Making Democracy Work

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	The trend away from government planning and
	provision of welfare state protections of jobs and
	earnings for working people, observed around
	the world in democratic capitalist nations, tells
	PKT something many are reluctant to hear.

	It tells us that 15% unemployment cannot outvote
	the 85% who don't feel the problem acutely. (Even
	45% unemployment would theoretically survive in
	an election where everyone with a job voted for the
	status quo.)

	Similar argument can be made to account for
	political inaction against poverty and disease.

	Yet we do see political action that has aroused
	the majority, not because of an acute condition
	they felt, but because they began to think that
	limited suffering ought to be stopped before it
	got worse.  Can this ever be the way we will
	end unemployment -- because the majority
	chose to stop it before it got worse?

	An absolute right to work at a union wage,
	enforceable by an absolute right to borrow,
	would stop all unemployment.  A thoughtful
	majority rejects the action because they think
	the median standard of living might fall too far
	if all the "losers" on earth were so protected.

	They even see themselves turning lazy and
	unproductive, and all businesses losing the
	power to get the goods out the door, if such
	a scheme were adopted.  Hence, no absolute
	political cure for our economic woes is
	presently in hand.

	How can we overcome popular reluctance
	to end unemployment?  How can we make the
	voters see in their mind's eye a rising standard
	of living coupled with a declining need to "sweat"
	finding and holding a job?

	When we observe Castro's regime we conclude
	totalitarianism is not an obvious solution -- it ends
	up spending most of its energy on police and
	military protection of the police and military
	establishment.

	Welfare states, as Mason Clark noted, seemed to
	be the answer.  But they cured poverty so well
	the young know nothing of it.  The young know
	of wealth.  And they want it.  And taxes take it from
	them -- they think.  They do not see that taxes cured
	poverty -- and they won't see it until poverty returns.
	Unless PKT can save them the trouble by giving
	them a tax free entrepreneurial welfare state.

	What is the difference between a tax free entre-
	preneurial welfare state and Castro totalitarianism?
	Would the TFEWS have to employ cadres of
	bureaucrats and police to keep the median standard
	of living from falling as everyone was born with a
	"fuck you line of credit" from the cradle to the grave?

	You may say yes -- if the difference in personal
	motivation to fit into a productive system were
	substantially less with a FYLOC than when people
	need to "sweat" finding and holding a job?

	In trying to answer the question, we can take
	cognizance of the advantages to be gained from
	automation and robotics by business in getting the
	goods out the door with fewer highly motivated
	staff.  We can also see that a reward for NOT
	becoming dependent on the FYLOC, such as
	free lottery tickets, might raise motivation in
	the whole population.

	If we combine (1) automation and robotics, (2) a
	FYLOC to end unemployment, (3) a lottery open
	only to persons whose LOC has been fully paid off,
	we have the ingredients for a TFEWS.  All that is
	needed is an individual estate account (IEA) to hold
	voluntary savings, required savings, and the proceeds
	of FYLOC loans.  We have all the ingredients except
	proof that it works and political acceptance of it.

	These might follow a test of it all  IN  SWEDEN!

	John Gelles