There is a limited supply of (valuable) money, commodities, etc. in this world, and most of it is concentrated among wealthy nations, corporations, and billionaire individuals who often do not work as long or hard as people in poorer regions or nations. If “trickle-down economics” works (as Republicans in the US often claim), why are there poor people and nations in the world? Wealthy people can’t be counted on to reliably share their wealth or help others.
(As yet another Star Trek TV series is soon to be released) The most interesting thing to me about Star Trek is that it seems to try to show how liberal Americans want the future to be. Though civilians are shown occasionally, the overwhelming focus is on Star Fleet and themes like:
- a single, globalizing/universalizing, hierarchical, US/UN-type federal government that seeks to run everything in the universe with positivist science and a defensive-only military
- leaders should have arrogant, extroverted, emotional, and self-indulgent alpha personalities, and people should either replace them or follow them obediently
- socialism of most things, eliminating large corporations and money, but allowing small companies (e.g., Quark’s casino in DS9) and trading of commodities (e.g., latinum, dilithium, antiques, etc.)
- technophilia and hedonism in many forms
- politically correct inclusion of 1-2 members of many ethnicities, genders, and species, though most humans are either Caucasians, African Americans, or East Asians
- positivistic scientism and English in public (emphasizing math, engineering, chemistry, biology, etc.), and pushing most social science and humanities topics to people’s off-duty hours or private quarters
Here are several infrastructual things that South Asian countries often seem to do better than the US:
- the existence of low-cost or free state-run hospitals, in addition to more expensive private hospitals
- low prices on basic-needs products (staple foods, utilities, etc.), because of controls by the government
- state-run trains that are cheap and go to every major city
- the use of international standards (metric, ISO, international voltages and plugs support, etc.)
- greater variety of products imported from foreign countries
- using the most cost-efficient technology that will do the job by default, not requiring people to pay for luxuries
- not adding large corporate or government bureaucracy, litigation, and surveillance to every little thing
- a preference for traditional cultures that do things in natural, local, eco-friendly ways (e.g., eating fresh food, using biofuels, minimizing electricity use, using natural building materials, planting lots of trees or living in a forest, etc.)
- a preference for smaller, more energy efficient and easy-to-fix vehicles (bikes, scooters, motorcycles, tuk tuks, etc.)
- commonsense safety or sanitation precautions (e.g., having switches on power outlets, not building electrical wires into walls, using natural gas in canisters and stoves that are stored outside, running rain gutters under sidewalks and making sidewalks out of stone or metal panels that can be lifted, etc.)
Here are three things, related to reconciliation and reparations, I wish the US would do:
- Give Native American nations some percentage of the land, of their choosing and under their administration, in every county of the US where they have historically lived, so that they are no longer confined to marginalized/poor reservations and can regain all of their ancestral lands to some degree.
- Create a federal Department of Slavery Reparations, which would have these five mandates:
- Work with the IRS and historians to tax white people whose ancestors held slaves, and either give the money directly to poor black people whose ancestors were slaves or make public colleges in the US free for such black people.
- Offer free historical family investigations, done by PhD historians and geneticists, to black people whose ancestors were slaves, going back to the tribe/village in Africa from which they were taken.
- Fund numerous community development and job-placement programs in majority black neighborhoods across the US, organized and led by African Americans.
- Create minimum quotas for African American inclusion/hiring in every American company and at every American mass media network/studio (every movie, TV show, etc.).
- Work in similar ways to repair the effects of other types of historical and modern slavery/trafficking in the US (e.g., indentured servitude, sex slavery, etc.).
- Coordinate with African governments and companies to allow African Americans to take free flights to/from Africa and to find housing, insurance, and decently paid public-service work in Africa, both to re-connect with the homeland from which they were stolen and to help all Africans lift themselves up from the colonialistic legacies that have weighed them down for so long.
Disclosure: In the 1700-1800s, some of my ancestors had a few (maybe 10) African slaves, and my ancestors settled on lands that were taken from Native Americans. Of these things, I am not proud.
How might life be, if governments were not monopolistic within their territories, for example, if several federal governments (e.g., one run by democrats, one by republicans, one by environmentalists, etc.) competed to offer laws and services to a country, and citizens could subscribe to only one government at a time? I wonder if this freedom would cause people to fight less with each other.
- People within the same territory could pay fewer taxes for fewer benefits, or more taxes for more benefits. There probably would need to be a base level of oversight and taxation (i.e., a very small unifying federal government) that all governments require (e.g., for military defense of the homeland), but I can imagine many competing governments with differing cultures or philosophies catering to people with those cultures or philosophies: the various ethnic groups, religions, etc. that are most common in the US. Perhaps people’s ID cards could be used to access benefits offered by the government to which they subscribe.
- There could be several US presidents, possibly a committee, and elections could end at the primaries.
- People could be free to live under the kind of government they prefer all the time, not just every four or eight years (or never), and people could actually live under the rules of the smaller parties that currently never win elections.
- There might be several legal and penal systems that sometimes need arbitration. For example, if Muslims were allowed to wear full-face burqas in public by the democrat government but were prohibited from it by the republican government, and a democrat Muslim wore a burqa in a republican-majority area, how would that be handled?
- This model might also show people very clearly and quickly the consequences of different forms of government.
As I understand, there is an interesting packaging that happens with voter registration, because some states use it as well as other databases (e.g., the driver’s license databases), as a pool for the jury duty lottery. So, by registering to vote (and presumably voting), one is expressing a willingness to accept both whatever bad things one’s chosen presidential candidate might do in office as well as the damage of participating in judging and hurting people in a courtroom setting. And, if one doesn’t vote, such as out of protest, it is like accepting that the worst candidate might be elected because you did not support a better candidate who had a chance of winning. It’s an inescapable package of personal karmic sacrifice for society. (see also my Q&A on karma)
In my opinion, there should be much lower legal or practical limits on how wealthy an individual or a corporation can become. Billionaires and large corporations just gobble up, and decide the fate of, most everything they encounter. Only they can often manage/afford representation on government committees. Only they can hire as many lawyers as necessary, and appeal for as long as necessary, to win any battle. Only they can afford to hire the most popular artists and constantly saturate the world with their marketing campaigns. Only they know that they will always have enough customers and employees, such that they can have exploitative internal policies and rude external customer service without consequences.
Why does a person need more than maybe a million dollars of savings (i.e., enough to have a middle-class family, house, car, health insurance, retirement, etc.), or a large corporation more than maybe a billion (i.e., enough to provide their service at a high quality to a large region)? Why do wealthier people get to act like monarchs/dictators and decide the fates of poorer people? Did they really earn their wealth fairly — through a daily workplace grind, like most people — or are they being rewarded for out-thinking, out-maneuvering, or being willing to do more unethical things than others? How many local people’s lives would have been enriched, how many local companies and jobs would have been created, if a large corporation’s store(s) had been required to close early, because they had reached their sales limit for that day?