I have been discussing the reality or nonreality of money a lot lately. It is, of course, tax time and I have had personal experience with some recent information about the distribution of money in our country and investment decisions. Most of us know there is a money distribution, with some people having more than others. Most of us know this is not necessarily bad. Concentrations of money allow certain types of capital investment and projects to go forward.
But let us consider for a moment. Is money wealth? A friend posited to me the answer is "no". At first I thought maybe I had missed the point. Money measures wealth, doesn't it? Then I talked with her some more and I thought about it more. Wealth is not an electronic number in a computer. Wealth is not even a piece of paper. The numbers we all consider money are just that...numbers. It only has value because we accept that it has value. If the 99% that had small numbers just refused to accept the 1% that has high numbers, the money would be worth nothing. In fact, if just some of us lost faith in the numbers, the whole system could crash.
Of course, we still measure money. And that is appropriate. But it is not wealth. Wealth truly consists of tangible and intangible things. It consists of your home, your clothes, your car, and some personal effects. It also consists of your friends, your community, your Commonwealth and your quality of life. The fallacy is thinking that all wealth can be quantified. It can, but it cannot be sold or bought, so the quantification is worthless.
So if money is not wealth, what exactly is money? A friend recently told me that I like to define things by what they are not. I just did that. But now I would like to posit that money is nothing more than a tool. It is not a thing in and of itself, but is more like a hammer that can be used to make something. A hammer may be "worth" $20.00 US. But what you can make is much more important. We cannot live by hammers. A dollar bill may be "worth" $1.00 US. Or more or less depending on the country and the perception. Or it may be worthless on a desert island. But what you can make with that dollar is much more important.
The question then is how shall we use the tool. It appears that most of us in the 99% use the tool to accumulate consumer goods. A discussion with another friend made us question this use. It is as if we simply purchase things that advertisements and our desires tell us we "need", whether we really do or not. As long as we have the ready cash this is relatively harmless. However, in our society, the economic system is based on continuous growth and continuous consumption. Thus, we purchase not only more than we need, but more than we can keep track of. We need to purchase storage areas and them pay rent to keep all the stuff we have. When we default on the storage facility it is sold to someone else, who has to store it all in a storage facility. We create a whole system of storage of excess goods. We do not fix broken goods, we throw them away. For a truly hilarious take on this, see YouTube George Carlin's Story of Stuff.
It appears that most people in the 1% use the tool to make more money. In other words, it is nonproductive. Basically, a very small part of the money in the world actually "circulates" and acts as a tool to create something. Only that money which pays for labor or services (or the tangible products of labor or services) actually circulates. The rest is nothing more than capital magically building upon itself. Since 99% is owned by 1% (more or less), that means that only 1% of the money is actually a useful tool. Therein lies the falsity of trickle down economics. 99% of the money never trickles to anywhere and continues to do nothing but grow itself.
Again, there is some value in accumulating money. There is a value in savings. However, we need to think what mix will create the optimum conditions for life and for wealth. When most of the world is even worse off than the poorest American, we can see that the distribution of money in the United States (and the industrialized world) is even more skewed if we were to include the even larger numbers of people that are actually alive. Remember, money is not real. It is a tool. You wouldn't hoard hundreds of thousands of millions of hammers. And we shouldn't hoard hundreds of thousands of millions (and billions?) of dollars.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Advancing the discussion or making the decision...
I recently had an opportunity to participate in "mock trials". In this instance I was a judge. The cases, the facts, the circumstances, all of that...is irrelevant.
What is relevant is what it taught me about myself and what it could teach you about yourself.
First of all, i recommend that anyone who has the opportunity to be involved int he legal process in a "mock" or "practice" capacity, do so. It is a wondeful opportunity to put yourself in someone else's shoes. You hate lawyers - try being one. You think judges are activists - listen to arguments and don't participate or bring your bias' with you. I had no idea going in how rich an experience it could be.
Second, participating in the process as a judge taught me something very important. I am an advocate by trade. I tend to push a certain position. I try to persuade people to see things the way I, or more precisely the way my clients, see them. I do not always succeed. And many times folks say to me things like "wait until you are the judge" or "if only you could make the decision". I had this vague understanding that these statements did not reflect the reality of either my job or the judges, but I could not put my finger on the issue.
Well, I was a judge for mock trials. What an eye opener! I realized that I was NOT an advocate. I had to listen to the arguments handed to me. The facts I knew were the facts AS PRESENTED. This is extremely important. I do come with my own bias and my own beliefs. But no matter what anyone says, the more important issue is what evidence is presented - and proven.
I wanted to ask questions. I wanted to lead the witness. I wanted to help the prosecutor, I wanted to help the defense. But I knew that my role was to let them do their jobs and make a decision based on what was presented. I knew I had to be fair and let other people do their job.
This was an eye opener. Your decision is based on the job other people do.
Not only that, but it solidified for me why I never wanted to be a judge. As a judge, you rule on what is presented. True, you are the ultimate arbiter. True, you can skew the law one way or the other. True enough, the judge can be activist or strict constructionist.
HOWEVER, the judge only has the case before them to act on. It is the lawyer, the prosecutor, the defense and the witnesses that control the conversation. They are the ones the add the words to the ultimate decision by the judge. Even the law clerks will start with the arguments and the evidence proven and presented by the parties. No matter what your bias, you have to start somewhere.
What I realized is that I want to influence the conversation. I want to produce and hopefully prove the evidence. I want to make and hopefully persuade as to the argument. I want to push the boundaries of the boxes in a certain direction. I am not interested in negotiating the competing issues and finding the ultimate solution. That is a societal decision based on the law, the judges viewpoint, the skill of the the person making the case, etc. But the opportunity to provide a viewpoint......that is priceless.
What is relevant is what it taught me about myself and what it could teach you about yourself.
First of all, i recommend that anyone who has the opportunity to be involved int he legal process in a "mock" or "practice" capacity, do so. It is a wondeful opportunity to put yourself in someone else's shoes. You hate lawyers - try being one. You think judges are activists - listen to arguments and don't participate or bring your bias' with you. I had no idea going in how rich an experience it could be.
Second, participating in the process as a judge taught me something very important. I am an advocate by trade. I tend to push a certain position. I try to persuade people to see things the way I, or more precisely the way my clients, see them. I do not always succeed. And many times folks say to me things like "wait until you are the judge" or "if only you could make the decision". I had this vague understanding that these statements did not reflect the reality of either my job or the judges, but I could not put my finger on the issue.
Well, I was a judge for mock trials. What an eye opener! I realized that I was NOT an advocate. I had to listen to the arguments handed to me. The facts I knew were the facts AS PRESENTED. This is extremely important. I do come with my own bias and my own beliefs. But no matter what anyone says, the more important issue is what evidence is presented - and proven.
I wanted to ask questions. I wanted to lead the witness. I wanted to help the prosecutor, I wanted to help the defense. But I knew that my role was to let them do their jobs and make a decision based on what was presented. I knew I had to be fair and let other people do their job.
This was an eye opener. Your decision is based on the job other people do.
Not only that, but it solidified for me why I never wanted to be a judge. As a judge, you rule on what is presented. True, you are the ultimate arbiter. True, you can skew the law one way or the other. True enough, the judge can be activist or strict constructionist.
HOWEVER, the judge only has the case before them to act on. It is the lawyer, the prosecutor, the defense and the witnesses that control the conversation. They are the ones the add the words to the ultimate decision by the judge. Even the law clerks will start with the arguments and the evidence proven and presented by the parties. No matter what your bias, you have to start somewhere.
What I realized is that I want to influence the conversation. I want to produce and hopefully prove the evidence. I want to make and hopefully persuade as to the argument. I want to push the boundaries of the boxes in a certain direction. I am not interested in negotiating the competing issues and finding the ultimate solution. That is a societal decision based on the law, the judges viewpoint, the skill of the the person making the case, etc. But the opportunity to provide a viewpoint......that is priceless.
Some choice survival thoughts...
These are just some of my favorite sayings, thoughts or musings that help me survive. I do not take ownership of these. Many come from other people or places, but I simply do not remember when or who now. My apologies.
Choosing one alternative does NOT mean the other is wrong.
When confronted with a problem, pick no more than three courses of action. Weigh each one carefully, then pick one. ACT.
There is no problem so large that, if ignored long enough, it will not go away.
There is no problem so small that it won't come up again.
Punctuality is the politeness of kings.
You only have to run faster than the slowest person.
No matter what you hear behind you, do NOT look back or slow down.
When moving through a theatre, never stop to argue with a local.
Never steal more than you need. (I use "steal" in a metaphorical way here. I mean steal "fair and square". I do not actually suggest you "shoplift" or illegally "steal" anything.)
Never climb up something you cannot climb down.
Don't break anything, don't hurt anybody. Everything else can be fixed.
Eat dessert first.
Food should be free. (I know this is problematic, but it is true.)
You break it, you bought it.
Property owns you.
Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Choosing one alternative does NOT mean the other is wrong.
When confronted with a problem, pick no more than three courses of action. Weigh each one carefully, then pick one. ACT.
There is no problem so large that, if ignored long enough, it will not go away.
There is no problem so small that it won't come up again.
Punctuality is the politeness of kings.
You only have to run faster than the slowest person.
No matter what you hear behind you, do NOT look back or slow down.
When moving through a theatre, never stop to argue with a local.
Never steal more than you need. (I use "steal" in a metaphorical way here. I mean steal "fair and square". I do not actually suggest you "shoplift" or illegally "steal" anything.)
Never climb up something you cannot climb down.
Don't break anything, don't hurt anybody. Everything else can be fixed.
Eat dessert first.
Food should be free. (I know this is problematic, but it is true.)
You break it, you bought it.
Property owns you.
Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Anarchic Environmentalism....
If capitalism is the thesis, then community ownership is the antithesis. Capitalism, concerned only with profit and loss, never recognizes or questions whether the output is desirable. It ignores equality of conditions I reverence of equality of the right to inequality. Communism bows to equality to the extent it ignores the individual, their needs, abilities and independence. In short, there is a leveling which is incompatible with liberty.
Environmentalists have fallen prey to seeing capitalism as greedy, unthinking rapacious and a net loss. In fact, capitalism also allows innovative actions which favor the environment. It is less expensive to use less energy. People prefer to work in clean, green, buildings. There is more profit in doing the same with less material. In general, material that can be easily replaced is less expensive than one that is not renewable. An excellent treatise on this issue is Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change, L. Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen, New York: Hill and Wang ©2011 1st ed., ISBN: 9780809034734.
Nevertheless, environmentalists have pursued the Public Trust Doctrine and environmental, largely negative, regulations to achieve desired new of clean air, clean water and open space. The environmental tragedies engendered by the Tragedy of the Commons has justified this regulation. The Tragedy of the commons refers to the situation where a resource is free to use all, such as a pasture or a fishery. Each individual must rush to get the most grass or the most fish because the benefit of such grass or fish is all his and the detriments are spread throughout all users of the common. In this manner, everyone acts at maximum resource jeans the resource is destroyed. This is tantamount to community ownership.
If the Public Trust Doctrine is the antithesis, then the thesis is defended and explained by Free Market Environmentalism, Terry L. Anderson and Donald R.
Leal, PALGRAVE, ©2001.
Free Market Environmentalism, p. 4. Clearly this more classically libertarian viewpoint emphasizes market roles and would be conducive to individual contract, relationships and choice.
Interestingly, the theory is not willing to move toward a full free market solution.
Id., p. 5. Presumably, this is because certain environmental attributes, such as air, are difficult, if not impossible to value.
However, the recognition of a public role is also because it is only through some type of organized system recognized by all (a “government”) that the market can be protected to work.
Id., p. 4.
The negative governmental view of Free Market Environmentalism stems from the relative apportionment of benefits and detriments. The environmental detriments of environmental degradation such as pollution spread over a large group, while the benefits are concentrated. In addition, there is no good way to measure some values, such as recreational values. Recreational values are seen more as political issues. Since political costs are spread over the electorate and there is no easy way to make politicians accountable, these political costs must be privatized so the market can capture the costs.
Free market environmentalism depends upon property rights that are defined, defendable and transferable. The authors argue against public ownership of wildlife and specifically cite the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project of 1996 as a good government program. Interestingly, they view land trusts as a form of private ownership. “Instead of promoting a public trust approach that opens access to water, land, and wildlife, policies can encourage contracting for access so that recreational and environmental resources become assets, not liabilities." Id., p. 74. If rights were defined, essentially privatized, then the bargaining would be between, for instance, a landowner and an oil company. Supposedly, each wants other happy. The suggestion is that environmental groups could bid on oil and gas. Alternatives for protection would then be some type of conservation easement for recreational values or a trust authority to protect multiple interests.
To sum up, free market environmentalism insists upon the removal of incentives like insurance and crop subsidies that hide effects of global warming. The removal of fishing subsidies which make it cheaper to fish, inflate fisherman's profits and keep marginal fishermen fishing. Government’s role is relegated to facilitating the evolution of private property rights and providing positive incentives. There is particular attention paid to public lands and user fees. In the alternative, there is proposed a trust approach comprised of so-called "wilderness endowment boards".
The theory of free market environmentalism is instructive. It specifically plays upon the self interest of individuals and makes use of existing structures such as corporations and land trust. However, there remain holes in the theory. For instance, the purchase by private groups of recreational rights on privatized public lands means buying the land twice for recreational groups, while the exploration and production companies would only have to pay once. In addition, the theory of free market environmentalism assumes equal bargaining power. Clearly, in Pennsylvania, this is not always true. Small landowners simply do not have the bargaining power of a large rancher in the west. In fact, gas companies want, and are trying to force, small owners into forced unitization and pooling. Finally, free market environmentalism emphasizes the possibility of land trusts and wildlife endowment boards, but does not sufficiently explain why the government could not be considered the trust authority.
In addition, the necessity of government intervention in the classical, bureaucratic and regulatory sense, should be questioned. The authors of Free Market Environmentalism themselves recognize the importance of common law nuisance as a way to use the market to defend private property rights. They even include a chapter discussing what is essentially mutualism and the formation of communal methods of enforcing norms. In this extensive discussion, six factors that allow communities to work in the free market formula are identified. First, boundaries must be clearly defined so those in group know what they can use how and outsiders know when trespassing. Second, group decisions require rules that determine allocation of value. Third, customary rules must be linked to time and place specific resource constraints so that resulting rules are efficient. Fourth, there must be effective monitoring of rules. Fifth, there must be dispute resolution mechanisms. Finally, the community rules must not be subject to change by higher levels of government. Id., p. 145-146.
As a synthesis of two ideas, government ownership and privatization, the tools of the common law and community norms should not be given little weight. In fact, they should be encouraged. The problem has been for too long that government bureaucracy has been concerned with development to the point where it has “protected” development interests at the expense of other interests. Thus, the true market cost is not felt and there is not free competition in the marketplace. The only explanation for many of this objection is the lack of direct political accountability. Any bad action today is subject to the forgetfulness of the public and the whims of an electorate in a subsequent election cycle.
Rather than privatize all public ownership to correct the vagaries of the political process, I would like to make a different proposal. Retain common law rights to force the costs of polluting or developing on the polluter or developer. Encourage community based decisions about resource use, including dispute mechanisms and monitoring of rules. In order to make these binding, correct two failures of the political system so that political leadership responsible for its decisions. I term these corrections “anarchic” because they rely upon direct action by the citizens and do not rely upon the actions by the state.
The first proposal is for referendum. Referendum so that the citizens can propose and vote on environmental issues. The conversation could thus be directly influenced by the citizens. The citizens will set their norms, their customs and a state which infringes upon them can be stopped by the referendum of the citizens. While referendum has been criticized in many instances as a tyranny of the 51%, on a community scale, it also is the only process with the ability to foster direct democracy.
The second proposal is for recall so the political system can be directly accountable for its decisions. Elected leaders must answer to the electorate and not special interests that do not vote. Far from being revolutionary, this is a very small move, as traditional special interest groups will still exist and wield power. After all, they are made up of individuals. However, with the power of recall in the hands of the public every individual will have a stake in a very real, personal, and meaningful, way.
By retaining these common law rights, involving the communities and correcting the political system, free market environmentalism could work without the wholesale sale of the citizens assets. At the very least it provides a blueprint for a workable process.
Environmentalists have fallen prey to seeing capitalism as greedy, unthinking rapacious and a net loss. In fact, capitalism also allows innovative actions which favor the environment. It is less expensive to use less energy. People prefer to work in clean, green, buildings. There is more profit in doing the same with less material. In general, material that can be easily replaced is less expensive than one that is not renewable. An excellent treatise on this issue is Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change, L. Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen, New York: Hill and Wang ©2011 1st ed., ISBN: 9780809034734.
Nevertheless, environmentalists have pursued the Public Trust Doctrine and environmental, largely negative, regulations to achieve desired new of clean air, clean water and open space. The environmental tragedies engendered by the Tragedy of the Commons has justified this regulation. The Tragedy of the commons refers to the situation where a resource is free to use all, such as a pasture or a fishery. Each individual must rush to get the most grass or the most fish because the benefit of such grass or fish is all his and the detriments are spread throughout all users of the common. In this manner, everyone acts at maximum resource jeans the resource is destroyed. This is tantamount to community ownership.
If the Public Trust Doctrine is the antithesis, then the thesis is defended and explained by Free Market Environmentalism, Terry L. Anderson and Donald R.
Leal, PALGRAVE, ©2001.
...free market environmentalism emphasizes the positive incentives associated with prices, profits, and entrepreneurship, as opposed to political environmentalism, which emphasizes negative incentives associated with regulation and taxes.
Free Market Environmentalism, p. 4. Clearly this more classically libertarian viewpoint emphasizes market roles and would be conducive to individual contract, relationships and choice.
Interestingly, the theory is not willing to move toward a full free market solution.
The emphasis of free market environmentalism on private ownership and decentralized decision making should not be taken to mean that there is no role for government. ...government has an integral role to play in the definition and enforcement of property rights.
Id., p. 5. Presumably, this is because certain environmental attributes, such as air, are difficult, if not impossible to value.
However, the recognition of a public role is also because it is only through some type of organized system recognized by all (a “government”) that the market can be protected to work.
At the heart of free market environmentalism is a system of well-specified property rights to natural and environmental resources. ... Whether these rights are held by individuals, corporations, nonprofit environmental groups or communal groups, a discipline is imposed on resource users because the wealth of the property owner is at stake if bad decisions are made.
Id., p. 4.
The negative governmental view of Free Market Environmentalism stems from the relative apportionment of benefits and detriments. The environmental detriments of environmental degradation such as pollution spread over a large group, while the benefits are concentrated. In addition, there is no good way to measure some values, such as recreational values. Recreational values are seen more as political issues. Since political costs are spread over the electorate and there is no easy way to make politicians accountable, these political costs must be privatized so the market can capture the costs.
Free market environmentalism depends upon property rights that are defined, defendable and transferable. The authors argue against public ownership of wildlife and specifically cite the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project of 1996 as a good government program. Interestingly, they view land trusts as a form of private ownership. “Instead of promoting a public trust approach that opens access to water, land, and wildlife, policies can encourage contracting for access so that recreational and environmental resources become assets, not liabilities." Id., p. 74. If rights were defined, essentially privatized, then the bargaining would be between, for instance, a landowner and an oil company. Supposedly, each wants other happy. The suggestion is that environmental groups could bid on oil and gas. Alternatives for protection would then be some type of conservation easement for recreational values or a trust authority to protect multiple interests.
To sum up, free market environmentalism insists upon the removal of incentives like insurance and crop subsidies that hide effects of global warming. The removal of fishing subsidies which make it cheaper to fish, inflate fisherman's profits and keep marginal fishermen fishing. Government’s role is relegated to facilitating the evolution of private property rights and providing positive incentives. There is particular attention paid to public lands and user fees. In the alternative, there is proposed a trust approach comprised of so-called "wilderness endowment boards".
The theory of free market environmentalism is instructive. It specifically plays upon the self interest of individuals and makes use of existing structures such as corporations and land trust. However, there remain holes in the theory. For instance, the purchase by private groups of recreational rights on privatized public lands means buying the land twice for recreational groups, while the exploration and production companies would only have to pay once. In addition, the theory of free market environmentalism assumes equal bargaining power. Clearly, in Pennsylvania, this is not always true. Small landowners simply do not have the bargaining power of a large rancher in the west. In fact, gas companies want, and are trying to force, small owners into forced unitization and pooling. Finally, free market environmentalism emphasizes the possibility of land trusts and wildlife endowment boards, but does not sufficiently explain why the government could not be considered the trust authority.
In addition, the necessity of government intervention in the classical, bureaucratic and regulatory sense, should be questioned. The authors of Free Market Environmentalism themselves recognize the importance of common law nuisance as a way to use the market to defend private property rights. They even include a chapter discussing what is essentially mutualism and the formation of communal methods of enforcing norms. In this extensive discussion, six factors that allow communities to work in the free market formula are identified. First, boundaries must be clearly defined so those in group know what they can use how and outsiders know when trespassing. Second, group decisions require rules that determine allocation of value. Third, customary rules must be linked to time and place specific resource constraints so that resulting rules are efficient. Fourth, there must be effective monitoring of rules. Fifth, there must be dispute resolution mechanisms. Finally, the community rules must not be subject to change by higher levels of government. Id., p. 145-146.
As a synthesis of two ideas, government ownership and privatization, the tools of the common law and community norms should not be given little weight. In fact, they should be encouraged. The problem has been for too long that government bureaucracy has been concerned with development to the point where it has “protected” development interests at the expense of other interests. Thus, the true market cost is not felt and there is not free competition in the marketplace. The only explanation for many of this objection is the lack of direct political accountability. Any bad action today is subject to the forgetfulness of the public and the whims of an electorate in a subsequent election cycle.
Rather than privatize all public ownership to correct the vagaries of the political process, I would like to make a different proposal. Retain common law rights to force the costs of polluting or developing on the polluter or developer. Encourage community based decisions about resource use, including dispute mechanisms and monitoring of rules. In order to make these binding, correct two failures of the political system so that political leadership responsible for its decisions. I term these corrections “anarchic” because they rely upon direct action by the citizens and do not rely upon the actions by the state.
The first proposal is for referendum. Referendum so that the citizens can propose and vote on environmental issues. The conversation could thus be directly influenced by the citizens. The citizens will set their norms, their customs and a state which infringes upon them can be stopped by the referendum of the citizens. While referendum has been criticized in many instances as a tyranny of the 51%, on a community scale, it also is the only process with the ability to foster direct democracy.
The second proposal is for recall so the political system can be directly accountable for its decisions. Elected leaders must answer to the electorate and not special interests that do not vote. Far from being revolutionary, this is a very small move, as traditional special interest groups will still exist and wield power. After all, they are made up of individuals. However, with the power of recall in the hands of the public every individual will have a stake in a very real, personal, and meaningful, way.
By retaining these common law rights, involving the communities and correcting the political system, free market environmentalism could work without the wholesale sale of the citizens assets. At the very least it provides a blueprint for a workable process.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
The nature of law...
An interesting question has come up in my mind. I have been ruminating on Proudhon's book, What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and Government. Specifically, the portion about lawmakers and laws has been fascinating me. Proudhon makes the statement to the effect that legislatures don't really make laws, they simply announce laws that already exist.
Now we all know this is not true. There is no way that the exemption of the oil and gas tax of tarbit is not a natural law which the legislature simply recognized. I dare say it is not even a socially accepted principle. Most people are probably not aware of the issue, nor do most of them understand it. I don't even understand it completely. And I am educated, and have years of experience in government, law, and energy.
But my rumination is not whether Proudhon's statement is true. Rather, I am questioning whether he may not again be correct. Laws which are not based in natural truth or social truth are simply invalid. They are based on false premises. The premises being that somehow the election of a Republicrat legitimizes whatever actions they take in the name of the electorate. Even if those actions are not what the electorate want. But is this not really legislation without representation? The electorate could not possibly want something they do not know about or cannot understand. The electorate probably does not even know the rider was placed on the bill or the exemption was hidden on page 365 of a 576 page bill.
Libertarianism has an interesting view of these issues. Government that governs least governs best. Not that all libertarian ideas are correct, but in truth, I am beginning to believe the explosion of laws, regulations and policies and statements are simply counterproductive to a free and responsible society. It is extremely important that we as a society have a set of norms and laws we live by. It is equally important we do not try to legislate morality and ways of thinking. Actions can be regulated, not ideas. Ideas need to be moderated by associations between individuals. Perhaps more personal connections on ideas and less demagoguery would ease the polarization this country feels.
Now we all know this is not true. There is no way that the exemption of the oil and gas tax of tarbit is not a natural law which the legislature simply recognized. I dare say it is not even a socially accepted principle. Most people are probably not aware of the issue, nor do most of them understand it. I don't even understand it completely. And I am educated, and have years of experience in government, law, and energy.
But my rumination is not whether Proudhon's statement is true. Rather, I am questioning whether he may not again be correct. Laws which are not based in natural truth or social truth are simply invalid. They are based on false premises. The premises being that somehow the election of a Republicrat legitimizes whatever actions they take in the name of the electorate. Even if those actions are not what the electorate want. But is this not really legislation without representation? The electorate could not possibly want something they do not know about or cannot understand. The electorate probably does not even know the rider was placed on the bill or the exemption was hidden on page 365 of a 576 page bill.
Libertarianism has an interesting view of these issues. Government that governs least governs best. Not that all libertarian ideas are correct, but in truth, I am beginning to believe the explosion of laws, regulations and policies and statements are simply counterproductive to a free and responsible society. It is extremely important that we as a society have a set of norms and laws we live by. It is equally important we do not try to legislate morality and ways of thinking. Actions can be regulated, not ideas. Ideas need to be moderated by associations between individuals. Perhaps more personal connections on ideas and less demagoguery would ease the polarization this country feels.
Friday, March 1, 2013
A modest proposal for a business model...
I work at a public
agency that often and routinely buys land for public use. Because of
bureaucracy it is difficult to amass purchase prices and costs for
acquisition and then turn around and disperse the money for a
settlement. One of the best ways to solve this problem is to use an
intermediary. Usually a land trust would fill this position.
Unfortunately, in recent years land trusts have also become
businesses. They have employees, boards and overhead. It can now
take as long to get a land that approval as a governmental approval.
I also have friends and
acquaintances that desire to do certain social justice or scientific
projects. These may require grant funding which cannot or should not
go to an individual. An individual could incur inordinate tax
liability. In addition, an individual doing these projects takes on
liability personally. This is very poignant for me personally. I am
an attorney interested in public interest litigation. However, I do
not desire to have a public interest law firm. There are too many IRS
rules about such firms. I do not want to form a separate entity. I
need an entity to hold and raise funds separate from the law firm,
but which can work closely with the firm on financial matters.
Because of these types
of issues I have been trying to think of a solution and have
considered a form of business's organization that is unusual, to say
the least. Rather than a partnership (that does not solve the need
for limits liability) I have been thinking of various forms of
corporations, Limited Liability Corporations and Limited
Partnerships. One of the problems with all of these forms is the
existence of partners or shareholders. Another problem is that
having head entities be tax exempt (or 501(c)(3)) implicates
impossible IRS requirements that increase overhead and bloat.
This has led me to the
form I am considering. Start with a generic for profit corporation.
This provides limited liability. Being for profit means there are
no special regulations about spending capital. In other words, no
one needs to worry about accumulating capital.
That leaves two
problems. First, how to get rid of shareholders so the corporation
does not have a fiduciary duty to only make money. Second, how to
get rid of the board and still provide some measure of corporate
governance.
In order to meet both
objectives, I propose to have the corporation be membership based.
So, for instance, people would become members each year for a nominal
fee. This fee could pay any overhead expenses and continue to
accumulate from year to year free from any need to distribute to
stockholders. Only members could propose projects and only members
could vote on projects. In a modern world with electronic
communications, voting would be relatively easy. Each project would
need to be self sustaining, as the business has no employees,
directors and very few officers. In other words, the corporation is
actually a limited liability shell for an association of disparate
people.
The tax consequences
still need to be further explored, but for simple projects like land
acquisition or raising funds for litigation, taxes would be very
straightforward. Essentially, the corporation would act as trustee
or straw party by contract and should only bear tax liability for any
overhead income received. Because this overhead is presumably going
to expenses, most of the income should be offset by costs.
Effectively creating a for profit corporation with no profit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)