Further thoughts on the American Economic Union

“I think it is possible that at least some of the existing democratic failures in the U.S. are not fixable, they are inherent to the bureaucracy needed for central control of such enormous wealth.”

I was asked to expound on this statement.  There are 100 state senators in the US.  Realistically, this group represents the 100 most powerful people on earth.  The senior level leadership of the both the Republican and Democratic parties are found in the senate.  The Republican and Democratic Parties.  Since the Republican and Democratic Parties decide who will be run from President, the senate decides which candidates will be exposed to the masses through the mainstream media outlets.  Thus, idealism aside, the Senate decides who the president is.  

The US economy represents 21% of the world economy, and US Federal outlays are 35% of the US economy.  Thus, Federal spending represents 7% of the world GDP.  Anaysis of the US Federal spending will show that about 70% of Federal spending is wealth redistribution in the form of Social Security, tax rebates, food stamps, etc.  70% of 7% is 4.9%.   The US economy is 14 trillion.  4.9% of 14 trillion dollars is 686 billion dollars.  Exxon Mobile, the largest company  on earth, has a GCP of a paltry 500 billion.  The largest single percentage of ownership of Exxon Mobile stock holds, is itself a multinational corporation with thousands of chains of acountability, holds 4.35%.  Each Senator is an individual 1% stockholder for largest single source of wealth on earth, and with significantly less accountability for the money he governs than the average CEO of a modest company, or even a majority stock holder. 

As such, the goal that Senators be elected purely locally is impossible.  The appointment of of US senator represents the appointment of the most financially powerful person on earth, each senator being responsible for roughly,  6.8 billion dollars each.  To maintain continuity the other senators have an extremely vested interest in making sure that no Senator is appointed who will spend his 6.8 billion in a manner detrimental to the other 99 senators.  

I am not accusing senators of any crime, I am simply saying that any person’s morals become very fluid when the largest supply of cash on earth is on the table.   

Democracy is thus diverted.  Choice is denied, and local leadership is impossible. Economic freedom provides the funds to ensure the other freedoms. Homeland security funds are good example of this.  South Dakota with less than 800 thousand people, gets exactly the same funding as California (with the aforementioned 8th largest economy on earth.)  California has a population of 36 Million.   This gives South Dakota 4500% more funding per person.  The senators must tolerate such obvious abuses of wealth redistribution to make sure that their distribution is allowed. 

Further South Dakota with a hispanic population of 2% is allowed equal say in immigration policies for California, with a 35% hispanic immigrant population and border with Mexico.  Absurd, and totally undemocratic.

The American Economic Union.

So as part of m continuing project to develop a skeptics platform for government, I want to put forward an odd idea.

One of my basic ideals is human happiness. Since everyone is made happy by different things, I think the government which allows the greatest choice (freedom) allows the greatest happiness.  (Yes, I know.  The only caveat to this freedom is that some finding happiness in taking freedom from others, rapists, thieves and murderers spring to mind.  Put those aside for the moment.)

The strong point of democracy is choice.  The weak point is that democracy alone is no guarantee whatsoever of freedom.  For one, there is the old saw about the tyranny of 51%.  There are also other limitations on democracy. In the book The Bottom Billion Paul Collier he actually uses quantifiable data to prove that when there are no checks and balances, democracy is actually worse for the people than dictatorship.

The reason? Dictators have 30 years to payback the people who helped them seize power.  Democratically elected leaders may only have 4 years to payback.  These means the incentive is for democratic leaders to rob the people blind much more quickly.

Pure democracy is when every constituent has opportunity to vote on every legislation.  The reason we don’t use pure democracy is because it is considered logistically to demanding.  Thus we already accept that there are limitations placed democracy for purely logistical reasons.

Working from that, I consider the current abuses of power visibly  Patriot Act, military tribunals of suspected terrorists, etc, to be failures not so much of the will of the people but the bureau-democratic apparatus necessary to have centralized control of the all states that compose the United States of America. 

The EU and the US have economies of roughly the same size.  On a list of the 20 largest economies in the world, which includes countries like Germany, and France,  four U.S. states take 20% of the slots.  

California has the 8th largest economy in the world, larger than Mexico or Canada.  Texas, New York and Florida each have economies larger than Australia or Austria. 

I think it is possible that at least some of the existing democratic failures in the U.S. are not fixable, they are inherent to the bureaucracy needed for central control of such enormous wealth.  

If that’s the case, I would support the dismantling of the US Federal government, and the granting of independence to the states, who could then form a new American Economic Union with Canada and the nations of central and south america as they saw fit. 

If the EU were granted the power of it’s member states that the Federal Government of the US has over the States of the US, we would cry “Tyranny!”, but a Federal system conceived to govern 7 million people in a pre-information semi-urban society is allowed enormous power in our own back yard.

Government’s Place in the Economy

In my continuing quest do develop law based in skepticism, I find my self at odds with the UN Bill of Human Rights, as I feel the UN Bill puts too much reliance the question of “What can the government do?”  and not, “What can the government do better than any other organization?”.   

That said I think one of the things the government can do better than any other group is force the market.  In the US we have a free market in some commodities (craft fairs), a mixed market for other quantities (milk and other agri-products), a tightly controlled market for some products (explosives and incendiaries), no market for some products, which in effect creates a mixed market on black market goods.

Since economic freedom often provides people with the resources to pursue other freedoms, (it’s hard to pursue your freedom to associate, in say a union without some money to cover union dues.) and a perfect market grants the greatest economic freedom to all actors, I purpose that the government pursue a perfect market whenever feasible.  

According to Wikipedia a perfect market consists of 

 

• Rationality of all market actors (Rationality in meaning of the actor’s utility maximization)
• No transaction costs (particularly no information costs and no taxes)
• Price taking behavior - there is a sufficiently large number of participants such that no individual can affect the market
• given rare resources
• freedom of decision to do something or to let it be (no external effects)

 

Now, the government dare not force people to act rationally (that could get ugly) but it can do it’s best to minimize transaction costs, minimize monopoly, and allow the freedom of decision.

This would be different from the existing free market primarily in the requirement for information actors must disclose.  Like pollution caused by each product, for instance.

Thoughts?

Skeptics Constitution

Ok, so I am working on a code of law is based of of reciprocal ethics and property law rather than old books about imaginary people.  This is my bill of rights thus far:

All people are equal before the law. No law shall be made which promotes or demotes one person or group with regards to another.

All people may associate with any person or group they wish at any time or place for any reason, excepting only the property of others.

All people may own property, alone or in association, exempting only the property of others.

All people have total freedom with regards to their own property: their mind, body, and possessions. This property cannot be violated without due process. Violation with due process must be dignified, respectful, and free of harm.

All people have specific freedom with regards to the specific property of any consenting person.

All people may go anywhere with no restriction except the property of others.

All people may seek, find, transfer, or disseminate any data for any reason, at anytime, in anyway, with exemption only for the property rights of others.  

Thoughts?

Ok, this site is what you might call semi-farcical.  It’s here because a lot of Christians secretly fantasize about us not being part of America.  Well, it’s time that the truth come out.  We fantasize about it too.

No atheist actually wants to get kicked out of his or her country, but we’re just sort of tired of being the Christian right’s punching bag.   

If you have an idea of what we be great about living in an atheist nation, where a good spot for one is, what sort of ethnic cleansing might occur, please, send me a submission. 

atheisthomeland (little @ thingy) yahoo (little . thingy) com

A place for Atheists, Agnostics, and Free Thinkers.

This site is under construction.  It’s here to answer the question, “If Atheists were given their own state, what would that look like?” If we were kicked out of countries like the US, how would the lack of atheists, agnostics and other free thinkers effect the economy of the US, and the world?  What would the economy of an atheist homeland look like?  What sort of policies might they have, how would their constitution read? I would like this site to serve as clearing house for political skepticism.  Please comment, I’m actively looking for co authors.