I considered first doing some research, which may have made for more enlightened thought, but decided instead to jump right in and muddle my way through. This week I am working to unravel us, them, mine, and yours. I will begin by doing so grammatically. Us and Them are the objective pronouns of We and They; and Ours and Theirs are the respective possessive pronouns of We and They. Me and Mine are (respectively) the objective and possessive pronouns of I; and Her and Hers serve in the same respective capacities for She. But ultimately it is not the grammar that I am wanting to untangle; it is ideologies based on proposed Ideals, and their potential practical and impractical applications.
Here is what I am getting at. (It feels like) I have frequently thought about Us and Them, taking the position that it is a counterproductive dynamic that has outlived its usefulness. So if objective pronouns have become diabolical evildoers, what do we make of their cousins, the possessive pronouns. Are they GREEDY diabolical evildoers? And being possessive, (since I am focusing on mine and yours), does this mean that private ownership has also outlived its usefulness? This may appear to be a leap, but isn't it through grammatical structure that we discern meaning? I realize that this would be an incendiary position to take, awakening ghosts of tyrannies past, but is there a way to practically examine this perspective (of private ownership as obsolete), from outside of or beyond political necessities and implications? To examine practicalities of a new or renewed ideology or proposed Ideal, we must not only seek functionality, but we must also find the potential for improvement in terms of efficiencies and/or results. I am uncertain if it is possible to separate efforts toward practicality from political administration; especially today in the midst of 7,488,945,442 people. And, I know that experience has shown that impracticality and inefficiency are exactly the characteristics that often predominate within any effort to translate ideology into practicalities into political administration. So if I work to simply and objectively administer an Ideal, I am afraid I will end with (at best) a highly inefficient bureaucracy---(yes, much like our current state)---or (at worst) a tyrannical form of totalitarianism; all of course, in my head, as I have no political clout. And it is within this spectrum of objective political administration, (from bureaucracy to totalitarianism), where most of us now reside. Keep in mind that the initial premise I want to examine is the necessity of private ownership. Though it may appear so, I am not championing public ownership (communism), or state ownership (totalitarianism). And at this point in my thought, (and at this point in our thought), an inefficient bureaucracy administering capitalism based on (or posing as) Freedom appears to be the lesser of evils. Nonetheless...
Is there a way to introduce an Ideology based on an Ideal (such as Freedom or No Ownership or The Übermensch), without having it automatically recognized as a past or current misadventure? Is there a way to formulate practicalities outside of our known spectrum of objective political administration? I believe that most of us would instinctively identify said system of thought by its similarities to other disappointing attempts, and jump right to its failed practicalities neglecting or ignoring any merit that might otherwise be culled and refined. I believe that theory (not only) will, (but also must), be entangled with functional practicality, which today means political administration; which in turn implies a power dynamic, thus an initial Us and Them likely leading to other artificially created Us and Them dynamics to maintain existing (or create desired) power constructs. Regardless, I am going to run with these (unpopular) thoughts on the imminent demise of private ownership, to see how far I get. But to capture attention and imagination, I believe any proposed Ideal must in some way, (even a small way), be unique. Not an easy task...
Because I am still stumbling in the dark, I want to better understand this spectrum of objective political administration that I keep mentioning. I believe most of us would have more faith in an objective truth than in a subjective truth; and this is why a political ideology must work toward an objective administration, as opposed to a dictatorship for example, which utilizes a subjective administration. In some cases, such as the Totalitarianism of Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's, the basic belief, (non-Jewish Caucasians are the only ethnicity fit to continue), is flawed, but the logic that flowed from this premise was believably compelling. One either was or was not, and based on this division, decisions and actions fulfilled (so-called) preordained destiny. In other cases, such as the U.S. today, the noble Ideal of Freedom must be protected by rules and regulations, which in turn justify decisions and actions, further necessitating rules and regulations. This quest for large-scale objectivity has (at best) divided and (at worst) terrorized; (yet these objective efforts still have more potential for longevity than do subjective efforts). So though objective administration is preferred over subjective administration, it still calls for improvement. And, private ownership of property being tangibly objective and all tangled up within this spectrum of objective political administration must also be included in a plan for improvement. But I am still fumbling for an answer...
So, to be able to move forward, for the moment I will believe that I have swayed a majority to accept the Ideal of No Ownership, removing one facet from, (thus weakening), the Us and Them dynamic. From here, what would a political ideology look like? And from there, how would that translate into a system of objective political administration that would improve on efficiencies and results? These are two very big questions.
First, The Political Ideology:
Within my limited understanding, the ideology I am beginning to formulate is in the neighborhood of Socialism, perhaps leaning toward Social Democracy, with maybe a dash (or two or three) of Mutualism, a sprinkle of Activism, and a pinch of Anarchy. But somehow I would like to differentiate between community or public ownership and no ownership, and I would like to simplify, and I would like to avoid explosive terminology. An Ideology typically involves an -ism and when combining elements from multiple existing ideologies a hyphen may also be included. With all this in mind, (and because Mutual-Social-Demo-Activanarchism is cumbersome and mostly inaccurate), I will call this proposed system of political thought, None-the-lessism. Not only is it catchy and inoffensive, but in many ways it is an accurate portrayal of my efforts to dethrone divisive power dynamics despite their presence and influence throughout recorded history. It is accurate because my efforts are not the lesser of a) my efforts and b) nothing. What is there to lose? Enough is enough! As Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) said,
"Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property."
In context Mr. Proudhon is referring to private (or unmovable) property such as land. I agree with this distinction and believe that personal (or movable) property may be subject to ownership.
To this end, another quote. This one from Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754:
"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say 'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!'"
(The Rousseau quote was also used in this previous thought: Uphill Happiness from April 16, 2016.)
So if No Ownership of private property is the linchpin, I believe a second major characteristic, and logical follow-up, would be more evenly distributed opportunity which would translate to more evenly distributed power which would translate to (yes, like-it-or-not) more evenly distributed wealth. This is a good starting point. Other characteristics of none-the-lessism would naturally follow from the implementation and administration as outlined in the next section.
Now, The Political Administration:
To do this justice, I believe we would need to fast-forward 50 years beyond full implementation, and then come back to the transition; but to avoid conjecture on new technologies that may be introduced in the next 50 to 100 years, I will instead introduce none-the-lessism as if it were fully implemented and functional tomorrow. I would also like to imagine this as a worldwide initiative, though I believe it feasible on a national scale. Here goes...
When I venture up and out in the morning, I will not see any immediately noticeable changes. Everything that has happened, has happened behind the scenes. I will still find my tomato juice in the refrigerator, my pistachios (roasted and salted) in the pantry, and my car in the driveway. I will still go to work and screen college applications based on merit as I always have. I will still have a variety of choices for lunch and for my afternoon coffee, and I can still go by the grocery store after work to choose something for dinner. At home tomorrow evening I will still have the same programming selections from the dish provider I had previously chosen, and I will still be able to surf the Web or read my book while keeping an eye on the basketball game.
If next week I decide I want to job hunt, I will do so in the same manner I would have last week. If this summer I decide that I want a newer vehicle, I will shop (for it and the loan) as I would have last summer. If I am a renter and in two years I have tired of mowing 3 acres, I can house-hunt in the same way I would have two years ago. All of the market mechanisms, with the single exception of real estate, will remain in play, but based on the behind the scenes changes, they will have become more efficient because greed and power will have considerably less influence. Here is how:
1. No one owns private property. All land, buildings, public services, and businesses are still subject to appropriate protection of assets as provided by existing business, political, and governmental systems, but on paper they are unowned entities. If I previously owned my home, I am now a renter: (much like I am renting this physical body and my current existence). If I previously owned a business, I am now its managing partner. These considerations will be explored in more detail below.
2. Currency has become electronic Parity Dollars. Each one of the 7,489,636,968 individuals in this world (in this moment) receive their share of the world's wealth (paid weekly) from the considerations and factors as calculated on the wealth rubric; (outlined below). There is less "Old Money" or "Family Money" as much of it has been contributed to the world's wealth in the transition period (as explained further below). Because all rents and business profits now go to the world wealth bank, there are no taxes. Any business concern that was previously required to produce budgets, balance sheets, etc., (including public utilities, and cities and towns), must continue to do so. Any business concern not showing a profit for multiple consecutive years will be subject, (following stringent, to-be-determined guidelines), to restructuring and or forced bankruptcy/closure. Healthcare insurance and personal liability insurance for each individual will be required.
Wealth Rubric: An individual's Parity Salary will be paid on the factors below as calculated from the previous calendar year, (except for # of Household Members which is a more immediate adjustment); though the new salary will be paid (on a 3 month delay) from April 1 through March 31. Age, Years of Education, and Level of Education will be calculated according to the status on December 31. Changes in employment status will be calculated accordingly by percentage of year spent in each job. Death will be prorated for the entire year and evenly distributed to the other Household Members, and Household Member status will be adjusted on the first day of the following month after 30 days.
Parity Salary Factors: In order to have a number from which to calculate, for our purposes now, the Base Parity Salary is calculated as an average of the "Purchasing Power Parity" from average annual wages in US dollars across a sampling of 30 countries in 2015. This number is $38,395.00. Unless otherwise stated, all percentages below are calculated from this Base Parity Salary. For purposes of profit and loss, the business concern pays for all Job Factors below, and the world wealth bank takes deductions and pays for all non job factors below.
- Age: 0 - 17 (or age of legal emancipation) = 25% distributed (evenly) to the legal guardian(s). Age of legal emancipation - 20 or 18 to 20 = 50%. 21 - 29 = 75%. 30-39 = 80%. 40 - 49 = 90%. 50+ = 100%.
- Years of Education is defined as less than 12 if no High School Diploma, 12 if a High School Diploma is obtained, and 1 additional year for every 30 college semester credit hours, (or 40 college quarter credit hours). Less than 12 = -20% from base. 12 = Base. Each additional year = +2.5% up to a maximum of 8 years or +20%.
- Level of Education is based on degrees earned. A High School Diploma = Base. A Bachelor's Degree = +5%. A Master's Degree = +10%. A Doctoral Degree = +20%. These percentages are maximum, and only one percentage increase will apply; (ex. If one earns two Bachelor's Degrees, one Master's Degree, and two Doctoral Degrees, their percentage increase is +20%).
- Unemployed: Working less than 500 hours in a calendar year = -25%. This factor does not apply to an individual with a disability.
- Job Factor - Hours Worked: 100 hours = +2.5% up to a maximum of 3000 hours or +75%.
- Job Factor - Salaried Position: A full time salaried position = 3000 hours. A part time salaried position = 1500 hours.
- Job Factor - Premium: A full time job in health care, education, the military, or public service = +10%. A salaried position supervising more than 9 other salaried or non-salaried personnel = +5%; more than 49 = +10%; more than 99 = +15%; (only one salaried premium will apply).
- Job Factor - Talent Premium: For actors, writers, professional athletes, artists, entertainment personalities, and anyone else (such as a business consultant) who may be contracted per job or per season, or paid per project, a Talent Premium of up to 1000% may be negotiated and paid. Anyone receiving multiple Talent Premiums in a calendar year may not earn more than 1500% maximum. Anyone receiving 12.5% or more in Talent Premiums is not subject to the Unemployment deduction.
- Job Factor - Physicality: All jobs will have a physicality grade listed as non physical = Base; physical = +5%; very physical = +10%; or exceptionally physical = +15%.
- Job Factor - Risk: All jobs will have a risk grade listed as minimal = Base; moderate = +5%; above average = +10%; or dangerous = +20%.
- Household Members are defined as official residents of the same address/household, aged 18 or older. 2 Household Members = -20% as calculated from each member's Base Parity Salary. Each additional Household Member = -5% additional, up to 5 Household Members or a maximum of -35% for each member. A Household may include more than 5 Members, but in this case the maximum deduction will remain -35%.
Calculating from the factors listed above, a married 40 year old with a Bachelor's Degree, working as a salaried manager of a convenience store, supervising 15 non salaried employees, with one child aged 18 still at home while attending college, will earn an annual income of $63,351.75. If his or her 38 year old spouse who attended college for one year, chooses not to work, he or she will have an annual income of $12,478.38. If that same spouse worked an average of 20 hours per week, he or she would have an annual income of $32,059.82.
These numbers may be high taking into account total world income, but they feel reasonable, and, if there is a gap, I believe gained efficiencies will help to close it. Still, if adjustments are necessary, within the simplicity of this rubric they are easily accomplished.
And Now, Implementation:
In the US, I believe we have a governmental structure already in place that could be transitioned to implement this system. To implement it worldwide would involve much more complexity, so I will briefly focus on an overview for this country. Local and State bureaucracies could be refocused from (for example) tax collection to Household registrations. Real estate and property experts, (both private and governmental), could be refocused on dwelling appraisals and rent fee structures. On a national level I believe a representative democracy is a nice fit for the implementation and ultimate administration of none-the-lessism. Our representative democracy however, needs to evolve. I believe some form of voluntary draft for public office would help to rid us of divisive partisan politics and the outrageous resulting expenditures. In an extreme example, we could move to a lottery system, (imagine ping pong balls in a giant hopper), of choosing a single social security number from all registered constituents with a Bachelor's Degree for respective US House of Representatives seats. Each one chosen will have the opportunity to say "no thank you" and another will be chosen until one accepts. After 6 (or 8?) year terms in the House, those Representatives from a given state will be allowed, (if they choose to do so), to submit their name for election to the US Senate. Retiring Senators may in turn submit their name to be considered for US President (most votes) and Vice President (second most votes). A World Council could be set up in a similar manner, with perhaps former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Senators (or their equivalencies from other nations) moving on to this world stage. In the US alone though, imagine elections for occupation of the Senate and the White House, with no partisan politics and a verifiable track record for each candidate. And if partisan politics become obsolete on the national level, how long will they last on the local and state level?
It feels I have gotten a bit off track, but I believe the point is that none-the-lessism will force a larger common ground and more parity, and require far less divisiveness. Although the implementation will be difficult, the most incensed volatility will likely come from those with the most to lose. Right now, worldwide, (if my Internet sources are accurate, which I don't believe them to be significantly off), there are only 2 millionaires for every 1000 people, and only 1 person with an annual income of over $100,000 for every 1000 people. So those currently with the money, (and the power), will be unhappy; but they will be an unhappy minority. I have also discovered that there are less than 2,000 billionaires in the world.
So here is my plan to seed the world wealth bank:
Utilizing the same timeline as above, of full implementation tomorrow, one year ago those funds over one million dollars, of all individual millionaires and billionaires, were frozen. From those individual's accounts with more than one billion dollars, the surplus (over $999,999,999.99) was contributed to the world wealth bank. These 2,000 former billionaires and the other 15 million millionaires were then given 90 days to publicly decide if they would remain a millionaire, or if they would contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank. Those individuals deciding to keep their funds over $1,000,000, are designated Legacy Millionaires. Upon the death of a Legacy Millionaire, surplus funds over $999,999.99 are contributed to the world wealth bank. Any Legacy Millionaire with more than $999,999,999.99 in their personal parity account at the beginning of a fiscal quarter, (January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1), will contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank. Anyone not a Legacy Millionaire with more than $999,999.99 in their personal parity account at the beginning of a fiscal quarter will contribute the surplus to the world wealth bank.
From this point, (tomorrow morning), business concern profits and rent fees will also begin flowing into the world wealth bank. And the transition for transfer of property is not really a transition and it is absolutely not a transfer. At midnight each piece of previously owned unmovable property becomes an unowned entity. This will cause much consternation...
It feels good to own land; to say "I own my home." I have been there. It made me feel powerful and in control. And to own other property as well, strengthens that feeling. To be a Land "Lord" --- it really is a bit like Playing God. But for the renter, where I have also been, it can be demeaning to have someone lord their land over you. It creates an additional unnecessary and divisive Us and Them power dynamic. The same is true for a business owner and his or her employees. To suggest, as I am doing, that we should take this away, will be met with much resistance.
For many It will feel like I am tearing a little hole in the center of their very being; ripping out a piece of their guts; or their heart; or their ego. For many it will change their identity; they may feel lost; confused; uncertain and afraid; all because of a delusion of power and control; a misconception that has suddenly been shown for what it is.
For some it will allow them to take stock of the remainder of their identity; their relationships with family and friends; their productivity within and outside of their job; their past, present and future contributions to community and humanity; their sense of peace and calm as found through a personal spirituality; and their continued efforts toward lifelong learning and progress.
And for others it will be understood.
The Philosopher Epictetus (55 - 135 CE), said that nothing can truly be taken from us. He maintained that inner peace begins when we stop saying "I have lost it" and instead say "it has been returned to where it came from." (Other-Worldly Happiness; January 7, 2012)
For the sake of the majority of the 7,490,028,600 people on this planet (in this moment), we have to realize that we have nothing to lose.
