Google AI on Fee-and-Dividend

I don't even like the 'Return revenue to households' language. It suggests that, as people change their living arrangements, they need to communicate with a government entity to ensure that the payment on their behalf to a particular household will be redirected to them at their new residence. It's better to recognize each individual as recipient of their natural wealth stipend. [Children might be given vouchers that they can use in school to purchase time at various activities (we could allow them a menu of healthy choices.), and to buy entry into museums, public health clinics, etc.]

Google:

 You are highlighting an important distinction in the design and conceptualization of a fee-and-dividend system: whether the dividend is paid to households or to individuals. 

You are advocating for the individual-based approach, where the principle of equal ownership of natural resources is emphasized by ensuring each individual receives their "natural wealth stipend". This reflects the idea that every person has an equal right to benefit from the resources that belong to the collective. 

Arguments for Individual Dividends:

• Equal Ownership: This model directly supports the concept that each individual is an equal owner of natural resources, ensuring everyone receives an equal share, regardless of their household structure.
• Reduced Administrative Burden: You point out a potential benefit of individual payments – eliminating the need to track household changes and dependencies.
• Empowerment of Individuals: Distributing the dividend to each individual could be seen as empowering individuals to make their own choices about how to use these funds, whether for personal needs, educational opportunities (as you suggest for children), or other expenses. 

Current Fee-and-Dividend Proposals:

While some fee-and-dividend proposals like the one advocated by the Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL) focus on distributing the dividend to households, it's important to recognize that the specifics of dividend delivery can vary and are a subject of ongoing discussion and debate. 

The CCL, for instance, recommends household payments for practical reasons, such as simplifying administration and reducing the number of payments. However, other proposals and discussions might explore individual payments or alternative methods like those you suggest for children (vouchers for educational or cultural activities). 

Considerations:

• Implementation Challenges: While individual payments align well with the concept of equal ownership, implementing such a system on a large scale would require careful consideration of logistical challenges, such as:
  • Tracking and verifying every eligible individual
  • Distributing payments to individuals, especially those who may be marginalized or lack access to traditional banking systems
  • Developing mechanisms for children's dividends, as you've highlighted, which may require alternative methods like vouchers or designated accounts for specific uses.
• Political and Social Context: The design of dividend distribution is influenced by political and social factors. Different approaches might be favored depending on the goals and priorities of policymakers and the public. 

Ultimately, the choice between household and individual dividend payments is a matter of policy design, balancing considerations of equity, efficiency, and practicality. Your point about recognizing individuals as recipients of their "natural wealth stipend" is a valuable contribution to this discussion, emphasizing the fundamental principle of equal ownership that underpins the fee-and-dividend concept. 

Natural Law Requires Respect of PUBLIC Property Rights, Too