How to reform the American economy

[prof]

I would call to your attention the work of Janet McIntyre, of Flanders University, Adelaide, Australia, who wrote a chapter, "Systemic Ethics to Support Wellbeing," 12 pages in a book edited by Professors of Moral Philosophy at Michigan State University and the University of North Texas, published by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, Netherlands. A link to a peek at the first two pages of her contribution can be found here: http://link.springer.com/referenceworke ... 67-4_342-6

Dr. McIntyre writes: "The axiom on which systemic ethics for caretaking is based is that we can be free and diverse to the extent that our freedom and diversity does not undermine the rights of others or future generations of life."

She agrees with those who wrote that the great danger to avoid today is the commodification of life. Be careful not to set up policies which would tend to make human life, and our natural habitat, our biotic environment, into a mere commodity!

I trust this gives you, the reader, some ideas as to how to apply ethics to policy, and thus come closer to living in an ethical world.

Become an advocate of an Ethics for Caretaking, an ethics for the promotion of Well-being.

Your views? Comments? Upgrades?

[Huck Mucus]

Have everyone who forms a corporation, LLC, etc. and all shareholders sign the following document prior to formation/investment:

The undersigned hereby acknowledges and understands that a corporation is a creature of big government which specifically limits my having to take personal responsibility for my own actions. I shall be permitted to externalize the costs of my actions upon the backs of others and/or society itself. There shall be no upper limit upon the amount I can earn; yet my potential loss is capped at the amount of my investment, even if that investment results in losses and damages to others which far exceeds my investment.

I understand that big government has agreed to allow me to do this because big government knows I lack the courage to risk my money in a truly free market, truly capitalist system. In furtherance of the social good, big government wants me to free up my horded capital for investment in economic growth and I simply won't do it without protection from big government. Absent this big government protection and the law which allows the creation of corporations, I would be forced to live in a truly free market, assume personal responsibility for my own actions and investments, and pay fair market value in arms length transactions for all the costs I externalize onto the backs of others and society. In such a case, I would hide under my bed with my money because I am a conservative and a coward at heart. Only true liberal entrepreneurs and real capitalist risk takers and captains-of-self would dare proceed without big government protection.

In return for this big government welfare which is bestowed upon me in return for my investment, I acknowledge that government will tax my profits at a paltry fraction of what they are, and at a paltry fraction of the costs I externalize onto the backs of others and society at large. While I retain the free speech right to whine like a little bitch about said taxes, I hereby acknowledge that this document and my signature thereon can be at that time waived in my face as a reminder of the social welfare largess that I have been granted by the people. Every time I whine about those on welfare, plaintiff's trial lawyers, tort liability judgments and such, and every time I seek further subsidy or tort reform, I will be forced to re-read this document out loud at such proceedings.

Signed _____________
Date _______________

I'm sure I could flesh this out some more but you get the drift. I think it would go a long way toward reforming the American economy while really leaving everything good about it in place.

[prof]

Well, Thank You Huck Mucus!

You have made a positive contribution to the dialog on-topic.


Do other readers think that Huck's proposal is constructive? Does it have a chance of being implemented? Has he put his finger on something basic?

Open for comment.....

[Huck Mucus]

You are welcome, Prof. You know, just as sometimes you have to make a virtue of necessity (Leopold), you must also make an example of those who take things for granted. In this case I propose the gentlest of reminders. There is also her lady guillotine for those who forget Smith's admonition about *enlightened* whilst pursuing "self-interest." Otherwise known as self-interest properly understood. But we don't have to go there (yet). Legal fictions designed to aid in memory loss should be corrected. Until then the lies will only be dwarfed by the self denial about rugged individualism, bootstrapping, self-made men.

[prof]

Greetings, Huck

I agree with you about corporate culpability.

It will be hard for any thinking person to miss your point - for you did make it clear.

Well done!

My approach to teaching Ethics is to emphasize the positive, and eliminate the negative ...as the Bing Crosby with The Andrew Sisters song "You've got to accentuate the positive...." has phrased it. This song is not only for children; adults can gain from it too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZUmAbi0Vm4 - with more crisp lyrics when it is sung by Ella Fitzgerald who delivers her version of it at the end of this video.
{The song may be corny, but - admit it - many listeners would concede that it's entertaining!}

I present a case for Ethics, arguing for it like a trial lawyer before a jury, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13302
then follow up, in a later sequel, with further, perhaps more in-depth messages: see the first two posts here at this thread - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13696

Is it the case that YES! magazine online is already showing us how Ethics can be applied in action? http://www.yesmagazine.org/

See especially: http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/ ... ocumentary

Finding this last video, a contribution by Laura Flanders, of GRITtv, really astounded me. I thought very few were advocates for this idea; it is a real joy to learn otherwise



Your comments, readers, are welcome!!!

[prof]

Also you may want to read this brief column about a co-op that recycles waste products, how it got started, how it raised money as seed capital:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/ ... money-cero

[Huck Mucus]

Thanks, Prof.

No one appreciates your sentiments more than I, but I wonder if it doesn't presuppose that one way is more ethical than another. I thought a great deal of Ted Turner's effort to lead by example in giving so much to the U.N. and in other efforts, but as we all know, his peers are still deemed virtuous and he is laughed at (and the laughter is not even uncomfortable). Would it be "unethical" if he were to take a more aggressive, even illegal, action against them; a step up from my simple proposed reminder, which is really intended to offend only to glean some much needed attention? Elizabeth Warren's educational efforts don't work.

We all want to rise above Machiavelli (sorry, I know he gets tossed around inappropriately but it's so convenient) and work with Gandhi but sometimes nature can be ethical in it's own objective wisdom.

P.S. Some approaches to teaching ethics involve a captive audience and/or those willing to learn. It's a slow and gentle process which, we hope, inures to a long term benefit and change over time. However, I think academia gets hijacked and winnowed in a way that has not really made us more ethical over time. Our sentiments, both "good" and "bad" are still with us but I fail to see any progress from when Kennewick Man was shot by an arrow in the Garden of Eden.

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: the problem with the American economy is the collusion between the elected and profiteers (those who value cash above all else). Huck has a good notion but he's once removed from the true problem.

The problem is not the greedy corporate owners/investors but the elected who cater to them.

So: getting to the root, why not term limit all elected (and appointed) from the federal level down to the municipal? If you can only serve two terms (or even only one) then you can't entrench yourself and cater to money.

Why not get a binding 'none of the above' on every ballot of every election from the federal down to the municipal? If voters know they can say 'no' to the folks foisted up then more voters may participate and power blocs will have to foist up a better grade of candidate, or, do a better job of marketing the schmucks they have.

Strict term limits and a binding 'none of the above' option would, I think, go some way to severing the ties between big business and government (big business loses some protections, is exposed raw to the market [you, me, him, her, etc.], competition is stirred up and the measurable economy levels to a degree).

Will we ever see strict term limits and wide spread use of a binding 'none of the above'?

When hell freezes (mebbe).

[Huck Mucus]

I think another change would involve inheritance.

If you want to transfer wealth to anyone other than a non-profit, then you must do it during your lifetime, subject to all the standard withholdings. Otherwise, as it is now, you have heirs with a "sense of entitlement" receiving "something for nothing", all in violation of every principle cited as an indictment against those blood sucking people on welfare at the bottom of the economic ladder. After all, the only distinction between the spawn of us swashbuckling, hard working, smart working, risk-taking, self-made, bootstrapping captains of daring-do and the poop stains on welfare could not possibly be our own personal virtue, could it? Surely if we have not sinned then our sons cannot be made to pay for it, so how then can they receive our virtue without paying for it? Our sons are better, are they not! For *we* have raised them, with *our* ethos! Let them prove it! Sin and virtue can compound through the generations, socially, educationally, economically, with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer if we don't hit the reset button with each individual in an egalitarian society based upon what the rich purport to be our unique legacy as Americans. Are there exceptions which break out of the pattern, poor who become rich and rich who become poor? Yes, but those exceptions are not instructive on the point.

Get a job, now, while pappy is alive, and earn his wealth. You already have a leg up. What more do you want? Never mind. Don't answer that.

Anyway, this all assumes that virtue was indeed compounded over the generations. We might want to ask the Indians, the slave, the woman, and others how wealth came to be.

[prof]

Hi, Huck

You are absolutely right. Corporations are a product of government. And inheitance laws ought to be changed, rewritten in an ethical direction. No more free-riders!!!

Yes, we can leave our money to whomever we choose, but we must give a fair share to society while doing so. The tax laws on capital gains and on inheritance that prevailed under the regime of Eisenhower seem reasonable ...or are they? They were better than today's anyway.

Here is a website I recommend that has constructive solutions to today's problems.
http://theoptimist.com/

Also, Huck, you may want to listen to this video celebrating the life of Tom Paine, author of the best-seller of all time when it comes to socio-political essays: its title was Common Sense. It was supplemented by a little pamphlet called The Rights of Man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itvtwoVCTxM

[prof]

Here is a link to a column which many of you would find to be of interest:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/s ... story.html

It suggests a reform which if passed would likely result in reforming the American economy - in an Ethical direction.


What do you think? Would it make a difference if this proposed new law were implemented now in this age when multinational corporations can dictate to nations and even sue nations if they"misbehave"?

...And does it have a chance of passing in this current U.S. Congress?

Keep hope alive!

[Dalek Prime]

Only a complete overhaul of the corporation as a legal entity will accomplish anything.

You've read "The Corporation"? Here's the film. Exactly the same.

https://archive.org/details/The_Corporation_

[prof]

Thank you, Dalek Prime ! The message of that video is very important!!!

Here is another superb video, a talk by Hedrick Smith, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. He spoke in Washington state, U.S.A. He quotes Aristotle on "the middle class." A very-informative lecture on the state of the U.S. economy. He must have viewed the documentary that you offered, for he learned some lessons from it. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcRAE8KLOEM

[prof]

Even better than my last reference, Is the one below. I have discovered a new oxample of what I speak of as "ethical technologies." Here is a link to my latest discovery:

http://www.empoweringcitizens365.com/about-us/

Is this helpful? In your opinion, is it relevant to Ethics?

[bobevenson]

Yes, we can leave our money to whomever we choose, but we must give a fair share to society while doing so.

That is just another form of Communism, my friend.