User:Stephenstillwell

Kings collect rent. Everyone else works in whatever fashion they are able, or allowed, or compelled to, providing whatever portion of wealth deemed appropriate by the king, to the king. Seems we are at a time when people, actual humans, are still trying to wrest the ownership of this planet from kings.

Major strides have been made toward that end, but the best accomplishment so far seems to be a transfer from kings to governments, which is of little value to the majority of people. Market capitalism was supposed to provide prosperity for all, but there appears to be some structural or functional problem with the current world economy preventing the manifestation of that vision.

A market system can only function when all people can freely participate.

All people can freely participate only if they are enfranchised.

Enfranchisement in a market requires secure capital.

So, if this planet and its resources are assumed to be the property of all its inhabitants, and we agree that the planet has value, we can use this value as basis for an international fiat currency, to be evenly distributed to each, and secured by the various states in permanent local trust accounts providing a regular dividend. This arrangement places the states in debt to the people for the use of their capital, the people invested in society and securely enfranchised in the economic system.

The challenge for the various states and economic system as a whole is finding about seven quadrillion dollars of secure investments. I'm guessing that should be possible, since if individuals were able to get secure loans of 1/4 or so of their share for homes, farms or secure interests in their place of employment, paying twice the 1.25% they earn, they would still have half of their income left while providing up to half of the required cash flow. (This assumes a grant worth $1 M and a target income of $1 K/ month)

There is so much more to gain, than to lose. The worst case is that the international currency would have no value in the free market, while in the best case the international currency provides a sustained level of spending on basic human needs worldwide, allowing the market to respond to those needs, while simultaneously stabilizing world markets and assuring full employment availability along with all those benefits expected from a basic income. Please see Basic Income. Really, it's a good idea, and this long needed economic utility can provide a basic income without anyone's taxes supporting lay-abouts and drug addicts.

If the "One True High Geek God," or whatever he, she, or they want to be called, can create the seven or eight billion secure accounts for our shares and votes, would the various states be able to resist accepting our deposits?

Social Contract between and among People and Governments

Definitions:

People: Adult human beings.

Government: Social structure holding assumed right to control social order.

Common Resources: Those resources accepted as International, earth, air, fire, water, wood, and those resources claimed by governments for its people, monetized as shares for deposit in local banks.

Rights and Responsibilities:

Peoples Rights: • As described by Universal Declaration of Human Rights • An equal share of the Common Resources • As provided for by local government

Peoples Responsibilities: • Deposit Common Resources share in local bank • Comply with law

Government Rights: • To govern as directed or suffered by its citizens

Government Responsibilities: • To act based on objective reality in the public interest • To safeguard and secure the people, their property, and the Common Resources • As required and/or demanded by its citizens

Nothing much really has to change, only everything would, a little.

What would this say to our children? When you grow up, you will take your place in society on your own terms, and if you should fail, we will catch you, and help you start again.

This is how the meek inherit the earth. Make no mistake, the people running things will more than likely continue running things, that is how they see themselves, and they are a persistent group. The meek however, will be armed to combat the most debilitating coercions this society, this life, currently manifests, with the most effective weapon known to man, wealth. Stephenstillwell (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On Universal Enfranchisement (Democratization of Capitalism)

For the purpose of creating a paradigm for a happier, more fulfilling and productive existence, please accept this premise

All humans have an equal right to the Earth. The Earth provides for the needs of all humans. The Earth is the source of all wealth. As humans we assume the right to possess the Earth.

Understanding that the Earth (world’s wealth) is controlled by some, this control is beyond the grasp of others and some redistribution of wealth can take place peacefully, consider this change, proposal or settlement.

Capitalize the Earth. If the Earth is capitalized at six quadrillion dollars,held permanently in a new World Bank, establish equal accounts of a million dollars for each adult human on the planet. The fund would be available for loan to or by governments of the humans and the humans would receive a dividend on their capital through interest on the loan of their capital. As a place to start discussion, how about 1.2% or one thousand dollars a month, something around poverty level in a developed country, enough to provide basic human needs. Capitalism must then use this Earth Capital to provide the 1.2% dividend to provide for basic human existence, within constraints as determined by the governments. The taxation of governments will then pay interest on loans from the governed, and the Earth Capital will provide treasuries for governments.

? Can all governments of a human (National, State, and Local) collectively borrow one million dollars from each adult human in a sustainable way? (some or all could be reloaned to the citizen)

? If six trillion dollars is spent in a month by individuals worldwide for basic needs, will this produce more than six trillion dollars in additional taxes and profits?

? Would the six trillion dollars be available for redistribution the next month?

We all own the planet equally, the planet is collateral and we each own one six billionth or so. Are we not each due that portion of the planet’s wealth, increase or produce? It seems to compliment any government form accepted by humans. Without taking anything from anyone, we accept the planet as the basis of all wealth, that the planet is worth at least six quadrillion dollars more than the worlds recognized value or claimed things and recognizing this we have an obligation to make this wealth available to all humans. No person would be without the security of knowing that where ever on the planet one has to go to escape an oppressor, to find like minded humans or to flee natural or unnatural disaster; there will be the means for survival at hand. This sense of security allows a human to use his or her mind for more productive and higher functions. As demonstrated by the privileged class throughout history. Consider your pet concern, charity or world problem. How would that be affected by Universal Enfranchisement (everyone getting an extra thousand dollars a month)? Anything concerning the poor could work beyond basic needs to self improvement and actualization.

Higher goals are more achievable without the distraction of despair. How would gender or any domination be effected by the independent ability to go? What about Evil? Temptation may always exist, but coercion based on basic human needs would be reduced. What about crime? The roots of crime are embedded in needs unfulfilled. With basic needs fulfilled this source of crime is diminished.

With basic needs met and governments funded to provide better services, it is likely that people would not require higher wages. What of the places where there are no jobs at all, no money to pay or be paid? These places can all be stable happy economies if all have access to their wealth. The most obvious concern of inflation fades on greater scrutiny.

The obvious initial shortages will only stimulate production and efficiency of production of the needed commodities. In any case a balance would find itself in time and the result will be that no one is left destitute.

Closer examination shows that the capital of all nations is controlled by similar controlling individuals. My suggestion is, accepting this existing reality, existence for all could be improved by paying everyone a subsistence income without prejudice. Thanks for your attention. Please think about it carefully. I appreciate the voicing of any objections and help in addressing them. Stephenstillwell (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC) (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)