Natural Law Requires Respect of Public Property Rights
Natural phenomena emerge in the cosmos according to natural law. Moral precepts are natural laws of social interaction. We are challenged to create a sustainable and just global civilization. This requires respect of basic moral principles.
Public property rights are a type of basic human right that must be respected. They include a collective right to decide limits to environmental impacts. This right implies the corresponding moral duty to create systems of governance that define limits to humans' environmental impacts such that they are consistent with the will of the people at large.
Civilizations thrive then collapse because they grow beyond what the natural environment can sustain. Economies boom and bust because they grow beyond what their resource bases can support. This seemingly cyclical but also chaotic instability is the same phenomenon seen at different scales of space and time. Fees on the taking or degradation of natural resources could moderate human economic activity, to keep it in line with what the larger environment can sustain. Equal sharing of the fee proceeds would buffer the downward slide of a shrinking economy, since the entire human population would continue to receive a modest income from shared natural resource wealth, separate from income from work, investments or family inheritance. A floor on the loss of human confidence that causes business contractions would be created. Spending in support of basic human needs would continue. The part of the economy devoted to meeting such needs would be insulated from the worst vicissitudes of the business cycle.
PhilosophyForums: Respect Public Property Rights, Too
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
To NPR: There is a serious omission in your reporting
Failure to report on systemic defects in our society threatens the wellbeing of future generations and harms the interests of members of the larger community of life on earth.
Natural resources belong to all of us.
Why no discussion of the concept of public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth and economic externalities?
Why no discussion of the concept of or the consequences of economic externalities?
Economic externalities distort our economy by shifting harmful side-effects of economic activity, (such as resource depletion and degradation of environmental quality in the form of pollution and despoilation of and blighting of the landscape), away from the place where economic actors would pay attention to them--the balance sheet. Externalities mean that environmentally harmful products and services cost LESS than what they would cost if polluters and those who take natural resources and degrade environmental quality were made to pay a fee in proportion to the value taken or damage done.
When prices lie to us, we do the wrong thing.
When prices tell us the truth about the real costs of what we do, we are more likely to do the right thing.
To NOT report the fact that there is a systemic flaw in our politics and economics that skews all of our decisions toward more environmentally damaging practices is an egregious neglect of our responsibility to our children and those yet to be born. It is not fair to the larger community of life on earth. We have a solemn duty to refrain from despoiling the planet, yet economic externalities make it more profitable to do exactly that.
The concept of public property rights refers to wealth that we all own in common. It makes sense to hold natural resource wealth, (air and water and other resources in the natural environment), as being a kind of public property wealth. No person's effort goes into creating natural resource wealth, and it follows that no person has a greater claim to this wealth than any other person. So, it makes sense that, if we take account of externalities by charging a fee, all people ought to share in the proceeds of such fees, because these proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of air and water and other natural resources.
We cannot make fundamental changes to address the systemic flaws of our society unless we first have a public discourse about these flaws.
We CAN create a sustainable and more just civilization. But to do so will require that we respect public property rights and equal ownership of natural resource wealth.
When will we hear discussion of such ideas on npr?
Why does extreme poverty and environmental degradation plague the earth?
Natural resources belong to all of us.
Why no discussion of the concept of public property rights as it relates to natural resource wealth and economic externalities?
Why no discussion of the concept of or the consequences of economic externalities?
Economic externalities distort our economy by shifting harmful side-effects of economic activity, (such as resource depletion and degradation of environmental quality in the form of pollution and despoilation of and blighting of the landscape), away from the place where economic actors would pay attention to them--the balance sheet. Externalities mean that environmentally harmful products and services cost LESS than what they would cost if polluters and those who take natural resources and degrade environmental quality were made to pay a fee in proportion to the value taken or damage done.
When prices lie to us, we do the wrong thing.
When prices tell us the truth about the real costs of what we do, we are more likely to do the right thing.
To NOT report the fact that there is a systemic flaw in our politics and economics that skews all of our decisions toward more environmentally damaging practices is an egregious neglect of our responsibility to our children and those yet to be born. It is not fair to the larger community of life on earth. We have a solemn duty to refrain from despoiling the planet, yet economic externalities make it more profitable to do exactly that.
The concept of public property rights refers to wealth that we all own in common. It makes sense to hold natural resource wealth, (air and water and other resources in the natural environment), as being a kind of public property wealth. No person's effort goes into creating natural resource wealth, and it follows that no person has a greater claim to this wealth than any other person. So, it makes sense that, if we take account of externalities by charging a fee, all people ought to share in the proceeds of such fees, because these proceeds would be a monetary representation of the value of air and water and other natural resources.
We cannot make fundamental changes to address the systemic flaws of our society unless we first have a public discourse about these flaws.
We CAN create a sustainable and more just civilization. But to do so will require that we respect public property rights and equal ownership of natural resource wealth.
When will we hear discussion of such ideas on npr?
Why does extreme poverty and environmental degradation plague the earth?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Response to Henry Paulson interview on NPR
(For the context of this comment, read the interview at NPR.)
We have periodic financial crises. True enough.
We have a business cycle that reflects a fundamental instability which, in its larger-scale fluctuations shows itself as an actual collapse of civilization.
Why is there no discussion of the fact that we are living in a civilization that appears trending toward collapse? There is no discussion of the fact that a deeper commitment, a more thorough commitment to basic moral principles could allow us to build a sustainable and more just civilization.
By facilitating business models that involve borrowing money to pay employees, we are perpetuating a social and economic system that will become more brittle over time. If we fund current consumption through borrowing, we make the continued functioning of the system contingent on lenders' confidence in our ability to repay in the future. Confidence is a resource of the human mind or psyche that is subject to fluctuation, and it can become thoroughly depleted at times.
When the functioning of the system is made more contingent on numerous factors, rather than on few factors, the system becomes less stable. It becomes more subject to catastrophic collapse in the future.
A moral hazard argument would be that, to fund today's payroll through borrowing, increases the risk to and burden on future generations.
This is similar to the problem of over-consumption of natural resources that precedes collapse of civilizations. When natural resources are depleted, the options that our children will have are constrained. Options are constrained and opportunities are eliminated, to the point that the challenges that they face will become greater than their ability to withstand.
Where are the voices in positions of influence calling for principled action that could remedy the systemic flaws that threaten the stability of our civilization? Is it the view of people in power that we have solved the defects that have caused civilizations to collapse in the past? The continued fluctuations of the business cycle that are recognized by Paulson as a threat to the system would suggest that fluctuations in the form of the thriving and collapse of civilizations are still inherent in society as it is.
We should respect public and private property rights. When natural resources are owned equally by all, industries will pay money to the people when they take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit. Money will be spread more evenly throughout society. There will be a minimum income below which no person will fall, even if they lack gainful employment and even between jobs.
This would mean that an economic slowdown need not be seen as a dangerous threat to the system. Natural resource wealth, including air and water, belongs to all of us. Our political and economic systems should reflect this fact.
By the way, I wonder why would someone not ask a moral hazard question, unless they are constitutionally willing to neglect moral concerns?
Sleep deprivation causes us to loose our ability to think clearly.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Paulson was worrying about the impending crisis well before it became obvious to the general public. That worry was likely caused by the fact that he could see chickens coming home to roost. (He had been involved, while at Goldman Sachs, in efforts to limit regulation of financial institutions by the SEC, so that the house of cards known as highly leveraged loans could be built higher and more flimsily.)
Henry Paulson at Wikipedia
Moral hazard of bank bailouts
Quantum mechanics of the price structure
A cure for what ails the planet
We have periodic financial crises. True enough.
We have a business cycle that reflects a fundamental instability which, in its larger-scale fluctuations shows itself as an actual collapse of civilization.
Why is there no discussion of the fact that we are living in a civilization that appears trending toward collapse? There is no discussion of the fact that a deeper commitment, a more thorough commitment to basic moral principles could allow us to build a sustainable and more just civilization.
By facilitating business models that involve borrowing money to pay employees, we are perpetuating a social and economic system that will become more brittle over time. If we fund current consumption through borrowing, we make the continued functioning of the system contingent on lenders' confidence in our ability to repay in the future. Confidence is a resource of the human mind or psyche that is subject to fluctuation, and it can become thoroughly depleted at times.
When the functioning of the system is made more contingent on numerous factors, rather than on few factors, the system becomes less stable. It becomes more subject to catastrophic collapse in the future.
A moral hazard argument would be that, to fund today's payroll through borrowing, increases the risk to and burden on future generations.
This is similar to the problem of over-consumption of natural resources that precedes collapse of civilizations. When natural resources are depleted, the options that our children will have are constrained. Options are constrained and opportunities are eliminated, to the point that the challenges that they face will become greater than their ability to withstand.
Where are the voices in positions of influence calling for principled action that could remedy the systemic flaws that threaten the stability of our civilization? Is it the view of people in power that we have solved the defects that have caused civilizations to collapse in the past? The continued fluctuations of the business cycle that are recognized by Paulson as a threat to the system would suggest that fluctuations in the form of the thriving and collapse of civilizations are still inherent in society as it is.
We should respect public and private property rights. When natural resources are owned equally by all, industries will pay money to the people when they take or degrade natural resource wealth in pursuit of profit. Money will be spread more evenly throughout society. There will be a minimum income below which no person will fall, even if they lack gainful employment and even between jobs.
This would mean that an economic slowdown need not be seen as a dangerous threat to the system. Natural resource wealth, including air and water, belongs to all of us. Our political and economic systems should reflect this fact.
By the way, I wonder why would someone not ask a moral hazard question, unless they are constitutionally willing to neglect moral concerns?
Sleep deprivation causes us to loose our ability to think clearly.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Paulson was worrying about the impending crisis well before it became obvious to the general public. That worry was likely caused by the fact that he could see chickens coming home to roost. (He had been involved, while at Goldman Sachs, in efforts to limit regulation of financial institutions by the SEC, so that the house of cards known as highly leveraged loans could be built higher and more flimsily.)
Henry Paulson at Wikipedia
Moral hazard of bank bailouts
Quantum mechanics of the price structure
A cure for what ails the planet
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Moral principles require a paradigm shift
Public property rights are part of human rights.
We have a moral duty to ensure that basic human rights are respected. The continued existence of our civilization depends on it.
The boom and bust business cycle is an instability caused by a moral flaw in our civilization.
We saw a financial meltdown in 2008 that was caused by an over-exploitation of a scarce and depletable resource base: confidence in the financial system. Human confidence is a basic resource that the financial system must have in order to function.
When an over-leveraged financial system met a bursting real estate bubble, confidence of lenders eroded and the financial crisis was born.
This is but one example of an inherently unstable human socio-economic system reaching a crisis point. Another example would be any instance of the collapse of a civilization. The rise and fall of civilizations is essentially the same kind of instability that we see in the business cycle of boom and bust. It is related to the over-exploitation of natural resource stocks that can and does occur during the rise of civilization, and the inevitable collapse that occurs when those resource bases are depleted.
We can dampen the extremes of the business cycle and the rising and falling of civilization by respecting public property rights along with private property rights. If we charge a fee to those who take natural resources or put pollution into the air or water, we will have an efficient and fair way to limit humans' impact on the environment to sustainable levels. The fee on taking resources and putting pollution would tend to dampen the environmental excesses of a burgeoning economy and hold economic activity to a sustainable pace.
If we share the fee proceeds with all people equally, we will provide a material security floor below which no person will fall. A guaranteed minimum income based on an equal sharing of natural resource wealth would protect all citizens of the world from abject poverty, and would ensure that spending and producing for basic human needs would continue even during economic downturns.
The most efficient and fair way to control greenhouse gases would be to charge a fee to those who take oil or coal from the ground for sale as a fuel, (and to those who emit other greenhouse gases such as methane), then give the fee proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
We need a different paradigm.
We need a society that recognizes public property rights along with private property rights. One where the natural resource wealth of he planet is owned by all equally. We could end extreme poverty in the world and have an efficient and fair way to limit our impact on the environment. We could build a sustainable and just civilization on a moral foundation that recognizes public property rights as an integral part of basic human rights.
John Champagne
We have a moral duty to ensure that basic human rights are respected. The continued existence of our civilization depends on it.
The boom and bust business cycle is an instability caused by a moral flaw in our civilization.
We saw a financial meltdown in 2008 that was caused by an over-exploitation of a scarce and depletable resource base: confidence in the financial system. Human confidence is a basic resource that the financial system must have in order to function.
When an over-leveraged financial system met a bursting real estate bubble, confidence of lenders eroded and the financial crisis was born.
This is but one example of an inherently unstable human socio-economic system reaching a crisis point. Another example would be any instance of the collapse of a civilization. The rise and fall of civilizations is essentially the same kind of instability that we see in the business cycle of boom and bust. It is related to the over-exploitation of natural resource stocks that can and does occur during the rise of civilization, and the inevitable collapse that occurs when those resource bases are depleted.
We can dampen the extremes of the business cycle and the rising and falling of civilization by respecting public property rights along with private property rights. If we charge a fee to those who take natural resources or put pollution into the air or water, we will have an efficient and fair way to limit humans' impact on the environment to sustainable levels. The fee on taking resources and putting pollution would tend to dampen the environmental excesses of a burgeoning economy and hold economic activity to a sustainable pace.
If we share the fee proceeds with all people equally, we will provide a material security floor below which no person will fall. A guaranteed minimum income based on an equal sharing of natural resource wealth would protect all citizens of the world from abject poverty, and would ensure that spending and producing for basic human needs would continue even during economic downturns.
The most efficient and fair way to control greenhouse gases would be to charge a fee to those who take oil or coal from the ground for sale as a fuel, (and to those who emit other greenhouse gases such as methane), then give the fee proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount.
We need a different paradigm.
We need a society that recognizes public property rights along with private property rights. One where the natural resource wealth of he planet is owned by all equally. We could end extreme poverty in the world and have an efficient and fair way to limit our impact on the environment. We could build a sustainable and just civilization on a moral foundation that recognizes public property rights as an integral part of basic human rights.
John Champagne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)