Proposal for a new social contract

[Lagayscienza]

Alias, you forgot to give us the PO Box number.

You say we ran out of time. Don't despair. Baring a cosmic catastrophe, we have all the time in the world to fix things so that fewer suffer and more prosper. It's just going to take a lot longer and entail more misery than some of us would like.

If we survive, I think we'll get to something like the promised land. But then, I'm an optimist.

Cheers

[Logic_ill]

The problem with armed revolution is that by the time the groups finish warring with one another, if ever and a new system is established, the resources may have been depleted and there may be much environmental damage. Too much time is lost by fighting.

[Lagayscienza]

True, but time is what it is going to take. And, if we screw up too badly before we get to the promised land, the Earth won't mind. The Earth and life will go on without us. Maybe it's time for another end Permian extinction event to kick things into a different gear.

[Elder]

The last few posts seem to agree on one thing: the proposed system would be more fair and more sustainable than the one we are living under. Most of the comments seem to be about the possibility and the method of implementation.

Is this a correct impression?

Because if we agree on that, then we could have a vision of an improved future we could work towards, however long it takes.

So my last question: would you prefer to live under the proposed system, instead of the current one we have?

Before you answer, try to imagine what it would be like in detail:

It would be a world in which you would not be surrounded with the brutality of pain, hunger, fear, frustration, shattered lives, broken families that are often the result of the economic exploitation and devastation we have today.

Try to imagine living in a world where almost all anxiety disappeared.

NOBODY has to worry about losing their home, their job, paying the bills, feeding their children, getting medical help, having an education, able to go on a vacation, pursue a hobby, being helped when they are sick and being able to retire when they are old and tired.

All of this is taken for granted.

You are required to work 2-3 hours a day in a job that you chose, trained for, are good at. You are surrounded with colleagues who are similarly relaxed, efficient, competent.

The rest of the day you could work for the private sector, for money, start your own company, buy and enjoy, or invent and market, luxuries, have all the freedom your imagination and talent can use.

I can not imagine anyone not wanting to live in a world like that (never mind for the moment whether it could be possible) but preferring to live, however rich, surrounded by a cesspool of misery, fear and hate?

[Lagayscienza]

The last few posts seem to agree on one thing: the proposed system would be more fair and more sustainable than the one we are living under. Most of the comments seem to be about the possibility and the method of implementation.

Is this a correct impression?

Because if we agree on that, then we could have a vision of an improved future we could work towards, however long it takes.

I think your impression is correct.

So my last question: would you prefer to live under the proposed system, instead of the current one we have?

Before you answer, try to imagine what it would be like in detail:

It would be a world in which you would not be surrounded with the brutality of pain, hunger, fear, frustration, shattered lives, broken families that are often the result of the economic exploitation and devastation we have today.

Try to imagine living in a world where almost all anxiety disappeared.

NOBODY has to worry about losing their home, their job, paying the bills, feeding their children, getting medical help, having an education, able to go on a vacation, pursue a hobby, being helped when they are sick and being able to retire when they are old and tired.

All of this is taken for granted.

You are required to work 2-3 hours a day in a job that you chose, trained for, are good at. You are surrounded with colleagues who are similarly relaxed, efficient, competent.

The rest of the day you could work for the private sector, for money, start your own company, buy and enjoy, or invent and market, luxuries, have all the freedom your imagination and talent can use.

I can not imagine anyone not wanting to live in a world like that (never mind for the moment whether it could be possible) but preferring to live, however rich, surrounded by a cesspool of misery, fear and hate?

Would I be prepared to live under this system rather than the one we currently have?

Maybe. IF I could be convinced that it would work, and IF it could be instituted peacefully and democratically, then I would vote for it. But those are two mighty big IFs.

On the question of whether or not it could work as envisaged I am, like the majority, too economically illiterate to come to any conclusion.

The 3 main theories of value/economics that I studied in the only economics unit I did at university in my first undergraduate degree were:

-Subjective Preference or Austrian theory (SP)(Jevons, Walras, Menger and in its most modern form called, I think, Neo- classical economics of the Chicago School it's major theorist being Milton Fiedman)

-Cost of Production theory (COP) (Smith, Riccardo)

-Abstract Labour theory (Marxist)

All three made a certain amount of sense to me. As I understand it, our modern western market economies operate mainly under SP with a bit of tinkering according to COP depending on which of the major parties is in government. I may have the above a bit muddled (it was 40 odd years ago) and no doubt there are other economic theories I have not looked at. Anyway, in order to get a feel for whether your system could work I’d like to run it past a few sympathetic and highly qualified economists well versed in SP and COP to see if it would stand up even in theory. I have a suspicion Milton Friedman may have been right when he said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results". But it's hard to see how you could look at the results of your idea without first giving it a go.

Anyway, if it proved possible to deal with any bugs our friendly economists identified you would then need to put together a PR campaign that Joe and Jane Average could understand. You would also need a bunch of highly politically talented people and a messianic leader who were prepared to put in many years of grueling work and mobilize a massive grass roots movement before you got even a single seat in a legislature like that of Australia, the UK or Canada (You can forget the USA until next century).

Even given all of the above I think you would also probably need a sympathetic billionaire media mogul on board so that the program could be fairly presented to the electorate. Even then, if it started to look like a winner you would find the established major parties pinching bits of your program then sinking the whole idea once they were re-elected and so it would take many electoral cycles to get off the ground.

We must be realistic - there are enormous hurdles that would need to be cleared.

Still, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility – especially if things got bad enough economically and the disparity between rich and poor continued to widen and the climate started going down the gurgler in an immediately threatening way.

Anyway, I don’t want to be a naysayer and I hope one day, if it’s economically feasible, it comes to pass. But I’ll be dead by then so I won’t even get a chance to vote on it.

Maybe you should put together a manifesto once some friendly economists have had a look at the idea.

[Elder]

Anyway, I don’t want to be a naysayer and I hope one day, if it’s economically feasible, it comes to pass. But I’ll be dead by then so I won’t even get a chance to vote on it.

So will I, Lagayscienza, so will I.

Maybe you should put together a manifesto once some friendly economists have had a look at the idea.

As far as economists are concerned, John Ralston Saul (one of the greatest thinkers today) said in his "Doubters' Companion" (quoting from memory) "there is a similarity between economists and weather forecasters -- neither apologizes for their predictions"

Was it Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan who said, after the last economic meltdown: "I guess I was wrong!"

[Lagayscienza]

I did read Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. It was many years ago and I think I found it hard going...

To be honest I can't remember much about it. It's still sitting in my book shelves somewhere. I'll dig it out and have another look at it.

Cheers

-- Updated July 11th, 2015, 2:57 am to add the following --

PS I think it was Greenspan.

[Elder]

I did read Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. It was many years ago and I think I found it hard going...

His best books to date are: "The Doubter's Companion", "On Equilibrium" and "The Unconscious Civilization".

John Ralston Saul is Canada's foremost living philosopher. His work and thought reflects a wide-ranging, gentle understanding of us, and our human condition.

Take a look at: http://www.aller-stead.com/martin/pages/equilibrium.htm

[Alias]

My PO box is a secret. So is my superpac. My economist in't https://hazelhenderson.com/ but you'd better not waste too much time consulting her.

[Elder]

My economist in't https://hazelhenderson.com/ but you'd better not waste too much time consulting her.

Wow!!!

I did not know that some economists, since John Kenneth Galbraith, of the respectable sort still exists!

Warms my heart and rekindles my faith in a possible human future.

[Elder]

As far as economists are concerned, John Ralston Saul (one of the greatest thinkers today) said in his "Doubters' Companion" (quoting from memory) "there is a similarity between economists and weather forecasters -- neither apologizes for their predictions"

My wife found my hiding copy, so now I can quote exactly:

Economics sprouted from the same intellectual roots as weather forecasting -- rarely accurate but devoid of memory, thus cheerful about being wrong"

[LuckyR]

There are a couple of issues that are unaddressed in the OP and how they are dealt with will likely color how the final product will behave.

For example, there are huge, I mean really huge parts of the current public sector that according to the OP would not be part of the new public sector, so what becomes of them? Are they switched to the private sector? Are they dropped altogether? I am speaking of say the military, the justice system, the penal system, roads, the post office, ports, regulatory agencies, education the list is quite long and the topics covered most would agree are critical to basic civilization as we know it.

Also what happens when the public sector needs as part of it's operation, the services of the highly educated, highly specialized? Those folks likely had to pay quite dearly for their specialized education (since graduate degrees are not a necessity, right? So they wouldn't be "free" or at least part of the new public sector), those folks are going to want to be compensated for their efforts, yet the government doesn't use money, how does that work?

Are the police public or private? Are they paid for their work (private), or volunteers (public)? Who, exactly is going to "volunteer" to take on the criminals trafficking in private sector goods and services? Not me. Is a country with private police forces better than the place we live in now? Sounds a lot more like a dystopian SyFi graphic novel to me...

There are numerous other loose ends that the OP brings to mind, but you get the idea.

[Wilson]

Before you answer, try to imagine what it would be like in detail:

It would be a world in which you would not be surrounded with the brutality of pain, hunger, fear, frustration, shattered lives, broken families that are often the result of the economic exploitation and devastation we have today.

Try to imagine living in a world where almost all anxiety disappeared.

NOBODY has to worry about losing their home, their job, paying the bills, feeding their children, getting medical help, having an education, able to go on a vacation, pursue a hobby, being helped when they are sick and being able to retire when they are old and tired.

All of this is taken for granted.

You are required to work 2-3 hours a day in a job that you chose, trained for, are good at. You are surrounded with colleagues who are similarly relaxed, efficient, competent.

The rest of the day you could work for the private sector, for money, start your own company, buy and enjoy, or invent and market, luxuries, have all the freedom your imagination and talent can use.

I can not imagine anyone not wanting to live in a world like that (never mind for the moment whether it could be possible) but preferring to live, however rich, surrounded by a cesspool of misery, fear and hate?

I'd like to be a foot taller, and 20 IQ points smarter, and devastatingly handsome, and thirty years younger, with more money than I can spend.

Hell, I'd like to be king of a country, with men wanting to be like me, and women fighting to be with me.

But rather than dwelling on scenarios that have a snowball's chance in hell, I like to imagine improvements in myself that are at least remotely achievable.

[Elder]

But rather than dwelling on scenarios that have a snowball's chance in hell, I like to imagine improvements in myself that are at least remotely achievable.

This proposal is NOT about what is possible right now, but about what could be desirable in the long run.

Without a clear idea of what we would like to achieve, we have no compass to follow to where we want to be.

But, I have said this so many times, there is no point repeating it again, over and over and over.

[Elder]

For example, there are huge, I mean really huge parts of the current public sector that according to the OP would not be part of the new public sector, so what becomes of them? Are they switched to the private sector? Are they dropped altogether? I am speaking of say the military, the justice system, the penal system, roads, the post office, ports, regulatory agencies, education the list is quite long and the topics covered most would agree are critical to basic civilization as we know it.

Please reread the OP and you will find that ALL of these questions are already answered there.

The public sector is self contained, covering EVERYTHING that is required to satisfy basic needs, including police, firemen, etc., etc., etc.

No military is assumed in the scenario because, if at all it can ever be implemented, no military would be needed any more.

Again, the question is if you would like to live in a world as I described? Would it be better, fairer, more sustainable than the one we have now?

This is not communism I am proposing (even though a lot of people did take it seriously at one time or another -- some still do). This is a compromise situation that provides for both of our emotional needs: freedom and compassion.

If we don't consider something that was never tried before, we are destined to keep going around in circles, trying the same old and failed 'solutions' until we run out of time.

It is possible to think and look outside the box we have been locked in all our lives.