What Niall Ferguson left out: Human rights with Marlene

My voice and noise on subprime bank regulations: What Niall Ferguson left out: "What Niall Ferguson left out
Niall Ferguson in “Civilization: The West and the Rest” argues that the west's ascendancy, is based on six "killer apps": competition, science, democracy, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic. Those are indeed ingredients, but unfortunately he misses the willingness to take risks... the oxygen of development.
Perhaps he does not remember psalms calling out “God make us daring”… and that is why he fails to understand how the bank regulators, with their stupid nanny-scared capital requirements, based on doubling the importance of ex-ante perceived risk, are now slowly but surely taking the Western World down.
Ps. Here’s a link to… Who did the eurozone in? http://bit.ly/t3mQe0 and as you will read, it really was the butlers… and here´s also a video that explains a fraction of the stupidity of our bank regulations, in an apolitical red and blue! http://bit.ly/mQIHoi"

(from LinkedIn http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )
Human Rights  
Here's the problem: No one has defined human rights. Or, more correctly, there are too many definitions of human rights.
Is there a fixed list? Or are human rights emergent? (developing as technology, philosophy, and civilization develop?)
Even if there were a universally (or at least world wide) definition of human rights, who's going to enforce them? If the answer is governments, then we have a problem. What governments define is civil rights - rights defined under law.- and that becomes problematic. There is no higher civil power than government defined law, right?

So first we need a list of human rights.
The UN has one, but it keeps growing. Access to the Internet has become a human right according to the UN.
FDR put one together that extended the US Bill of Rights. It looks like the list of all the topics under attack in political debate.
Is there a list that can be acceptable to most, if not all?

Are human rights emergent?
If we assume human rights are emergent, then we don't need a complete list. We still need compliance.

There is no way to enforce human rights on individuals in one-on-one or one-on-many situations.
Your discussion of nurture vs nature begins here.
For example, if we assume human rights are enforced by nurture - which would include humans rights emergent with technology, philosophy and civilization - then how long will it take to nurture a generation that understands human rights? Based on recent events, there's been no such nurturing so far. You're talking about starting a whole generation - not just part, but whole - on a very different child development concept.

If that's not difficult enough, assume human rights are enforced by nature. Here you're not talking about training just one generation, but possibly many.

How many generations does it take before someone recognizes natural human rights?

Based on history, it took about 98,250 years for someone to even declare there were inalienable rights endowed by a creator.
Of course, now we have to figure out for everyone if there was a creator.

Nurture or nature?
Whether assumed to be either nature or nurture, or some combination, human rights are still emergent as technology and the shared understanding of human rights is defined. New human rights are defined based on previous human rights.

For example, if we assume - as has been declared by the UN - that the Internet is a basic human right, then we must assume access to some sort of connection - wireless or wired - and some source of energy are also human rights.

The human right to self-rule was such an emergent human right. It emerged as a reaction to monarchies and merchants, and the declarations of the Reformation, as the Enlightenment.
At one time it would have been considered a human right to have a king, for example, along with an aristocracy and nobility.

Many of the human or civil rights we think of as "natural" to day were really emergent rights.
Property rights, for example, is the basis of all economies today. But it wasn't always true.
While it makes easy logic to understand how a king can own or rule everything within the borders of his/her kingdom, the idea of individuals owning small parcels has always been problematic.
As the American Indians will tell you, the idea that a man can own the land is ridiculous.

Governments and emergent human rights
In order to have property rights, you have to have some form of government.

It was the rise in the financial power of mercantilism and banking during the 10th to 14th centuries that provoked the emergent right to property. These classes became more wealthy than the kingdoms. Their wealth put the kingdoms in the position of having to ask these classes to finance state functions, such as wars.

It was the emergence of the new social technologies of trade and banking the kingdoms had to deal with.

In the UK and Australia today, it's still true officially that the king or queen actually owns and rules over all the land. Land ownership is only a grant that can be withdrawn at any time.

Even in supposedly capitalist countries, the government defines limits to property ownership. Taxes are the way governments assert their control, and can reclaim ownership. There are mineral and air rights defined that can limit the individuals' ownership.

Yet merchants and banks can't exist unless some government(s) defines money.

And then there's the media...
Allen Funt, host of a popular show, Candid Camera, was once asked what was the most disturbing thing he had learned about people in his years of dealing with them through the media. His response was chilling in its ramifications:

"The worst thing, and I see it over and over, is how easily people can be
led by any kind of authority figure, or even the most minimal kinds of authority.
A well dressed man walks up the down escalator and most people will turn
around and try desperately to go up also...
We put up a sign on the road, 'Delaware Closed Today'. Motorists didn't
even question it. Instead they asked: 'Is Jersey open?'"

'via Blog this'

Time or Understanding

Marlene,
(taken from a LinkedIn discussion on the White House group http://lnkd.in/9qvnNj )

How many ways has this been said? And by how many people? Is the answer simply reflection? Or is it some structural change?

Your post refers to the Moral Molecule, psychopaths and sociopaths. The references discuss all of those topics along with narcissism.
The problem is two fold:
 ♦ The words psychopath, sociopath and narcissist are meaningless buzzwords to most people.
 The terms are understood to be negative, somehow, but what do they really mean? Or do they all mean the same thing? Do the terms describe different aspects of the same mental disorder? -- Because most people cannot answer these questions, the terms drift into cognitive dissonance.
 ♦ Is there enough time to make the changes that seem necessary?

Over 35 years ago, I submitted an essay to my teachers relating the fact that people think in dichotomies and models. I was just a high school student in a small California high school.

Essentially, the paper said people's perceptions are not one-sided. For every Yes, there's a No; for every black, a white. I argued that language tended to describe only one side of a discussion without becoming bogged down, overwhelmed by volume, and was inadequate to describe the whole meaning of an issue as the author or speaker perceived it.
I put forward the idea that the real meaning of any words required some statement about the perspective and experience relating to the development of the topics and ideas discussed in order to understand the dichotomies involved.

The most controversial idea in the essay was the people do say what they mean. In fact, because there is always a dichotomy involved, the apparent meaning has both meanings: affirmation and the opposite.

Therefore, people often say one thing and do another, but it's unfair to expect anything different.
I went on to say that people form models from these dichotomies that are applied to other issues. In order to understand a person's words, it was necessary to understand the models they had formed.

You can imagine how my high school literature teacher, who was teaching from Shakespeare's plays, reacted.

What I didn't realize is I was talking about aspects of pathological thinking; that the models became ideologies which serve to allow the person to place any sense of conscience into mental bins of denial or cognitive dissonance. In effect, the person is training themselves into mental illness.
We call that training personality.

We admire those who walk the talk because it is rare.
Most people say one thing, or many things, charming and evocatively, but will do something anathema to their words. It's not just individuals. It's groups and parties and nations that do the same thing.
It's human nature.

 Game theory offers an interesting insight. (from a link off the pages you refer to)
 ◄In short, in this game, the government always does better by not being ethical and we can predict the government's choice of strategy because there is a single strategy - no ethics - that is better for the government no matter what choice the public makes. This is a "strictly dominant strategy," or a strategy that is the best choice for the player no matter what choices are made by the other player.

What is even worse is the fact that the public is PENALIZED for behaving ethically. Since we know that the government, in the above regime, will never behave ethically because it is the dominant strategy, we find that ethical behavior on the part of the public actually costs MORE than unethical behavior.◄
Official Culture - A Natural State of Psychopathy?
 by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
 http://bit.ly/rQmYce

 The concepts are not new. They go back to the beginnings of civilization.
◄(T)he warnings of Innanni (Ishtar) from ancient Suma, 5500 years ago.
 ====
 (T)he goddess Innanna brought the arts of civilization from the god of wisdom, Enku Eridu, like a Pandora's box
 Here were the delights of society exquisite craftsmanship, beautiful clothes, the arts of sex and music, But civilization has a darker side. said Enki, which has to be accepted along with the good. There is the art of being mighty; the art of being kind; the art of straightforwardness; the art of deceit; the art of kingship, justice, and the enduring crown; the resounding note of a musical instrument; the rejoicing of the harp; the kindling of strife; the plundering of cities; the setting off of lamentations.

Fear, pity, terror - all this is civilization, said the god of wisdom. All this I give you. And you must take it all with no argument. And once taken, you cannot give it back. ◄

 This is from TechRepublic today.
 ◄That’s why the premise of The Sociopath Next Door, a book by Martha Stout, gives me the major creeps. Stout claims that as many as 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings for humans or animals. Sociopaths (or the more politically correct term, someone with antisocial personality disorder) show a lack of regret in their actions, with a common trait being the violation of the rights of others.

This book was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in response to my telling her about one of my son’s friends being bullied at work by her boss. I don’t know if Stout’s 4% metric is accurate but I know that I hear an awful lot from readers of this blog who are dealing with bosses that I believe could be characterized as sociopaths.◄
Your boss could be a sociopath. No, really.
 TechRepublic
 http://tek.io/uGQvGi

 ♦Evil Genes 
It's not just the 4% who have the sociopath gene that's the real problem. It's the fact that people have learned the advantages of this model of behavior, and train themselves to it.

We call these people 'leaders', 'visionaries', and 'professionals'. Subject the concept of professional to the merest scrutiny and you can see the concept is sociopathic. In fact, narcissistic.

In short, we reward and admire most in our society that learn to lie best: lawyers, actors, and salespeople. 

Based on the reception my essay got and the 5500-year old warning from Ishtar, is it realistic to assume there is time to make the changes you propose?

Business and the social contract

A part of the thinking behind the conceptualization of Regulatory agencies as information repositories is, I think, what you're talking about here.

"Ergo, our valiant words are burped out of the orifice of the money drunk. We have and continue to lose credibility in the global expanse. I agree that transnationals are likely the answer and do not support that we dominate. I am saying we a no example of any sense of the "common good" or wishing to see humanity survive. "

In my terms, you're saying the transnationals have the power, but don't consider themselves parties to the social contract. If so, I agree.

Business has taken the political position of being antithetical to government. It's a straw man. Business cannot exist without effective government. Business requires both the law and enforcement of the law or there are no property rights (other than that provided by thugs and warlords.)
All incorporated organizations must be licensed and registered by a government, or they effectively are those thugs and warlords.

Business has chosen the political position as antithetical to government in order to oppose taxes, regulation, and unions. Those roles are better understood in terms of the monopoly stage of capitalism, where business sought market share.

The present stage of capitalism can better be called global capitalism, where business seeks to control governments across national borders. In time, all levels of business will be forced -- as we're already seeing -- to respond to the goals of globalization and global capitalism.

Business will be networked as defined in management science. Much of transnational business already is. (see the excerpt above) The networking aspect is an opportunity for the concepts of networked innovation to be applied. The key goal for government and regulators is to develop a network to include all stakeholders and avoid becoming increasingly insignificant. 
That goal will only increase in importance as capitalism moves into the state capitalism stage; where business and government effectively form controlled economies.

These changes and goals will draw business ever deeper into the social contract.

A few surprises

One of the biggest problems is perception. An overwhelming number of people don't realize how weak the federal government was in the 19th century. The only experience and history they've known is from the perspectives of the last half of the 20th century - where the President is the most powerful man in the world. 

I'm constantly surprised that so few people realize there was a time when there was no question who was more powerful, the President or the financiers and industrialists. No one doubted Big Money (as it was called then) was far more powerful than the President. 
The 'Big Boys' mentioned by our grandparents were not the politicians. They were the Morgans, Fords, Rockefellers, etc. - the financiers and industrialists - who had the power of life or death over the population of the United States. 

If you discuss history with anyone, it's important to remember this misconception, or you'll be talking apples to pomegranates, or basketballs.


Similarly, very few realize that there is any other way of financing a country than debt-based economies. 

Federal Reserve 
The Federal Reserve is the greatest privatization of government responsibilities in history. 
And like nearly all privatization projects, it's far more concerned with turning profits (and control) for its owners and clients - the banking community - than fulfilling responsibilities to the government and public. 
The most glaring example is part of the charter of the Federal Reserve is to provide full employment for the country. That clause has been largely ignored, and never enforced. If it were, the Fed would be a much different system. 

Non-debt based economies 
There is no reason for a debt based economy other that the system is so deeply entrenched. 

The first steps to a non-debt based economy has already been taken, in fact, when the currency was released from the gold standard in 1972. 
The currency we use is backed only be the full faith and credit of the United States. We could also say on the currency that it can be used to pay taxes. 

The only step necessary now is to take the Fed out of the picture and let Congress issue the currency - as provided in the Constitution. 

It would change economics significantly, and probably cause inflation, to make the change, but maybe it's worth having a debate over the risk and benefits. 
I would expect even a strong move in this direction would result in some important changes in banking and finance. 

Community Benefit Corporations 
There is no reason a corporation must be legally required to place the value of its stock over the benefit to so many other stakeholders. The current law forces corporations to externalize risk and costs - to the detriment of generations, governments and nature. 

The move towards sustainability, reliability and bottom of the pyramid corporate governance is only hampered by the current laws. Corporate governance is forced to be myopic and short-sighted by law. 
That can easily be changed by reforming the corporation as a Benefit Corporation. It can be done in at least 5 states today. Public pressure - boycotts and outcry - can change the focus of corporate governance. 

If the public were to demand these changes, whole or in part, we can change many things with nothing more than words.


Real dollars
 It will certainly surprise many people to find the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have only issued about $700 billion US dollars - in hard cash.

All of our $14.7 trillion economy - over 20,000 times the amount of hard cash - is the result of debt, compounded interest, and externalized risk of one form or the other.

If we were to begin our discussions about taxation, finance, and national interests with that $700 billion figure in mind, think of how many things may come into different focus - and perhaps for the first time into focus at all.

Stages of Capitalism

Although the broader terms - Competitive, Monopoly, and Global capitalism - are handy short hands for the periods, I dislike the simplistic labeling since it ignores the influence of finance and the focus on risk, especially externalized risk. The definitions are too much dependent upon class distinctions and class warfare concepts.

Quick and dirty: 
We have progressed through different forms of capitalism during the 20th: laissez faire or competitive capitalism up to the turn of the century. This period ends with the breakup of Standard Oil and the advent of monopoly capitalism.

The goal of monopoly capitalism shifts from better costs and pricing (competitive capitalism) to controlling market share. Standard Oil, for example, was often not interested in making a profit in a region, but in driving out competition.

Monopoly Capitalism

Monopoly capitalism has a political component, of course, that makes the domestic political arena a battleground between large corporate interests and unions.

Global Capitalism
After 1945, but especially after 1970, we moved to global capitalism, and the primary goal changed to influencing political structures not only within the country but other (supposedly sovereign) nations.

We have seen capitalism mature and change over the last century from laissez faire to monopoly capitalism; and then to global capitalism. 
In each stage, we've seen the primary goal change and supercede previous goals from competitive pricing to market share to controlling governments, respectively.

State Capitalism
The next stage may be state capitalism, which seems to be the goal of the right in the US, imitating the 'controlled economy' of China and Asian countries.

It remains to be seen if mixed economies - social democracy - can compete. But one thing is certain: Economies which do not compete in the new arenas will not lead or succeed.

The same shift put transnational companies and MNCs in a position to dictate to governments at all levels of development - developing, peripheral (the PIGS, for example), and developed - legal structures; while simultaneously destroying manufacturing within the country. (There is a growing debate that the Germans may have gotten it right here.) 

Tax cuts are meaningless in a developed country. Tax cuts mean large deficits and long term debt. Reagan, Bush 41 and 43 have demonstrated that clearly and repeatedly - but nothing will stop blind ideologues from the fantasies. 

For peripheral and un-developed countries, they can lure industry to the country for a while, but it's a gamble. Ireland and Spain just lost in a big way. History tells us most countries lose this gamble.

Disruptive tactics online

All of these tactics were identified long ago on bulletin boards and newsgroups. The Netiquette is documented across the Web. They've been applied by teams of professional writers hired to disrupt certain forums on LinkedIn.

It's not an urban legend. It's just part of the marketing. 
If I were managing a political campaign - which I have no interest in doing - I'd employ the same tactics. I have to say though, I'd avoid some of them; and would set higher standards for others.


A little explanation is probably needed for these types of attack evident on this group by the TP supporters attempting to disrupt the flow of conversations: 

• responding to comments (form those outside the team) with threats of being reported as "plagiarism", "slander" , "libel", or some other legal term 
• Ad hominem attacks - denigrating and insulting other contributors personally; not challenging their logic or facts 
• Sniping, 
• Flooding. 
• Ambushing: someone posting anything positive or supportive of the President or administration - comment, citations, or facts - was quickly jumped on by one or more of the team 
• Misrepresentation 

These attacks were used to identify the TP team members, and their intentions on the forum. 

Legalistic threats.The most common legal threat on this forum for months was plagiarism.
When a team member copied a whole article from the Net into the discussion, the threat didn't come. But if someone outside the team did the same, the threat of plagiarism was made repeatedly until someone dispelled it. 
If the person responded to the team member vehemently, the person would be told a lawyer would be contacted to sue for slander or libel. 

The threats became serious. More than one person checked with their lawyers sincerely intending to sue the disrupting TP team members; others reported the TP team members to law enforcement. This may have been one of the reasons the team has become quieter recently. 

Personal attacks, or ad hominem attacks, by the team were common. As described above, too often others took the bait and a flame war resulted. 

One of the most common forms of ad hominem attack is Name Calling or Labeling. Name Calling is juvenile and pointless. It adds nothing to the discussion but anger. It's simply baiting the other person into a Flame War. 
Labeling can be a touchy subject in political debate, however. Calling someone a "commie" is childish and useless, but saying their ideas sound 'communist' or 'socialist' has to be allowed. 

Sniping is the most common means of to disrupt the flow of a discussion because it's the easiest to do. The purpose of Sniping is to force the posts on the topic from view. 

Sniping means simply posting many short posts in a series. 
One short post can be called sniping if the references are unclear, but it's not an effective disruption. 

As series of short posts, usually with slogans or short insults at the end, will quickly force the screen containing the useful discussion to scroll out of view. Those who want to continue on the topic are forced to scroll up and down. 
If the Sniping is obnoxious enough, a Flame War results. 

Another version of Sniping is to respond to someone's much older posts without giving a reference. The person is attacked but has no idea why. 

LinkedIn problem 
The sniping tactic was particularly successful on LinkedIn because the discussions are not threaded. Each post comes after the other. It's very hard using LinkedIn's forum facilities to see posts even a few minutes old. 
It's easy to create a dozen or more sniping posts. 

Flooding is simply filling the screen with long, verbose posts to force any other discussion from view. As with sniping, it works very well because of LinkedIn's programming. 
Clif's brain dumps function as Flooding often. I doubt he intends them as Flooding though. His 4-8 page posts drive any other topic from view. It's not very polite, as Netiquette goes, and often good discussions and topics are lost. 

Ambushing is used to ensure no useful discussion results from a thoughtful essay or posted idea. It entails using all other forms of attack. 

Misrepresentation can be incorporated into any of the other styles of attack, and is especially disruptive because of the passions on a political forum. 

There are two common versions of misrepresentation. 

- The first version is when something is taken from the Web. TP advocates on this forum have often been caught using doctored citations - where the information is changed then posted - or where the reference supposedly supports the post, but has little or nothing to do with it. 
(Because of this habit, people have learned to always fact check the TP team members.) 

- The second version is ad hominem. 
The team member copies a portion of someone else's post either out of context or changes the original text, then attacks it. It's considered ad hominem because it is the person's own words that are being changed and attacked. 
(This method is commonly used to set up a 'straw man' attack - where the person is attacked for something they didn't say or mean.)

Story of Citizens United v. FEC « The Story of Stuff Project

Story of Citizens United v. FEC « The Story of Stuff Project:

'via Blog this'

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance in 1798

Today, we have the Social Security plan and automobile insurance - both instances where government mandates people pay into insurance plans.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance
in 1798
Forbes
http://onforb.es/nekX6u

===
The law did a number of fascinating things.

First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

This is pretty much how it works today in the European nations that conduct socialized medical programs for its citizens – although 1% of wages doesn’t quite cut it any longer.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services. Upon passage of the law, ships were no longer permitted to sail in and out of our ports if the health care tax had not been collected by the ship owners and paid over to the government – thus the creation of the first payroll tax in our nation’s history.

When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the government would confirm that his payments had been collected and turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated for whatever ailed him.
===

As pointed out in an accompanying article, no one had to argue about the intentions of the Founding Fathers in those days. Most of them were still alive.

The Plum Line 
* Newsflash: Founders favored "government run health care"

http://wapo.st/pvEQyG

=== 
(Prof Adam) Rothman says that it's perfectly legit to see shades of today's debate in that early initiative.

"It's a good example that the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care," Rothman says. "That in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer."

"You could argue that it's precedent for government run health care," Rothman continues. "This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic." ===

Marlene on isms

In summary - trying to take into account the many points made yesterday and today - despite my mind being boggled - some of my thoughts in response:

A/C - Acronym Challenge - apologies to Max Planck et al:

Self-Organization + Self-Organization = SO and SO
Self-Synchronization + Self-Synchronization = SS and SS
Storm-trooper + OODA-Loop + Self = SOS

MC squared - Mathematical Challenge:

7 billion + 0 = 7 billion
7 billion x 0 = 0

Mental List:

Gentle not sentimental
Measured not detrimental
Inclusive not regimental
Judicious not judgmental
Temperate not temperamental
Planned not experimental
Phased and incremental
Wholesomely environmental
Holistically developmental
Basically fundamental
Proactively instrumental

Ism Exercises:

Ism as organ and living
Ism as char and giving
Ism as ideal and magic
Ism as fatal and tragic
Ism as real and true
Ism as crony and skew
Ism to believe
Ism to relieve
Ism to grieve
Inherently dynastic
Doggedly bombastic
Exercised and gymnastic
Adherently dog mastic


What a palaver:

Pussycat clause and puppy dog tales
Cabbage patch dolls and curly tails
Miss Piggy, Kermit and Oscar too
Pussies and puppies and a kangaroo
Poker and tennis - chess and buckaroo
Apple juice, hops and plenty to do
Barrels of cider and scrumptious too
Leaders and followers all bally hoo
Meet you in Palaver for a jar or two?


Pepper Mint or Spear Mint:

Private Banks + Print money = Quantitative Easing [Queasy]
Private Individuals + Print Money = Counterfeit [Cease]

Behemoth Crepuscular:

Corporations must not be taxed to stop them all from going
Bankers must print more notes to keep the economy growing
Fractional Reserve Banking flowing freely in and out
Is our gold that of fools and how did our debt come about?
What are these wild cards playing at? Are we just gullible rookies?
Twilight watchers trailing us - by camera and by cookies
Have the matadors let the bull markets emerge up to the very top?
Is duality bipartisan and can mutuality arising make them stop?
Are our assets already stripped and are our collars firmly felt?
Are our cards already marked and are they being still misdealt?
If there has been a sleight of hand - oh whatever can we do?
The game is on – is it time to play? I’m up for it - are you?

Richard mentioned energy maneuverability - defense in depth - John Boyd Theory - all of which sounds like wallowing in one version of the past whilst wading in treacle - guess that’s just me then…

For what it is worth: We live in extraordinary times - the now - with all it has to offer - now - the present - today - and, yes, of course, we must learn from past events and past outcomes - ever mindful - IMO - that history, like truth, is in the eye of the beholders - so perhaps - maybe - we should not let it define our future…

I’m with Maya Angelou on this one: “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

And the last words go to de Tocqueville: “We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects”.

Loopily
Marlene

Amendments to redefine corporations

Paul W,

===
I personally love corporations to operate in a HONEST and RESPONSIBLE manner. Constitutional Amendments are floating around the country.

Examination produces two ideals:
___1- Corporations/like entities are not people but rather the property of individuals, is assets of individuals, acts at the direction of individuals who are responsible for their conduct. (In such both a corporation can be sued for violations of law and criminal prosecution).
___2- Corporations/like entities are excluded from influence, including financial, in our electoral/political system of these United States.===

It's disgusting that we have to provide legalistic jargon for the greatest legal minds in our judicial system to be able to distinguish between a human being and a contract or property - but here we are.

It's not mildly disgusting. It's disgusting like taking in a deep whiff of concentrated raw sewage created at a plant before processing. Disgusting that creates a seminal memory.

My second reaction, after reliving that seminal memory, is that these amendments do not go far enough to recognize the nature of the issue. Neither amendment truly threatens the legally mandated focus of the corporation: to improve stockholders' financial position, or equity.
Whatever laws or amendments are proposed with regards to corporations, there has to be a provision for an off switch.

If the corporation or any of its officers breaches these legal limits, the corporation simply ceases to be a defined legal entity within the United States. The stock becomes valueless. All property within the United States or defined as owned by the corporation in question is ceded to the United States as penalty.
Any corporation charged with these crimes will have its operations suspended and a legally mandated overseer or commission will manage operations and gather evidence until the trial is decided.
Stockholders and employees not involved in the commission of the crime are allowed to sue those who committed the crime for private compensation.

A corporation is a financial structure and a legal entity. There must be a legal means for it to end. That end must threaten the financial position of the to pose too great a risk for certain laws to be broken.
Otherwise, any amendments or laws will only be feeding the legal system.

Paul, I don't see a way to enforce your second proposed amendment. We already have PACs and think tanks. This amendment will be toothless.

Your first proposed amendment is essentially the situation that exists today in legal terms. Even if it may offer an easier means to penetrate the corporate veil, its effect will be increasingly limited as pressure is placed on legislatures at all levels to define and refine the legal environment.

Here's a plan, Marlene

 Do you really want a plan, Marlene?

Here's your plan: You can imitate a land-based food chain or an ocean-based food chain; a rain forest or a coral reef.
Don't be put off by the term 'food chain'. It's just the best terms science can provide. In the end, the top predator returns to the microbes, after all. There really is no top or bottom.

In fact, research indicates the small things and their weak interactions do matter. To quote a first primary principle:
"Weak interactions are the stabilizers and strong interactions the destabilizers of food webs.
In some circles in the late twentieth century, small may have been considered “beautiful,” but in the early twenty-first century, we can say that small is “important.”

A species or interaction that appears insignificant today might be crucial tonight or next year."
endquote

Your decision for developing any process to attain any goal will determine which of the two food chains you want to emulate.

Things don't have to 'die' to be consumed though. Everything produces products; even waste is considered a product. That's the core concept behind sustainability and reliability.
Products contain value and information. That's the second core concept.

Even the top predator leaves behind products that affect the reliability of other producers: carcasses, offal, and finally their own carcass. These products provide value and information to different levels of other processes.
Ignoring this concept is the reason so many processes today don't seem reliable. Put very simply, it means no process or goal is independent of others.

How stable or unstable the process you create will be depends upon these choices in your design. You'll find you have to combine the concepts within each design to achieve different types of reliability.
If you want sustainability, you have to choose between the coral reef and the rain forest though.

If you think about it, the systems in place today are not that far away from these concepts. All this really means is adding a few priorities in design and implementation; and interpreting more accurately the products of all levels.

There. There's your plan.
To implement it, just run a network analysis and interpret the translations correctly.

GST explanation for Americans

(This article was first posted to the White House group on LinkedIn as a response to a couple of people mentioning GST. Since most Americans have no experience with GST, I typed up a quick summary. -Paul)

Before considering a GST, a few facts are needed.

First, GST is a consumption tax. That fact drives the structure of the tax, meaning the exemptions and deductions from other taxes already in place. It's very easy to be seen as double, triple or even quadruple taxation.
As with all consumption taxes, the burden lands most heavily on the lower income levels.

Because of how it works, it requires a considerable bureaucracy to implement, and the revenues are almost always far beyond the predictions.

GST (good and services tax) is a modification of the VAT (value-added tax) that's been in place in many European countries for decades.

How it works

Let's take four levels:

1. Producer - the person who grows or mines the raw material 
2. Manufacturer - the person who makes the raw materials into something 
3. Distributor - the person who moves the things to retailers 
4. Retailer - the person who sells the goods to the public 

At each level, the person (or company) pays a 10% GST.

1. Producer produces something, and sells it on to the Manufacturer for $100 
2. Manufacturer makes something, and sells it on to the distributor for $200 
3. Distributor sells things on to the Retailer for $300 
4. Retailer sells things to the public for $400 

At each level, a 10% GST is imposed.

1. Producer pays $10 GST 
2. Manufacturer pays $20 GST 
3. Distributor pays $30 GST 
4. Retailer pays $40 GST 

But each level can subtract the GST already paid at the previous level or levels, so - after filing forms - each level actually pays $10 GST. But the consumer pays the full $40 GST on the $400 item they purchase.

What I've outlined above is the VAT. So long as there is an unbroken chain of value added to the goods, there's little confusion. But when you add Services to the chain, things get a little confusing.


Services?
What happens if the item is a computer, and the Retailer adds $400 in consulting fees to the price? With this simple example, the Retailer adds $40 GST to the additional $400 fee, and passes it on to the consumer.

A partial answer is the GST is hidden in the fees and purchase prices by quoting 'GST inclusive', which translates into a $400 fee where 1/11th is paid as GST.

The rest of the answer is the Consultant can deduct from the GST any GST already paid on other items in the business.

This works pretty well for going concerns with many expenses, but penalizes small operations that run on little hardware and without much service support. To get adequate reductions in GST to be paid, the small company - especially freelancers - has to start including household items and minuscule purchases.

Double taxation

If there's a state or federal income tax in place, how does the GST affect it?

GST is usually a federal tax. Does that mean it is subtracted from any Income tax owed federally? (tax credit)
Or is it simply deducted from the person's Taxable Income? (a deduction)

For most countries, the answer is GST is a deduction from Taxable Income, and you can see why it's called double taxation.

A key question is: Should Income tax be abolished if a GST is imposed? The initial answer is Yes, but the reality is Income taxes remain.


State taxes

Then there are state taxes. How does the federal GST affect these?

In theory, federal and state governments share GST revenues. That's probably the biggest selling point when implementing GST.

Since the governments share in GST revenues, shouldn't there be some mechanism to reduce state taxes based on the state's share of GST revenues? It's not hard to see this gets complicated fast. Because of the complications, this option is usually ignored or left to future negotiations (that never happen.)


Other taxes

Some state taxes are imposed on top of the GST in special types of sales such as land or resource extraction. How does the GST affect those?

The resource sector broadly opposes any tax, and interprets the GST as double taxation.


Effects on Low Income and Poor

It's easy to see the greatest burden of a GST is placed on consumers. In effect, every item purchased becomes 10% more expensive.

It's rare to find consumers tracking GST paid on a personal level, although it may be worth it at times. If the person is a freelancer or sole proprietor, it's certainly worth it.
But there has to be some mechanism, as with Income taxes, to distinguish between what expenses support the business and what are personal. Or is that true?

For those merchants that deal with low income earners and low income earners, the imposition of a GST has real and hidden costs. These costs are felt directly in the pocketbook for small retailers (convenience shops, hairdressers, etc) and the people they service. 

Exemptions

Commonly a GST is imposed with "Necessities" excluded, such as milk, bread, baby food, etc. The exact list is always a little controversial. The most important goal of these exemptions is to relieve the burdern on low income or disadvantaged consumers.

But what about work clothes for those who have to wear safety vests or overalls on the job?
Nurses uniforms?
Police uniforms?

If you're a Courier, for example, can you remove the cost of gas and maintenance from GST? How?
Do you deduct the costs from the GST taxable income? Or do you document the GST paid and deduct it from your overall GST tax?


Income from investments

One area where GST becomes complicated is income from investments.

If you're a retiree with income properties, GST is applicable on all rents. Because retirees have little other business activities other than maintenance - which hopefully is a small portion of the income generated - the GST burden is not very well offset. It can become substantial.
If you're an investor with income properties you're renovating for resale, that may not be true.

GST is a tax that encourages business and economic activity.

What about income from bonds or dividends? Strictly speaking, this is not an increase in value. The payments are part of the initial purchase contract.
While the sale of stock or bonds is, hopefully, an increase in value, income from dividends and bond tickets is not.
In most systems, this income is subject to full GST.

Like all tax schemes, the devil is in the details.

Emerging economies

I suppose it's worth emphasizing a GST cannot be implemented in a country without an established tax system and tax base.

The granularity of the GST requires constant monitoring and checking. GST is not a tax for a developing or emerging economy.

A developing or emerging country can begin with a VAT and graduate to a GST. That's not an uncommon strategy.

And I should add that like VAT, GST is a tax that's usually paid many times each year - pay as you go system. That will mean added paperwork for persons and businesses monthly or quarterly.

This aspect of the GST is rarely considered, although it can be a considerable burden on individuals and small businesses both in time and processing expense.


Processing and Reporting issues

If the business has established business process programmng to determine the efficacy of a project - CRM or ERM systems are common even for small businesses today. - the addition of a GST can mean considerable expense.

Even if the business runs off basic accounting software, an upgrade will be required - that too often disrupts the reliability of the software in surprising ways.

Marlene: Let

Yeah - and to create many of those jobs - yes we do need to innovate and to invent - products and processes - productivity and provision - real loops - productive wealth generators and a fair system of wealth distribution - to DARE - Deconstruct and Reconstruct Everything …together with drive and with a coherent plan - by design...


The pendulum swings and the paradigm shifts 
The laggards take flight as do the swifts 
Let humanity endure - well or diseased 
Let hope be feted and despair be appeased 
Let teachers teach and students be taught 
Let skills be hurled and let them be caught 
Let babies be born – both equal and free 
Let all be ascribed in the equivalence decree 
Let talents be varied and presciently gifted 
Let bodies be enabled and minds be sifted 
Let no blame be attached and let nothing be lost 
Let judgments be clear and barriers be crossed 
Let hands be even and minds be open 
Let bias be gone and humanity be totem 
Let us learn to rate and to value - not score 
Let us wont for less and let us want no more

Sadly; innovation and invention are two words that over both grossly over used and are now totally under whelming. Each word is now meaninglessly attributed to the mundane and the mediocre as marketing hype!
Whoever controls access to capital maintains control so I think it is time to plan and to do:

My Dodo Bird Ditty:

I like to do and do and Da Doo Ron Ron 
The dodo bird has been and gone gone 
To do and do and to do Da Doo Ron Ron

CRYSTAL CLEAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgtsai2aKY

Best 
Marlene

Century of Sefl

Marlene: Fancifully

Fancifully:

Think Out loud – think TO anew 
Design Out loud – plan and DO 
TO-DO hoo-ha – a bleeding nose 
TO DO List – it comes and goes 
LIST as tally and list as tilt 
Bridges burnt and bridges built 
Eye to eye and it’s I see me 
Eye to eye and it’s me you see 
Reflected image or reflected view 
Reflective perspective – false and true 
Swords cross in rage - words cross the page 
The world adapts – stage by stage 
Reflect alone - the age of book 
Reflect as one - the age of look 
To watch – not one to one – screens apart 
To learn – not one to one – screens impart 
Aged old - worms and all - living so much longer 
Rising robot - rights and all - growing so much stronger 
A rally cry – Shout Out loud – let it out - just SO 
So far so good – so to speak – the so and so yo-yo

Life sure has its ups and downs: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvG3IK-hzRs

Warren Buffet: How to fix Congress

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. 

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around. 

Congressional Reform Act of 2011* 
1. No Tenure / No Pension. 

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. 
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. 

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. 

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. 

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. 
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. 
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. 

Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. 

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time? 

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

Marlene: Is that what we need to do?

Hi Paul

Thanks for your feedback and your support - and, yes, I hope that we and others can find a way to move forward…

I love RSA Animate - simply sublime - if I could add illustrations here on LinkedIn I would. One of the reasons I use verse is to make for easy reading

Based on my comments thus far and bearing in mind your responses - a summary of my thoughts at this stage - in verse:

I need to eat and I need to drink
I need to sleep and I want to think
I want a home and I need a nest
I want a bed and I need to rest
I want to feast and I need to eat
I want fine wine and my thirst is sweet
I want what I acquire and I need what I require
My wish lists grow with every new desire
My needs and my wants have all been mapped
The me first treadmill turns and I am trapped
But – me and they and you - we are we
We need the same and I want to see
How my hopes and dreams align with us all in mind
Our needs and our wants - can they be combined?
We want to be free and we need laws and orders
We want to run free so do we need walls and borders?
We want to be free and we want to be fair
We need a fair share and we need to share
We need a lot and we want much more
We want to be rich rather than be poor
We want to look good and we need beauty sleep
We want to feel great and we need good upkeep
We fear at night and we fear at day
We want and need to keep our fears at bay
We want for love and we need affection
We want for safety and we need protection
We want happiness and we need contentment
We grow with kindness and wilt with resentment
We need our world and we need its health
We need our world and we need its wealth
We share our world and we want good health
We share our world and we want some wealth
We share our needs and our humanity
We share our dreams of equanimity
We share our world – in excess or in sobriety
We share information – genetic and society
We are connected – one and all - each and every one
So can our moods be raised and dashed in unison?
“The message is the medium” Marshall McLuhan presciently said
“News, more than art, is artifact” he foretold - glancing up ahead
So can ‘good’ news be harvested and spread to ease the sense of doom?
And can this ‘feel good’ factor be deployed to counteract the gloom?
An earning stream of activity celebrating creativity and achievement
A new approach to nurture skill fostering fulsome growth and attainment
Filling hearts and minds with rhythmic beats and kindly contemplation
A sense of wellbeing and a chance to earn respect and consideration
A purposeful project and opportunity for design and creation
A new way to energize talent fulfilling expectation
Energies channeled for the good of all in full participation
A valued stream of just reward – in currency and in reputation
Profits gained and livings earned can be wholesomely obtained
Knowledge shared and thinking learned can be holistically attained
Purposeful interaction and much more that’s good and new
Co-design and co-create in co-operation – isn’t that what we need to do?

Best
Marlene