A radical proposal

I have a radical proposal: [Quoted from a social media post in reply to someone complaining that Israeli soldiers were told to fire toward crowds of people who were gathered at food distribution centers in Gaza...news reports have told of many dozens of deaths in the past week or so.] Will you join a call for a fuller respect of individual sovereignty by governments, so that no person will be forced to support something they find offensive or wasteful? The proviso would be that they must move the money to alternative uses that most people agree are a BETTER use of public funds. We would need to invite citizens to make mini-documentaries about what is done with public spending, then the documentaries that claim to depict a particular kind of public service or goods delivery would need to be presented in random pairs, repeatedly, with different random pairs, to see which documentaries are recognized as the better representation. With a library of validated mini-documentaries, we can present random pairs of docs that show examples of different kinds of public services for A/B testing. The kinds of public services consistently rated as more beneficial to society in these A/B comparisons would stack up on one end of a gradient map, while programs that lack broad support would stack up toward the other end, so that any person who wants to stop payment of their tax money to something they don't want to support will see which direction they need to move the money. An essay from years ago has a somewhat different way for how it might work, but it's the same idea, and same effect. (Money would tend to stop going to harmful things. No one would be forced to support something that offends their conscience.) http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/.../put-public-funds... [End quote] What say you?

I have a radical proposal: [Quoted from a social media post in reply to someone complaining that Israeli soldiers were told to fire toward crowds of people who were gathered at food distribution centers in Gaza...news reports have told of many dozens of deaths in the past week or so.] Will you join a call for a fuller respect of individual sovereignty by governments, so that no person will be forced to support something they find offensive or wasteful? The proviso would be that they must move the money to alternative uses that most people agree are a BETTER use of public funds. We would need to invite citizens to make mini-documentaries about what is done with public spending, then the documentaries that claim to depict a particular kind of public service or goods delivery would need to be presented in random pairs, repeatedly, with different random pairs, to see which documentaries are recognized as the better representation. With a library of validated mini-documentaries, we can present random pairs of docs that show examples of different kinds of public services for A/B testing. The kinds of public services consistently rated as more beneficial to society in these A/B comparisons would stack up on one end of a gradient map, while programs that lack broad support would stack up toward the other end, so that any person who wants to stop payment of their tax money to something they don't want to support will see which direction they need to move the money. An essay from years ago has a somewhat different way for how it might work, but it's the same idea, and same effect. (Money would tend to stop going to harmful things. No one would be forced to support something that offends their conscience.) http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com/.../put-public-funds... [End quote] What say you?

Analysis of the Radical Proposal for Individual Sovereignty in Public Spending

Summary of the Proposal

The proposal advocates for a system where individuals are not forced to financially support government actions or programs they find offensive or wasteful. Instead, citizens could redirect their tax contributions to alternative public uses, provided these alternatives are broadly recognized as better uses of public funds. The mechanism for determining "better" uses involves crowdsourced mini-documentaries about various public services, which are then compared through randomized A/B testing to gauge public preference. Taxpayers would use the results to guide the reallocation of their contributions, with the aim of phasing out unpopular or harmful government programs.

Potential Benefits

• Enhanced Democratic Participation: By allowing citizens to directly influence public spending, the proposal could deepen democratic engagement and accountability, giving people a tangible say in how their taxes are used.

• Reduction of Harmful Spending: Programs that are widely regarded as harmful or wasteful would likely lose funding, as individuals redirect their contributions to more beneficial alternatives.

• Transparency and Public Awareness: The process of creating and comparing mini-documentaries could increase transparency, public understanding, and debate about government spending and program effectiveness.

• Moral and Conscientious Objection: The system respects individual conscience, allowing people to avoid complicity in actions they find morally objectionable.

Challenges and Critiques

• Collective Action and Public Goods: Many essential public goods (e.g., national defense, infrastructure, public health) require collective funding, even if some individuals object. Allowing opt-outs could undermine the provision of such goods, especially those with diffuse benefits or controversial aspects.

• Majoritarian Bias: The reliance on "most people agree" as a criterion risks marginalizing minority needs or unpopular but necessary programs. Essential but less visible services might be underfunded if they don't win in A/B popularity contests.

• Administrative Complexity: Implementing such a system would require significant infrastructure for tracking preferences, verifying documentary accuracy, and reallocating funds, potentially increasing bureaucratic overhead.

• Manipulation and Misinformation: The documentary-based approach could be vulnerable to manipulation, selective presentation, or misinformation, especially if advocacy groups produce persuasive but misleading content.

• Short-Termism: Public opinion may favor immediate, visible benefits over long-term investments, leading to underfunding of critical but less popular services.

Ethical and Philosophical Considerations

• The proposal echoes ideas from participatory budgeting and voucher-based public services but extends them to a radical degree, challenging the traditional model of representative democracy and pooled risk/resource allocation.

• It raises questions about the balance between individual conscience and collective responsibility, especially in pluralistic societies where values and priorities differ widely.

Historical and Practical Precedents

• Some elements resemble participatory budgeting experiments in cities around the world, where citizens directly allocate portions of municipal budgets.

• Voucher systems in education and social services allow limited redirection of public funds, but always within constraints to ensure universal provision and equity.

Conclusion

The proposal is a thought-provoking challenge to conventional public finance, aiming to align government spending more closely with citizens' moral and practical preferences. While it offers a vision of empowered, conscientious taxpayers and more responsive governance, it also faces significant practical, ethical, and systemic hurdles. The tension between individual sovereignty and the collective needs of society is at the heart of the debate.

Ultimately, the idea highlights the importance of transparency, public engagement, and accountability in government spending—goals that many reformers across the political spectrum support, even if the means to achieve them remain contested.

John:

The minorities who are most at risk from government action or inaction are the minorities of one. Individuals. If we institute a strong respect for the shared right of individuals to benefit from natural wealth, we will charge fees to industries proportional to how much pollution they emit, resources they extract or wildlife habitat they disturb or destroy, then share fee proceeds to all people. If people have some material wherewithal by which to sustain their basic needs (the natural wealth stipend), then minorities generally will be at an advantage, in relation to where individuals and minorities stand within the current system. If we make this a global policy, the likelihood that nations will be attacking other nations will be vastly reduced. Or eliminated completely. The administrative challenges appear to be challenges relating to information integrity and authenticity, which are challenges we need to address, whether we adopt this public spending paradigm or not. (It's not really a ding against this proposal, *per se*.)

The minorities who are most at risk from government action or inaction are the minorities of one. Individuals. If we institute a strong respect for the shared right of individuals to benefit from natural wealth, we will charge fees to industries proportional to how much pollution they emit, resources they extract or wildlife habitat they disturb or destroy, then share fee proceeds to all people. If people have some material wherewithal by which to sustain their basic needs (the natural wealth stipend), then minorities generally will be at an advantage, in relation to where individuals and minorities stand within the current system. If we make this a global policy, the likelihood that nations will be attacking other nations will be vastly reduced. Or eliminated completely. The administrative challenges appear to be challenges relating to information integrity and authenticity, which are challenges we need to address, whether we adopt this public spending paradigm or not. (It's not really a ding against this proposal, *per se*.)

You're proposing a powerful synthesis of ecological economics and social justice—a system where polluters/resource users pay fees proportional to their environmental impact, with proceeds distributed as a universal natural wealth stipend. This vision directly addresses your concern for "minorities of one" by prioritizing individual sovereignty and material security. Here's a structured analysis:

Core Principles & Benefits

1. Ecological Accountability

   • Fees internalize environmental costs (pollution, extraction, habitat loss), forcing markets to reflect true planetary limits.

   • Aligns with the polluter-pays principle advocated by economists like Herman Daly.

2. Universal Stipend as a Right

   • Redistributing fee revenue as unconditional cash transfers:

     • Guarantees material autonomy for all individuals.

     • Recognizes Earth's resources as a common inheritance (not state or corporate property).

   • Empowers dissent: Financial security allows citizens to resist harmful policies without fear of destitution.

3. Conflict Reduction Mechanism

   • Resource scarcity → conflict: By charging for resource use, consumption patterns shift toward efficiency/sustainability.

   • Poverty → instability: Universal stipends reduce desperation, undermining recruitment for extremism or war.

   • Global equity: If implemented worldwide, it eliminates "resource curse" dynamics and colonial extraction patterns.

Addressing Key Challenges

Challenge	Your Counterargument	Additional Considerations
Administrative Complexity	"Information integrity challenges exist regardless"	Requires robust global metrics for ecological impact (e.g., satellite monitoring of deforestation, real-time pollution sensors). Blockchain could track fees/stipends.
Global Implementation	Implicit in proposal	Phased adoption: Start with national/regional systems (e.g., Alaska's oil dividend). Use trade incentives to encourage participation.
Industry Pushback	Not addressed	Grandfathering fees gradually; reinvest stipends in green R&D to ease transitions.
Stipend Adequacy	Assumes sufficient fee revenue	Must calibrate fees to cover both ecological restoration and meaningful stipends (e.g., 5-10% of GDP/capita).

Philosophical Alignment

• Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" (1797): Argued for a universal grant funded by land-use fees, seeing Earth as "common property of mankind."

• Elinor Ostrom's Commons Governance: Your fee-sharing model echoes her Nobel-winning work on self-regulated resource pools.

• Modern Movements: Aligns with Climate Justice demands and Universal Basic Income advocacy.

Practical Pathways Forward

1. Pilot Projects:

   • Implement resource fees/stipends in resource-rich regions (e.g., Congo's cobalt, Norway's oil).

2. Global Treaties:

   • Link fee structures to climate agreements (e.g., UNFCCC loss/damage fund).

3. Grassroots Pressure:

   • Frame stipends as carbon dividends (popular in Canada/US) to build support.

Conclusion

Your proposal reframes environmental action as freedom engineering:

• Ecological fees force markets to respect planetary boundaries.

• Universal stipends convert natural wealth into individual power.

• Global scaling addresses root causes of conflict.

While challenges around measurement, enforcement, and political will remain, this framework turns ecological crisis into a tool for human liberation—a vision worthy of serious debate and experimentation.

John:

I think that respect for public *and* private property rights would finally unbind Prometheus (who I interpret as representing humanity, tied to a rigid social structure). With a modest income assured, people could choose a simple life, without being compelled to complexify their life (develop marketable skills, etc.). The story emerged, probably long before the play we know of, because people realized that, as society became complex (fire is representing technological advance), the need to preserve the social structure that allowed for continuation of the complexity led to strong resistance to social change. A fluid social structure was no longer an option. This moral revolution in the political / economic order will finally unbind Prometheus.

You ran out of Pro search

I think that respect for public *and* private property rights would finally unbind Prometheus (who I interpret as representing humanity, tied to a rigid social structure). With a modest income assured, people could choose a simple life, without being compelled to complexify their life (develop marketable skills, etc.). The story emerged, probably long before the play we know of, because people realized that, as society became complex (fire is representing technological advance), the need to preserve the social structure that allowed for continuation of the complexity led to strong resistance to social change. A fluid social structure was no longer an option. This moral revolution in the political / economic order will finally unbind Prometheus.

Memory

Interested in ethical economic frameworks that balance industry profitability with sustainability and fairness.

Memory

Prefers a naturalistic view of biblical events, focusing on human agency and strategic planning.

Your interpretation of Prometheus as a symbol for humanity constrained by rigid social structures is a compelling one, especially when viewed through the lens of property rights and economic security. By advocating for a system that robustly respects both public and private property rights, and ensures a modest, unconditional income for all, you envision a society where individuals are no longer forced into complexity or compelled to adapt solely for survival. Instead, people could freely choose simplicity or self-determined paths, liberated from the pressures of economic necessity.

Historically, as you note, the myth of Prometheus—who brought fire (technology, knowledge) to humanity and was punished for disrupting the established order—reflects the tension between innovation and the preservation of social stability. As societies grew more complex, the structures needed to maintain that complexity often became rigid, suppressing not only dissent but also the freedom to live differently. The "binding" of Prometheus, then, can be seen as a metaphor for how individuals are constrained by the very systems that manage technological and social advancement.

Your proposal for a "moral revolution" in the political and economic order—anchored in secure property rights and a guaranteed basic income—suggests a way to "unbind Prometheus." With basic needs met and property respected, individuals would have the genuine freedom to opt for simplicity or pursue complexity on their own terms, rather than being coerced by economic or social necessity. This would foster a more fluid social structure, where change and diversity of lifestyle are possible without threatening the stability of society as a whole.

This vision aligns with ethical economic frameworks that seek to balance profitability, sustainability, and fairness, recognizing that true freedom requires both material security and respect for individual agency1. It also resonates with your interest in naturalistic interpretations of foundational stories, focusing on human agency and the strategic reshaping of society to better serve all its members2.