From: cataldo@bach.udel.edu (Stephen M Cataldo)
Subject: Re: The economics of morality
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:45:44 GMT

In article <BtC68D.Dy7@world.std.com> pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt) writes:
>This is a very good post, Carl, even though I disagree with some of 
>your points.  I commend you for your rational, well stated arguments.
>
>lion@netcom.com (carl loeber) writes:
>: 
>: And yes I believe that morality, values, is the basic of economics
>: since it is about 'what is of worth' to economic actors ultimately.
>
>Good!  We agree that morallity is important.
>: 

[... long discussion on morality of economics, and distribution of scarce 
resources follows ...]


>: The first type of good, personally created, is not required to be
>: redistributed by our free society, not on the initial order of
>: morality.  
>: 
>: The second, the resources, if limited, need to be rationed, so that
>: all have sufficient if possible.  
>
>There is some problems with rationing.  First, who will be in charge of
>deciding what is "fair" rationing?  Does each person get the same amount
>of farm, industrial, and residential property?  What happens to this
>land when he dies?  Where does the land come from when someone is born?
>How do you measure the quality and value of land without a market?  (The
>land assessors office would be highly prone to corruption.  Those who
>bribe him with the most will get an acre of prime midwest farm land
>instead of an acre of rocky, hilly farmland in Vermont.
>
>The possible implementations that I can think of will encourage two
>things that I think are a negative to society and would think that a
>free market in natural resources is a much better solution.  (1)
>POPULATION.  Larger families would control more land (or would in the
>future as the children married and had children.)  This would encourage
>those who just wanted to live off the profits of renting the land to
>have many children, and as early as possible to increase their families
>wealth.  (2)  POLLUTION.  If someone dies and their land returns to the
>corporation or governmental agency that rations out land rather than
>going to their children then they have no care of it's condition.  They
>will strip mine, if their land contains ore, cut the trees down for
>lumber, farm with methods that will lose top soil and nutrients, etc.
>In your system, there would need to be a MASSIVE regulatory agency to
>protect against abuses, with the power to enforce its regulations to the
>betterment of society (the majority?)
>: 
>: If however, for some reason, we do not ration the necessary
>: resources, then we shall distribute the resulting production in an
>: amount sufficient.  (It is clear that we do not ration resources,
>: except for some like water, and air.  Historically, society has
>: allowed, and [how often?] by political inequity, promoted,
>: centralized private control of resources; especially now by
>: corporations.)
>
>This would make more sense.  It gets away from some of the problems, but
>the problems with the system don't totally disappear.  This would say
>that each person (when they were born? got married? had children?) would
>be paid a certain amount.  The population problem I talked about will
>still exist.  Those who are bad at being financially responsible will be
>tempted to have children just to get the ration money.  Or, if money is
>only distributed at marriage, punish those that remain single, and
>encourage marriages at an early age.  
>
>Ultimatley, any system of distribution will be unfair to some small 
>group of people.  Who will choose the redistribution, and what moral
>authority would they call on to be "fair."  (To be unfair to a group, 
>just because they are a minority, has no moral justification.)  If I
>have missed a system of fair redistribution, which does not rely on
>force, or majority rule, I will be glad to agree that your system is
>moral, AND will work.  Right now, though, I think it sounds great in
>theory, but in practice, it would lead to large powerful government
>entities that would run portions of our lives.
>-- 
>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
>706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
>"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
>leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report

A system of fair distribution seems to be impossible - as long as the
economy is based on greed (which some people have been claiming is not only
reality at the present but actually good, but that's another argument), it
seems impossible to completely fairly distribute the initial starting
resources exactly evenly.  The arguments for private land property are usually
based more on efficiency than ethics.  But,

THERE ARE VERY EFFICIENT AND REASONABLY FAIR COMPROMISE SYSTEMS. 

To use your example, the resource land, it would be very difficult to give
each person in the U.S. 50acres of average quality land.  It would also be
incredibly inefficient.  However, if we take the starting point that all'
citizens have an equal right to a share of natural resources, then
we can begin to look for partial solutions.  A simple starting solution is
to say that all land is about 50% publicly owned and 50% (for reasons of
efficiency) to be privately held.  Then, put some kind of property tax on
the land, and give this to the real owners, everyone.  

What kind of property tax?  I would take Locke's philosophy (if I'm not
mistaken, the hard-line private property ideas are supposedly based on
Locke) to its logical conclusion.  IF the basis of private property is that
when you improve a piece of nature, it becomes yours (not historically very
relevent, but that's another story), THEN when you damage property, it should
correspondingly become less-yours.  My opinion would be that we should
tax lands as they are environmentally degraded.  Thus, a forest would 
probably be untaxed, a 50 acre sustainable, non-polluting farm would be taxed
at about the rate of return that each individual gets, at most (making
it possible to farm your share of property), and built over or paved
over lands would be  more highly taxed.  The tax structure could be kept simple,
and less prone to corruption or general silliness than our present property
assessment system.  (At its simplest, one rate for untouched, another for
farms and lawns, another for pavement and buildings, all by square foot.  No
need to assess values, and your taxes won't go up just because you make your
house prettier or try to sell it.)

Similar distribution/environmental solutions suggest themselves to many issues.
If you pollute the air, everyone that has to breath your gunk should be paid 
for the damage you have done them.  There may be other taxes or limits imposed
on polluters as well, for ruining nature as nature (these taxes are for somwhat
more for ruining nature as a shared resource).  Everyone should also include
those living in the future.

This system would actually be far more efficient that the present silly 
income tax structure (which could and should be partially or perhaps 
completely phased out) - the present tax structure penalizes you for making 
money, not for doing things that impose costs on others.  The guiding
principle behind most economics is setting the price people pay equal to
the costs of making something, thereby creating efficient solutions.
This answers, partially but far better than anything done at present,
both fairness and environmental issues, while remaining efficient.

----  

Finally, it is a system that is reachable.  It will take people getting a little
more off there butts and doing something (i.e. a small shot of democracy),
but not more than just about any other serious solution.  There are already
examples of similar systems, Republican style.  Bush and other support 
a system very similar sounding to this one, but it assumes that the common
resources (clean air or water) are owned by previous polluters, (Bush's friends
and campaign supporters, of course), not by us mere human (and other) beings.
Thus, the rights to pollute are handed out to polluters, who may then trade.
A corp. that cuts down on how much it pollutes can sell pollution rights
to corp.s that want to pollute more.  The pollutees (us) get nothing - it is not
assumed that we are the property owners of the air, etc., but that the corp.s
are.

Nonetheless, only that relatively small change of selling instead of giving
out pollution rights would be a good first step, and could be applied to
many more issues.  It is merely a question of political will.
-- 
Standard Disclaimer.

Dinner stops a beating heart.