have 25% market share but 5% of the company would be owned by it's worker base. As these shares would necessarily be the same ones that are traded in the global economy and not the new labour shares I proposed in the cooperative business model, these shares would need to come with a clause requiring that they depend on the continued employment and that they may not be sold.

Monopolies are companies of significant market share are bad for society for two reasons; because they increase the aggregation of wealth and they evade the useful mechanisms of capitalism. The only way to remove them is with either legislation or incentive. Incentives cost society upfront and are offer the slowest transitions. Legislation is however dangerous while a society exists in a global economy and needs to be both gradual and sensible to avoid damaging repercussions. The suggestion offered in this article is a legislative one but as it is helping change in two required areas simultaneously it is half as damaging and thus can be enacted at up to twice the rate. The two birds with one stone saying applies well even in social engineering! Incentives should still be used alongside mild legislation towards the desired ends – an object one just pushes or just pulls requires more energy to move than one that is both pushed and pulled, unexpected changes to that object will be less disruptive too. This is easy to demonstrate when moving a desk across carpet but I believe applies just as well to social engineering.

One of the few redistributive mechanisms which exist in society today are taxes, of which not all redistribute so as to diminish the aggregation of wealth. I firmly believe in progressive income tax as one of the main solutions to the wealth gap. It also aids the efficacy of both democracy and capitalism, it does this by helping to divorce power from wealth. A progressive tax system is one which taxes a person proportionally more the more they earn and not just nominally more. In other words the more a person earns the higher the percentage of their total income will be paid in tax. When this is the case the income tax will serve to counter the aggregation of wealth to an extent dependant on the extremity of the tax.

I believe the free market in combination with a perfect democracy can in theory be used to determine an appropriate earnings that is very close to what could be called our natural inequality. A more practical way to understand this would be to say that each person would receive an appropriate income based on their value to society. This is achieved by setting up the manner in which progressive taxes are levied based on earnings. Placing an upper cap on income after tax that is based on a lower level of earning in society has a normalizing effect on earnings. A cap could be applied within a company or within society or both. In a company it would be sensible to require that the highest wages earned within the company were no greater than some factor of the lowest earnings. This is a cap the company has control over themselves in nominal terms and requires no taxation to implement. It would be as simple as democratically voting in a law by which no person could earn over say, one hundred times any other employee and then making small adjustments to that value over time while allowing the private sector to set wages within their company as they see fit.

A national cap on earnings would be based on a multiple of the national average rather than of the minimum. A minimum wage seems like a sensible measure to enforce within a society but not a sensible thing by which to limit the cap as it is a predetermined figure not a mathematically relevant figure. Much like a company cap, the factor by which a national earnings cap could exceed the national average would be democratically determined. A proportional tax would then be calculated so as to make this the case. For example, society vote together and the result is that the wage cap is ten times that of national average. A simple equation can be derived which graduates the percentage of tax paid to increase as earnings do so that earnings after tax tend towards the cap.

Say for example the minimum wage is set at £10,000 per year based on a full time week and that the average earnings per year across the society are £25,000. There would be no tax for earnings below the minimum wage. Between the minimum wage and the national average a flat percentage tax would be charged, say 20% in this case. Above the national average a proportional tax would then come into play. A simple equation to cause post tax earnings to tend towards a limit could be as follows;

Earnings / National average = Earnings as a multiple of national average (which we shall call X)

Where X > 1 the person is eligible for proportional taxation.

The graph below shows the proportional tax rate worked out by;

( X – 1 ) / X = Tax rate upon earnings over national average.

The upper cap is not even twice that of the national average if using the equation given but a variable factor could be added to the equation so as to retain the proportional increase of tax with earnings but raise the cap to higher multiples of the average. The shape of the total net pay graph would change so that the curve was slightly less steep but reached a higher point before it flattens. 

This method does not include the flat tax for earnings over the national average. To smooth the curve I would continue to apply the flat tax upon all earnings above minimum wage and only apply the proportional tax to the remainder of earnings over the national average. This would prevent a potential level of earning just above the national average from paying proportionally less tax than those just under the national average. Either way it serves the same ultimate purpose in continuing to tax the richest most.

By capping earnings at some factor of national average you ensure that half of the wealth within society is taxed proportionally. This forces a divide of opinion with those below the average happier to increase public spending and taxes and those above more interested in lowering public spending and taxes. While a wealth gap is high, as it is in most countries, there is far greater voting power, and therefore control over the tax rate, with those earning under the national average. When a system like the one suggested is in this state taxes will therefore rise alongside public spending which will rebalance the equilibrium point. By using the national average income as the point at which proportional taxes begin you ensure a feedback mechanism that can find a happy equilibrium point that offers both income based on usefulness and a narrow wealth gap.

This can also be demonstrated using game theory. The point is that people are willing to pay for something if what they are paying for is a bargain. Those under the national average earnings are paying significantly less tax than those above and therefore get a better deal on public public spending, even assuming equal usage throughout society which is rarely the case, the poorest tend to always get most from public spending.

In game theory it is hard to asses the util value of education or the health service, both to individuals and as an average for society or demographics within society. This does not particularly matter as the poor will always be able to obtain X utils for a fraction of the cost levied upon the wealthiest. This will create a tendency to improve the welfare systems while the wealth gap is high. The equilibrium point at which public spending on welfare plateaus due to a desire to retain wealth is the same (or very close to) as when equal numbers of people fall either side of the national average earnings. While the equilibrium point may never be reached having systems which tend towards those equilibria points is still very beneficial. If the equilibria were reached you could assert that the income for each person in society was in accordance to the benefit they bring to society without causing any detrimental effect. Removing the proportional tax and the minimum wage while at the equilibrium point would allow income to closer represent the benefits an individual brings to society but would also be more damaging to the society as a whole.

Inheritance is another area in which the aggregating tendencies of wealth are exacerbated. I believe a similar system to income tax should be employed upon inheritance to significantly reduce this issue. The upper cap on income through inheritance would reasonably be a bit higher than those for earnings as ensuring ones offspring have as good a chance in life as possible is a strong emotion and a good investment in the future. Removing incentive to save and invest in the future is unwise and so inheritance tax would need to allow for a reasonably decent sum to be relatively free from progressive taxation. In the current economic climate it is likely easier to raise inheritance taxes more rapidly than income taxes but ultimately I would suggest that the caps upon inheritance should allow for more income than could be earned in a year.

The above suggestions of progressive income and inheritance tax, more stringent control of companies with market share to a point of dominance and of the cooperative business model serve to remove most of the factors in capitalism which cause wealth to aggregate due to companies that deal in tangible commodities and services. What they are not able to fully resolve are the issues surrounding the trading of capital and other non-tangible goods. The cooperative business model alone goes along way to helping solve some of these issues by removing shares in company ownership from the markets. To solve the issues with asset allocation, interest and loans will require a dedicated essay and so we shall have to suffice with improving the mechanisms of capitalism alone for now. These suggestions enacted sensibly without any attempt to deal with the financial sector would be of much greater benefit to society than to address the problems and loopholes

in the finance sector and leave the rest of capitalism, industry and the economy unchecked.

There is one final problem with capitalism which does not relate to the aggregation of wealth. The aim of business is to make profit, most of the time the act of doing this overlaps well with what is in the best interest of society. This however is not always the case, particularly in the fast paced economic climate under inflation. There is little overlap, especially in the short term, between profit and effect on the environment. As such there is little incentive offered within the capitalist model to conserve the planet and operate sustainably. These incentives need to be created by state in forms of taxation and legislation on industry. These, while sensible, cannot be wholly effective when many nations with differing policy exist within one global economy and one environment. Incentives towards ethical, sustainable and environment business practices should be placed upon the consumer as well as the producer, returning again to the merits of pushing and pulling something one wishes to change.

Value added tax or VAT is an interesting concept which I feel in reality is far more onerous on the poorer members of society than the rich despite efforts to remedy this. While I think it is unwise for a government to raise general funds from taxation on the final purchase of goods I think it is wise to place financial disincentives on products that are less beneficial to society and the environment than they could be. I can suggest a number of different attributes of a product to which a socially beneficial tax incentive aimed at the consumer may be employed. A travel tax could be placed on goods based on the distance travelled to final destination. This would need to factor in size, weight and method of transport to have the desired effect in reducing energy loss in transit, and as such would be a somewhat fiddly tax to place on goods. Other areas than tax penalties could be applied to goods are based on the land area required to produce the goods, or based on how harmful the product is when discarded, or how long the product lasts when compared to similar goods on the market, or how much packaging the product comes with, or how damaging to public health the product is such as fatty, sugary and alcoholic foodstuffs and cigarettes. Certain purely luxury goods could be taxed more like VAT simply to encourage useful labour output in society. Finally if a suitably way to grade or measure sustainability were found it would be a good way to tax commodities. Revenue from taxes of this nature should be used directly to counter the negative effects of these products. Great care would also need to be taken in setting up how the taxes were levied and how goods were evaluated to ensure that the incentives placed were not in fact being detrimental due to loopholes etc. It would also be a reasonable step up in terms of paper work and general accounting to oversee a wide array of different taxes on goods yet still well worth the effort.

The public, like the businesses, are not guaranteed to have any incentives themselves to pay greater taxes on goods to protect things like the environment. The implementation of tax incentives to create a perfect overlap with capitalist businesses profitability and social advantage cannot rely on democratic regulation and must have some constitutional imperative alongside a functional system of implementation. Designing a system as such, complete with a constitution, is a tricky task to which I have some potential suggestions, yet none seem water tight and so I shall leave until a future time that is appropriate to discuss this problem.

That concludes the suggestions I have by which we can improve the efficacy of capitalism as mechanism to advance society. I have been as brief as I can so that I am able to reference these ideas in other areas of my utopia rather than offer a daunting and dull full examination of the mechanisms, problems and solutions. I hope therefore that there is loss in the ability to see how the suggestions offered would help with the problems in capitalism as they now stand. The ideas expressed here are particularly useful in combination with those expressed in my article “utopian democracy”. While either set of suggestions have merit when considered in isolation they are clearly more effective when considered in combination. This should continue to be the case as I add ideas to the utopian vision as some systems require others to function and some simply add to the effectiveness of others. This essay stands more as an introduction to some important prerequisites to realising utopia, it just so happens to be particularly topical in light of the current civil angst towards capitalism and the super rich, hence the particular angle.

Religion

Having sincerely been an agnostic, an atheist and a religious person in my life I feel relatively comfortable open mindedly discussing religion despite the sensitive nature of the subject. My mother took me and my Irish Catholic grandmother to church on Sunday's, my primary school taught the bible in similar ways to how it taught maths and science. I knew nothing else and assumed, like the other things I had been shown, that these things relating to the Bible were facts. At around the age of seven or eight I began to question the logic of the religious teachings, I had discovered there were other religions with differing views, science and religion didn't agree with where we came from and so forth. Not finding that the teachings of religion agreed with my observations in life and my understanding of the world I chose to fully reject their ideas and revert to a scientific atheist outlook. These pessimistic atheist views of mine had no evidence to disprove them, much like religion in that it is unable to offer proof in favour of it's existence. Thus remains the stand off between religion and atheism.

From about eighteen onwards I gradually grew less resentful for having been tricked into religious belief in my youth and became slowly more open minded, accepting and spiritual. This process has continued to this day and I now consider myself, as I have for several years, to be an agnostic, this however is a term that is undergoing a change in meaning. Technically an agnostic is someone who asserts that the existence of a god is un-knowable, more of a philosophical stance on the difference between belief and knowledge. Commonly the word is used to describe those people who sit on the fence in this debate, generally through an apathy towards the whole topic rather than a strong philosophical stance on it. My personal take on agnosticism is an outlook which does not depend on either the existence of god or the non-existence of god but that works equally well in both cases.

Being even more technical I should probably call myself an agnostic theist but given my particular outlook this only really suggests that I am an optimist within my own belief system. I would like to see the introduction of some new words to describe the difference in types of agnosticism, one for the person who just doesn't care either way, one for the philosophical stand point and yet more to describe the proactive and spiritual of agnostics such as myself. I do not really hold the philosophical view of an agnostic as I do believe that the existence of god is knowable, that I do not presently know the answer does not mean that I cannot in principle. I will return to my particulars of my religious outlook at the end of this essay. First we must look at religion in more general terms so as to appreciate the reasons for my religious outlook.

There are two distinct categories in which we can place the effects of religions. We can call these macro and micro, or social and personal, or even internal and external. The point is that religion has a profound yet different effect on these two areas. In general I would say that the micro effects are positive while the macro ones are less so. In the latter case this is not a rule but rather a trend, and need not always apply. It is the result of how the religions have developed alongside society that have caused much of the large scale interactions of religions being detrimental to those societies and others. It is common place to site the various atrocities, inhumanities, wars and genocides that have occurred in the name of religion as an argument against religions in general. This appears only to be a mechanical problem that is well explained by Adam Smith in a section of The Wealth of Nations which may be found by following this link;

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions31.html

In summary, religions act much like companies. When allowed to grow to monopolistic sizes they tend away from a mutually beneficial relationship with the society. They operate best and are least able to have pernicious effects when there is much competition. In a religiously cosmopolitan society there will be no atrocities, inhumanities, wars or genocides in the name of a religion. I agree with Smith's reasoning and am able to somewhat support it with social changes since the Wealth of Nations was published. The various arguments against religion due to the negative macro effects it can have I regard as soluble, and as such, not a sound basis for argument.

The macro arguments against religion because of socially damaging consequences assumes these negatives outweigh the macro positives alone, before we even consider the micro ones. This is a big assumption to make as much art, culture, charity, scientific discovery and many more have all come from religious belief. It is however an impossible comparison to make between “A Convalescents Prayer of Thanksgiving to the Deity in the Lydian mode” and something like the Crusades. This is not problematic as we have mechanisms to remove the negative aspects of macro religion leaving a predominance of the incomparable positives. Thus even on a large social level religion can be a purely positive force, which is a significant kicker as I consider the micro religious reasons to be those of most benefit to humanity as I shall attempt to describe.

Religion, from the outset, has helped individuals come to terms with the paradoxes of human life and live a fuller, happier and more productive life. All other animals inherently have in them a will to live, this is something that humans must justify to themselves before they are able to revel in life. The human concept of self is a powerful tool as it offers us great reasoning capacity but it comes at the cost of subsequently requiring a reason to live.

Self esteem and self worth are terms to describe reasons for living and may be acquired in many ways. This topic was covered in general terms in my essay entitled The Meaning of Life in which I intentionally avoided discussing religion in detail as it is such a vast topic requiring at least an essay of it's own. I discussed it in general terms with all other forms of higher cause which included political, social or cultural as well as religious. I then concluded the essay in a pragmatic manner that could allow devout atheists the capacity to appreciate the sentiments, but that only related to my outlook in life that applies specifically to the non-existence of god possibility.

This essay will expand a little on the merits of attaining meaning of life in religious ways and will look more at the aspects of my life outlook that apply to the existence of god possibility. It may be easiest to show how religion can be helpful to the individual by illustrating the social effects of a more atheist or indifferent society. Western society has undergone a general loss of faith over the past hundred or so years. Around a hundred years ago western societies were predominantly mono-cultures. They were mostly white and Christian, those that were not tended to be somewhat segregated from the rest of the society. Neither I nor Smith would advocate this position but it was a relatively recent period where the vast majority of the people held religious belief and so useful for comparison. Since then we have observed a marked decline in the traditional religions of the western nations, a general accelerating decline in attendance to religious events and an increased apathy towards religion in general. This may be used as a case study to show some of the changes that this may have caused or aided. Such things can never be an exact science due to lack of control on the many other variables but it can provide good evidence when used in combination with good reasoning.

Over these years in which religious following has declined both science and technology have come to the forefront in terms of enhancing our lives and producing miracles. While religion has remained dormant for millennia, science has made countless medical breakthroughs, put men on the moon, created the atomic bomb, made communication instantaneous and offered bounteous rewards in ease and comfort of living. Science has made giant leaps in making a Heaven on Earth, which is great in many ways but is also not devoid of consequence. It has often seemed as if there were this war between science and religion, this as with the other macro religious problems is the result of unforeseen developments in society. Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive, it just so happens they find themselves in disagreement on a few issues which causes the problems.

Science having gained so much ground in understanding and the affections of people over the last century has had the effect of diminishing the value of religion. Religion now offers less to people than science and technology offer relative to a century ago. In essence people now hold more stock in the teachings of science than those of religion in modern western society. Many people who still actively practice religion do so with more open interpretations of the teachings rather than more traditional literal understandings which are more conflicting with science. While I feel that society has more to gain from the investment of resources in science than it does by investing in religious pursuits I do not think this is the case on an individual level at all. The downside of the more scientific outlook is the inability to provide suitable meaning for life.

As science has improved the tendency to place significance and meaning in material objects has increased. I summarised this well in an essay I started almost a year ago but never completed - As western cultures develop and advance scientifically, the understanding of our circumstances becomes clearer. We rely less on the spiritual and mystical, focusing more on the material and tangible aspects of our lives. This understanding helps humanity build ever better tools and machines, it allows for great medical breakthroughs and generally improves the physical quality of life however it does little to improve the methods in which people justify their existence.

While it is possible to attribute meaning to various material objects it is both dangerous and superficial. This does not stop it occurring, most frequently in affluent or non-spiritual persons. Ernest Becker calls a material thing from which we derive self esteem or self worth from a pseudopod. He describes them as an extension of the mental understanding of the self and as such the individual who has grown one of these pseudopods is able to feel as if things done to the pseudopod is done directly to them. He then cites a few examples, in the first a man parked his convertible outside a shop and returned to find another man sitting innocently in the car to see how it might feel. Unfortunately this particular car was a pseudopod of the owners, who promptly shot the other man for such a direct violation.

The second example is of those brokers who threw themselves out of their office block windows upon their balances reaching zero during the nineteen twenty nine Wall Street crash. So much of these persons self worth was tied up in their funds that when they ceased to exist these individuals effectively died, the act of suicide of the body was just a formality. The real world is one of constant change which means that beliefs, outlooks and understandings that relate to the real world must be adaptable and flexible so as to avert potential disasters.

Religion has always offered the individual a permanent and indestructible source of self esteem and worth. The idea of god lies outside the realm of the tangible and cannot be destroyed or disproved. All religions offer their followers this secure bedrock as foundations for their existence. Religion offers what nothing in the world of change can. It allows people to live with peace of mind, security, comfort, self worth, guidance and happiness, all with relative ease compared to the material world. Many more people seem capable of finding this inner peace through religion than seem capable of fashioning one via material wealth which is reason alone to lament the decline of religion in the more developed areas of the world. In a search for the meaning of life, religion is an oasis in a desert, offering abundant nutrition and refreshment to the soul.

Although religious ideas are able to endure physical changes in the real world they can be undermined with alternate ideas of the same nature, namely other religions. If I believe in my specific god and you believe in a different god we cannot both be exactly correct. Alternate belief threatens the security and sanctity of ones own beliefs. This mirrors the world of reality in that two contrary proofs undermine each other. In the realm outside of proof belief is able to perform the same role. The simple reason there has been so much hatred in religious feuds is because each religion threatens the very basis for existence for the members of the other religions. To cope with this threat when not in direct conflict religions will try to alienate and discredit others. This is easy when those beliefs are held by people in distant lands but when differing entrenched religious ideas are on each others door steps there is either conflict or decline in faith.

Another problem that exacerbates this issue is the immutable nature of most religious doctrine. It is a very hard to preach the word of god for several centuries and then to admit inaccuracies in those teachings as a result of scientific understanding or cultural change. This undermines the credibility of the religion and is dangerous in the same way that other religions may be to individuals who require the religion for their mental nutrition. The more rigid the religious doctrine the greater difficulty the followers will have in maintaining the positive benefits of their belief when confronted with other religions and cultural changes.

In the article by Smith the mechanism by which religions tend towards more rigid doctrines is described and solved. He elegantly asserts that by having a religiously free and neutral state that interpretations of religions would become more open as competition grew, and thus any pernicious effects from the undermining of self justification systems would be removed. Smith was half right in that this can be observed in developed western democracies with cosmopolitan cultures. What he failed to predict was the general decline in faith and increase in esteem for material worth.

When discrediting a religion or a particular aspect of a belief system it is the followers that stand to lose most. I see attacks on religions as an attack on a whole group of people. As mentioned in the meaning of life essay, each persons system of self justification is incredibly specific and personal, not to mention important to their well being. I see few differences between waging a war on a nation in which supply chains are cut off and people begin to starve and a powerfully persuasive argument discrediting the merits of a religious belief. Both harm and deprive innocent individuals more than the institutions. It is for this reason I strongly disagree with the recent efforts of Mr Dawkins. His work on The Selfish Gene showed his genius. His work on the god delusion is not only a waste of genius but unnecessary tampering in the delicate affairs of others. It is exactly the same as trying to convert people to a different religion but with none of the reasonable justifications for doing so, it undermines belief systems and makes life harder for those affected. When it comes to belief systems, if an individual is capable of finding any stability and happiness they should be allowed that comfort, not have the personal systems of others imposed upon them.

Returning to the issue Smith did not foresee in which a decline in faith is observed I see only one solution. To cope with the strains that science and close proximity to other religions puts on faith a new kind of religion is needed. A religion which is not contradicted so frequently in reality would allow the benefits of faith and higher meaning in this era of society. Ramakrishna was one of the first to tread such paths. In his life he practised Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, teaching that all religions lead to the same end. Having not yet read the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita I am not in a position to talk further on his specific views or teachings and will have to make do with my own. I suspect a good translation of the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita would be a good place to start for any person wishing to explore their spirituality without ascribing to any particular religion.

Upon finding I had the room in my soul for some faith I set about looking for ways to satisfy this fancy. It is rather hard to place into words what reasons I have for accepting the possibility of there being a god. Three of the main reasons I would cite if pushed are; the distinction I place between body and conciseness, the unhelpful fact that I feel it in some vague indescribable way, and that the vast majority of people throughout history have and do hold some form of religious belief.

It is far less hard to describe the acceptable ways I found to allow an idea of god into my life. The things that drove me away from religion were a combination of the contradictions with other faiths and science, and also the obvious artefacts of a pre-industrial era left over as tradition. What enabled me to return to religious ideas are the beneficial commonalities between the religions. These are;

Suggestions on how to lead a good and moral life in the real world.

The potential to attain immortality.

The existence of a higher purpose, power or god.

Solid foundations to attain meaning for one's life within the internal realm of the self.

Without a purpose for existence morality is meaningless. I can logically construct a moral and ethical code which mutually affords the best outcomes for those people I interact with and myself. Over a large enough time-scale all our actions are likely to be utterly irrelevant and as such any logic based purely on reality that commands moral conduct towards others is also irrelevant. I am not suggesting people are purely self interested (although many are) and as such require an incentive such as Heaven so that they treat each other well. I am suggesting that more and more people will start to conclude that nothing matters at all as faith is lost in society. The amoral person is far scarier than the immoral person. An immoral person is just a moral person with differing views from the norm. My form of agnosticism does away with this issue as in the non-existence of god option nothing matters so any action is equally reasonable. However in the existence of god option there is purpose and therefore morality (and other things) apply. As both are possibilities, one of which dictates action while the other doesn't it is logical to act as if god does exists and thus morally.

On this premise I have to envisage a god that does not contradict reality so as to remain consistent. Given that my whole system is based on logic is somewhat assumes that my god obeys the laws of logic. This alone disproves certain things regarding religion, things like how in Christianity good people can wind up in Hell due to unfortunate circumstances, which a loving god could not allow. Beyond this my particular ideas of how god is manifest are far beyond vague or ill defined containing very little substance at all. Essentially I am willing to accept any of the ideas as to what god is that are possible as far as logic goes.

Society wide morality is rather like personal outlook/belief systems in that it is unique to societies based on their circumstances. Morality having the capacity to vary suggests that god will allow for any persons code provided it is justified and not an absolute doctrine of morality. In my Ramakrishna style interpretation of all religions being different interpretations of the same thing I feel under no obligation to make sacrifices or attend rituals to uphold a belief. I am obliged only to live a life in which I can look back at the end and call it a good life well spent by my own criteria. It is an accepting religion that allows many interpretations and understandings, all specific faiths are able to worship in it's churches and all other religious buildings may be used by it in return. It never tries to convert people or suggest new ways of looking at things, all it does is accept people for how they are. It is a humble religion that claims to know very little, willing to try any idea of for fit. It would be a religion based only on faith and not books or idols made by man.

It could be that god is consciousness and we are all tiny fragments of one great being. It could be that god is the universe and we exist as part of god's imagination. Both sound ridiculous when put in words and matter very little in reality. The point is accepting the possibility of a god, the faith is waiting to experience the actuality upon death. Sadly I think the era of new religious formation is past. Part of the allure of religion are the answers it can provide to big questions, while my personal take on religion does away with the harmful macro social effects of religion it offers few answers. This combined with a religious scepticism in an environment of monopoly religions makes it very unlikely any religion with similar values to my own will come into mainstream existence.

The real solution to the problems of religious conflict and lack of self worth in areas of declining faith are acts of humility from the notable figures from the established religions. If god does exists we can guarantee that it is not man made, which all religions are. For religions to survive they will need to start accepting the possibility of human error within their doctrine so that they can offer people the chance of faith without contradictions. I believe a society without faith would be duller, unhappier and less likely to endure. As with my stance on democracy and capitalism I find myself again with the topic of religion; I am for them all in principle but must elect for 'the none of the above' option when offered the choice of those that exist or have ever existed.