sign in sign up
<<
Home , Common good, Common good (economics)

Chapter 9 Using Common Sense for the Common preclude the current generation from creating one. Their rejection of the rule of was based on their firm that no generation could If the U.S. Constitution were written today, by true scholars of today, be forced to sacrifice their rights simply because some previous it would have to include an economic and ecological Bill of Rights – to generation had failed to claim them, or had given them away. In the complement the civil or social Bill of Rights adopted in 1788. One of the words of Thomas Paine, “A certain former generation made a will, to fundamental purposes of forming the Union, as stated in the preamble to take away the rights of the commencing generation, and all future ones, the Constitution, was to “promote the general welfare and to secure the and to convey those rights to a third person, who afterwards comes blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” Nothing today forward, and tells them that they have no rights, that their rights are indicates that the general welfare can be promoted or the blessings of already bequeathed to him, and that he will govern in contempt, of them. liberty can be secure for our posterity without constitutional protection of From such principles, and such ignorance, Good Lord deliver the the economic and ecological rights of humanity from the greed-driven world!” machinations of an out-of-control, corporatist economy. Lacking There is no fundamental right to continue the economic tyranny, constitutional protection for our economic and ecological rights, our regardless of past court decisions and current economic policies. The political quite simply is not sustainable. people of this generation have every right to do whatever is necessary to The drafters of the Constitution clearly meant it to be a living reclaim their rights – to break free of the economic tyranny, even if it document, capable of changing to meet the changing needs of the time. In requires the remaking of this great nation. The people of this generation the words of Thomas Jefferson, “I am not an advocate for frequent have a clear civic and moral responsibility to defend the right of re- changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand creation and to pass it on to the next generation and to all generations to in hand with the of the human mind. As that becomes more come. The of humanity will require nothing less. developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of By John Ikerd, from “The Case for A Bill of Rights for Sustainability,” a circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the paper prepared for the “Looking Glass Retreat – The of times.” (From a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816, and inscribed Sustainability,” Koskie, ID, July 1998. on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC.) Thomas Paine wrote, “It is perhaps impossible to establish any thing As I struggled to understand how had become so preoccupied that combines principles with opinions and practice, which the progress by the pursuit of , I began to realize that part of the problem of circumstances, through length of years, will not in some measure was that we had lost any sense of common purpose. We seemingly had derange, or render inconsistent… The rights of man are the rights of all abandoned the idea that we needed to work together for our common generations of men, and cannot be monopolized by any… The best good. Obviously, much of this way of thinking could be traced to the constitution that could now be devised, consistent with the conditions of glorification of selfishness by free market economists, many of whom the present moment, may be far short of that excellence which a few years probably actually believed that ’s was still may afford.” (From Thomas Paine’s, The Rights of Man). strong and healthy. However, most mainstream economists traditionally Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine could not have foreseen today’s had been taught that had a legitimate role to play in the social and ecological consequences of our blind pursuit of our economy. Government, they said, was the means by which we pursued materialistic, short-run, economic self-interests. Yet, they clearly the interest – the means by which we could serve our individual anticipated that such “derangements and inconsistencies” would arise, interests better by acting together. However, all of this had changed by and to limit their accumulation and prevent revolution, civilized society the time I got back to Missouri in the late 1980s. By then, most must at times stop and remove the yolk of our barbarous ancestors by mainstream economists seemed to believe the primary mission of amending, or rewriting, the Constitution. government was to ensure uninterrupted economic growth of the private Even if the Constitution writers of past generations had not intended economy, and thus, advocated privatizing virtually every and an economic democracy, it is clear they would not have intended to service still being provided by government. 97 Beyond facilitating economic growth, most economists considered People have been misled into believing that there is really no government’s primary role to be dealing with market failures. And, by legitimate need for government – that government represents something the time I had returned to Missouri in 1988, few economists anywhere that is done to them and not for them. Many feel their hard-earned were willing to openly admit to very many situations where the markets dollars are mostly wasted – lost down some government rat hole. Some had failed. Most seemed to believe there were few things that the markets of this feeling arises from government bureaucracies, which have become couldn’t do well – or at least couldn’t do better than the government. more concerned with expanding their budgets and span of control than By the mid-90s, I had concluded the Department of Agricultural with providing services to the people. But current public attitudes toward Economics wasn’t serving the interests of its students, or society as well government stem largely from a conscious, purposeful attempt by as it could, because it didn’t offer a course dealing objectively with the corporate interests, and the politicians they control, to keep government legitimate role of government in providing public and services. I weak so that corporations may continue to dominate both the economic believed the lack of understanding of the legitimate role of government and political arenas of society. If the people are to wrest control from the was a major problem confronting American society. The department bureaucrats, corrupted politicians, and corporations, they must understand offered courses in agricultural policy, but these courses dealt with policy the legitimate functions of government and must demand that their from an historical and institutional perspective with little attention to the government perform these functions for them – effectively and efficiently. legitimate functions of government. The Economics Department offered Skepticism regarding the role of government is not new. “The courses in public policy, but again the emphasis was on how government government that governs least governs best.” This has been a commonly policies worked and not why we needed them. So, I designed a course held view among many in the United States since its beginning. Based on that would address public goods and services from the perspective of the their experiences with the British monarchy, the founding fathers were legitimate role of government in serving the public good. very skeptical of the power of big government. In fact, the Bill of Rights I worked with a group of rural sociologists to integrate the proposed of the U.S. Constitution is devoted primarily to ensuring that the rights of course into a new curriculum. It was accepted, but as an elective rather citizens are protected against governmental abuse. Skepticism regarding than a requirement of the new program. I prepared to teach the course the legitimate powers of government was a cornerstone of American and had it listed in the official course catalogue. Unfortunately, too few democracy. students enrolled in the course to allow me to teach it. As far as I know, In spite of this skepticism, the size and scope of the U.S. government there is still no course offered at the University of Missouri that deals has grown throughout the history of the country. As late as the turn of the with the legitimate role of government in a civilized society. However, early 1900s, the federal government was still a relatively minor much of what I prepared to teach finds its way into this chapter. The consideration in the day-to-day lives of most people in the U.S. However, chapter covers the essential subject matter of a three-hour credit course in by the middle of the twentieth century, U.S. involvement in two World college. It’s admittedly pretty dense reading – although hopefully not too Wars and the Great Depression had greatly expanded the size and scope heavy for anyone who is interested in the legitimate role and scope of of its government. The role of government was broadened still further government. during the last half of the century by the Cold War and missile race with Government is neither inherently good nor bad. Government is the Soviet Union and the Great Society programs of the 1960s, including simply a means by which we may choose to work together for the Medicare and Medicaid. By the late 1960s, we “Goldwater Republicans” . If the future of humanity is to be better than the past, I had had more than enough of big government. We wanted a government firmly believe we are going to have to learn to live and work together. A that governed less, and most important, a government that took less life lived alone is a life not fully lived. Fortunately, for the most part, out of our paychecks. However, we were slightly ahead of our time. living and working together is an interpersonal matter – something to be Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency in 1980 with a promise and a worked out among people, face-to-face, one-on-one. However, our less mandate to reduce the size of government – as he put it, to “get the personal relationships need to be a bit more formal. For those less government off peoples’ backs.” He used the mandate to reduce taxes, personal, more formal relationships, we need government. but mostly for the more affluent, even including university professors like me. However, he did little to reduce the overall size of government. 98 Some government social programs were cut, but the military budget Corporations want to control government, as well as the economy – exploded, resulting in unprecedented growth in federal budget deficits. of this there can be no doubt. Corporations are no less interested in Reaganomics may have meant lower taxes, at least for some of us, but it benefiting from the government’s allocations of money collected from didn’t mean smaller government. The Bush and Clinton years were taxpayers than they are in making profits from the money people spend as mostly more of the same, except that a booming economy during the consumers. The corporations are not interested in helping to design a Clinton years brought increased tax revenues without increasing tax rates, government to serve the public good, certainly not at their private and the federal budget deficit disappeared. However, with Bush II, a expense. There is some public good in serving many private interests, but recession, a tax cut, and a war on terrorism, expanded to a war to no private profits in serving the purely public good. democratize the Middle East, the federal budget deficit plunged to record Corporations want to ensure that government allows them to continue levels, and big government continued to get bigger. functioning with minimum constraints on their pursuit of profits and The battles will continue to rage indefinitely between the growth. So they actively promote the idea that a government that governs conservatives, who want to reduce the size of government, and the least governs best. They would prefer that government collect as little liberals, who want the government to do even more. However, these money as possible to carry out its functions, which has the added benefit battles tend to be fought along the lines of self-interests. The of leaving as much money as possible at the disposal of their customers. conservatives want to be able to spend more of their own money – after But failing in this effort, the corporations want to get as big a share as all, it’s their money. The liberals want the government to meet more possible of every dollar the government collects from taxpayers. needs of more people by expanding health care, education, and social The government is supposed to work for the common good of the security – after all, it’s their government. people. If we, the people, are to be able to protect our democracy, and In , the corporations support both the conservatives and our economy, from corporate control, we must reach a consensus on the liberals. If taxes are cut, they want to make sure corporate taxes, capital legitimate role and scope of government. And we must be willing to gains taxes, and taxes on corporate dividends are cut along with the taxes enforce that consensus through the appropriate functioning of an effective of their customers. A tax loophole is as good as a tax cut in the hands of a government. We must reassert the fact that this is our government; good corporate tax lawyer. The corporations want to keep more of the whatever it is, we have made it – or at least have allowed it to be. In spite profits they make, and they expect to make more profits when their of their dominant economic and political power, corporations still can’t consumers have more after-tax income to spend. serve in public office and can’t vote in elections. They have no powers On the other hand, if taxes are increased and government programs other than those we choose to give them. We can control the corporations are expanded, corporations want to make sure they continue to benefit and can even make them cease to exist – but only if we choose to act from those government programs, even if at the expense of real people. collectively, through the institution of government. Corporations make huge profits from government expenditures for Unfortunately, two conflicting of government make programs such as the military and public transportation. And, they are reaching such a consensus more difficult. One sees the primary role of quickly gaining control of public health care through medical insurance government as protection of private – the right to acquire and to and HMOs. Corporations also are actively working to gain access to secure property; equity and justice are seen as desirable by-products of education through the proposed educational voucher program that would rights. The other sees the primary role of government as allow people to bypass the public education system, and ultimately, would ensuring equity and justice; protecting one’s ability to acquire and secure fund a corporate education system. And, they are hoping to get a big private property is a desirable by-product of an equitable and just society. piece of Social Security, through a program that would allow people to Many of the current functions of government can be justified under either invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market. For the , but some government functions are consistent with only one. corporation, political activism is just another means of making money. Although rarely debated as this fundamental level, this conflict in Their financial support of both conservative and liberal candidates and philosophies of government is at the root of nearly all debates over the causes are nothing more than investments to ensure continued profits and legitimacy of specific government programs and policies. growth. 99 Those who see government as protector of private property see and maintain an environment in which individuals, including individual democracy in the same light as a free market economy. The unspoken corporations, can acquire, hold, and accumulate private property. assumptions are that no societal well-being exists except that which is In general, the advocates of government as protector of private realized as individuals. Equity is achieved when every person has an property oppose of property by the government. They often opportunity to do as well as he or she can under a given of support this opposition to public ownership as an attempt to prevent circumstances, and justice means everyone is rewarded in relation to their something called a “tragedy of the .” This unfortunate metaphor productivity. Thus, if everyone is given an opportunity to acquire private has become so deeply engrained in the private property culture of property and receives private property as an equitable reward for their American that it is worthy of some explanation. productivity, they will have the necessary incentive to become productive The “” story was told of people in a village individuals, and consequently, will build a productive, successful who owned cattle individually, but shared common grazing lands in the economy and society. surrounding countryside. The amount of available would Under the private property doctrine, national defense is viewed as a support only a limited number of cattle. However, since the land was means of protecting private property against invasions from other nations. owned in common, each person had an incentive to graze as many cattle Those who have little or no property to protect are defended equally, but as they could. It was government land, so to speak, and each villager only because it would be impractical to exclude them during a time of could use as much of it as they chose. As might have been expected, the war. Criminal laws likewise are designed primarily to protect one’s number of cattle in the village grew larger and larger over time, and property. People, as well as property, must be protected because life and eventually overgrazed the land. Overgrazing ultimately destroyed the health are prerequisites to benefiting from the ownership of property. land’s productivity and the villagers were forced to sell all of their cattle. Those people without property are protected as well, although not always As each individual pursued their self-interest in using the property held in equally well. It’s just easier to protect everyone than to determine who is common, government property, they collectively destroyed the value of worthy of what level of protection based on current and potential future the property and its ability to serve the interests of anyone. value of their property. Obviously, if each person in the village had been allowed to buy a Civil laws clearly are designed to protect property rather than people parcel of the common property, they would have had an incentive to take – to win a civil case one first must have suffered some loss that has better care of their own property. Each landowner would then have had private, economic value. In civil court, those without property, and no an incentive to maintain the productivity of their land, so their cattle potential to acquire it, can have no claim because they have had nothing would continue to have good grazing, and the land would be of value to lose. Claims for pain and suffering make no sense to those who view whenever they chose to sell it. The moral of the story is that people will protection of private property as the only legitimate role of the courts. exploit, and ultimately will destroy, anything that is owned in common, For private property advocates, public education is supported as a i.e. by the government, and people will take care of and build up anything means of ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to realize their that they own privately. Thus, private ownership prevents the “tragedy of potential to become productive citizens – meaning citizens capable of the commons.” acquiring property. Public health programs are similarly justified as However, the moral of this story depends on a critical, but unstated, means of protecting the productivity of human . Public assumption. The story assumes that people only realize value from things transportation and communications systems have been supported as as individuals. Implicit, in the story, there is no recognition of rational means of facilitating individual productivity and the creation of private incentives for people to act in their common interests, apart from their wealth. However, government involvement in such things has been individual interests. Tragedies of commons occur only in cases where justified only if the job was too large, or otherwise could not be carried by people pursue individual interests while using property that is owned in a private business. However, the private sector is now taking over more common. Admittedly, if the interests at stake are purely private interests, and more of this type of public function, as many individual corporations then the property involved should be private property. But if the interests are now larger than most government agencies. In summary, many at stake truly are common interests, then property can be held in common people believe the only appropriate function of government is to create – without degrading or destroying it. 100 All sorts of examples exist where people have agreed to share the use market place; these rights are to be assured equally to all, regardless of of resources held in common and they voluntarily have devised means of what they have to offer for sale or are willing to pay. ensuring that those resources are not exploited. People share the use of If two people go into a Wal Mart, one person with a hundred dollars national parks and national forests, fisheries and wildlife, highways, and and another with only ten, the person with a hundred dollars has a right to all sorts of public facilities. They don’t exploit such common property buy ten-times as much stuff as does the person with ten dollars. Wal Mart because they realize that they have a common interest in its protection. is a legitimately private business. However, if the same two people go They come together and devise means of preventing tragedies of the into a voting booth, one with a hundred dollars, and the other with only commons. The key is to determine, which interests are individual and ten, each person has only one vote. The voting booth is the place where which interests are common, and then to provide for either private or people make public decisions, where all people have equal rights. In a public ownership accordingly. democracy, we vote on matters affecting the common good, and thus, we Those who see government as the means of ensuring equity and each have one vote – regardless of how wealthy or poor we may be. Each justice see it as the protector of the common good. They do not advocate person has an equal voice in making public decisions because each person government ownership of all property or even most property – they are has an equal right to benefit from public goods and services. not communists. They believe that the right to ownership of private Finally, the Constitution lays out some fundamental principles that property is both necessary and appropriate in those cases where interests reflect the ethical and moral values that are held by our society in are clearly individual in nature. But, they believe many values of society common. These principles are the glue that holds the nation together – accrue to the people in common, and not to just individuals. the things that make us one country rather than an economic union for This position is rooted in the first principle that people are facilitating trade or a treaty organization for mutual defense. These multidimensional – that they realize values from interrelationships with common principles cannot be bought or sold, nor do they accrue to us as other people and from living ethical, moral lives, in addition to the values individuals, either equally or unequally. These rights belong to the union, they realize individually and personally. They believe the quality of our to the people in common. They are neither to be sold lives is affected by the way we treat other people and how we feel about nor rights of individuals that can be given away. These principles ourselves – not just by the amount of personal property we can acquire characterize the nation as a whole and must be defined and protected by a and accumulate. Obviously, I share those beliefs and those beliefs are process of national consensus. reflected in my perception of the appropriate role of government. But, I If a constitution is to be effective in providing the foundation for a am no less objective, in this respect, than are those who believe that all nation, it must reflect a consensus of the people of the nation. A values are individual and private. Certainly, the government has an consensus doesn’t require unanimous approval, but consensus does reflect important role in protecting private property, but it has equally important something far more than a simple majority rule. A consensus means that roles in protecting the values that arise from human relationships and a dominant proportion of the people agrees with a proposition, and from our common – from living in an equitable and just society. equally important, that those who don’t agree with the proposition do The U.S. democracy, by design, allows government to fulfill a agree to abide by the dominant opinion, regardless of their personal multidimensional role – although it doesn’t necessarily force it to do so. preferences. Majority rule, on the other hand, simply means people have The U.S. constitution clearly spells out the right of citizens to own private agreed in advance that the position held by the majority shall prevail property and the responsibility of government to respect and protect the unless or until those who continue to oppose it become the majority. The rights of private ownership. Clearly, the right to conduct business in the U.S. constitution states that amendments of the U.S. constitution must private economy, through buying and selling of private property, is an pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority and be ratified by important consequence of our democracy. However, the Constitution also at least three-fourth of all states – in essence, defining a process of clearly spells out that all citizens have certain rights that are held equally reaching national consensus. It is far easier to pass laws, even laws by all, without regard to their ownership of property or anything of requiring two-thirds majorities, than to amend the Constitution. A economic value. These rights are not to be bought and sold in the private consensus is more difficult to achieve, and fundamentally more important, than a majority position of the people. 101 On matters of personal ethics and morality, if we are people of people interpret the Constitution differently. But, changing interpretation integrity, we don’t buy and sell our values, and we don’t vote, or accept is not a constitutional means of changing the Constitution, nor does it anyone else’s vote, concerning what’s morally or ethically right and necessarily reflect a changing national consensus. Evidence is growing wrong for us. On matters of our common ethics and moral values, we that the Constitution does not even address some critical issues upon should apply the same general principles, yet we must be willing to work which a national consensus must be reached if the government is to retain toward a national consensus. We must be willing to continue to search the of the governed. And, the Supreme Court cannot possibly for ways to carry out the private functions of the economy and public reinterpret provisions that do not exist. functions of government by means that don’t conflict with our The first such issue that comes to mind is abortion – the right to life fundamental values. We must agree to participate in an ongoing process versus the freedom of choice. There is no national consensus on this of reaching and maintaining a national consensus – not a consensus in the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion under “right to privacy” marketplace, nor in the voting booth, but in the hearts and minds of the provision, addressing a woman’s constitutional right to choose what she people. does with her own body. Most public opinion polls have consistently The drafters of the Constitution clearly meant it to be a living shown a clear majority of the people in the U.S. favors the current pro- document, capable of changing to meet changes in our national choice abortion laws. However, the pro-life movement makes up a consensus, as stated in the preamble to this chapter. The intent for the significant minority of Americans. Through continued public Constitution to be a living document is written into Article V of the demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience, pro-life advocates show no Constitution. It states: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both indication of agreeing to abide by the rule of the majority on this issue. Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this There is no national consensus concerning abortion. Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the Another similarly controversial issue on which there is no several States, shall call a for proposing amendments, which, consensus is the right to bear arms. The second amendment to the in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution clearly states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the arms shall not be infringed.” However, a growing majority of several States.” Americans believe the right to bear arms should be “infringed,” if not Americans have added only twelve amendments to the U.S. outright abolished. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld laws that Constitution in the past century – and one of those was the repeal of clearly infringe upon the individual’s right to own certain kinds of another. The last national Constitutional Convention was the first one, in weapons, without challenging the individual’s basic right to own 1787 – although the six southern states that seceded from the Union held firearms. The second amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia, a convention to adopt the Constitution of the Confederacy in 1861. Have being necessary to the security of free states…” which gun control we really made so little progress in developing our minds and becoming advocates interpret as a right of states to maintain National Guard Units, more enlightened in the past two hundred years? Have we actually made rather than rights of individuals to bear arms. There is no national so few new discoveries and discovered so few new truths? Has there consensus on gun control. been so little change in manners, opinions, and circumstances? If so, These and other contentious issues – such as gender equity, school Jefferson and Paine would be sorely disappointed in us. Were there only prayer, desecration of the flag, and rights of gays and lesbians – are ten things that needed to be changed in the last hundred years? Or were simmering just below the surface of civil disobedience. The animosities the politically and economically powerful effectively blocking changes to surrounding these issues are accumulating to the point of discouraging the Constitution in order to protect their privileges within the existing reformations and eventually, perhaps, of provoking revolution, as Thomas structure of government? Paine might say. And as Paine suggested, it might be wise to handle such Some argue the Supreme Court is capable of reflecting any change in issues as they arise, rather than allow them to accumulate and perhaps the consensus of the people by periodically reinterpreting of the culminate in revolution. Constitution. Appointments to fill seats on the Supreme Court are highly Widespread civil disobedience – a principle-based defiance of law – prized by both conservatives and liberals because they know that different is the most obvious sign of a lack of consensus among the people. When 102 people are willing, openly to defy and to disobey a law of the land, and to approved by ratification by Conventions in three-fourths of the states, suffer the prescribed consequences of their acts, they obviously are not rather than by State Legislators, again at the discretion of Congress. In willing to abide by the principles by which they are governed. Few, if cases where Congress lacks the will to act, the people have a right to ask any, constitutional amendments affecting the rights of people have been Congress to step aside and to change the Constitution by the legal process approved that were not preceded by acts of civil disobedience among of Constitutional Conventions. significant segments of the population. The abolition of , right to However, the most important responsibility of the people, pertaining vote regardless of race, right of women to vote, repeal of prohibition, to issues of national ethics and morality, is to commit themselves to the abolition of poll taxes, and even rights of eighteen-year-olds to vote; all process of reaching a national consensus. Our historical competitive and were preceded by significant acts of civil disobedience. adversarial approach to matters of economics and politics has all but Certainly, not every act of civil disobedience should be met with a destroyed our ability to work for consensus on matters of ethics and proposed amendment to the Constitution. And just as certainly, the morality. We tend to be insistent that acts of concession on matters of people of a nation should not wait for acts of civil disobedience to values are equivalent to a compromise on matters of principle – which propose changes in the Constitution. But, whenever large numbers of clearly is not true. We can move toward consensus without people find they must disobey a constitutional law to remain true to their compromising our fundamental principles, if we are willing to reexamine own principles, and are willing to accept the consequences of their our values. actions, a nation should be willing to admit that it has lost the consensus For example, on the issue of abortion, some pro-choice advocates needed to govern on that particular issue. This does not imply that the demand that women have the right to an abortion, at any stage of constitution should be amended so as to satisfy the civil disobedient. This pregnancy, with issues concerning threat to life or health to be resolved would only result in civil disobedience on the part of their opponents. only between a woman and her doctor. Some pro-life advocates demand Instead, widespread civil disobedience means ways must be found to that the fetus be given full rights of citizenship, at conception, and that its reestablish a consensus among the governed, if the government is to life and health take precedent over the health, if not life, of its mother. maintain its effectiveness in serving the common good. Obviously, the mother has basic human rights, and at some point, the The people of this country are not subjects of the Constitution or of baby acquires the same basic human rights. These basic rights are matters the government. Instead, the Constitution belongs to the people, and of principle. The questions of when a person acquires rights and how the thereby, the government is subject to will of the people. A constitution is rights of one person are to be weighed against the rights or another are simply a document designed to reflect the consensus of the people questions of values. Our values are shaped by our religious, cultural, and concerning the purpose of their union and the principles by which they social environment, but principles are beliefs that we all share in choose to be governed. The people have every right to amend or common. otherwise change the Constitution as needed to reflect the changing I am not so naïve as to believe that a controversy as complex and consensus of their nation. In fact, the people have a responsibility to deep-seated as abortion can be easily resolved. But, we need to begin a reach a consensus on issues of critical national concern. We have a process that will lead to consensus – by making concessions on matters of responsibility to define our national consensus, the principles which values, but without compromising on matters of principle. Such matters reflect the dominate values of the people, the principles by which the rest of principle arise from our common sense – not from religious doctrine, will agree to abide, even if we don’t completely agree. , or common practice. I firmly believe that if people People can lobby their legislators to introduce and pass proposed come together, committed to relying on their own sense of morality – amendments, and can lobby their state legislators to ratify amendments rather than conventional wisdom or logic and reason – they will discover passed by Congress. But, amendments can also be proposed and ratified a collective, common sense of what is right and wrong. Upon this through a process involving special constitutional conventions. foundation of common sense, they could build national consensus. Remember, the Constitution states that Congress, “on the application of The people of the United States need a formal process, short of civil the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention disobedience, by which people can raise issues on which they feel we for proposing amendments.” It also states that amendments may be have lost the national consensus needed to govern. We need a process for 103 bringing such issues that have merit before the American people, in obvious that the founders of the American democracy believed that all organized series of local, state, and national forums – in person or through people have certain rights that are both undeniable and equal, which other means of interactive communication. We need a process of include the pursuit of happiness as well as life and liberty. The also formulating and proposing alternative statements of principles that can be believed that government is a necessary means of ensuring those rights. put before the people for their review and reactions. All people need to Earlier versions of the Declaration of Independence had included the be encouraged to participate in the process – to use their individual phrase “life, liberty, and possession of private property.” However, the common sense to find a collective common sense of what is right and Founding Fathers apparently concluded, quite wisely, the opportunity to wrong for the nation. possess private property was not equivalent to the pursuit of happiness. Once the people have reached a consensus, the legislative process Some have criticized the pursuit of happiness statement, saying it necessary for amending the Constitution can begin. Again, if legislators creates unrealistic expectations among the governed. It has been said that are not willing to participate in such a process, then they can be asked to Americans are the only people on earth who actually expect to be happy, step aside and let the process of Constitutional Conventions bring our and thus, are continually disappointed. First, the Declaration states that living Constitution back to life. all have an equal right to pursue happiness, not that all, or any, The new vision of the future of humanity is one where people live and necessarily will achieve it. In addition, some people seem to think that work in nations where the principles of government are defined by the happiness is a goal to be achieved or some destination to be reached, process of consensus rather than through compromise or political and rather than a process in which one participates. In America, everyone economic brute force. A world in which people don’t have to resort to should have an equal opportunity to be happy in the process of living. civil disobedience to tell their government when something is That doesn’t mean that everyone will achieve wealth, popularity, or fundamentally wrong would be a fundamentally better world. A world in personal serenity. It simply means that everyone should have an equal which people participate in an ongoing process of forming and reforming opportunity to pursue their hopes and dreams – regardless of whether they their government would be a better world. A world in which the moral are able to achieve them. and ethical values of the people are reflected in the Constitution upon If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are accepted as American which their government stands truly would be a better world. basic rights, they must be ensured equally for all. A market economy A good constitution is necessary for good government but is not gives people rights in relation to their wealth or ability to pay, not equally sufficient to ensure good government. It’s still up to the people to elect to all. Thus, ensuring the right to own personal property most certainly representatives who understand what a good government is supposed to will not ensure the realization of those basic rights, which according to do for the people – people who have the courage to pursue the common the Constitution, are to be equally accessible to all. The government must good. Knowing what government is not supposed to do is just as ensure equality where equality is a right and ensure the rights of private important as knowing what government is supposed to do. But, a property where equality is neither necessary nor desirable in ensuring the government that governs least is not necessarily a government that overall well-being of society. There is a legitimate and important role for governs best. People who don’t believe there is any legitimate role for the private sector in a democratic , where people are rewarded for government, other than to protect and promote the private sector, are their productivity, and thus, have an incentive to earn money and pursuing a philosophy of government fundamentally different from that accumulate wealth. But, there is also a legitimate and important role for envisioned by the Founding Fathers. the public sector, where people are ensured of equal opportunities, As indicated previously, the American Declaration of Independence regardless of their ability to earn or to pay. begins: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created Which goods and services should be equally accessible to all? What equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable is a public good and service? Again, this is a matter for the people to rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” decide – either directly or through their elected representatives. However, Immediately following this well-known statement our Founding Fathers each law that is passed to ensure equality must also be constitutional – it wrote, “That to secure these rights, are instituted among must be consistent with our national consensus. Thus far, a consensus men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It is seems to exist ensuring the equal right of all people to be defended 104 against foreign aggression. I don’t really believe the arguments that the should have sufficient nutrition to ensure their physical and mental American people would exclude those who have no property from development. The USDA Food Stamp program and various state and national defense, if it were not too costly to do so. However, the fact that local social welfare programs are targeted to carrying out this consensus. some have far more personal property to be defended than do others The private markets provide food only for those who can afford to pay for seems a reasonable justification for assessing some people far more than it. Ensuring that everyone has access to enough food to survive is a others for the total costs of national defense. But, all have an equal right legitimate public service. to be defended, regardless of how much, or whether, they contribute to The consensus concerning social welfare programs in general is not the cost of national defense. So we pay taxes to support the military as clear as for food programs. The consensus seems to be that everyone is services. Nearly everyone agrees – national defense is a legitimate public entitled to some minimal level of government support – if they truly need service. it to survive. But, no consensus exists concerning the level of support Most agree that public transportation – including highways, roads, necessary or the conditions under which survival becomes the and bridges – is a legitimate public service. Everyone should have an responsibility of government rather than the responsibility of the equal right to move about from one place to another. So, governments individual. The Great Society programs of the 1960s placed a strong not only build roads that all people may travel, but in many cases, responsibility on government to eliminate poverty. Welfare to Work governments subsidize other means of mass transportation. Although we reform program of the mid-1990s placed greater responsibility back onto may disagree about the amount, most willingly pay taxes to build roads the individual and less on government. So, we have a consensus that and support pubic transportation, thus confirming that transportation, in welfare of the poor is a legitimate public responsibility, but we have yet to some form, is public goods and services. agree on the best means of meeting that responsibility. We also have reached a national consensus that education should be A consensus that everyone in America should have access to some equally accessible to all. We do not necessarily agree on what level and level of health care services seems to be emerging. We have already type of education is to be a public service, nor is there universal agreed to provide health care to retired people, through Medicare, and to agreement on how best to provide public education. But, most agree that poor people, through Medicaid. Currently, public programs are being put an educated society is essential to maintaining an effective democracy as in place in some states to ensure adequate health care for all children, well as a productive economy. Schools are financed mostly through state regardless of the ability of their parents to pay. We seem to be moving and local taxes. So, the quality of education may vary a good bit from toward universal health benefits, but still have wide disagreements one place to another. But, there seems to be general agreement that concerning how it should be provided. Disagreement on the means seems education is a legitimate public service. to be standing in the way of consensus on the desired end of adequate Social Security is another popular public service program. The first health care for all. But, we seem to be moving toward a consensus that government funded old age pension programs were established during the some level health care is a legitimate public good. Great Depression, when old people were actually starving and dying in This is not an exhaustive list of legitimate public goods and services. the streets. The people of this nation concluded that it was intolerable to But, it should be enough to provide some useful insights into the process live in a society where old people are allowed to suffer and die, just by which society has decided which goods must be provided by the public because they haven’t accumulated enough wealth during their working sector – i.e. by government. Although the debates may not have been years to support themselves after they can no longer work. The private framed in the language of consensus and equity, in each case, society in sector provides retirement income only to those who are able to earn and general has agreed that these things must be equally accessible to all – save enough to ensure retirement benefits for themselves. So if everyone regardless of their ability to pay. has an equal right to survive during old age, the government must ensure In addition to providing public goods, the government also is it, either through Social Security or some other form of assistance for the responsible for protecting the people against the public bads. The people elderly. of a democracy have a right to equal protection under the law. These We also seem to have reached a consensus that all people have the rights are generally understood and accepted as a legitimate function of right to some minimal level of food, and that all children, in particular, government. Many of our moral and ethical principles are encoded into 105 criminal and civil laws, such as those against committing murder, assault, If someone infringed on the private property rights of their neighbors, it robbery, and fraud. In general, we have laws against sins, but only if they was a matter to be settled between the two of them, perhaps in court, but affect other people. It is not against the law, for example, to commit nonetheless, still a personal matter. adultery, to lie about personal matters, or to hate another person. Where Today, as is obvious to most of us, humanity possesses technologies criminal laws exist, society has reached a consensus that a victim has a capable of seriously degrading, if not destroying, the planet – or at least fundamental right to be protected making it uninhabitable by humans. Protection of the biosphere, so that it Some may ask why it is necessary to have laws if society has reached will continue to sustain human life on earth, has become an issue of a consensus. The answer: because a consensus is never complete – some common interest because it involves the common good. Individual acts of people will never choose to abide, perhaps are incapable of abiding, by stewardship are no longer sufficient to ensure long run sustainability of ethical or moral values of the society in which they live. Those who have life on the planet, because the economic incentives for exploitation are too worked for and have reached consensus must be protected from those few strong. Corporations have no sense of ethics or morality, thus they have who refuse to participate in the civil processes of self-governance or are no incentive for true stewardship, and corporations are gaining control of incapable of self-restraint. more and more of the Earth’s resources. Eventually, there must be a We also have reached a consensus that everyone has civil rights – national consensus to protect the environment, if we are to build a rights to be treated equally, as an individual, without regard to the specific sustainable society. group, or groups, by which they might be identified. Thus, everyone has Another whole class of public goods and services exist, which I will a right to be protected, in all public matters, against discrimination based call collective purchases, which are only incidentally related to issues of on their race, gender, ethnicity, age, physical ability, or sexual orientation. equity and justice. Collective purchases are things that we choose to buy Individuals do have the right to discriminate against individuals – we collectively, rather than individually, just because it is more practical to don’t have to treat everyone the same in public, or even to do business do so. These are public goods in the sense that we all have an equal right with everyone. But we don’t have the right to treat any individually less to them, but only in the sense that government is the most practical – i.e. equitably, just because they are members of some particular group. The least cost, most convenient, only feasible, etc – way to obtain them. government has a responsibility to enforce a national consensus against Interestingly, economics considers nearly all public goods and services to systematic discrimination. be collective purchases, because economics simply doesn’t deal I believe a national consensus is emerging with respect to protecting effectively with issues of equity and justice. the natural environment. I have mentioned this issue before and will have The government makes collective purchases of most legitimate public more to say about it later, but protection of the environment is goods and services, simply because it is more efficient or less costly to do fundamentally an ethical and moral issue. Protection from the negative so, but the fact that they are purchased collectively does not make them effects of pollution on health and quality of life may be a matter of public goods and services. For example, it doesn’t make much sense for protecting one’s person or private property from being damaged by people to use vouchers or tax credits to buy their own tank or missile, to another. Protecting natural resources held in common for the edification build little pieces of highways, or hire a teacher part-time to educate their and enjoyment of the public may be a matter of managing public goods children. But, we choose to buy many other goods and services and services. But, protection of natural resources for the benefit of future collectively, such as electrical power, communications systems, water and generations is an act of stewardship – taking care of something for the sewer lines, parks and recreation facilities, etc. that are not inherently sole benefit of someone else. True stewardship is an ethical, moral act. public in nature. These things become equally accessible to the public Until fairly recently, stewardship was considered to be a personal only because they were bought with public tax dollars or because it’s matter – a matter of individual values and personal choice. As long as impractical to exclude or limit those who don’t pay their share. humanity seemed technologically incapable of damaging the earth beyond In many cases, collective purchases could be made through private its ability to restore and regenerate itself, anything an individual did to organizations, rather than through the government. In some cases, private their immediate environment was considered a personal matter. “It’s my for-profit and non-profit organizations do make such purchases. land and I can do whatever I please with it,” was the prevailing attitude. However, particularly in cases where individual interests are easily 106 separated and the number of payers and benefactors is large, it’s just more out of the public domain and hidden in the private accounts of convenient to make such purchases through government. The advocates corporations. In addition, the ability of the public to control exploitation propose the purchase through appropriate government processes, and if is virtually eliminated by inappropriate . approved, the purchase is paid for out tax dollars. The public is then Government has many additional legitimate public functions. Among eligible to benefit from the purchase. the most important is oversight of the private sector. The government is A common justification for government involvement in purchases of our only means of restoring the competitiveness to markets and restoring good and services in the past were associated with what economists called capitalism to the private sector of the economy. Workable natural monopolies. Natural monopolies included such things as has become the economist’s apology for the corporatist economy. They electrical power lines, telephone and telegraph lines, railroads and claim if we restored true competition, there would be too many producers; highways, sewer and water lines – things where the costs of building the businesses would be too small to realize economic efficiencies of size, infrastructure needed to deliver the product was very high in relation to and costs would be too high. But with corporatism, we have no assurance the value of the service provided. It is simply impractical to run three or that what is being produced is what consumers need, or actually want, and four power lines or phone lines to every house, to build two or three with monopolistic pricing, we have no assurance that any cost savings are parallel railroad beds, or to run a half dozen different water or sewer lines passed on to consumers. all around town. Obviously, the company that built the first one of any of Economists claim that it is more efficient for the large corporations to these things would have a , because no one else could coordinate all of the functions involved in transforming raw materials into afford to build another with the promise of only half of the market. Or the finished products – that vertical integration is more efficient than having new company would have to count on eventually driving the old one out vertical layers of free markets and competitive production at each level in of business. In such cases, government intervention prevented the the production process. But, economists don’t tell us that what they are development of monopoly. Government would build the necessary actually advocating is corporate central planning – a core concept of infrastructure and provide the service, or they would grant the right to communism. Some of the multinational corporations today are larger provide the service to a private company but would regulate the quality than many national economies. We should know by now that central and price of the service. Since the company granted the right would have planning of an economy is an unworkable idea – regardless of whether it a monopoly position in the market, there would be no competition to is carried out by a corporation or by a government. ensure quality of service or a competitive price. With restoration of competitive markets, at all levels the system, the In recent years, economists seem to be far less concerned about invisible hand would be restored, and markets would again serve the monopolies, natural or otherwise, than in the past. The emphasis today needs of individuals within society. The government must provide those seems to be on privatizing everything, regardless of the implications for things that are legitimate public goods and services. However, neither the competitiveness. Some high-profile examples are deregulation of government nor the giant corporations are capable of providing those railroads, airlines, communications systems, and cable television. The things that are legitimate private goods and services. An efficient, state of California even privatized electrical power – with some shocking competitive private sector is the only logical means of providing private results for ratepayers. Locally, perhaps the most questionable current goods and services. And, only the government is capable of ensuring that practice is the sale of hospitals, many of which were built with public the private sector of the economy works for the collective good by funds to provide a public service, to corporate health care providers who restoring competitiveness to private markets. have no legal responsibility to provide equal access to healthcare. Most will agree that government is necessary – although they may Interestingly, increasing popularity of privatization of government disagree about how big it should be, what form it should take, or what it services has paralleled the loss of interest by the government in enforcing should do. The question of how to pay for government also springs antitrust rules against corporate consolidation. Apparently, no task is quickly to the minds of most people. Everything a government does must considered too large to be turned over to a private corporations, – even be supported by taxes. Taxes are compulsory contributions of money many of the tasks in fighting a war. The only thing accomplished by such made by the people who are governed to support the functions of their privatization of natural monopolies is that waste and corruption is taken government. Under an effective representative democracy, the people, 107 through their elected representatives, decide what functions they want Such taxes may be assessed to the provider of the service, but ultimately, their government to perform, and at the same time, decide how much and they are passed on to the user. what kinds of taxes they are willing to pay to support those functions. The cost of public facilities and services meant to be freely accessible In the United States today, most people seem to perceive that the to all can be assessed to those who benefit economically from having such government decides what it is going do and then decides how they are services available. Property taxes might be the logical choice to support going to tax the people to support their spending. If the government, parks and recreation facilities, for example, as the availability to use such rather than the people, actually is making the tax-and-spend decisions in amenities invariably enhance the value of property in the vicinity of such America today, it is only by default. The people have the right not only to facilities. decide what they want their government to do, but also to decide how The costs of ensuring and protecting the most basic rights to “life, they want to pay for it. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” should be shared broadly across the Obviously, there are better ways to pay for public goods and services whole economy. It seems logical that national defense, law enforcement, than the system that we have in place in the U.S. today. For example, no education, and health care might fall most clearly in this category. So, it one can defend the current system of income taxes in terms of equity, might be reasonable to support the costs of such services through a value- certainty, convenience, efficiency, simplicity, or by any other logical added tax – a tax assessed as a percentage of the increase in value of a criterion for fair taxes. In general, existing tax laws today are defended product at each stage of production. The benefits of such services accrue by those who benefit from the obscured by their complexity – to all; individuals and businesses alike benefit from an equitable and just mainly, tax lawyers and the politically and economically powerful who society in which all have an opportunity to succeed. With a value added hire them. Ordinary people don’t understand the tax system, most can’t tax, businesses pay the taxes to the government, but the cost of tax also is fill out their own tax forms, and they don’t have a clue as to how much reflected in the prices paid by the final customer. The cost of such taxes they are subsidizing the rich and powerful with their hard-earned dollars. is shared between businesses and the buying public, with relative shares In general, systems of taxation should be simple, straightforward, and depending on the nature of supply-demand relationships at various stages sensible – they should make common sense. Taxes that don’t seem to of production. make sense on the surface quite likely don’t make sense, period. First, Each business involved in a production process would deduct costs of virtually all taxes are paid in dollars and cents, so all taxes are paid with purchased inputs – including employees’ wages and salaries, interests on funds derived from the private economy, by one means of another. borrowed money, and rent for production facilities – from the market Whether paid by a corporation, a partnership, or an individual, money value of products sold and pay taxes on the difference. The value of must be earned in the private economy before taxes can be paid. The output at one level of production would represent cost at the next level of question is who to tax and how much to tax them, to support which public production. The net result would be a tax on the total value of production. goods or services. Each business involved in the production process would have paid taxes To me, it seems logical that tax collections should be linked as closely in proportion to the amount of gross income that they received from, and as possible with the government goods and services for which they are the amount of value they added to, the total production process. The final collected. In cases of collective purchases, it’s fairly easy to link the customer pays a price, which reflects added costs of taxes at each level of public good or service with something that can be taxed. For example, production. electrical power, communications systems, and water and sewer lines can A similar tax might be levied on services, including such things as be supported by taxes on those who benefit most directly from the service brokerage fees, consulting fees, and legal fees, as well as products. Total – as is generally the case today. Gasoline and other motor-fuel taxes are collections from value-added or gross margin taxes would then represent legitimately used to help pay for highways, bridges, airports and other a percentage of the contribution of the business sector to total national public transportation services. However, some portion of transportation value of production, or Gross Domestic Production – the broadest services are meant to be truly public services, rather than collective measure of economic activity. All taxes on businesses, including purchases, thus the full cost should not be born by users of the service. corporations, partnerships, and individual proprietorships, could be assessed as value-added taxes. The broadest, most inclusive functions of 108 government should be funded through the broadest, most inclusive form average rate. We have a national consensus that no one should die of of taxes. For businesses and consumers alike, such taxes would represent starvation, that everyone should have clothes to wear and a roof over their a legitimate payment for the benefit of operating and living in an head, that everyone is entitled to some minimal level of income. So, why equitable and just society. shouldn’t we give tax credits, equal to a poverty level income, to Personal income taxes could be reserved to support those public everyone who works full time? The tax credit would be counted against goods and services that are most easily addressed through a redistribution taxes owed, so no one would actually have to pay anything to the of income. Clearly, we need to rethink the whole issue concerning why government until they owed more than the amount of their tax credit. If and how we tax income. For example, today the marginal tax rate on they earned less than the amount of the credit, the government would pay income for the poorest people can range up to nearly 100 percent, while them the difference – which some economists have called a negative the very rich pay a “marginal” rate somewhere in the 35 percent range. income tax. The marginal tax rate reflects the percentage of each additional dollar of Conceivably, such a tax system could be expanded to replace welfare, income we earn that we pay in taxes, whereas the average tax rate reflects social security, unemployment compensation, health care, minimum the percentage of the total dollars we earn that we pay in taxes. wages and all other programs designed to ensure that everyone receives When a person currently on welfare goes to work on a minimum some minimal level of income to cover the cost of necessities. All able- wage job, say making $12,500 per year, they have little if any increase bodied people, not having child rearing or other care giving over the amount they were receiving from welfare – depending on their responsibilities, would be required to work in order to qualify for the tax number of children. If they were receiving $10,000 in welfare benefits, credit. Childcare would be considered employment, regardless of which they lose when they go to work, their additional income would be whether the caregiver was compensated in dollars. Part-time work, only $2,500. The result would be an effective marginal tax of $10,000, or including part-time childcare, could receive a partial tax credit. Current 80 percent, even if they paid no income tax to the government. In a sense, minimum wages could be reduced to ensure that everyone could find a four-fifths of their marginal or added earnings were taxed away, as they job – as long as the higher income supplement would offset lower were able to keep only one fifth of the additional income they earned earnings, leaving everyone who works living well above the poverty from working. However, if a person is already making $500,000 earns level. $15,000 more, they get to keep more than 65 percent, or at least 35 Let’s suppose a 33 percent marginal tax rate would pay the cost of all percent of their additional earnings – the maximum marginal income tax of the tax credits and raise as much money in total as the government rate is just under 35 percent. needs to collect from income taxes, including current Social Security and It doesn’t seem sensible for the poor to be charged a marginal tax rate Medicare taxes. The total employee-employer contribution to Social far higher than the marginal rate for the wealthy. A growing number of Security and Medicare is currently more than 15 percent, so the marginal conservatives are supporting a flat tax – meaning that everyone would pay federal income tax rate would be less than 20 percent. I don’t know what the same average tax rate. They have suggested that something in the the rate should be, but it would be easy enough to calculate once we know range of 25 percent would be adequate for federal income taxes. If so, how much money the government needs to raise from income taxes. At everyone would pay a simple, flat 25 percent of their earned income – the least, it would be far easier than making federal revenue projections under marginal tax rate for the wealthy would be the same as the average, 25 existing tax laws. percent. Of course, this would be a big marginal tax break for those who Everyone would pay 33 percent, one-third, of everything they earn to are now paying a 35 percent marginal rate – that’s why the wealthy are in the government for income taxes. All deductions and exemptions would favor of it. However, many wealthy individuals pay far less than be eliminated – all income would be taxable income. Furthermore, let’s maximum rates because of current loopholes in tax laws, which a lower assume that the government credits each working adult $9,000 to ensure flat rate might help eliminate. This is why some middle-income taxpayers than no one lives in poverty, regardless of how much they are able to earn support the flat rate. in the job market. The credit could be adjusted for different sizes of Perhaps instead, we should have a flat marginal tax – everyone, families, and obviously would need to be higher for those who cannot including the poor paying the same marginal rate rather than the same work. Even at $5.00 an hour, a person could earn more than $10,000 per 109 year in addition to their income supplement. Everyone would have an and thus should be paid for from tax revenues collected at the level incentive to work – and would be expected to work, if able. receiving the services. Nothing that can be done fairly and effectively at Under this proposal, a single person wouldn’t owe the government the local level should be done by the state level and nothing that can be anything until their income exceeded $27,000 per year (one-third of done fairly and effectively at the state level should be done at the federal $27,000 equals $9,000, which would just offset their credit). At any level. lower income, the government would pay them the difference between the The bottom line is that government is a common sense means by $9,000 credit and 33 percent of their earnings. At an $18,000 income, for which we can do things for the common good. We should demand that example, a person would owe $6,000 in taxes (one-third of $18,000). But our government make sense in that regard. Government should perform with their tax credit of $9,000, they would receive $3,000 ($9,000 minus functions that serve the public good that cannot, or will not, be performed $6,000) from the government, raising their total income to $21,000. by the private sector. The private sector performs many functions that Money for tax credits would be raised from positive taxes on those serve the public good, such as providing employment and income. earning more than $27,000 per year. For example, a taxpayer earning However, the private sector will not provide equal benefits or protection $60,000 per year would owe $11,000 in income taxes (one-third of to all, but instead provides benefits or protection only to the extent that a $60,000, or $20,000, minus $9,000), and a person with a $1,000,000 person is willing and able to pay the cost of providing those benefits. income would owe $321,000 ($330,000 minus $9,000). The public sector must provide those things that we agree by national Such an outcome is quite reasonable, although a large percentage of consensus should be available equally to all. This is the moral and ethical all taxpayers would pay no net income taxes at all and many would cornerstone of our democratic society, it is the essence of our national receive an income supplement. The wealthiest 10 percent of the people community, and it is the foundation for our economy. We must be earn around half of total national personal income. These people would willing to pay the costs of ensuring equity and justice for all, or we cannot be paying something close to a 33 percent average tax rate, as their possibly expect to realize the quality of life that might otherwise arise $9,000 tax credit would be offset by their income the first few days of the from our individual economic achievements. We must pay the rent in year. In fact, the necessary marginal tax rate might be considerably less order to operate the business. We must pay the costs of being good than 33 percent, if deductions and exemptions were eliminated and all citizens if we expect to realize the benefits of living and working in a current tax loopholes were closed. civilized nation. I don’t know if a flat marginal tax is the best system to replace the Beyond ensuring equality of opportunity, government provides a income tax and social welfare systems currently in place. But, I am legitimate and convenient means by which we may make collective confident that we can do better than the system we have today. purchases – by which we may buy things together that we can’t logically Governments at the national, state, and local levels have different buy individually. Such purchases make up a significant portion of all we roles and functions. Some public goods and services should be made pay in taxes, particularly at the state and local level. For such functions, available to everyone in the nation, some legitimately can be left up to the decisions regarding what good and services government should provide states, and others are fundamentally local matters. Most of the and how much taxes we should pay is not all that different from buying fundamental rights I have discussed previously are rights to be shared things for ourselves. We should simply decide how much of our money equally by everyone in the nation. Public goods and services that need to we want to spend individually and how much we want to spend be equally available to everyone in the nation should be supported by collectively. It is not a matter of how much money we spend and how federal taxes and administered by the federal government. The states much we give to the government. Instead, it’s a matter of how much of should not be forced to pay for national public goods and services through our money we choose to spend for private goods and services and how mandates from the federal level. much we choose to spend for public goods and services. However, individual states and cities might choose to provide some Yes, it is our money and we should decide how to spend it. But, we higher level of public service than is to be guaranteed to all, and those are not wasting money when we spend it to ensure the inalienable rights supplements, likewise, should be supported by state and local taxes. of all people. We are not wasting money when we spend it to ensure the Many collective purchase decisions are made at the state and local levels, integrity of our democratic society. We are not wasting money when we 110 spend it to ensure the integrity of our capitalistic economy. And we are not wasting money when we decide to buy things collectively rather than individually. Instead we are helping to build a fairer, kinder, stronger, and all around better human society. If current government spending were limited to providing only legitimate public goods and services, including logical collective purchases, our government would quite likely be far smaller than it is today. Most of the tax money that passes through government today represents indirect transfers of money from those who lack political or economic power, mainly the working middleclass, to those who have far more political and economic power, primarily corporate executives and investors, and a few wealthy individuals. Big government does not necessarily mean good government, even to those of us who believe in government. The future of humanity depends on our willingness and ability to work together for the common good. Absolutely nothing can prevent us from restoring the integrity of our government, if we choose to do so. Nothing can keep us from accepting our responsibility to reshape and reform government to reflect a national consensus as to how we want to be governed, if we choose to do so. Nothing is preventing us from reforming our government so that it functions for the common good, if we chose to do so. Nothing is preventing us from building a better future for humanity in which people work together, through government, for their common good. We need only find the wisdom to use our common sense and the courage to support and defend what we know to be right and good.

111