Proprietarianism
I sat down initially to write out my political convictions. I believe it is important to have a consistent philosophy and the best way to achieve that is to write it out so it can be examined. The process of writing it and making it consistant was a process of carving, whittling, kneading and folding. What has come out so far is a point of view that differs from published political and economic philosophies. It differs enough, I think, to warrant its own name so I've named it 'Proprietarianism' - a long, but descriptive word. I picked that name because the bottom line of the philosophy is the idea of the proprietor - the small business owner.
The carving and molding is not finished. I've talked with other people who have expressed an interest in this philosophy and they have offered corrections and ideas that have helped to rethink and reshape the ideas. The intent of this weblog is to broaden that process -- to see if others are interested enough to contribute suggestions, refinements and corrections.
Proprietarianism is, in many ways, just like other political-economic systems. But in a few ways it is quite different. Maybe you'll like it -- maybe you'll hate it.
In order for you to decide, you'll need to know something about it --
It is built on four basic principles:
1. Representatives in a democratic government must represent the citizens.
2. Small and very small business form the largest part of the economy. Such businesses should be easy start and operate and have a high likelihood of being profitable.
3. Rich and poor, large and small must be treated equally and fairly.
4. Each citizen has exclusive right to their own identity.
These principles look familiar don't they? Except maybe the last one. Proprietarianism takes a slightly different approach to each of the principles. But to understand the points better, I'll have to describe them better. I'll outline each of the principles one at a time to make it easier to comment on them starting with representation since it is foundational and is most important to the citizenry. The change proposed, if effected, would greatly facilitate all other changes proposed on this website --
The carving and molding is not finished. I've talked with other people who have expressed an interest in this philosophy and they have offered corrections and ideas that have helped to rethink and reshape the ideas. The intent of this weblog is to broaden that process -- to see if others are interested enough to contribute suggestions, refinements and corrections.
Proprietarianism is, in many ways, just like other political-economic systems. But in a few ways it is quite different. Maybe you'll like it -- maybe you'll hate it.
In order for you to decide, you'll need to know something about it --
It is built on four basic principles:
1. Representatives in a democratic government must represent the citizens.
2. Small and very small business form the largest part of the economy. Such businesses should be easy start and operate and have a high likelihood of being profitable.
3. Rich and poor, large and small must be treated equally and fairly.
4. Each citizen has exclusive right to their own identity.
These principles look familiar don't they? Except maybe the last one. Proprietarianism takes a slightly different approach to each of the principles. But to understand the points better, I'll have to describe them better. I'll outline each of the principles one at a time to make it easier to comment on them starting with representation since it is foundational and is most important to the citizenry. The change proposed, if effected, would greatly facilitate all other changes proposed on this website --
posted by Sam | 9:21 AM
5 Comments:
Are you suggesting that average folks should own their own busnisses?
Are you suggesting that average folks should own their own busnisses?
There will always be a chance for failure in capitalism. If someone from the lower or middle classes creates a business and fails, their family looses everthing - health insurance, college money for kids, their homes. When GW ran Arbusto Oil, there was a Saudi named Bin Laden willing invest. Even after a loss of over $20 million, Laura still had a home and Barbara and Jenna didn't loose their college funds. GW didn't have to face the fear of failure that any normal person would face.
This can never be fully corrected in a capitalist system. But, consider the following. Tax all earning (labor and capital at a fixed rate, for arguement call it 30%). Abolish all minimum wage laws, abolish social security (with a gradual phase out). But, give each citizen and each legal resident
1) basic medical care (from private doctors)
2) access to education based purely on academic merit (as determined by independent universities)
3) a stipend comparable to the poverty line
Everyone would have the sme formula for their take home pay:poverty level plus 70% of earnings. Its progressive, dead simple (no need for filing taxes, you just have to pay a simple fraction of each pay check or your business's profits.
With this system, failure means poverty, but it doesn't mean ruin. There will be some that are happy to sit at home and live in poverty. Frankly, I want these dead beats to stay at home and to keep out of my workplace. There will not be people who are 'trapped' by systems that remove benefits as they earn money. If someone looses a $4,000 dollar school voucher and food stamps because they make more than $12,000/year, what incentive do they have to work once they have earned $11,999? Those next two dollars will cost them thousands of dollars in benefits.
I want a system that stresses universal solutions rather than bandaids for every group. This bandaid approach leads to all sorts of absurdities like the 'donut' in the current Medicare drug plans. Simple, universal solutions that don't create a nation of special interests will help to unify the country.
This plan is Milton Freedman's famous 'negative income tax', with the addition of a French approach to medicine and education. Note that the French have the world's best health care system according to the WHO, while the US is #37. We also pay over 50% more per capita than do the French. So we are paying more for less. The French also have private doctors, who still make house calls! So, they have better service, everyone is covered and it costs less.
This approach also stops ambulance chasers. There could still be law suites for actual damages and pain and suffering, but what really drives the ambulance chasers is the chance to make 40% of a payment based upon the cost of the medical services rendered.
To further illusrate my point, look at Sick and Broke from the Washington Post. Harvard researchers found that half of all bankruptcies in the US were due to illness and/or medical bills. Why not tie medical covereage to citizenship rather than employment? This is not a risk to the oligarchs, but it is a risk to all of the rest of us. This is one area where self-reliance breaks down. In the New England Journal of Medicine, a survey by Dr. Donald Berwick finds that overall Americans get only 55% of the recommended steps for high quality health care. Our current heathcare system is failing us. This is one area where socialism is demonstrably more efficient than capitalism, at least as capitalism is practiced in the United States. A few well-delivered, universal services is a reasonable role for government. Access to Heathcare (but not delivery) and access to education (but not delivery), coupled with Freedman's negative income tax would be concrete steps that would benefit all and I feel that this could unleash a great wave of entrepreneurship in the US. Remove the greatest fears associated with failure, and you encourage more risk taking.
It's spelled "consistent" not "consistant," so what's your opinion worth when your education is insufficient to the topic?
Post a Comment
<< Home