Summary of Principal Concepts

This page represents a repository of the basic concepts presented, accumulated over time.

Universally Available Suffrage : Voting should be available to all, but limited on each occasion to those who have contributed more to consolidated funds than they received. This inherently changes the nature of government redistribution of funds from one of theft to one of generosity.

Separation of Wealth and Currency : Wealth allows value to be stored across time. Currency allows for value to exchanged between goods. The requirements for each are different, and they should not be combined in a single monetary system. Each should be serviced by its own best representation; physical gold for wealth, and electronic fiat for currency.

Prepare for tomorrow : Realise the wealth that you have, taking steps to convert value that is perishable to more lasting forms. Take advantage of current opportunities, making the most of today. Position yourself to provide solutions in a more local, more need oriented world.

Tax the state, not the people : The state is, quite literally, the land and it’s limited resources. Community value vests naturally in the land. By taxing land value, this value is extracted for the community from those utilizing the resources of the state.

5 Responses to Summary of Principal Concepts

  1. David Smith says:

    You can choose one or all. For instance, if you were to offer the definitive analysis of any one of the first three, it would stand you in good stead…

  2. Jarrah says:

    “Voting should be available to all, but limited on each occasion to those who have contributed more to consolidated funds than they received.”

    How will this be calculated? Lots of the products of consolidated funds are used by many people without there being a cash transfer.

    “Each should be serviced by its own best representation; physical gold for wealth, and electronic fiat for currency.”

    That’s a novel idea, at least to me. So there would in effect be two kinds of money – a store of value and a unit of account – how would that be possible? Aren’t they two sides of the same coin (no pun intended)?

    • Easier in principle than practise, I admit. But I’d start by just eliminating those who receive all or the bulk of their income from government directly.

      There is actually a reasonable template in place already, that is there in the legislation as the limitations on who can stand for office, at least in Tasmania. They had the basic idea then, but only applied it half way.

      • Jarrah says:

        Sounds dangerous. The Acemoglu/Robinson thesis (to which I’m partial) is that peace and prosperity derive from many factors, but critically from social structures that spread political power thinly and widely, maximising access to economic opportunities.

        It also sounds inequitable, since you’re starting with people who, by virtue of their lack of ability to leverage non-monetary resources, currently need monetary resources.

  3. The basis that I’m working off is that not only is it important to represent the needs of all; but also to separately represent those who are providing the means by which those needs are met.
    In no way is there a disenfranchisement of the general population; for that we have the House of Representatives. But there is an absolute need for re establishment of the house of finance, in order that the system doesn’t devolve into outright theft.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s