"But isn't one person one vote fair?"
It depends on what you mean by "fair". We believe it's fundamentally unfair that people who give less or even nothing to society get the same say as people who give everything they have. This is the standard of fairness used in every other part of life besides politics, and it works pretty well. We could learn a thing or two from it.
Pragmatism must always trump idealism. We can't judge our political and economic systems by what's perfect, what's "fair" or what's "natural"- but what provides the best outcomes to the most people.
"Fair" doesn't necessarily mean "equal"- in fact, when equality is enforced it's almost always unfair by definition. Workers in the Soviet Union each had different talents, skills, and productivity levels- but in the interest of "equality", they were all paid the same salary. Needless to say, it ended in complete economic disaster because there was no individual incentive to be productive. You could be a lazy blob who didn't lift a finger all day and still make as much as the guy who gives his all to the job. What kind of message do you think that sends to the people who actually care, who actually are willing to help?
The same thing is happening to democratic countries in the West. There's no personal incentive to be an educated voter or be active in the public sphere because even if you make all that effort, a) your vote still counts the same as someone who doesn't try, and b) your vote statistically wouldn't matter anyway. Sorry. But if you thought you would be that mythical voter who decides the election, i've got bad news for you.. Democracy is Soviet Communism applied to politics.
Ironically, it's this very forced equality that ends up hurting everyone. Because people know their vote doesn't count, the majority of the population doesn't go to the polls. Worse and worse politicians are elected every year until the country's political system stagnates or collapses under the weight of tyranny. Arguably, Tragedy of the Commons applies much more to politics than the economy.
Contributism is merely an extension of the fundamentally American principle that people who work hard and play by the rules deserve recognition for doing so- and that these same opportunities should be open to all.
There's no reason why these two concepts- (everyone deserves a say in government, and people who work harder deserve more)- have to be mutually exclusive. With contributism, everyone starts off with an equal inalienable vote and an equal opportunity to earn more by contributing to society. Free education, food and housing plus abundant job openings means that anyone who doesn't take advantage of these opportunities only has themselves to blame.
Instead of taxation, your "contribution to society" is collected in the form of weekly community service. You can earn hours by working on common projects like gardens, bakeries or home construction and repair. Helping others by volunteering in hospitals and nursing homes also counts, as does time spent in weekly community meetings or school for children and the elderly.
As a reward for helping your community, "your community helps you" by providing everything you need to live a comfortable life. With everyone participating, just 10 hours of service time per person per week (2 hours per day!) is enough to keep a city running smoothly. How you spend the rest of your day is up to you.
Contrary to what you might think, Contributism gives the people more control over government than democracy. Voting isn't and shouldn't be the limit of civic engagement. You only get to vote once every 4 years, but the politicians make laws 24/7. In the assemblies, any citizen who collects enough signatures can propose a law through initiative, challenge a law, ruling or any act of government (a challenged action goes to referendum), and even recall any government official, save judges. The end result is that public officials never stray from the public interest- because if they do, they'll be out faster than you can say "ejected".
Contributism is not like other divided systems.
By making common-sense compromises, we offer the only way to permanently and peacefully settle the class war between rich and poor. Once we unite, we can finally get to work on tackling common issues that effect us all like climate change, corruption and loss of community.This necessarily takes a political and economic system that are both redesigned to work together for the benefit of everyone. Unlike other divided "pairs" of systems such as Capitalism-Democracy, Communism-Dictatorship and the rare Capitalism-Dictatorship, Contributism is a combined political and economic system. There is no separation between the two.
We work from the premise that economic equality is far more important than political equality. This is obviously true if you take the slightest glance at the relative "problems" of the extremely rich vs the poor. "First world problems" include the internet being slow, your car not starting or smartphone acting up. "Third world problems" are a bit more pressing- disease, constant wars, terrorist attacks and bread lines which stretch blocks.
The reason why political equality must take a backseat to economic equality is because without food, water and a roof over your head, you will die. You can't eat votes.
The poorest among us haven't been helped one bit by one person, one vote. It's only just slightly slowed down the accumulation of capital by the wealthy- and they don't even care. If I were poor, I'd much rather have "one person, one dollar" instead. It's obvious what needs to happen. The rich and the poor need to make a deal- trading excess amounts of unnecessary political/economic power on each side.
The secret to Contributism's success is making these power transfers conditional. Businesses, factories, land and everything necessary to produce the goods we need to survive must be owned by the people and used for their benefit. The new-found political power the wealthy gain also must only be exercised for public benefit.
"The struggle consists of three parties: The rich, the poor, and the government who keeps them that way."
We can't count on the generosity and benevolence of the rich to keep them from using their power to hurt us. Otherwise, they would've ended poverty years ago. No, all we can count on is the 1%'s selfishness, greed, attraction to power and desire to make more money.
Excellent. That's exactly what we need to make sure they only use their power to help society. Confused? Keep reading.
See also: Checks and Balances for more information on government structure and responsibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment