I think the common trust would fall subject to corruption like the rest of our well planned US government. The fore-fathers created preventative measures for our modern woes, which unfortunately have been used against their original intentions. The only thing that keeps a good government on paper from becoming a bad one in practice is adherence to the simple tenets of its constitution. This requires an educated and courageous people with a body of faithful representatives. The system is good, we've just strayed from it.
On 12/29/06, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #887, Dec. 28, 2006 > <http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_capitalism_3.0_part2.061221.htm> > > Capitalism 3.0, Part 2 > > By Peter Montague > > Peter Barnes describes our current economic system as capitalism 2.0 > or "surplus capitalism," because its main problem is finding buyers > for the gushing fire hydrant of goods that the system so easily > produces. > > Barnes says surplus capitalism has three evident faults -- it is > devouring creation, it is producing ever-widening disparities between > rich and poor, and it largely ignores the needs of future > generations. Barnes proposes to solve these three problems not by > abandoning capitalism but by giving it a software upgrade -- turning > it into capitalism 3.0. > > Peter Barnes believes that the corporate sector of the U.S. economy > and culture has grown so large and powerful that it cannot be > regulated or made "socially responsible" to any significant degree. > In this regard the book is deeply pessimistic about the future of > democracy and of the viability of the natural world. > > During the 19th century, > <http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-1887208046-1>the corporation evolved > into an institution legally required to fulfill a single purpose -- > to provide a steady return on investment capital garnered from > strangers. This they do exceedingly well. As a result, since 1830 > corporations have grown exponentially and without limit. Now fully > 2/3rds of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is created by the largest > 500 corporations. (pg. 22) As part of their natural behavior, > corporations privatize our common wealth, extracting whatever they > need from nature, community and culture -- and they externalize their > costs by dumping wastes into the environment, minimizing their tax > contributions, and reducing pay and eliminating health-care and > pension benefits for workers to the extent allowed by law. (In > Barnes's view, the corporate globalization project is largely driven > by a relentless search for cheap labor. For a brief period in our > history, labor unions provided a countervailing power to the > corporations, but Peter Barnes believes that that time is gone, > presumably forever.) > > Using the basic strategy of privatization and externalization, > corporations have consolidated wealth for a fortunate few -- the 5% > of Americans who now own more wealth than the other 95% combined. > (pg. 27) (Barnes does not say so, but, importantly, the structure of > the modern transnational corporation is the antithesis of democratic > decision-making. As a secondary, unanticipated result of the > corporate ascendancy, all the institutions of our culture have fallen > under the influence of the corporate elite -- including legislatures, > the judiciary, and the executive branch, but also the mass media, our > schools and colleges, churches, elections, workplace policies and > conditions, foreign trade, foreign policy, the military. Almost > without exception, all the institutions of our culture are now > disciplined by a hierarchical corporate perspective, and by the > narrow corporate quest for ever-growing wealth.) > > Because the corporate sector cannot be reined in to any significant > degree, Peter Barnes believes, we must create an entirely new sector > within the economy to act as a counterbalance to corporate influence. > This he calls the "commons sector" and it would be created by > "propertizing" the commons but NOT privatizing the commons. The > commons would be "propertized" by giving everyone shares in it -- > shares they receive at birth and own, but which they cannot sell, > trade or pass on to their heirs. > > By "the commons" Barnes means, > > 1. Nature, which includes air, water, DNA, photosynthesis, seeds, > topsoil, airwaves, minerals, animals, plants, antibiotics, oceans, > fisheries, aquifers, quiet, wetlands, forests, rivers, lakes, solar > energy, wind energy... and so on; > > 2. Community: streets, playgrounds, the calendar, holidays, > universities, libraries, museums, social insurance [e.g., social > security], law, money, accounting standards, capital markets, > political institutions, farmers' markets, flea markets, craigslist... > etc.; > > 3. Culture: language, philosophy, religion, physics, chemistry, > musical instruments, classical music, jazz, ballet, hip-hop, > astronomy, electronics, the Internet, broadcast spectrum, medicine, > biology, mathematics, open-source software... and so forth. (pg. 5) > > In Barnes's software fix for capitalism, the mechanism for managing > common property would be the trust -- an ancient legal mechanism that > is widely used in the modern world. Barnes proposes creating "common > property trusts" to manage the newly-created common property rights. > A trust is a legal arrangement whereby one party (a trustee) manages > an asset (the "trust property") for the benefit of a third party (the > trust beneficiaries). The trustee's sole duty is to manage the trust > property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. > > Corporations using the commons would pay for the privilege, some of > the proceeds being paid to living beneficiaries as income. But > importantly, the trustees of the commons would operate under a strict > legal code requiring them to manage the trust for its long-term > productivity and survival. Trustees would be elected (or appointed) > for long terms, similar to the way many judges serve today. The > position of trustee would be an important one; trustees would be > respected, perhaps even venerated. > > This commons sector would be managed according a set of principles, > which would vary somewhat depending on whether the asset was limited > (nature) or inexhaustible (ideas and cultural creations). > > Here is the short version of the management principles: > > 1. Leave "enough and as good" in common -- a phrase first used by > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke>John Locke, who argued that > it's OK to privatize some parts of the commons so long as "enough and > as good" is retained in common ownership. "Enough" of an ecosystem > would mean enough to allow it to regenerate itself and remain healthy. > > 2. Put future generations first. Trustees of common property would be > accountable to future generations (and could be sued by the present > generation if they were obviously failing in this duty).(pg. 75) > > 3. The more the merrier. Private property is inherently exclusive; > common property is inherently inclusive. For example, social security > and Medicare are efficient and fair because they include almost > everyone. > > 4. One person, one share. "In the case of scarce natural assets, it > will be necessary to distinguish between usage rights and income > rights. It's impossible for everyone to use a limited commons > equally, but everyone should receive equal shares of the income > derived from selling limited usage rights." > > 5. Include some liquidity. Whenever possible, common property owners > should receive some income from their share of ownership. People > would notice -- and care about -- common property if they received > income from it. But common property rights could not be traded or > sold or passed to offspring. They are a birthright that stays with an > individual for life. > > In addition to creating "common property rights" and trusts to manage > them, Peter Barnes suggests that we extend the list of birthrights we > all receive free at birth. The Constitution presently guarantees each > of us several birthrights -- free speech, due process, habeas corpus > (though Congress recently > <http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_habeas_corpus_repealed.061027.ht > m>revoked this > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus#History>700-year-old > birthright for some of us), speedy public trials, and secure homes > and property. Barnes wants to add three additional birthrights to > this list: > > (a) An annual dividend (cash) paid by each common property trust to > every shareholder. Businesses using common property would pay the > relevant trust for the privilege of doing so, and the resulting cash > would be distributed to everyone who holds a share. To cite but one > example: firms trading shares on a stock exchange would pay for the > privilege of doing so because a stock exchange only works because the > community has created conditions allowing it to work -- the community > creates some of the value and so a common property trust should > receive some of the benefits. > > (b) A start-up stake -- a lump sum of cash received at birth, which > would stay invested until age 18 at which time the individual could > use it for any purpose. (Example: In England every child born after > 2002 now gets a trust fund seeded with $440 -- $880 if the child is > in the poorest 40% of families.) (pg. 109) > > (c) Health risk sharing. In the U.S., social insurance principles > have been applied to the risks of old-age poverty, temporary > unemployment, and disability. The U.S. remains the only capitalist > democracy that has not yet applied these principles to the risk of > ill health. Barnes favors the Canadian system which is "incredibly > simple," much cheaper than the U.S. system, and provides health care > and peace of mind to all Canadians. (pgs. 113-114) > > In his semi-final chapter, Barnes describes a set of institutions > that already exist somewhere, but which could be used much more > widely. The goal, he says, is to produce the most happiness with the > least destruction of nature. So here's an incomplete list > > ** Land trusts. Beside the agricultural land trust in Marin County, > California > (<http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ht061221.htm#Capitalism_3.0>describ > ed last week), Barnes points to the Dudley Street neighborhood in > Boston where a land trust owns 600 new and rehabbed homes -- all with > a cap on resale prices -- plus gardens, parks and playgrounds. > > ** Surface water trusts -- The Oregon Water Trust acquires surface > water rights to protect salmon and other fish. Similar trusts have > appeared in Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and > Nevada. > > ** Groundwater Trusts. In San Antonio, Tex., the Edwards Aquifer > Authority limits groundwater withdrawals by issuing permits. > > ** Community Gardens -- The American Community Gardening Association > lists 70 major cities with community gardens. > > ** Farmers' markets -- There are now nearly 4000 farmers' markets > operating in 50 states. > > ** An American Permanent Fund -- this one does not yet exist. Barnes > says it would be "the centerpiece of the new commons sector proposed > in this volume. It's a way to fix, or at least ameliorate, > capitalism's flaw of concentrating private property among the top 5% > of the population." The American Permanent Fund's income would > initially come from selling pollution permits (chiefly carbon > dioxide). As Barnes envisions it, the sale of pollution rights would > create income at first, some of which would be invested in buying > stock in corporations. As the trust ratcheted down allowable > pollution, return on corporate shares would replace lost income from > pollution rights. Every individual in the nation would get an annual > payout from the trust, establishing the important principle of one > person, one share. > > ** A spectrum fund -- by which the airwaves (the electro-magnetic > spectrum that carries radio and TV signals) would be set up as a > trust, with everyone as beneficiary. No more free ride for the big > media corporations. It is well-established that the public owns the > airwaves -- why should the public not benefit by charging annual rent > for their use? > > Suffice it to say that this is a book rich with interesting new ideas > -- or old ideas offered in a new context and a new light. > > As Bill McKibben says, "It's an indispensable book on a critical > topic. You may not agree with everything Peter Barnes proposes, but > we all can benefit by engaging in the debate that this book so > skillfully draws us into." > > So in closing I want to contribute to the debate this book will > provoke. Here are two questions the book raises for me: > > a) Given the influence of modern corporations over all our > institutions -- and given the single purpose that makes them so > "efficient" and, at the same time, so destructive of nature and of > democracy -- how can we hope to insulate trustees of the commons from > corporate influence? > > b) Given that the human > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint>footprint on the > Earth is relentlessly expanding, in effect > <http://www.precaution.org/lib/vitousek_human_appropriation.1986.pdf>c > rowding out the other creatures whose existence is essential for the > proper functioning of the biosphere (upon which we ourselves depend), > how can a system that requires perpetual corporate growth be > sustainable? The American Permanent Fund is based on annual growth of > corporate profits -- but such growth is demonstrably destroying the > biosphere, so we obviously require a steady-state economy, not an > endlessly-growing economy. Indeed, on a finite planet, an > endlessly-growing economy is a physical impossibility. What will a > steady-state economy look like and how can the corporate form as we > know it accommodate to this new requirement of our survival? > > Perhaps the most important point to make in closing is that some of > the ideas in this book might well be applied to a steady-state > economic system that was, by its nature, fundamentally different from > capitalism 2.0 (which requires perpetual growth on a finite planet). > In this sense, Peter Barnes's ideas might well outlast capitalism 2.0 > and even 3.0 -- and might even outlast the corporate form itself -- > as the requirements of the biosphere begin to discipline our thinking > and entirely new steady-state economic forms emerge. In sum, this is > a book to take with you on the long haul ahead. > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
