To: Citizen's Income Online at URL
http://citiinco01.uuhost.uk.uu.net/discussion/index.shtml
and friends on several mail lists

Hi folks,

The previous post of 03/07/2000, A General Theory or A Red Herring, at (0 
hrs), provoked five direct responses, plus only one subsequent posting to 
date to the CI discussion page by Werner Scott of Canada.  Mr. Scott 
described several vested interests; including labor leaders, welfare workers, 
and social scientists, which are opposed to the consequences of an adequate 
Citizen's Income.  That is to say, the opposition is to the decentralization 
of financial and political power which an adequate Citizen's Income would 
certainly produce.  There are only a few such vested interests which depend 
completely for their efficacy on the social disorder of our present 
condition.  It may be necessary to compensate those interests to moderate 
their opposition to the necessary reform, after the public has been persuaded 
that reform is necessary.

I am much obliged to the five direct respondents for their thoughtful 
contributions to my understanding of why thirty years of my work on this 
topic have produced no measurable results, to date.  A visit to the web site 
of each respondent, I can assure you, will be informative and well worth the 
time spent on the visit.  Here are the six respondents and their web sites, 
in the order of their posting.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~
      
 (nine hrs) Elias Davidsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
URL:  http://www.juscogens.org
Mr. Davidsson seems satisfied that the wishful thinking and pious exhortation 
in the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an adequate 
statement of the technical requirements for distributive justice.  See URL 
http://www.hri.org/docs/UDHR48.html for the UDHR. 
~~~~~~~~~~~
    
(Ten hrs) Douglas P. Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
URL:   http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html 
Mr. Wilson says, I "might consult a style book" to improve my presentation
of this Teflon Topic which has not been mentioned by social scientists in the 
US since Henry Carter Adams discussed "increasing returns to scale" in his 
1887 essay, Relation Of The State To Industrial Action.
~~~~~~~~~~~

(Thirty-nine hrs) Jimmy Poulin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
URL:  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/4061/scring.htm
Mr Poulin writes: "Keep an open heart and mind and you will understand.  
Please observe and respect the nature of things."
~~~~~~~~~~~
    
 (Forty hrs) Robin Gaskell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
URL:  http://black.cat.org.au
Mr. Gaskell writes: "I tend to agree that Jimmy has identified a weakness in 
Wes' arguments."
See also Mr. Gaskell's new mail list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a 
workshop to formulate the new social order to replace CAPITALISM, and seems 
to be well on its way to doing just that.
~~~~~~~~~~~

(41 hrs) Dr. Gavin R. Putland (Comments posted to CI discussion Page)
URL:  http://www.users.bigpond.com/putland
Dr. Putland took me to task for not promoting land value taxation as the cure 
for what ails us, but did agree with me on several other points.
See also Jeffery J. Smith' writings on the Citizen's Dividend, land value 
taxes, and the Geonomy Society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(106 hrs) Werner Scott (subsequent comments on vested interests posted to CI 
discussion Page which is apen to all at the URL above.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  

My favorite present, on my 76th birthday, March 14, was a random selection 
from Jimmy Poulin's Social Credit Web Ring, which landed on URL 
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/Caesar.html
This birthday present was an essay by Louis Even (1885-1974) based on 
Christ's answer to the question: (Matthew 22:17.) should we pay taxes to 
Caesar?  The following excerpt gives a sense of the essay.

>>>>> Begin Excerpt From "Taxes to Caesar?" by Louis Even <<<<<< 
So, what does belong to Caesar? We think it can be defined as follows: What 
is necessary to carry out his functions.

This definition seems to be implicitly accepted by Caesar himself, by the 
government, since the government says to those who complain about the burden 
of taxes: "The more services people demand, the more means the government 
needs to provide these services."

This is true. But in order to carry out his proper functions, Caesar must not 
have recourse to means that prevent people, families, from carrying out 
theirs.

Besides, in order to increase his importance, Caesar is always tempted to 
take over functions that normally belong to the families, to lower organisms, 
and not to the State. Moreover, the citizens would not need so much the help 
of Caesar, if Caesar first removed an obstacle that only he can remove: the 
artificial obstacle created by a financial system that is not in keeping with 
the huge physical possibilities to satisfy the basic material needs of every 
individual, of every family of our country.

Because Caesar does not correct this situation that only he can correct, 
Caesar then goes beyond his proper role and accumulates new functions, using 
them as a pretext for levying new taxes — sometimes ruinous ones — on 
citizens and families. Caesar thus becomes the tool of a financial 
dictatorship that he should destroy, and the oppressor of citizens and 
families that he should protect.
>>>>> End Excerpt From "Taxes to Caesar?" by Louis Even <<<<<< 

Here Mr Even describes the "artificial obstacle" to a stable and prosperous 
society which can be corrected only by a proper feedback of the first tithe 
(10% of GNP) to parenting families for the education and support of under age 
dependents.  Every nation does education adequately, but most nations act 
like Shylocks when it comes to the support expenditure for under age 
dependents which is an expense equal to that of universal public education in 
the US, or equal to the US defense budget, or equal to about 5% of the US 
GNP.  I dearly wish this essay by Louis Even were also posted with the micro 
model, Figure 7-9, THE WHOLE DIVINE LAW, at URL 
http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html
and at, URL 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/3142/IR/items//19990119WesBurtSustaina
bleFuture.html
to explain Figure 7 to those folks who don't know what "feedback" means, and 
have never read about the three Mosaic tithes in our oldest and most widely 
published history book, the Bible.  

The message is the same for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews as it is written 
in the King James version of the Bible, the Douay version of the Bible, and 
the Pentateuch & Haftorahs by Dr. J. H. Hertz, C. H.  late Chief Rabbi Of The 
British Empire.  And that message is that national governments slowly destroy 
their power to govern when they withhold part of the first tithe for the 
purpose of maximizing the debt burden and tribute exacted from their 
citizens.  This act of self immolation has forced the US labor market to 
operate for the last one hundred years with three systemic defects; a 5% of 
GNP deficiency of purchasing power among parenting families, a 4-10% rate of 
unemployment, and a 2-3%/year rate of inflation.  The UK has been withholding 
the support part of the first tithe for 200 years, the US for only 100 years, 
and no Englishman or American WHIP dares to diagnose unemployment and 
inflation in a public forum.

Now the odds are that I will be pushing up daises before a significant number 
of WHIPs from Pratt House and Chatham House decide to follow Mr. Robert S. 
McNamara's good example and admit that they were mistaken in their 20th 
century public policy.  Even so, every time I get discouraged about this 
Teflon Topic, my faith is restored by some notice that other people are 
thinking, or have thought, as I do.  One such notice was a Christmas present 
of the term, "noospheres," from Teilhard DE Chardin, by way of Robert 
Theobald, and Paul Swann on list [EMAIL PROTECTED] last December.  An 
other such notice was my birthday present, above, from Louis Even by way of 
Jimmy Poulin's Social Credit Web Ring.  And the most recent notice was a post 
to Robin Gaskell's new list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], from Alan Marshall who 
wrote, in part, concerning Option 3 (no connection to Tony Blair's third way):

>>>>>>> Begin excerpt from Option 3 by Alan Marshall <<<<<<<

Another common thread with all of our concerns is that they all relate to
Quality of Life.  Our concerns about economics or about money are really
concerns about their effects on people. At this point we might refer to the
works of John Rawls, University Professor of Philosophy at Harvard who
wrote "Political Liberalism," a book about justice and about fairness, as a
sequel to "A Theory of Justice."  Rawls provides us with a sort of a template
which we can use to evaluate alternative political or economic
infrastructures in terms of their overall fairness in societies with a mixed
population of varying backgrounds and differing values.  Fairness is one of
Rawls' key concepts and Freedom is another.  I will get back to these in a
minute.

>From his (Rawls) works my conclusion is, that we must look for a strategy 
that lifts the 'Quality of Life' for everyone; not just for the needy but for 
all 
of humanity.  But, if this is our objective a number of questions emerge:
        * Is it possible to lift 'Quality of Life' significantly,
                a) Without depleting natural resources and,
                b) Without increasing ecological stress
        * Could we lift the 'Quality of Life' for Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoc
or George Soros?
        * And why on earth would we want to?

There are two reason for believing we can significantly improve Quality of
Life.  First, it is not just about money, it is also about crowded conditions
and stress and security and pollution and opportunities for contributing to
society.  These are the sorts of things that affect everyone, even the
wealthy.

Secondly, there are huge inefficiencies built into our existing economy.
Look at how many people spend their working hours in efforts which don't
contribute anything real to society.  Banking, insurance, advertising,
securities etc. all deal with artificial values that might be handled much
more efficiently or might even be eliminated.  If all the work people do
could be contributing work there would be much more for everyone.  So 
there are possibilities for helping everybody.

As for why we would want to, if our proposals are seen to attack the rich
and powerful we will create such resistance that it will make the job
impossible.  (Look at the experiences of Major Douglas, author of "Social
Credit" back in 1923. He was perceived to be attacking the banking industry
and his recommendations were never given a reasonable trial).

>>>>>> End excerpt from Option 3 by Alan Marshall <<<<<<<<

A second visit to Jimmy Poulin's Social Credit web ring provided two more 
contributions by authors who tried in vain to penetrate the establishment's 
in-depth defense of the status quo.  Consider this first excerpt from 
"Applied Social Credit" at URL 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/4061/english/social_credit.htm

>>>>>>>>>> Begin excerpt from "Applied Social Credit" <<<<<<<<<<
A brilliant economic system analysis was made by a British engineer, major C. 
H.  Douglas, (1879-1952), who invented social credit. C. H.  Douglas also 
said that the founder of the social credit movement in Quebec, Louis Even, 
(1885-1974), was the one who best explained his views and principles. Among 
his many articles, and books on social credit, Louis Even became famous for 
his writing of the Salvation Island. A lot of people understood the lesson. 
Now, after decades of struggling, more and more people are taking concrete 
actions to implement real interest free monetary systems in society. 
>>>>>>>>>> End excerpt from "Applied Social Credit" <<<<<<<<<<

This second excerpt from web ring page title: "From Parable To Reality" at 
URL 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/4061/english/even_e.htm
also illustrates the futility of promoting this type of analysis with million 
of words, rather than with graphical models using real numbers.  

The global model at URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html 
illustrates concisely the systemic defect of omission in industrial society, 
which C. H. Douglas, Louis Even, Elias Davidsson, Douglas P. Wilson, Jimmy 
Poulin, Robin Gaskell, Gavin R. Putland, John Rawls, and Michael Rowbotham 
have not fully discovered and disclosed in their writings. 

>>>>>>>>> Begin excerpt of "From Parable To Reality" <<<<<<<<<<<
"Social Credit would distribute the dividend to everyone, directly, without 
charging it to industry. It would truly raise everyone's purchasing power. 

Besides being the recognition of a very productive community capital, this 
social dividend would at the same time be an excellent way of satisfying the 
primitive destination of the earthly goods. "Earth and its riches were 
created for all men" (Pie XII).  What is totally ignored by the present 
economic regime is its financial technique of distribution. 

Social Credit would thus directly establish an adequate repartition of the 
goods of nature and of industry, instead of leaving the task to the surgery 
of taxation, that amputates and grafts continually, without ever healing the 
disease. 

A share to each and everyone, guaranteed by the dividend to each and everyone 
from birth till death; and this share should be sufficient to at least insure 
what is necessary for life. 

Louis EVEN"
>>>>>>>>> End excerpt of "From Parable To Reality" <<<<<<<<<<<

There seems to be a widespread fear that corporations are taking on a life of 
their own and gaining hegmony over governments and the people represented by 
the governments.  This fear is projected by many mail lists and by well 
funded conferences which attract our best known authors.  Here are the 
headlines of one such conference at URL 
http://www.nancho.net/bigmed2000/bbonline.html#list

BIG BODY HEURISTICS
ARE CORPORATIONS REALLY ALIVE?
(Are they now our dominant species?)

Living System Perspectives on Corporate 
Evolution, Anatomy and Eco-Social Pathologies

LIST OF INVITED PARTICIPANTS (partial) 
(Capitalized surnames have been contacted and tentatively agreed to 
cooperate) 

Dean ALGER
John Perry BARLOW          Dee Hock                  *
Joan BAVARIA                   Josh KARLINER
Ernest CALLENBACH          David KORTEN          *
Fritjof CAPRA        *            Frances Moore LAPPE
Noam CHOMSKY   *            Lynn Margulis            *
Michael Crichton    *            James Grier MILLER
Richard Dawkins                  Michael Moore
Kevin DANAHER                  Ralph NADER           *
Charles DERBER                 John RENSENBRINK
Ronnie DUGGER                  Howard RHEINGOLD
Richard GROSSMAN            Kirkpatrick SALE
Randy HAYES                     Vandana Shiva
Hazel HENDERSON   *         David Suzuki            *
Dave HENSON                    Robert WEISSMAN   *
Mae Wan HO                      David Sloan WILSON
~~~~~~~~~~ End Headlines of conference~~~~~~~~~~~~

My own understanding of corporations is that they go belly-up as soon as they 
fail to satisfy their customers with a steady flow of goods and services at 
competitive prices.  There was a time when the Crown would establish 
corporations as monopolies, like the East India Company, the Hudson's Bay 
Company, and several of the American colonies which were chartered as 
corporations.  But the corporations of today evolved to their present 
decentralized diversified financial structure beginning with Alfred Sloan's 
restructuring of General Motors in the 1920s, Ford's restructuring in the 
1930s, and General Electric's decentralization program of the 1940s.  

The disorder in our industrial societies is not caused by our corporations 
becoming too powerful, the disorder and unbalance in our society has its 
roots in fact that we bring our people into the labor market as financial 
cripples, at the beginning (low end) of their productive capacity, loaded 
with the debt which each person incurs over the 16 to 27 year period of 
his/her development.  The "needs" of the development phase of the life cycle 
can be satisfied by nothing else except some part of the value-added by other 
people who are in the productive phase of their life cycle.  Parenting 
families have plenty to do while raising the next generation.  There is no 
need for their government to also tax them into poverty, by withholding the 
rightful inheritance promised them by the first Mosaic tithe.  The second 
tithe, of course, is for the WHIPs who are also commanded to pay the first 
tithe.  And the third tithe is for infrastructure and community building. 

This sullen silence that you hear on the several mail lists and on the 
Citizen's Income discussion web site is the sound of Devious Defenders of the 
Status Quo (DDotSQ) and Bertrand Russell's "No Men" deciding whether, or not, 
they can wash away the macro model Figure 6 and the micro model Figure 7-9, 
at URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html, with a torrent of words.  
They did wash away the proposals of Thomas Paine, Frederic Bastiat, Henry 
Carter Adams, C. H. Douglas, Louis Even, and Bertrand Russell, but none of 
these disappointed authors had an insight into the financial structure of a 
modern decentralized corporation nor an insight into the input/output 
analysis of Wassily Leontief which defines the configuration of the macro 
model Figure 6 and the micro model Figure 7-9. 

How many of the prominent authors listed for the conference on BIG BODY 
HEURISTICS will step up to the podium and claim that our present condition is 
the best possible condition and that there is nothing we can do to improve 
our present condition?  Probably all of them, as long as the global model at 
URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html remains a secret of the 
temple, proscribed for everyone except the WHIPs.

Kind regards to the innocents and the DDotSQ,

Wesburt

Reply via email to