Sunday, September 22, 2013

A Perfect World


                                                                                                   
The poor will never cease to exist in the land ...”i So says the Bible.

But another authority has a different perspective. According to the BBC News Magazine,ii the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time of publication was $10,000.iii There are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”

The problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich” – the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor” – everyone else.

But, for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a utopia, and we would all be equal.iv We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence, “...all menv are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal for which we should all be striving.vi After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime would no longer exist.

For the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83. Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between $19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.

Such an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equallyvii among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual, should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single currency system,viii and we've achieved our perfect world.ix All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”x

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,xi since there are different levels of fertility and different climates. Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.xii It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's an acceptable price to pay for paradise.

It's possible that the new economic system might have consequences which were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist? And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any effort or initiative at all.xiii

Who – if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to administer the “earnings” of minor children,xiv or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services for everyone.xv And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient than having differences based on folk themes or stylesxvi that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity that we all seek.

The trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What right-thinking personxvii would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the limitations of the new paradise?

I'll bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.






Next episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.






i       Deuteronomy 15:11.
ii      March 29, 2012.
iii     The BBC got its numbers from the United Nations' International Labour [sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization (ILO).
 
iv     In this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others and wind up with greater incomes?  So let's make it equality of income. It may not be better, but it sounds better.
v       In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)
vi      Individualism will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.
vii     Will they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the buildings already on the land?
viii    As well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.
ix     Management of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a population that all think, believe, and act the same.
x      That was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to more (the rich) may “need” more.
xi      Would land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole question of inheritance of money and other property would require evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died? These are decisions that would be made by our government – our honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart – not their own.
xii     People would have to be transported to their new property, so there would have to be workers in the transportation industry.
xiii    Knowing that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting still is not an option and they'll want to be productive irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather than be productive.
xiv    Actually, sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance problems.
xv    Rationing may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion. It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be difficult.
xvi    Since people will be moved around following the land lottery, however, that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.
xvii  Or non-thinking person.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.