The Civilist 4.11 – A 1st-Principles-Mindful-Media: A Universal Letter to Stan Grant

Our current-affairs-media’s choice: continue amplifying our suboptimally civilising infrastructure or help fix it.

Context

Hello:

Stan Grant is a famous (in Australia) journalist of indigenous heritage who hosts one of the national broadcaster’s marquee programs: Q&A.  Recently, citing “relentless (online) racial filth”, he has ‘taken a break’ and issued the media the following challenge:

“We in the media must ask if we are truly honouring a world worth living in? Too often we are the poison in the bloodstream of our society. I fear the media does not have the love or the language to speak to the gentle spirits of our land,” he said.

“I’m not walking away for a while because of racism. We get that far too often. I’m not walking away because of social media hatred. I need a break from the media. I feel like I’m part of the problem and I need to ask myself how or if we can do it better.”

…

June 12, 2023

Dear Stan

Thank you for linking the issues of racism, the media, society and personal-reflection such as to precipitate an important debate around the current-affairs-media’s role.

Regarding the media, while also possessing an entertainment aspect, isn’t its most crucial role to search for, detail and disseminate the truth?

Accordingly, the CDO believes it’s the key to humanity quickly achieving its destiny – i.e.:

‘The End of History Model’ of fully-civilised government infrastructure.

However, with the media a subset of our community, it’s caught in the same Catch-22 as the rest of us – i.e. our mentalities are a result of (and, therefore, largely restricted by) our current suboptimal systems.

[Regarding being affected by systems, it’s self-evident that depending on if one is brought-up in contemporary (let alone historical) China, Saudi Arabia, North Sentinel Island or Australia then the person will be different.]

In order to transcend this Catch-22, the only solution is to use the, perhaps, uniquely human capacity to conceptualise – i.e. conceptualise a better (yet nature-consistent) reality then implement it.

And, the current-affairs-media will catalyse such a conceptualisation if it’s mindful of ‘first principles’.

1st-Principles: The ‘Close the Gap’ Example

Regarding ‘Closing the Gap’, is this really exactly what we want?

For instance, assuming say 20% of non-indigenous are Disempowered and 40% of indigenous are Disempowered then, to ‘Close the Gap’, one solution is to take the lowest common denominator and make 40% of the non-indigenous population also Disempowered.

And, if that’s a silly example, even if we make both non-indigenous and indigenous Disempowered 20%, is that optimally-civilised?

It turns out, the easiest most prosperity-catalysing solution is to implement Universal Empowerment Infrastructure (UEI) such that infrastructuralised citizen Disempowerment is 0% across-the-board.

However, this is a holistic top-down solution and ‘Closing the Gap’s’ implicitly racial ‘us and them’ focus implies bottom-up ‘local solutions’, which segues into the next first-principles consideration …

First-Principles: The Employment Example

Infrastructuralised snobbery:

‘Our most insidiously destructive prejudice is not the snobbery and incivility of racism, sexism, disablism or ageism etc. but Incomism because that’s infrastructurally catalysing the others’ – for example, it catalyses the racist notion of ‘outback indigenous dole-bludgers’.

Stan, with employment (and, ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs’) one of our highest profile topics (if not the national mission), have you ever heard a current-affairs presenter or read a print-journalist give a definition of unemployment?

For the record, it is:

‘those who want paid-work at the going-wage-rate but can’t find paid-work’.

Given its relevance (and simplicity), perhaps you agree it should be common knowledge yet even many labour-economists, if put on the spot, will struggle to recall it.

Meanwhile, regarding the media’s employment-policy ‘analysis’, without this definition anchoring it, it has devolved into the Groundhog Day focus on personalities, Band-Aiding and politicking.

There’s also an attitude that media consumers are stupid so, therefore, everything needs to be ‘dumbed-down’; the CDO believes people having tremendous potential (the evidence includes the all but universal ability to learn to read and write); however, the media’s lack of analytical rigour and failure to encourage intellectual-aspiration is resulting in massive ubiquitous mind-atrophy, which, ironically, like dictators surrounded by ‘yes-sir’-acolytes, is coming full-circle such that it’s also afflicting journalists.

Amongst other things, this is damaging our democracies – i.e. how can citizens vote optimally if they’re uneducated on the issues?

Returning to the unemployment definition, if the media just occasionally mentions it, it’ll soon be universally known – on TV, one option is to intermittently detail it at the bottom of the screen as is done for guest’s names.

Then, with the unemployment definition in-minds, people would likely ask, how is the ‘going-wage-rate’ determined?

Answer: in a free labour-market, it is determined by the equilibrium of:

  1. Supply – i.e. the number of labour-hours willing to be supplied by potential employees, which will normally increase as the wage increases [If someone doesn’t have a job yet isn’t looking for one then they are neither employed nor unemployed]
  2. Demand – i.e. the number of labour-hours demanded by employers (business, government and Not-For-Profits), which will normally increase as the wage decreases.

Thus, in a free labour-market, there is a convergence to a supply/demand equilibrium wage, which will be the ‘going-wage-rate’. 

At equilibrium, there is no unemployment or underemployment.  [By the way, AI won’t change the convergence to an equilibrium-wage – though it will affect (perhaps, counterintuitively, increase) the equilibrium-wage amount.]

Despite this (and astonishingly), our economics orthodoxy is Schizonomics in which economists profess that full-employment equals 2-4% unemployment – no, full-employment equals zero-unemployment.

The media should shine a light on this.

Furthermore, unemployment/underemployment is naturally zero such that it shouldn’t even be a concept.

This startles most people; however, while it may not be immediately self-evident, it flows directly from the unemployment definition.

Next, people will likely ask, if unemployment/underemployment is naturally zero, why do we always have it?

Answer: because the labour-market isn’t free.

In particular, there is Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW) – not to be confused with minimum-wages determined between unions and individual firms.

UMHoW puts a lower limit on the ‘going-wage-rate’, which prevents equilibrium because it artificially:

  1. Increases labour-supply
  2. Decreases labour-demand.

In Australia, on July 1, UMHoW will be raised to $23.23 per hour, which means for citizens whose labour has a market-worth of less (such as many outback indigenous), since it’s unfinancial for employers to employ them, they will mostly be confined to being ‘dole-bludgers’.

These are all facts; and, if that’s disputed then that can also be discussed.

Accordingly, we’ve designed a ‘Gap’-creating system that infrastructurally makes the rest of us cowards, bullies and thugs – i.e. it artificially creates Disempowerment and then while the Disempowered are down we perpetually boot them in the head screaming, “WE’RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER SO GET A BLOODY JOB”!

That’s not civilised – that’s cruel – and that’s our suboptimal infrastructure projecting through our mentalities such that there is infrastructuralised snobbery – i.e. the notion one’s identity outshines another’s.

Obviously, the media is perfectly placed to open this discussion as it is with all discussions.

By the way, with ‘The Gap’ a Disempowerment problem that’s been misconstrued as a racial problem, the ‘Close the Gap’ solution is ‘The USI-Reform’ [please see ‘The Civilisationist 4.7’], which substitutes The Universal Subsistence Income (USI) for:

  1. UMHoW
  2. Targeted-income-Welfare.

‘The USI-Reform’ transcends the ‘dole-bludger’ narrative – i.e. everybody receives it – which will de-infrastructuralise all forms of snobbery including racism.

And, as well as delivering Universal Empowerment, ‘The USI-Reform’ also eradicates government-budget-pressure – i.e.:

  1. Tax-revenues surge because business is significantly regulatorily unleashed and there is full-employment
  2. Government-expenditure decreases as non-USI outlays plummet due to savings on health (including mental-health), crime, escapism, bureaucracy etc.

[Note: The Productivity Commission seems to think ‘The USI-Reform’ has merit – i.e. they placed CDO submissions 1st on their 2022 Housing and Homelessness Agreement Review and 2nd (‘The Coopetitionist 3.8’) on their 2023 5-Year Productivity Inquiry Report.]

So, what’s the objection to ‘The USI-Reform’?

Answer: citizens have been mind-washed into the ‘something for nothing’ objection.

1st-Principles: The ‘Something for Nothing’ Objection

Citizens – both Left & Right – are almost universally horrified at the thought of another citizen receiving ‘something for nothing’ because they think that means their taxes are being ‘ripped-off’.

However, this is largely because they haven’t contextualised:

  1. All inheritance is ‘something for nothing’
  2. We inherit almost everything – i.e. our very lives, our upbringing, our national-infrastructure, our history, our science etc. etc.

And, regarding The USI, in addition to its efficiency gains, which are akin to Universal Education’s, it is an Industrial Revolution inheritance.

That is, c/- of machines, the Industrial Revolution was a potential subsistence-transcendence event.

Also, regarding the concern that some won’t get out of bed for months and, when finally bored of that, will go surfing for a year, if one or two do that then it’ll be less than the 3 or 4 doing it now.  Besides, compared to the planet wrecking rest of us, they’ll have a very low carbon footprint.

First-Principles: The Left/Right Example

At their purest, the Left are ‘The Champions of Cooperation’

and

the Right are ‘The Champions of Competition’,

which has its optimally civilised configuration as:

‘Coopetition’.

[Coopetition: ‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second’.]

Cooperation and Competition are both essential yet, when not Coopetively configured, there’s disaster.

Consider our post-Industrial Revolution history’s progression toward the 5 Citizen Coopetising Infrastructure (CCI) RIDEH cornerstones of:

  1. [R] Universal Rule of Personal & Property Security Law
  2. [I] Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
  3. [D] Universal Liberal Democracy
  4. [E] Universal Education
  5. [H] Universal Healthcare.

With the exception of the 2nd, the Left advocated for them and the Right resisted; however, once implemented, they became bipartisan and the Right contributed via adding Competitive nuance.

This leads to 2 questions:

  1. Why, regarding The USI, has the Left forsaken its universal maxim – i.e. while The USI is universal across all adult-citizens, UMHoW is only pseudo-universal and, in conjunction with targeted-income-Welfare, it’s a Band-Aid for The USI absence?
  2. Why can’t The Right learn that Competition is best served when it is couched within Cooperation – i.e. as in sport or Democracy in which the rules are first agreed before Competition begins?

Stan, isn’t this something that could be discussed on Q&A? 

Also, how about a program on possible religion-correlating secular morality systems?  Hopefully, Coopetition could be included.

1st-Principles: The Infrastructural Equality Example

Stan, you may agree, historically (via Christianity), there emerged an implicit ambition for infrastructuralised-equality?

Certainly, in the West, we’ve almost achieved it – i.e. 4 out of 5 of the Citizen-Coopetising-RIDEH-cornerstones are implemented.  [The notable exception is the United States of America, which doesn’t have the Universal Healthcare 5th.]

So, why aren’t we finishing the job – via implementing ‘The USI-Reform’ – especially when it will add to our prosperity (please see, ‘The Civilisationist 4.10’).

In short, ‘The USI-Reform’ eradicates Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), which consists of:

  1. Poverty’s direct suffering – for example, hunger & homelessness
  2. Poverty’s indirect ‘Coercion of Choice’, which contradicts the social-services’ goal of, ‘Agency of Choice’ – examples include:
    1. A female-citizen feeling forced to remain in an abusive relationship
    1. An indigenous-citizen preferring prison to ‘freedom’
    1. Citizens forced to prioritise obtaining a Subsistence-Income – an inefficiency akin to all being forced to construct their own home – which means many cannot optimise their ‘socially-contributive self-actualisation’ whether as a home-manager (including nurturing the future – i.e. child-rearing), researcher, philosopher, scientist, sportsperson, artist, community-volunteer, entrepreneur (particularly starting-out) etc.

Certainly, in a modern economy, full-civilisation is incompatible with Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).

‘The USI-Reform’ also eradicates UMHoW/unemployment’s ‘Coercion of Choice’ – i.e. first, all citizens can find paid-work yet, second, though most will need to live minimally, aren’t compelled into it.

In addition, it addresses our exponentiating Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) ‘diao’ catastrophes comprising:

  1. [D] Socio- Disempowerment – i.e. poverty, homelessness, mental-illness, escapism (such as alcohol & other drug abuse and suicide), crime (including domestic-violence) etc.
  2. [I] Econo- Inefficiency – i.e. first, not ‘exclusively producing and delivering the goods & services we need/desire’ and, secondly, unemployment, inflation, excessive-tax etc.
  3. [A] International-Enviro- Authoritarianism – for example, conflict with Xi and Putin
  4. [O] Natural-Enviro- Obliteration – i.e. ecosystem destruction, species extinction, human population growth, plastics in our waterways, climate change, etc.

[Note: due to The USI-absent economy’s inefficiency, The USI is around 1/5th of the economy – i.e. around $400 billion of a $2 trillion total – however, once implemented, the economy will surge such that The USI will reduce to just 1/25th and then even less.]

Lastly, as mentioned, ‘The USI-Reform’ relieves government budget pressure.

Yet, we seem to have given-up on achieving infrastructuralised-equality; instead, we’re concentrating on inequality-compensations (i.e. Band-Aiding) such as ‘Raise the Rate’.

Regarding critiquing the various policies and holding their champions to account, ideally, shouldn’t the media do this according to analysing their direct and indirect effects on the SEE-In + government-budget-pressure outcomes?

First-Principles: The Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT) Example

The hype associated with Science & Technology doesn’t add-up – for example, we know nuclear, biological and AI technologies are only beneficial if the Human-Organisation is appropriate.

For instance, they’re hardly beneficial if they’re in the hands of Kim Jong Un.

Regarding government Human-Organisation infrastructure, since the Industrial Revolution, we’ve cobbled together ideas and systems, which have never been overarchingly reevaluated.

Thus, we need a single general contextualised narrative that, via government, correlates:

  1. Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT) efficiency; and,
  2. Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) civilised outcomes.
1st-Principles: The Inflation & Productivity Examples

Currently, in Australia, there is much media commentary regarding:

  1. Inflation
  2. Poor productivity.

‘The USI-Reform’, in addition to solving the unemployment problem, also solves both these because they are both symptoms of an economy, which, because of The USI absence, is not ‘exclusively efficiently empoweringly producing and distributing the goods & services, which citizens need/desire’.

Regarding inflation, first, with The USI, the Covid stimulus wouldn’t have been necessary – i.e. citizens would have survived the lockdowns better and businesses would have adjusted better if there had just been The USI.

Second, while it may be hard to imagine, there wouldn’t have been the Ukraine War:

  1. The West would have been vastly more prosperous (including without poverty or unemployment), which means vastly more intimidating
  2. If Ukraine had it then it would have been more intimidating
  3. If Russia had it then how would it get its fighters – i.e. zero poverty and zero unemployment means low-attraction to an immoral armed-forces, mercenaries would be far fewer, low-crime means fewer prisoners to offer pardons and, without Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), citizens can more readily protest and organise resistance?

Third, in Australia, one reason for inflation was the intent to stimulate the economy so as to achieve Schizonomics-full-employment.

Fourth, with The USI, there’s no ‘wage-price spiral’ – i.e. if there is inflation, instead of pressure to raise UMHoW and other wages, The USI automatically rises yet it is not a wage – i.e. it’s not part of business’ costs.

Even in the case where The USI is a high 1/5th of the economy, if inflation is 7% then a 7% rise in The USI will only contribute around 1.4% to future inflation.

Regarding productivity, ‘The USI-Reform’ will result in productivity growth akin to an old-style Asian Tiger – i.e. at least 10% – which has been explained in other articles such as 4.10.

[Note: unemployment, inflation and a productivity rate that’s inferior to the rate of Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT) innovation are symptoms of our inefficient system, which means, with ‘The USI-Reform’, they won’t exist.]

Conclusion

As far as the CDO is aware, no media company or journalist in the world is addressing or investigating any of the mentioned first-principles.

Yet, if the media considers Coopetition, Coopetism (i.e. fully-Coopetive government infrastructure) and, in particular, ‘The USI-Reform’ then, even if they’re not the solution, the discipline of the analysis will lead to the solution.

Thus, while for now, our media is free, we urgently need it to be analytically earnest.

Our current-affairs-media’s choice is either to continue amplifying our suboptimally civilising infrastructure or help fix it.

Thank you.

Best regards

Paul Ross

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)