Only it can eradicate all systemic disempowerment.
…
“I’m now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective
– the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
…
October 22, 2023 [8 Days post-referendum]
Hello
While the following relates to an Australian conundrum, its solution is relevant to every nation, every government and every citizenry because it relates to optimising government Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) infrastructure.
‘The Voice’ Referendum Background
To our international readers, Australia has just had a referendum on a constitutional ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’, which was rejected.
The motivation for the referendum was two-fold:
- Constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians; and,
- ‘The Voice’ as a hypothesised means for closing the large gap in life-indicators between Australia’s indigenous (3.8% of the population) – who, especially in the outback, are comparatively disempowered – and non-indigenous Australians.
Regarding both recognition and ‘Closing the (disempowerment) Gap’, it has overwhelming support; however, ‘The Voice’ model drew less than 40% of the vote.
Analysing the vote, with the affluent, powerful and clustered (i.e. in the inner city) predominantly voting ‘yes’, one factor why ‘The Voice’ wasn’t carried is many of the non-indigenous disempowered thought along the lines of: ‘While I want the best for our indigenous, what about me, my family and my local community? After all, won’t more for them mean even less for us?’
Regarding the referendum process, as a negative, it has provoked division, which is adding to tensions from our other exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) challenges such as the cost-of-living crunch, increasing global instability and energy-source disagreements.
This division is particularly recriminative amongst indigenous Australians who are split as pro-Voice and anti-Voice (a significant minority) with many of the former so devastated their leaders called for a “week of silence” to mourn and reflect. [Note: While the CDO, cognisant unnecessary-suffering is building as it is continuing, feels moments shouldn’t be lost, out of respect for these leaders and recognising many are hurting from the referendum (plus that ‘time-outs’ can, ultimately, be productive), it has respected this call.]
On the other hand, as a potential great positive, the referendum has focused attention on indigenous disempowerment; however, our leaders are clueless on how to achieve it [not a criticism provided they’re of goodwill, open to ideas, humble and courageous] – certainly, there’s no consensus – and, still, the only offering is localised Band-Aiding.
This article outlines a potential infrastructural way forward.
It begins with the question:
Holistically – i.e. in terms of all citizens – is ‘Closing the Gap’ between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians optimally ambitious?
Indigenous/Non-Indigenous Disempowerment Scenarios
Let’s assume Australia’s disempowered consist of:
- 40% of its indigenous
- 20% of its non-indigenous.
‘Successfully’ ‘Closing the Gap’ could translate to a range of scenarios of which 4 follow.
First, indigenous & non-indigenous disempowerment could both become 20% disempowered, which is better but, with millions of citizens still unnecessarily-suffering, not great.
Second, indigenous disempowerment could decrease to 30% and non-indigenous disempowerment rise to 30%.
Note: A scenario like this can occur if the methods for decreasing indigenous disempowerment are inefficient – i.e. via Band-Aiding.
That is, Band-Aiding adds to Econo- inefficiency via distortions of which examples include:
- Direct-distortion – ‘positive’ discrimination regulation
- Indirect-distortion – financing it via increased tax and/or decreased services.
Note: in the case of increased business regulation/tax, this reduces their profit, which lowers government tax-revenue, which adds to ‘government-budget-pressure’. [Note: ‘government-budget-pressure’ is a key component of this article’s analysis.]
Third, an unambiguously dystopian example includes policies which result in both indigenous and non-indigenous citizen disempowerment increasing above 40%, which, for example, may occur on a descent into war.
Fourth, there is the Socio- ‘utopia’ of Universal Empowerment – i.e. decreasing both indigenous and non-indigenous disempowerment to 0% …
A Government’s Mission Statement
A ‘national-vision’:
‘sustainable stability-prosperity optimisation’.
A ‘government-mission’:
‘Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) optimisation’.
That is, the national-vision is achieved via the government infrastructurally optimising the 4 components:
- The Socio- of Empowerment (i.e. minimising disempowerment)
- The Econo- of Efficiency (i.e. minimising inefficiency)
- The International Enviro- of Democracy (i.e. minimising authoritarianism)
- The Natural Enviro- of Sustainability (i.e. minimising ruination).
Note:
- All 4 SEE-in components are interdependent. For example, an inefficient economy catalyses disempowerment, authoritarianism and ecosystem ruination.
- Of the 4 SEE-in components, because a nation is ‘of its citizens and for its citizens’, the Socio- infrastructure is supreme – i.e. if the Socio- infrastructure is optimal then citizens will automatically prioritise optimising the other 3.
Regarding a government’s SEE-in infrastructure success/failure, it’s displayed via the ‘bottom-line’ of the government-budget such that the first question need only be, “Is the government-budget under pressure?”
The Government-Budget-Pressure Bottom-Line
Government-budget-pressure – whether in the form of a budget-deficit and/or demands to increase services – signifies suboptimal SEE-in infrastructure.
And, regarding government-budget-pressure, isn’t every ‘First World’ country suffering it?
Government-budget-pressure is circularly diabolical because it encourages tax increases and/or even less services, which both catalyse more government-budget-pressure.
Regarding ‘The Voice’ referendum, while neither the ‘Yes’ nor ‘No’ campaign addressed ‘the how’ of funding, as well as needing to ‘Close the Gap’, Australia also needs to finance the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and, lest those become irrelevant, noting the warzone maxim “By the time you’re sure there’s a problem, it’s already too late”, get ourselves battle-prepared. [Ref: The Universalist 15 – Universally Eradicating Xi]
So, with all countries having suboptimal infrastructure yet a country’s government-systems exclusively under its (and its citizens’) control, our priority should be optimising our governance-model.
But which infrastructure is problematic or lacking?
That is, government-budget-pressure is a blunt indicator such that, while its presence illustrates there are suboptimal system/s, it doesn’t detail what is wrong.
Fortunately, a clue sticks-out – i.e. income-Welfare.
The Income-Welfare Abyss
Total income-Welfare (both federal & state expenditure and including proxies such as social-housing for the able) amounts to over 10% of the total Australian economy (i.e. it’s greater than health, education and defence combined) yet, because there’s still poverty, there’s still pressure for more – for example, the ‘Raise the Rate’ campaign.
Yet, due to income-Welfare, we also have the ‘dole-bludger’ narrative.
So, our ridiculous system creates the contradiction, which is mirrored as societal division, of ‘Raise the Rate for dole-bludgers’.
[Note: regarding ‘The Voice’ referendum rejection, some believe it’s partially due to racism; however, to the extent that’s true, that racism is itself mostly based in what may be termed, ‘Incomism’, which is ‘dole bludger’ narrative derived – i.e. unlike, for instance, East Asian Australians, indigenous Australians are more likely to be unemployed than non-indigenous Australians.]
The income-Welfare abyss is a symptom of a missing Socio- infrastructure.
The Socio- ‘Utopia’: Completing Our Citizen Empowerment Infrastructure (CEI)
Optimal Socio- infrastructure is synonymous with ‘Citizen Empowerment Infrastructure’ (CEI), which consists of 5 RIDEH cornerstones:
- [R] Universal Rule of Personal & Property Security Law
- [I] Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
- [D] Universal Liberal Democracy
- [E] Universal Education
- [H] Universal Healthcare.
While none of this has been a narrative, most First World countries have evolved such that they possess R, D, E & H with The United States of America the notable exception as it doesn’t possess H.
However, regarding The USI, which, conspicuously, is also the direct antidote to the income-Welfare abyss, no First World country yet possesses it.
Furthermore, The USI is Martin Luther King’s ‘direct’ solution to poverty – i.e.:
“I’m now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective
– the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure:
the guaranteed income.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Meanwhile, 260 years and 10,000-fold Science-&-Technology productivity gains since the potential (via machines) subsistence-transcendence-event known as the Industrial Revolution, The USI-absence spawns Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) – i.e. most citizens are still subservient to obtaining a subsistence-income for themselves and their family.
The USI-Absence’s Offspring: Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS)
With The USI-absence procreating Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), in turn, SIS led to such multi-generational giant-‘Band-Aid’ travesties as:
- Marx creating Communism – i.e. notwithstanding slavery, without SIS/poverty, there can be no paid-worker-exploitation
- The global population explosion as, in the Developing World, poverty means children are needed as captive cheap labour and old-age carers
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW), which, though supposed to decrease poverty, manufactures unemployment/underemployment.
Regarding UMHoW, as well as creating unemployment, it also dampens business-profit and both unemployment and reduced-profit increase government-budget-pressure.
Regarding further UMHoW-related wastage, consider our tens-of-thousands of highly-talented and educated economists who fixate over something – i.e. unemployment – which without UMHoW wouldn’t exist. Politicians, lawyers, accountants, HR professionals etc. are also sucked into this mess.
That is, ideally, the Econo- is for ‘exclusively efficiently producing and distributing the goods and services we need/desire, which we cannot or don’t wish to produce ourselves’ – i.e. jobs shouldn’t be an end but a means – yet ‘creating jobs’ is a global obsession.
Meanwhile, in modern First World nations, Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) and its UMHoW offspring are the source of virtually all disempowerment (including, in Australia, indigenous disempowerment) – i.e. they’re the source of poverty, unemployment and, in general, most stress.
Moreover, poverty, unemployment and stress detract from the other 4 CEI cornerstones – i.e.: they lead to more
- [R] Crime
- [D] Disrespect for Democratic governance
- [E] Distractions from children’s education
- [H] Unhappiness and escapism, which leads to health problems.
The management of these Socio- problems is overwhelming – The Productivity Commission says mental-illness alone costs Australia over $250 billion per year, which is also more than 10% of the economy.
Also, due to poverty, we have tax deductions for both charities so they can help the poor and for superannuation so individuals can avoid being old & poor, which means more government-budget-pressure.
Meanwhile, such Socio- problems tsunami back-and-forth in-and-amongst all our Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) components – for instance, due to our Socio- problems, Authoritarians can, simultaneously, ridicule Democracy and gain traction with their citizens.
Moreover, the double-wastage of using resources to create problems then using more resources to manage them adds to natural-environment ruination.
In sum, The USI-absence creates an illegitimacy – we feel it and others see it.
Thus, the solution to infrastructural disempowerment (including ‘Closing the Gap’) is ‘The USI-Reform’.
‘The USI-Reform’
‘The USI-Reform’ substitutes The USI for:
- Income-Welfare
- Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW).
In this way, it immediately directly eradicates:
- The income-Welfare abyss
- Unemployment
- Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).
Thus, it does everything from clearing the decks on poverty, unemployment & paid-worker exploitation to re-ballasting the economy’s efficiency to dissuading & undercutting dictators to stabilising our interaction with nature to eradicating government-budget-pressure.
And, with The USI travelling with the individual, it gives mobility and maximises the ‘Agency of Choice’, which, for example, social-housing doesn’t.
Accordingly, ‘The USI-Reform’ promotes everything from a dynamic economy (including increased domestic tourism – i.e. The USI is suspended if one is overseas (or in jail)) and safety from domestic-violence – i.e. if a person can escape the house, they can travel anywhere nationally accompanied by a Subsistence-Income.
Regarding an indigenous person in an outback town, if they wish to go somewhere else to, for example, find paid-work, they are likewise supported.
So, what’s the downside – i.e. is there any reason someone from either the referendum’s ‘yes’ side or ‘no’-side could decide, I can’t support it?
Common Objections
First, there is UMHoW-sentimentality – i.e. ‘it was hard fought and hard won’ – however, rather than being lost, it’s traded-in for something better.
The full-time minimum-wage is about $40,000 (after tax) per year and, with ‘The USI-Reform’, this won’t fall, on the contrary, due to the wider efficiency gains, it will very likely be bid up.
And, added to one’s wage will be The USI – say $22,000 a year – plus one’s partner and adult children will receive it.
Other objections include:
- “It’s something for nothing”; however, The USI is justifiable as an Industrial Revolution inheritance and all inheritance is ‘something for nothing’ yet we inherit almost everything including our lives, the Earth, our upbringing, our national-infrastructure, our history, our science etc.
- “The rich shouldn’t get it”; however, with ‘sustainable-stability-prosperity optimisation’ such concerns will be transcended – besides, increasing, for example, the GST by just 0.2% will compensate it
- “No one will want to do paid-work”; people will want more than $22,000 a year and unlike the present ‘gain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare’ system, there’s no penalty because The USI isn’t lost as a result of gaining other income
- “We can’t afford it”; this should make the oceans drip from our planet as tears because, on the contrary, as has been shown, the price we are paying for not having it is what’s unaffordable.
Lastly, because the idea’s new, understanding its implications requires reasoning (including imagining) – i.e. as in playing Chess, attempting to see multiple moves ahead is challenging.
Conclusion
Optimising our Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) infrastructure will eradicate systemic disempowerment including eradicating systemic indigenous-disempowerment.
And, optimising our infrastructure requires ‘The USI-Reform’.
Once implemented, it’s benefits are automatic, which means it’s easier than manually trying to find ‘Close the Gap’ Band-Aids for each specific indigenous-only community and situation.
Moreover, rather than being ‘government-budget-pressure’ painful, ‘The USI-Reform’ is pleasurable – i.e. rather than being an ongoing sunk-cost, it’s an investment, which, like the other 4 CEI cornerstones (such as Universal Education), makes us more prosperous.
That is, via the ‘something for nothing’ of efficiency gains, ‘The USI-Reform’ assists in achieving the ‘sustainable stability-prosperity optimisation’ vision.
So, given no other comprehensive solutional candidate is being offered yet our SEE-in outcomes are decaying to the point many sense, rather than incrementally (or exponentially) worsening, something is about to break, is it wise to continue trying every ‘scenic’ unnecessary-suffering-catalysing Band-Aid in the box or can we publicly-consider ‘The USI-Reform’?
Initiating a discussion only requires someone (somewhere) with a public platform – i.e. a journalist, a politician, a business-person, a trade-unionist, a social-service leader, a public-servant, an eminent person etc. – to publicly say something along the lines of “What do you reckon about substituting ‘The UBI’ for legislated minimum-wages?”
The single (yet temporary) silver-lining to our extraordinary problems is there’s an opportunity for transcendent change, which may, if not too late, pre-empt our society’s collapse.
Thank you.
Best regards
Paul Ross
The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)