The land and means of production ownership question – Part II
April 2, 2018
To evolve from the current system of ownership of land and the means of production to a Threefold system could be imagined to happen in the following way. Let me put my personal circumstances forward as an example. My current situation looks like this. I live on a smallholding that I own. Not far from us people live in squalor with illegal water and power connections. Trading happens there without much tax compliance or enforcement of labour laws and so on. On the other side, there is a large Mall and modern facilities, property rights and compliance with the laws.
Further to this, I own the majority stake in a business that employs 450 people. I have, with a few key people, built significant capital in this business. We have become the leaders in our field. I started with 22 people and one product. We now have many products in a wider field of human needs. Attached to all this, I have the right to the capital, to the properties, to the rules, except for those being added to by the state. I have to pay taxes, comply with labour laws and seek out competitive advantages over our competitors. We pay all sorts of hidden taxes in fuel levies, own security as the state cannot provide security, forced donations to promote the development of only black people if we want to be able to trade with the state. The state is building schools, running schools, building and maintaining roads, doing maintenance, providing power, running our national airline and rail transportation system, and much more.
My future decision making based on current accepted paradigms would be something like this. I would sell my business to a corporate or equity fund who would see what return they could get on the business in the short term, five years or so. I would cash in and invest the money on the Stock Exchange and/or a few rental income properties, and perhaps keep some funds earning interest. I would move to a smaller retirement location and no longer employ domestic workers. The capital that has been built would come to me and I would decide the risk profile behind it. I would live to a budget and on my death, I would leave whatever was left to my children. Sound reasonable? To me and the Threefold Social Order this is like feeding society with an overdose of preservatives and sleeping tablets at the same time.
The above example is how it is. What does the Threefold Social Order suggest we do with this scenario? How do we evolve from this to something else? Why would it be much better?
Firstly we need to be absolutely clear about what capital is and where it comes from. Capital comes about when the humanity (See my definition of humanity.) in us combines with nature to serve the needs of others. We mine, grow, harvest, transport, package goods for the needs of ourselves. Barter was the original means of exchange that developed and led to money coming about. Money is, therefore, the consequence of our humanity working with nature. From this, capital has been built up. There is no other cause of money and capital but nature and the humanity in us working together. This means that the capital that someone builds up is directly related to his humanity. If society needs more capital then, find people with humanity. If I sell my business to people without humanity but with capital, the business will slowly fail. So, I need to have the liberty sphere assist me to find people competent to take over the degree of humanity that I have had, or more. In this way, what was my business, my means of production, will now be allocated to another human being or a couple of them, who pass rigorous humanity tests and tests of skill and experience in the economic field of my business. In this way, the rights sphere can be assured of future tax revenue and the liberty sphere more opportunities for individuals to gain life experience in the economic sphere if this is where they choose to participate. I, as the originator of the capital, would be entitled to some sort of interest on my capital while I live. The new people selected through their competence to guide the means of production on behalf of society would be entitled to the capital appreciation and interest thereon at a later date. No capital appreciation, no material gain. So, I would have something to live off in my retirement, the business and staff would be secure and looked after and new humanity would benefit from doing a solid and holistic job to provide for our needs in this area of the economy.
As regards my home, well, while I am alive, I should be allowed to own my home without fear or favour. The rights sphere would make sure that this was the case and security and policing would work in this regard. I could choose to leave my capital to my children or to the liberty sphere in the form of funding for teacher training or art. The liberty sphere would be promoting that death legacies go to young people with lots of humanity, aspiring young people. The equality sphere would be calling for more death taxes to fund the aged for example. Such discussions would have to happen. It is best for society as a whole that the best humanity get the capital to use to provide for those that do not have the capacity or desire to do this.
As a society, we would be pushing to force the state to have equality as their target without racial preference. Our state is trying to use race to get votes to strengthen their grip on the entire system and make it a unitary state. They have given race preference over humanity and experience in their appointments of people to run the airways, power utility and so on. The means of production have been given to people who are not interested in their humanity but rather in their power and access to capital that they then ruin. Only true humanity can build capital. We would be demanding a judiciary that enforces the laws that are designed to bring about equality. Together with this, we would demand that policing is unambiguously fair, comprehensive and lawful.
The liberty sphere would start to see abnormal personal wealth obtained by imbalances in the three spheres as socially detrimental because manipulation of such imbalances would be seen as a failure of the true humanity of the individuals involved.
The economic sphere would not want to allow excess of any products leading to failure in an economic sense as this would affect the livelihood of their society – the same with shortages. They would allow the re-allocation of people and resources in order to provide for all.
Employees would be paid their part of what they contribute to making the product that the entity produces and sells. They would not be incorporated as an input commodity into the product. This is an abhorrent and widespread practice in the world today. We need to engage much more carefully and holistically with staff and convince them of the need to pay them for their humanity that they are able to invest in the overall process of production. In this way they will understand their role in the process and how their humanity is challenged and developed with their participation. They will also get to acknowledge the greater qualities of those put in charge and their need for such people.
Schools would be taken away from the state completely. Only people completely dedicated to humanity can have any understanding of the requirements of the seedling humanity in us and how best to found this in as many people as possible without political or economic bias. Such bias deadens, calcifies the very quality of us that contributes to a viable economy and viable state, our humanity.
In summary then, I would have enough to live off. My business would continue to thrive under people committed to keeping it intact and serving for further generations both in product relevance and for the opportunity it gives to people to learn and develop themselves. The state would back off the education side of things and my business would have even better staff in future. Taxes would not be wasted on State Owned Enterprises. Instead, these would be privatised and contribute more taxes and opportunities for people in our society . The state would be focused on the rights laws and the implementation and policing of these. The increased taxes generated would be able to be spent on the vulnerable so that either they can live in dignity or that they can get themselves more into the main stream either in business, the state, or the humanities. Both the state and economic sphere would have an interest in this working this way. My children would be well integrated into this viable society. They would choose their sector and know that they would live a dignified life without the need for rabid cravings to gain advantage over other human beings by obtaining undue rights over them because of their access to capital which they may not want or not be able to deal with.