Reader Request
Paul hi,
Too much information.
You are like a Uni Professor,………………………give an executive summary.
I [undertake paid-] work for a living,………………………thanks and Cheers,
Con
…
‘We can’t win fighting against our own physiological & psychological nature.’
April 10, 2025
Hello
The new set of articles (i.e. Coopetysm Party 6.~) introduce and emphasise ‘Coopetysm’ and its imaginary political champion of The Coopetysm Party.
…
Coopetysm [Executive Summary]
Key Terminology
Coopetition: ‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second’.
Coopetysm: Maximally ‘Coopetition-catalysing’ social-infrastructure government.
Coopetysm optimises inter-citizen-civility and national-strength (including via maximising efficiency), which means it represents ‘End of History’ optimally civilised governance – i.e. it achieves ‘Universal Liberal Democracy’.
The Coopetysm Party is an imaginary political party, which, encompassing Coopetysm’s social-infrastructures, may never (and, in theory, need never) exist provided some other parties adopt the Coopetysm narrative and policies.
Coopetysm: Coopetivity-Catalysing Governance
Coopetysm consists of 4 social-infrastructures:
- Universal Rule of Coopetyvity Law
- Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
- Universal Education
- Universal Healthcare.
[Note: each infrastructure buttresses each of the others such that if one is suboptimal, let alone missing, it detracts from all the others’ effectiveness.]
Regarding ‘Universal Rule of Coopetyvity Law’, it maximally:
- Proportionately (and, to the extent possible, rehabilitatively) punishes extreme anti-Coopetive behaviour
- Facilitates democracy
- Protects free-markets (including via a minimally distorting tax-regime)
- Promotes sovereignty
- Sustains the natural-environment
In sum, in a post-Industrial Revolution ‘society of strangers’, Coopetysm maximally empowers and encourages citizens to behave Coopetively, which means it represents ‘End of History’ optimally civilised governance – i.e. it achieves ‘Universal Liberal Democracy’.
Regarding the social-infrastructures, despite humanity not having the Coopetysm narrative, 3 out of 4 have evolved such that, in the non-USA-Relatively-Developed-World, only The USI is still pending. [The USA also doesn’t have Universal Healthcare.]
The Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
Due to The USI absence, we are still afflicted by the authoritarian Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS), which, amongst other things, leads to poverty & employee-exploitation, and has indirectly led to Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW), which, in turn, is unemployment’s creator.
Thus, the world has never experienced modern-society ‘Universal Liberal Democracy’.
So, given the other 3 social-infrastructures have evolved (including via revolutions such as the American & French and World Wars), why hasn’t The USI evolved?
Answer: it has been blocked via, chronologically:
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) [In 1894, New Zealand became the first country to introduce it.]
- Income-Welfare, which, rather than being universal, is targeted
- The erroneous conviction, “The USI is just more income-Welfare”.
Regarding these 3 artificialities:
- UMHoW is unemployment’s creator, which means it’s a source of further mass Disempowerment.
- Income-Welfare’s targeting is inefficient – i.e. it’s both divisive and distortionary
- While the belief “The USI is just more income-Welfare” is near ubiquitous, on the contrary, as well as The USI not having income-Welfare’s costs of divisiveness & distortion, it is an investment with a rate-of-return that’s guaranteed to be both positive and exponential.
[The latter is particularly ironical – i.e. we only have income-Welfare because The USI is absent; yet, income-Welfare’s inefficiency has polluted our view against the efficient USI.]
With the evolution of The USI blocked, it can only be implemented consciously – i.e. the need for it must first be understood such that a conscious decision is made to implement it.
Thus, we need a narrative, which is achieved via ‘Coopetysm’, plus the specific, optimally efficient, USI-related policy, which is ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
The USI-4-UMHoW Reform
‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ involves, first, overcoming “The USI is just more income-Welfare” misunderstanding such that, second, The USI is substituted for:
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
- Income-Welfare.
Regarding the headline USI amount, in Australia, ‘the citizen-taxpayer net USI’ (i.e. the amount taxpayers pay above receiving The USI) will be about the same as the present income-Welfare system, which means citizen-taxpayers shouldn’t fear it.
Furthermore, ‘The Reform’ solves all 5 of our Big Picture Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural]-Government-budget (SEE-in-G) problems – i.e. it solves:
- Socio- Disempowerment
- Econo- inefficiency
- International-Enviro- invasiveness
- Natural-Enviro- unsustainability
- Government-budget-pressure.
Imagine, we’re currently trying (and flunking) on all counts, which, among other things, is creating political populism – i.e. a favouring of messianic extremist fiddling politicians rather than optimal technocratic policy.
We’re failing due to the belief our ‘SEE-in-G’ problems are so complex that each of its 5 aspects need multiple manual Band-Aiding ‘solutions’ when what’s required is the simple automatic infrastructural ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
Given society is made up of its citizens (who, it’s advisable to be mindful, are nature’s creatures known as, ‘Homo sapiens’), if we get our social-infrastructure right, the rest will automatically follow.
Alternatively, currently, nature is implicitly dictating:
“Your ‘SEE-in-G’ experience will exponentially worsen (with nothing else capable of preventing it) until you understand ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ is the solution and consciously implement it – i.e. you can’t win by fighting against your own physiological & psychological nature.”
With ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, amongst other things, there is no:
- ‘Obtain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare-distortion’, which currently encourages those already living precariously not to economically-contribute because, by doing so, they may become even worse-off
- ‘Dole-bludger’ narrative, which divides-and-conquers the Disempowered – i.e. on the one hand, there’s the unemployed-Disempowered and, on the other, there’s the low-paid-Disempowered who, often, particularly vilify those on the dole because, despite economically-contributing, they’re also downtrodden and yet, not only don’t receive much assistance, have tax taken to pay for others’ benefits.
Also, ‘The Reform’ pre-empts mental-illness, crime (including domestic-violence) etc.
In addition, while, ideally. the economy should be ‘exclusively efficiently producing the goods & services we want’ such as food, housing, education, healthcare, technology and entertainment – i.e. it should be a ‘tsunamic economy’ (see Coopetism 5.11) where all are pushing in the same productive direction – due to SIS and UMHoW, it’s 90% a ‘tug-of-war economy’.
In the ‘tug-of-war economy’, economic-entities pull against one another without producing any goods & services we want, which is worse-than-useless because it still contributes to natural-environment damage whose direct- and symptom-addressing is also part of the ‘tug-of-war economy’.
Hence, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ automatically reorients the economy (including lowering taxes) to an exclusively ‘tsunamic’ one in which, instead of the current GDP-to-USI Ratio being just 5, it increases to about 50, which more appropriately reflects our, since the 1760’s Industrial Revolution, 10,000+ fold potential productivity increase.
Thus, instead of Australia’s economy being, for example, 8% of China’s, it will be 80%.
Regarding controlling inflation, it will be child’s play because unemployment (‘those who want paid-work at the going-wage-rate but can’t find it’) will be perpetually zero – those fixated on the NAIRU (Non-Accelerating-Inflation-Rate-of-Unemployment) usually don’t understand that:
- It’s different for every UMHoW rate
- If there’s no UMHoW, there’s no unemployment and, therefore, NAIRU doesn’t apply.
Meanwhile, to our knowledge, globally, no political party has yet adopted ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.
The Coopetysm Party
We need the Coopetysm policy; we don’t necessarily need Coopetysm Parties.
While, in theory, The Coopetysm Party isn’t needed and is only a potential vehicle for achieving Coopetysm, given The USI’s evolution is blocked and, therefore, citizens must be educated of, in general, the Coopetysm narrative and, specifically, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, The Party is likely necessary for expediting it (if not, in practice, necessary per se).
That is, The Coopetysm Party’s existence would catalyse citizen discussion, media interest and the uptake of the Coopetysm narrative and policies by other parties.
Another advantage of having The Coopetysm Party is it’s explicitly definitively confined to standing for Coopetition-catalysing governance, which means, with the personal ambitions of its politicians subordinated to Coopetysm, it can be expected to stay the course.
In comparison, most political parties have a wishy-washy foundation such that, with time, they often become unrecognisable (including via being corrupted), which means they may flirt with Coopetysm then disappoint.
Wrap-Up
Due to the commonality of our humanness, all countries share the same Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural]-Government-budget (SEE-in-G) problems, which means:
- Coopetysm – Civilisationism – must become a global movement
- The CDO will assist anywhere.
Regarding ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, it’s a single optimal infrastructure, which, solving our Big Picture problems, automatically clears away all the current failing manualised income-associated Band-Aiding.
Why not make it easy on ourselves?
…
Best regards
Paul Ross
Founder & CEO
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)