Reforming ethnics and proprietors

Democratizing Ethnicity and Ownership

By John Taylor; 2009 July 23, Kalimat 10, 166 BE

Precis: Democratic and cosmopolitan reform under a UCS (universal civic society) would allow us to build from the ground up for complete efficiency in travel and buildings. This would not only avoid negative impact on the environment but also maximize the freedom, welfare and security of UCS residents.

Our present infrastructure is grossly inefficient. Houses, buildings and transport churn out prodigious quantities of greenhouse gases. Our present setup is so wasteful of energy, water and other resources that without huge government debts and heavy subsidies it would be prohibitively expensive to live, work and travel. Sooner or later the results of this folly become unavoidable: social unrest, a polluted environment and destabilized climate. Long term survival requires us to overhaul not only government but also the physical infrastructure, the food, clothing and shelter that keep us alive.

This summer we have been discussing on the Badi' Blog how to go to the root of it all by improving democracy. If we reform elections and other democratic processes we could revitalize and spread democracy into areas as yet untouched by the will of the people. Combined with a cosmopolitan condition under a world federation, an improved democracy would permit what Kant called a universal civic society (UCS). A UCS would look entirely different from the artificially subsidized landscape witnessed today as one tours through town and country.

A UCS city would be densely populated to enable economies of scale, which reduce the per capita ecological footprint as close as possible to zero. The land is not flat but runs in high furrows oriented in east-west rows that maximize exposure to the sun. Surfaces with solar exposure are fully farmed by professional farmers and amateur gardeners, so as to come as close as possible to complete local subsistence, with residents on a "100 metre diet." Built along and into the slope of the shaded, vertical sides of the high furrow are mixed-use buildings, each housing many modular, portable units and sub-structures. High speed travel is buried safely underground, leaving the street between each furrow to pedestrians, bicycles and low-speed public transit.

We have already mentioned several reforms that would make this ideal structural rebuild possible. These include the formation of new levels of democratic governance on the family, household and neighbourhood levels, erecting in each locality dynamic displays called war and peace rooms to aid in planning, applying face-to-face voting in education and peer review in the workplace, dashboard displays and escutcheons, localized media (an LBC, or Local Broadcasting Cooperative) and elections among experts (democratic meritocracy). Each of these will be an outcome of the spread of democracy, the investment of power in the hands of the people.

There are several more regions of virgin territory in which democratic pioneers would have to settle. I want briefly to outline two of these, ethnicity and ownership, today and look at others later.

Democratic Ethnicity

Each neighbourhood in a UCS arrives at decisions by holding votes among local experts and by polling the general public in real time in a "war and peace room", a multimedia planning center placed at the heart of every city block. Whereas higher levels of government use force and legislation, at the grassroots neighbourhood level subtler methods are possible. Local planners -- which includes all residents -- respond to incentives and sanctions built into escutcheons, which are public displays of merit for both individuals and groups. Devising plans involves trading and negotiating fine adjustments to one's escutcheon.

In the midst of all this activity, a neighbourhood government actively juggles quotas for cultural, ethnic, linguistic diversity and uniformity. The standard aspects of these quotas are determined by policy at higher levels of government, where experience is broader. As long as neighbourhood planners apply quotas fairly and transparently and allocate local assets equitably based on the proven enterprise of a given group, it is unlikely that minorities or majorities will be aggrieved or feel rivalry towards one another. Briefly, here are the main philosophical considerations that these quotas would be designed to uphold.

It is a general principle that racial, linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity contribute to a free, dynamic and creative culture. Language and culture of minorities thrive when they crowd together to some extent in order to increase the number and variety of personal contacts with one another. On the other hand, spreading out is good too. While some neighbourhoods may specialize in one culture, such as Chinatowns or Little Italy’s, generally speaking a mix of cultures is the most beneficial to a neighbourhood, offering variety, stability, peace and order to the body politic. However, in order for variation to exist there must be a degree of overall uniformity too. All must conform to standards, especially in language. A common second language would allow minorities to contribute fully to the wider cosmopolitan culture while guarding the overall society against stagnation or a tyranny of the majority.

In our present pre-cosmopolitan, order by far the worst bone of contention among ethnic groups is the obsolete notion of absolute sovereignty. Wealth and property are immutably tied to traditional location. Ethnic groups who happen to live on land with richer fields, a more benign climate or more oil and mineral resources than others enjoy boundless riches, while others are left in penury. This incites every group to do all it can to stack the deck in its own favour. Racial and ethnic harmony seem like a naive dream. This dangerous situation can be eliminated by our next topic, democratic ownership.

Democratizing Ownership

Our present system of possession, sole proprietorship, was devised in a pre-computer age when dynamically negotiated, shared ownership would have been prohibitively slow, complicated and expensive. Sole proprietorship is extremely clumsy and wasteful; in the midst of widespread homelessness, empty lots and derelict buildings blight the landscape of a cityscape scarred by endless sprawl and dismal slums. Even the wealthy suffer anxiety and fear from the burden of buying and caring for an embarrassment of possessions.

Computers and other developments in high technology make it possible for ownership to be divided among all users and concerned parties of every large item of property with the slightest usufruct (shared, public use). By dividing title into shares that can by owned and traded by everybody concerned, including casual onlookers, far more people and groups can be stakeholders. As in a joint share company, important decisions about an item's use can be arrived at by democratic election among all part-owners with a legitimate stake. This would include most notably the world government, which should have a say in every decision that can affect, for example, global warming.

There is no technical reason not to divide every large possession into shares. We already have highly complex, computerized exchanges where items of virtual currency, stocks, futures and bonds are reliably and fairly exchanged at a moment's notice. For example, a dollar is no longer merely a hunk of metal or paper. It is a virtual entity that can be sent around the world in a second. Why not extend this flexibility to shares of real estate, large buildings, roads and other items of property in a neighbourhood?

Within certain limits, then, in a UCS shares in local real estate, businesses and other large property in the community can be freely exchanged by residents in the neighbourhood's war and peace room. As a result an individual in a UCS need be sole proprietor of only a few small, personal items. Shared ownership would greatly simplify their existence and allow them to concentrate fully on their special part of the division of labour, their own career and family. At the same time, each would be in a better position than now to grow personal wealth by investing in shares in neighbourhood assets and real estate. For the first time in history everybody, groups and individuals, would be in an equal position to gain a fair stake in local land, goods and enterprises.

Ending sole ownership would also permit personal and collective interests to combine harmoniously in common proprietorship. For instance, with judicious investment an enterprising family business might increase its shares in strategic area assets and along with that, its influence on policy making in its neighbourhood. An efficient farming household, for example, might move from a small home to a large homestead as its profitability increases. Since neighbours are part owners of their enterprise, the farmer might plant berry bushes and fruit trees throughout the neighbourhood without fear that their harvest will be pilfered.

Indeed, an argument can be made that every resident should be required by law to own a minimum number of shares of neighbourhood assets in the local commodity exchange. This would instil in all the proprietary attitude of a responsible homeowner and eliminate attitudes that lead to vandalism, graffiti and looting during disasters and emergencies. Australia, witnessing Hitler come to power in a democratic election with low voter turnout, instituted a law requiring citizens to vote by law. Anybody who decides not to vote in a general election is subject to a one hundred dollar fine. Similarly, the UCS, witnessing the extremes of wealth and poverty of today, might well institute a similar minimum ownership requirement of its citizens. Any resident owning fewer shares than he should must pay high enough fines to make non-involvement uneconomical. Since shares are virtual, residents who move into another community can easily transfer their minimum shares to the new local commodity exchange from their former neighbourhood, without penalty.