This is the page where political policy statements are found. All policy is directed towards increasing accountability and lowering the level of freeloading. All policy is positive.
Please feel free to contact us with your comments and suggestions.
The environment is our responsibility. We an only fulfill this responsibility at the local level not on a globalist level.
Without rights to what we create we have no ownership and without rights to what we create we do not have human rights, because human rights are based on what we own not what we are given.
Charity is not about making people dependent on our largess. Charity is love in action. Love makes people stronger, not weaker. Love is a positive force.
Full employment is possible no matter how many people who think it is not possible. Locavores makes it possible.
There is something seriously wrong with a system that has to transfer people all over the globe.
The existence of debt means someone has been given more than they need and others have been deprived of what they had a right to. In a positive market these disparities would not exist.
Sexuality is a difficult subject which means it is all the more important to use logic, ethics and truth.
Its not that everyone has a right to a home, it is that it makes no sense for people to not have a place to live.
We all hate taxes but we are all convinced taxation is necessary. Taxes cannot buy what exists and if it exists it does not need taxes to be transferred to where it is needed.
Is anything more perverse than a person living in a civilized country that cannot afford basic health care. Its not a right its basic common sense.
Education is one of the easiest ways a community can add value to is resource base. Ensuring children have access to education is not only the right thing to do, it is one of the smartest things to do.
White people of European ancestry are not the enemy even if they are Christian.
Governments cannot create equality nor are they equipped to generate economic development. Locavores are people who take up responsibility at the local level.
Democracy is not what people think it is. If it was democracies would not be under so many strains and attacks.
Positive organizations appoint the most accountable person to positions of responsibility.
Human beings are designed to care for the planet. We cannot individually care for the whole planet. All we are able to do is to care for our own part of it. However, this is not an obligation we can reject.
As human beings we have a right to what we create. We have the concomitant right to reject the imposition of social costs onto ourselves, our society and future generations. Political jurisdictions give us a framework within which we can create value for others, for those of this same jurisdiction. Political jurisdiction represents the area of our concern and give us a focus for the type of work we do.
We have a right to the value we create but no right to the value created by someone else. We have no right to destroy what belongs to others or to all. We have the right to refuse to take up costs created by others and the concomitant obligation to extend this right to others. No one can be forced to clean up our mess. We cannot externalize our mess onto others.
We have no right to externalize costs. We have no right to impose costs created by us, onto others. Those who create costs ought to pay the cost created by their actions.
Each person has an obligation to pay the costs he or she created and the right not to pay costs created by others.
Social costs are and must be rejected by all persons who support the rights of labor to the wealth they create.
Why does mankind have rights and where do they come from? What rights are irrefutably ours and which are illusions?
Our rights rest on what policy produces the Greatest Good. If there is no Greatest Good, we have no rights. If the Greatest Good is not what we seek to achieve there are no rights.
Any right that depends on another agent or authority is a legal right or conditional benefit. Anyone with the authority to grant rights has the power to expunge these same rights.
All persons have a right to what they create. This right cannot be refuted, abrogated, abridged or rescinded according to the doctrine of the Greatest Good. There is no logical or legal way to eliminate the right of possession through creation and adhere to the idea that the Greatest Good must be done. All impositions and limitations on personal property are an infringement of our human rights to what we create. All claims made by the state as to its right to administrate, legislate, regulate or allocate property infringes upon the rights of all to the Greatest Good. We the people have the right and duty to organize and administrate the property that falls under our jurisdiction. Only if we own what we create and retain full jurisdictional control is the Greatest Good for all possible.
Our personal property rights are a human right applicable to all persons in all places. Human rights are equally valid and applicable to all persons in all times and all places.
We are not guests nor pilgrims. We are owners of these places we call home. These are our lands. We built these places, we are accountable for the condition of these places, we are stewards of this land and the lords of our domain. We resent all intrusions and uninvited persons.
This is where we live, work, play and worship, raise our families and ensure our future. We will not be moved, quelled, intimidated or relocated or silenced.
Our property is ours. We are not parasites. We work to own what is ours. We live by right of possession as creators of what we have. We care for what is ours. We claim that on which we stand. We will not be moved.
No state has the power or authority to remove from us which is ours by right. No state has the authority to take from us our right to what we produce. What we create we own by the power and authority of a God no state or other agency can over rule.
We the people stand firm on our human rights as defined by the Greatest Good. Our rights to our place are inalienable, they cannot be revoked, rescinded or removed. No person or group of people has the power, nor legitimacy nor justification to remove from us our human rights to what we create. All claims but that of the creator are invalid. If you did not create it, you do not own it and you have no rights regarding it.
Parasites of all stripes and types beware; you came, you fed, you sucked the blood of taxpayers dry but we rise with faith and vengeance and we will cut you off. We are no longer your cattle or your sheep nor a passive source of sustenance to feed your social agendas.
Charity begins and to some degree ends, at home. The state is not the proper source of charity. AID is a perverse and dishonest activity no nation ought to permit.
Ethiton promotes charitable giving at the grassroots level. Those who produce the wealth are the only valid source of charitable funds. At most the state ought to give refunds for all charitable giving and encourage donations this way. The state never ought to take the right to give from out of the hands of the people.
Charity must arise out of a desire to give from what one has produced. There is no charity or kindness if the state is robbing Peter to benefit Paul. The charity of the state or business sector is likely to be more about manipulation than about a desire to do good. It is difficult to claim empathy while using another person’s money. If charity is to mean anything there must be real costs attached for the giver. When charity is pursued through state agencies the costs are not the states to pay. State sponsored charity is political in nature done in pursuit of a social agenda; as opposed to the needs of the recipient.
We believe charity is the responsibility of individuals, not the state. We promise to make charitable giving by the state illegal unless it consists of funds donated by individuals and deposited in Trust to be distributed or allocated by the state.
Full employment is considered an impossible goal. Excess personal are not spare parts to be kept in storage until needed; the unemployed are living breathing people. The unemployed have as much value as anyone else
In primitive cultures there is no unemployment. Everyone does something, everyone from the youngest to the oldest contributes value to the tribe. One of the difficulties of transitioning to a modern culture is what to do with all the young and old workers who need to be made redundant. Employers must be forced to hire able bodied men at a wage rate that will enable them to support their dependents. Globalists do not want and cannot tolerate full employment. An economy at full employment is a social system that has shifted power to the lower level. Full employment puts too much power in the hands of labor. This poses a serious dilemma for parties that support elites and globalism.
The unemployed exist outside of the market. The free market is composed of buyers and sellers. Those who do not work and earn an income have no money and so are neither buyer or seller.
This is a huge error. People consume or die. Non-consumers are not buyers and so do not create economic activity. If a person is subsidized by the state, then this creates injustice for labor and does not increase over-all economic activity. Subsidies only spread a given level of economic activity over a wider base.
Ethiton promises full employment. This is simply because it benefits no one to create or maintain unemployment. To understand how this is possible see the section on Exchanges.
As we shall find with other issues globalist policy on immigration is a contradictory narrative. On the one hand we are told the world is undergoing global warming. We are told our nations need to reduce their carbon footprint. Carbon taxes are imposed to reduce our energy use. The government argues we need to reduce population pressure on the environment. We need to stop building homes on farmland. We need to reduce populations. We need to reduce resource use. Yet, these same governments drum into us the need for immigration. Bringing more people into our countries requires us to add more schools, roads, hospitals, homes and everything else a growing population needs.
Experts tell us the population is aging, dying, getting sick and leaving the work force. The need for immigrants cannot be over stressed goes the globalist narrative. We need more immigration, more people added to our work force and our cities and towns.
If the stress put on the environment is due to population growth, why is a declining population not a good thing? If a declining population cannot be entertained, then are we not going to have to reconcile this with the damage population growth brings to the environment? But the real question is if we need immigrants because of an aging population what do we do as the new population ages? Do we increase the population more and more to infinity or to the point when the carrying capacity of earth is finally exceeded? Regardless of one’s position on either issue the reality is at some point there will be too many people on the planet and one way or another the numbers will be reduced, so we have to decide when and how this is going to happen.
The need for immigration is a manufactured need, an artificial need created to support a broader social agenda. The world will not stop spinning the oceans will not dry up if immigration is rejected. Immigration is needed only by Globalists. Economics does not require higher rates of immigration to exist.
Globalism needs immigration to keep resident work forces weak. To keep labor compliant there has to be competition for jobs. At one time unemployment was kept at around 3% but at this rate labor had too much power and the standard of living tended to rise, so unemployment was shifted upwards to the 6 - 7% level using immigration. To keep the unemployment high and labor weak immigration has to be high.
Conservatives have begun to buy into this thinking as the shift to the left continues. Despite some minor shifting along the political spectrum both Right and Left have come to agree that immigration is required. Both ends of the political spectrum for their own reasons want labor to be kept weak. We all need to realize neither the right nor the left truly want to see a declining population.
A total ban on all immigration must start when unemployment is above 3%.
In conflict zones an association of nations ought to establish safe zones. Woman and children will be accepted and sheltered in these zones. No men of military age will be permitted entry. Men of military age will be formed into battalions, trained and sent to fight for their lands.
We need to learn to do two things, develop the place where people are at, adjust development to work with the people available. Large scale transfers of people are destructive to well organized organizations and must cease. Immigration must be geared to what makes achieves the Greatest Good.
There is no logical excuse for debt it exists for only one reason; society has become corrupted by a monetary system that is geared to the globalist agenda. The level of debt is proportional to the lack of trust that exists. The monetary system reflects and exacerbates a confrontational economic system.
The trust in a community enables debt to be eliminated. The key is to gender trust. Debt loses is reason to exist when mistrust created by Globalism is eliminated.
Ethiton’s approach to debt elimination is based on the Bible. Exchanges are applications of Scriptural economics. If you do not understand how Exchanges work, you do not understand the bible. Please familiarize yourself with the basic structure of the Exchange model and their operation so as to understand the economics of Scripture.
The Bible is not Globalist in its teachings. Scripture is the only source of information on Ethocracy other than Ethiton’s videos and our publications.
As goods and services are provided by Exchanges. Fiat money will no longer be needed. If we no longer use fiat currencies the debt creation model will be abandoned, and society will move towards a cash-based economic model. If we see the debt-model as a product of globalist thinking, then communities will automatically eliminate debt. This may appear odd but is nevertheless true.
When people have money to invest earnings can be used to purchase Preferred Shares in an Exchange. These cash investments help Exchanges pay down member debt.
Exchanges may also choose to sell Bonds and pay off conventional debt with the proceeds. All fiat currency collected is deposited in a Trust account, as funds accumulate these monies can be used to pay down member debt. Exchanges acquire member debt in exchange for surplus deposits of fiat currency.
Members receive debits equal to the value of the loan acquired, these debits are liquidated in the normal course of business by members.
No interest is payable on the debit balance. It is up to members to ensure any debit balances are liquidated. In this sense positive and negative balances are the responsibility of the membership not individual members.
If you wish to participate in eliminating debt, please contact us about starting or implementing an Exchange.
Sexuality has three parts, the male, female and child. Ethiton uses science-based thinking when forming policy on sex.
Ethiton subscribes to sexual dimorphism because any other policy cannot be substantiated or advanced within a rational dialogue.
Our social policy is based on science and scripture. We believe both are needed to give us a clear picture of the right course to pursue.
The male is the head of the family not just because this is scripturally mandated but because it fits into what can be supported from an objective perspective. Regardless of what allowances are made it is the male who is most able to work, earn a living and protect the family. Nor is he able to replace the female in her role. The male role is based on biology, the principle of Occam’s Razor, Parsimony and tradition.
In the simplest of terms, the male cannot bear children, nor is he naturally inclined to engage in the level of nurturing a female is inclined to.
In the most extreme circumstances the male is both more expendable and the deadliest; that is the most able to eliminate any threat to the family and least missed if he fails this role. Thus, the format laid out in Scripture makes logical sense.
The child is demonstratable the product of a male and female and so this naturally becomes the preferred family structure for a child to remain in.
Ethiton prefers social policy to remain as close to nature and biology and rationality as is possible. Ethiton supports the traditional family structure and the traditional roles of its members because to do other than this creates complications that cannot be easily justified, nor their costs ascertained accurately.
Ethiton does not support attempts to marginalize or minimalize the family and the role of its members. Ethiton supports such barriers and policy as needed to ensure the smooth and continued function of the nuclear family. To do otherwise is to lose a substantial part of the value that is contained in the basic family unit and thus we would lose the value that the standard family unit brings to society.
Policy on sexuality includes policy on sex education.
Sex Education Policy
This is too diverse and emotionally loaded issue to be dealt with in anything but a summary fashion however a few points need to be made.
Male sexuality is not just being questioned; it is under a concerted and often violent attack. The concept of maleness is being displaced by gender neutrality. There was never any question of identity fluidity for females. It was always more acceptable for a female to pose as a male or to even form a lesbian relationship than it ever was for males to cross over into what was seen as female territory. From Ritalin, to Bullyism, to manspaning, manspaining, discipline, and the injustice of female pregnancy the role and importance of men and even the validity of maleness is questioned and even disputed.
The media is almost universally averse to maleness. Males are ridiculed, and woman portrayed as the ones in control. Men, it is fair to say, are losing the right to be men.
Modern males are increasingly expected to be more female. As the line between right and left blurs so does the line between male and female merge but it is the male who moves to the effeminate side of the scale. The man who opposes homosexuality, effeminacy, cross dressing, gender fluidity is viewed as barbaric and a potential brutalizer of women. The woman who hates men and the male role is viewed as progressive and a feminist, as is the man who similarly adopts an anti-male position.
Interestingly the female who becomes butch is visibly a female who opposes maleness. The butch female is an aggressive female not really a masculinized female in the way a male who is feminized is a male who loses all sense of his masculinity.
The man who hunts, the boy who rough-houses, the male who exerts dominance in his relationships is the enemy of the left. He will be drugged, counselled, disciplined, mocked, abused and isolated. This is part of the problem male politicians face. Either they betray their own natures or become the targets of incessant attacks by the leftist media.
In every other situation society imposes a level of expectation on its citizen. Robbery was always illegal but those who choose to leave their wealth in the open were not treated as victims in the way someone was who was held up at gun point. The person who leaves his vehicle running in front of a store is apt to be viewed as an accomplice in the theft of the vehicle. But we are told woman can dress as they wish, act as they wish, put themselves in any situation they wish and are not to be held responsible or even a contributor to the offence.
A male and female of the same age and degree of inebriation are deemed to be in totally different categories of responsibility if the female deems her rights violated the next morning. There are no extenuating circumstances. Females cannot contribute to any criminal act performed by the male as the female is always considered absolutely and categorically the victim.
Men cannot excuse their actions by blaming someone else. They are always culpable. At the same time the law ought not to hold two persons to different standards or hold the same person to two different standards according to the circumstances.
The lady in dress suit coming out of church is not to be seen as worthier of legal validation or assumption of innocence so liberals tell us, than the mostly naked, alcoholic teen who passes out in a hotel room surrounded by a dozen similarly drunk young males. Both are deemed equally deserving of protection, respect and assumptions of innocence.
Why do we have no expectation of culpability when it comes to woman? Why is the concern for violence against woman an issue but violence against men rarely considered? Is this a totally separate issue?
If we are equal why are woman given the preference when it comes to assigning victim status to them?
Can a millionaire walk down the street with a wad of money in his hands and be legally protected against theft to the same level a pensioner is?
The law must be blind to sex and culpability must be evenly distributed. If we become an accessory because we left our possessions in a place where they serve as an enticement, what of scantily dressed inebriated woman walking through dark allies or agreeing to enter men’s hotel rooms in the early hours of the morning? Is there no level of expectation to be put on females when it comes to morality? Are woman minors before the law, devoid of all culpability. In what other situation is the victim guaranteed innocence regardless of the circumstances surrounding the event other than minors?
The male who threatens and abuses his spouse all but loses his legal protections by virtue of his actions. A sexual assault victim must be believed, we are told, which deprives men of their constitutional rights and due process. In no other situation is due process waived other than when a female reports a sexual assault. On the other hand, female assailants are treated differently than their male counterparts. The male victim of female abuse has a difficult time finding justice or even a sympathetic ear.
Violence against woman is viewed as a kind of separate and more deserving category of violence than other forms. The law must cease this excursion into divisive legal formulations. We need more social intervention at the local level. Behaviors need to be moderated before then lead to more serious things. The church was to serve as an advisory and counselling office; a place where unsavory behavior can be brought to the people’s attention before it erupts into legal charges. Society needs to learn how to intervene earlier and more compassionately than the justice system is able to do.
While the justice system can and ought to be operated by those in the justice system The Utilitarian Party believes we need to intervene more at the grassroots level. We need to be able to deal with problems earlier on and in an informal and less legalistic way, especially when a person’s sexual behavior is coming under scrutiny.
If it takes a community to raise a child, then it takes a community to deal with the issues relating to sexuality. We need pro-active community response to the issues of sexuality.
Homes are vital for prosperous communities and a stable nation state. The issue of homes must then be a central plank in any platform.
Ethiton delivers the best product with the least cost because it is grassroots, decentralized and based on local jurisdictions as the delivery vehicle. The best government is the smallest government because the smallest government is the government that interferes with the people’s ability to act in their own interests the least.
Ethiton policy on homes reflects a commitment to the church and the accountability we have one to the other. The Ethiton economy is not tied to the globalist financial market.
In 1950 a new house cost $8,450.00 and by 1959 was $12,400.00 in recent time the average price of a house is closer to 500,000 in most locations.
In 1950 the average income per year was $3,210.00 and by 1959 was $5,010.00. In Ontario, Canada the minimum wage is to be put up to $15.00 through $12 is the minimum at present though less in other locations.
In 1950 a gallon of gas was 18 cents and by 1959 was 25 cents.
In 1950 the average cost of new car was $1,510.00 and by 1959 was $2,200.00. Post 2000 12,000 is about the minimum one could pay and 30, to 50,000 a more common price.
Minimum wage U.S.
Jan 25, 1950 = $0.75
Mar 1, 1956 = $1.00
Sep 3, 1961 = $1.15
Sep 3, 1963 = $1.25
If we keep this simple the cost of a new house in 50/60s was $10,000 and a low-end wage was $1.00 meaning a house was 10,000 times the lowest hourly wage.
If we take the wage to be $15.00 and the average home to be $500,000 then the ratio increases to 1:33333 However if one could find a house for $150,000 then the 1:10000 ratio would hold good. This will not be a house in an urban area and it would not be much more than the same 1950's house in only a modest state of repair. If the numbers are hard to follow them imagine watching a $500,000 house decay down to a $150,000 one. That is what happened over 50 years to our spending power.
However, it is still true to say that howsoever difficult it was to purchase a house for cash in the 60's it is three times harder now. And we have not factored in the rate of taxation which due to increases and inflation has pushed even the minimum wage worker into a higher income bracket.
In one example a man was paying an effective rate of 2.1% in 1963 but his granddaughter paid 23% for the same wage adjusted for inflation. She lives in one room with no car but has a mobile phone whereas her grandfather owned a house with mortgage, a new car and supported a wife and five kids but had to walk to the corner to make a phone call.
According to 'Trade Unions And The Economy 1964 - 2000' take home pay suffered severely after 1964 when tax and social security contributions began to rise precipitously. In the first part of 1960 government retained just 10% of workers income. In 1970 this rose to 20% and by end of decade to 30%. But the real damage was done by inflation pushing workers into higher tax brackets which for a time required unions to push for even higher wages. Labor did manage to increase its share of the pie for a number of years. However, the golden years were few and short lived, by the 1980s a united front of business and government managed to push the balance of power back to capital.
There are two gross spending options. These are referred to as the public and private spending options. There is a third option which is a mix of the two, but this is usually referred to as the public option, also.
The public path is what is referred to as socialism or sometimes social spending. This path consists of the state imposing taxes on a private sector. This income is used to provide social goods, in this case, assisted housing. Tax breaks can be provided builders, low deposit mortgages, low interest rate mortgages or special mortgage terms to allow those with low incomes to achieve home ownership. This was the avenue explored in the years leading up to the collapse of the Savings and Loans facilities, Fanny and Freddie Mac along with a general collapse of the developed economies of the Western world in 2008.
The mixed path is usually referred to as a private sector solution by liberals because liberalism has no private sector to speak of. The private sector of liberalism consists of a business building homes and selling them, usually with the intervention of a bank which provides a mortgage. However, all of this is mediated by governments through its regulatory agencies. The private/public sector solution of liberalism is obviously not working as well as it ought, or the public sector would not have intervened so many times in so many places. It would take greater powers of discernment than available to me to determine who was at fault in the 2008 housing collapse, the public sector for making housing too affordable to the degree virtually no one was excluded from the market or the private sector for taking advantage of this windfall with such extraordinary zeal that there was no other end possible but economic collapse on a world-wide scale. This was and is liberal or free market economics at its worse. The 2008 economic collapse was a social cost on an historic scale. If there had been a true private sector solution these events would not have been possible.
The problem with the public and mixed sectors is that they are not mutually exclusive. Unravelling the causes and levels of responsibility in the 2008 collapse is impossible because both mixed private and public sectors are intertwined. The public sector denies it owns the housing stock and yet constant intervenes in the housing market. The mixed sector claims ownership and yet remains dependent on the public sector to administrate much of what takes place in the market. Capitalists claim communism fails because of its dictatorial and oppressive control features but if Communism could truly control the economy it would not have failed, neither would capitalism experience periodic collapse. The reality is that dual-ownership whether of the communist or capitalist variety creates uncertainty and inefficiency.
Free markets complicate ownership and the exercise of responsibility. When two people own the same asset or have competing claims to the same asset the decision-making process is complicated.
We ought not permit fuzzy ownership models. Ethiton has the only policy that permits for establishing a clear title of ownership because only Ethiton permits direct ownership, that is ownership without the state.
Ethiton housing policy puts the people in an ownership position as regards the resources in its jurisdiction. The housing stock owned by a Housing Exchange is owned by the people not the state. This is true private ownership.
Any reasonable person would ask if it is cheaper to have people idle, with no jobs and no accommodation or are there fewer overall costs if governments bring in policies that permit us to house all members of the community and ensure everyone has a job? Working gives everyone the income they need to pay any costs this policy creates. If it makes sense for people to have a reasonable amount of needs met, then why not meet those needs in the most productive and cost-efficient way.
The Construction Exchange is a program in which Exchanges build homes and receives credits from the Housing Exchange. The Housing Exchange sells the homes to members for credits. These are credits created by the Exchange to track market activity. This permits homes to be purchased on a cash basis. There is no interest payable for any credits advanced or debits outstanding. These assets belong to the Exchange and so any interest paid would be akin to the right hand paying the left.
Because this program is divorced from the globalist financial markets and are 100% self-funded, debt is eliminated, and housing can be made readily available to those who need housing.
This is not a way to work around the state. Its not a way to circumvent or outsmart the state. This is a way to eliminate the physical and economic and political need to pay taxes.
We pay taxes because we need to. We volunteer and give to charities because we need to. This is not a legal requirement, but we feel a moral commitment. There is a legal requirement to pay taxes but most people feel a moral need to pay them, also. If we do not pay taxes there is a sense that things we need and use, that are funded by taxes, will not be available to us or we will not be contributing our fair share to something we need and use.
At the same time there is a lot of waste and the funding of things we do not agree with. But in most peoples minds the market cannot produce goods such as roads, schools, policing and so on. These kinds of social goods, even if the private sector can produce these things, ought not to be available only when the user can afford the fee. This is why we have universal education. Society rightfully believes education is too important to have it restricted on account of the users inability to pay. Are orphans to be denied access to education, health care and other social goods because their parents died?
Bottom line is we pay taxes because at this time in this system of things it is the only way we can be sure of getting some of the things we need and what we think ought to be readily available. In other words, don’t blame governments for stepping in where free markets have failed.
Could the public sector continue to exist if the markets were able to provide all the things government provide but did it cheaper?
But as we know with free markets this is not possible. When capitalists offer goods and services, they are subject to risk. Capitalist invest capital to provide goods and services, but if no one buys what they produce or will not pay what needs to be paid to cover the delivery cost the capitalist loses his or her investment.
A capitalist will not produce a good or service if he cannot control the access. A farmer does not plant fruit trees in a park and expect to be able to sell the fruit afterwards. The trees and fruit become common property and people will just help themselves.
So the problem is one where the creator needs to be able to monitor usage so as to charge users for access. If the usage cannot be controlled using the market then the public sector must step in, provide the good or service and control access in a more direct way.
But this kind of direct control or lack of control is not ideal. We do need to ensure everyone has access to education but opening the doors to everyone may not actually give everyone equal access nor produce the level of service one wanted to provide.
The direct market may monitor access through small fees, biological factors such as age or sex or numbers or certain other criteria such as income, and many other forms of categorizing need and worthiness. But one factor is generally constant with government programs and that is they are geographically linked. Governments are linked to geography and so their programs are likewise restricted to persons within that area of authority.
The free market in contrast sells to anyone with the money, unless this is constrained by government legislation. For example, alcohol can only be sold at certain times to those of a certain age.
As a community we do not want anyone to buy anything they have money to buy nor do we want anyone to have access to everything they want at any time in any quantity. But we ought to then appreciate we do not think the purpose of society is to make someone rich by providing everything people want, for a price. No do we think society exists to pander to peoples needs without any expectation of a return. So these markets do not represent any purpose society wants to be associated with.
Neither the free market or the direct market reflects the true nature of a market. A market is a place where producers meet to exchange specialized goods and services. Buyers and sellers are the key players in discussions about the free market, because in a free market all one needs is money to buy something and a seller willing to sell it. This certainly does not discourage theft or fraud. Nor, does the public sector do much to quell greed and fraud.
We need money as a way to allocate goods and services and we need geography to pay a role also. But these things need to be combined in a single market focused on society, that is the local community.
Conventional markets have never achieved a sophisticated understanding of what a market is. Yet, we know where technological sophistication is lacking there is no market. This is because there is no incentive for me to trade with you if we both produce the same things to the same level of expertise. Until technology advances to the point where specialization makes sense trade is not incentivized.
Therefore, it is erroneous to tie markets to profit or to social agendas. Market exists to complement and advance specialization. Buyer and seller are irrelevant, what is important are two persons with complementary specialities, until this exist markets do not exist.
Exchanges are markets geared to the needs of producers that is, complementary producers. As with direct markets they are location specific. This is to enable control over the market. Exchanges are also currency specific, or monetized. A medium of exchange is used but it is a unit of account based on the real value of the market. That is each unit is equal to xn/xn=1v. The value is equal to the total number of units divided by itself to give the value of one unit of the currency.
One could also say the total number of currency units divided into the total value of the Exchange in terms of the units of currency gives the value of one unit of currency.
This is more easily understood when the way the market is capitalized is understood.
An Exchange is begun as a kind of business with a small group of people who have complementary skills. By complementary we mean they supplement each other. A furniture market and an auto mechanic may have cause to do business, but they do not have complementary specializations. A butcher and a farmer with a pool of customers is closer to the ideal model. A group of housewives’ who form an Exchange to help systemize housekeeping chores and transportation and shopping is a better representation. But anything provided by the free market or public sector and be provided by an Exchange plus anything else humans feel to produce.
The higher the level of consilience between members the more effective the market. The highest degree of complementary activity is seen on a production line. In establishing an Exchange, the goal is to reduce the inputs required to produce a given level of output.
The following is an illustration of how an Exchange might be set up. It is important to note that an attempt is to create the possibility for specialization. The members skills and interest complement one another. This offers the highest potentiality for specialization.
A group of persons have come together with the intention to provide an outlet for used clothing. The group formalizes itself as an Exchange (The Clothes Exchange). Its mission is to reduce costs of clothing for members. The Exchange is registered as a not for profit charitable institution with a mission to buy and sell member's clothes at reasonable cost. All profits go towards the charitable purpose of the organization.
The Clothes Exchange (CE) is a charitable institution owned by members. Each member is entitled to one Common Share. This is an ownership share and entitles each member to vote at board meetings and to an equal share of profits.
The Exchange issues charitable receipts for donations received. Exchanges are capitalized by donations from members.
Jill provides 10 dresses with a value of $500.00. Jill is given a charitable receipt for $500.00. This charitable receipt can be used to lower the tax liabilities of Jill or to purchase Preferred Shares. Preferred Shares are claims on the equity of the CE. Jill provided 10 dresses. These become assets of the CE. The dresses have a value of $500.00 so the CE has acquired $500.00 worth of equity. This equity allows The Clothes Exchange (CE) to issue a charitable receipt equal to the value of the donation received. The charitable receipt represents the equity acquired by the Exchange. The charitable receipt may be exchanged for 500 preferred shares, each preferred share being valued at $1.00. Preferred Shares represent the equity of the Exchange not taken as a tax rebate.
Preferred Shares are issued in multiples of each other the same way conventional currency is. Preferred Shares are fully backed by the equity of the organization.
Capitalizing a CE may be done through the sale of bonds and through the accumulation of goods and services in exchange for Preferred Shares and charitable receipts.
We shall for the purposes of this illustration assume a Clothes Exchange has been made fully operational, meaning;
· A place has been found and financed.
· The business has been organized and registered.
· Preferred Shares have been printed and issued.
· A Board of Directors has been voted in.
· A Chair has been appointed.
· A CEO has been appointed and he or she has appointed or hired staff.
· Stock has been acquired, displayed and priced.
All members have donated goods, helped set up the business, provided capital goods and equipment or done some work of some kind and so all members have acquired a number of preferred shares equal to the amount of value they provided. Preferred shares are issued as a local currency called prares. Prares are dollars without debt. Members may also purchase bonds and/or preferred shares. Preferred shares are referred to as prares when used as a currency. Jill with ₧500.00 can purchase ₧500.00 worth of clothes or bonds or some combination of both.
Members who are employed by the organization are paid a living wage. This could be set at ₧15.00 or whatever the Exchange decides.
Members are hired to fill spots and paid using preferred shares. As much as possible all expenses are paid for in ecus. When bonds are sold and when profits made the money goes into a trust account. The profits from sales are used to expand the business. Trust account money is used to pay down member debt. The equity of the debt becomes an asset of the Exchange. The member has her debit account increased by the amount of the debt. This is paid off as the member creates credits.
As members join, and assets increase they can be used to set up additional Exchanges of different types. The intent of the mission is always to transfer power back to the lowest possible level that is create responsible government. As power is transferred to the base citizens acquire control over their political jurisdictions.
Now we understand the basic operation of an Exchange we have to imagine an entire political jurisdiction restructured using the Exchange model. Each economic sector represents a type of Exchange. For example manufacturing is one sector and Transportation another. To keep the explanation simple if the Transportation sector decided a road needed to be built or resurfaced the Transportation sector would simply hire road workers to make or resurface the road. If a hospital was needed the Exchanges of that political jurisdiction would simply transfer the resources needed to build a hospital to the sectors that do the work.
This is highly simplified of course and given only to demonstrate taxes are not required. The state or municipal government does not do any work. They only find the financing to pay the people who do the work, but the people who want the road can do this themselves.
A community that wants a school builds the school out of resources available to the community. These resources are not created by governments, they exist regardless of whether governments exist or not. The community merely needs a way to transfer the resources. Exchanges make these transfers naturally. The way a single Exchange is capitalized is the same way any infra structure project is capitalized. It simply takes more Exchanges to capitalize a more complex project.
The benefit to going this route is that governments do not need to convince taxpayers of the benefits. It is the grassroots who initiate such projects and send the instructions up the line to the higher-level administrators. The agreement provides the capital.
No government can build what the community does not have the resources for. All the money in the world cannot build a bridge if the skills and other resources are missing. If the skills and resources are present a bridge is built in much the way as old-fashioned barn raising built barns. The members of various Exchanges donate resources and labor and are paid for what they give using prares.
Every good and service that is needed and provided through the public sector can be provided by Exchanges. There is no need for taxes because there is no need for a public sector. The administrators of the Exchanges are well able to allocate resources in an efficient way using the market mechanisms of the Exchanges.
Adopting bible-based social policy is not just about making life easier. Christianity makes sense because biblical ownership holds the key to progress. Christ wants us to make the best use of what we are given. Health care is not just about the standard of care provided it is the effectiveness with which the health care tools are wielded.
A sick person is a wasted person. Sickness is a social cost that must be vigorously eliminated and selected against. The community is not a healthy body if a third of the body is sick and dysfunctional. Unsafe and unhealthy environments create costs for everyone, not just the sick. Illness is in fact a sign society has failed to exercise its collective responsibility towards its members. Sick people do not contribute as much value as they would if they were healthy. Sickness is a removable social cost. Sickness benefits no one.
Christians must take a pre-emptive approach to health care. The community benefits when it transitions from treating sick people to maintaining people in good health. We need to put power into the hands of the patient. Health Care must focus on assisting people, so they can avoid getting sick.
Healthcare is a task in which all stakeholders participate. We must all work together to implement policy that works to maintain all persons in optimal health, since the church is impacted in a negative way by the ill-health of members.
The objective is to look at health care costs as an expense of the community for which we all pay to some degree. If the community spends $30 million on health then from the perspective of the community this is $30 million not going to schools, transportation or economic development. There is a strong initiative to reduce healthcare costs. If healthcare costs are reduced 30% the savings go to the community. There is no benefit to anyone to create or absorb unnecessary healthcare costs, so the community all cooperates in reducing costs. Would anyone create excessive healthcare costs when any savings created could be, for example, applied to building a new sports stadium?
Globalists are not concerned about the cost of their social policies; they have an agenda to enact and so the end justifies the means.
There are repercussions to this way of thinking. When stakeholders are not consulted the social costs of a policy are often not fully appreciated.
An educated youth has more value than one who is not educated. Society suffers a loss when its young people fail to live up to their full potential. Without a proper education kids cannot contribute to society to the degree civilization requires.
All youth must be educated to the limit of their abilities simply because it adds value to our human capital. There may be an issue with where this money is to come from and how it is to be administered but the reality is the next generation must be educated to fit them for their future.
Young people have a right to be treated equally in terms of the equity they represent and to the value they create for society by acquiring new skills and understanding. To expect children to acquire an education without any recompense is to impose the cost of education on them, despite the value this represents to society. Society needs them to be educated so justice demands all students are paid for responding to this social need. It behooves society to pay students for acquiring an education since what they are doing adds value to the community. Society pays a wage to students consistent with the equity they create individually and collectively. An average payment is provided that is varied according to the performance of the individual student.
As Christians we need to ensure two-tiered educational systems do not victimize the poor. We have a duty to ensure children from privileged homes do not acquire a better or higher education than those who come from less advantageous backgrounds when abilities are equal. Society is best served by ensuring those with the most talent receive the best education. Graduates of higher education will not need to command a premium because of the greater expense a degree represents. They will have been paid for this achievement and time expended. The most capable students must be permitted to enter the field of study that best reflects their interest and ability, in response to the Demand for more practitioners in that field.
Our vision is of an educational system in which each student earns credits according to the felicity with which he or she acquires his or her education, so each student will seek the education that best reflects his or her abilities and interests.
We believe this is a policy all local educational agencies ought to adopt to ensure all students have an equal and fair access to a quality education.
The purpose of an education is to teach the children useful knowledge not to further the social engineering objectives of globalism. Social engineering policies especially as applied to the most vulnerable is divisive.
Educational hours have to be treated as a valuable resource applied according to the value added. The objective is to equip the student to be a valuable member of society and to make him or her the best example of themselves they can be.
It is parents that must define the educational priorities of the educational system. The Education Exchange in each jurisdiction sets out the basic curricular for the school. The basic courses are to be taught with a focus on reading and writing and arithmetic. These are the core studies and must meet certain levels or displace other secondary studies.
The subjects taught, the time allocated, and their priority level is specified. Items can be added as time become available once minimum levels of proficiency in higher level core subjects are met. School Boards are elected by the parents. All significant changes to the setting of the curricula has to be approved by parents during Board meetings of the Educational Exchange, that local stakeholder’s association that governs the educational system.
Teachers’ salaries and the salaries of Board Members are set by the Exchange at Board Meetings.
Exchanges self-fund. Exchanges 'spend' credits as needed. Exchanges are not given a budget in the usual understanding of the term. Each school spends what it must to fulfill its mandate. The school board oversees this spending and the members can make policy during meetings, but the day-to-day spending is in the hands of the base. Members of the Educational Exchange are the stockholders and can vote to adjust any failures by the administration or to support positive events during regular and special meetings of the Board.
To better understand how the educational system is financed please study how Exchanges operate as value generating organizations.
If you have comments or suggestions regarding this or other policies please make your views known through our contact page.
The left narrative is centered on social justice. The ideal liberal is the social justice warrior. The socialist game plan focuses on reforming other people’s behavior and attitudes. This agenda involves identifying a victim group in need or rescue from an enemy group. More and more the enemy group is identified as old white men, those who were more generally labeled as WASP.
There is a reason why Christ told us to deal with the beam in our own eye before trying to fix issues with other people. The only person we can successful change is ourselves. However, the left wants to transform the world by transforming the mental makeup of others. Men are in liberals’ cross hairs. Men are the defenders of the church, family and nation state. The ideology of the left is sterile so long as the male retains his central position in society. If all of societies victims are going to gain favored positions those in them need to vacate them.
So, the left seeks to remove old white males to make room for all of the alleged victims.
Pushing males out of their conventional seat of power means taking them out of jobs and management positions. Immigration weakens labor. By keeping labor weak the power of the male worker to fight change is also limited. By bringing in persons without strong conservative values the role of the man is further compromised. When a culture devalues men they no longer serve as the protectors of family and culture.
AID is various forms of capital externalized usually in support of a social agenda. Often AID is provided in the form of loans or credit to enable the foreign entity to buy domestic goods. Sometimes the AID is sent as feet on the ground assistance or armed intervention. Funds may be sent to foreign states and NGO headquartered in foreign lands. Usually this is done in response to some foreign policy initiative meant to support the domestic economy. The one thing AID seems never to be is charity. It is money spent to achieve a purpose. This is not a Christian perspective. It will not serve to build the Christian church.
Charity starts at home. No level of government has the authority to provide external AID to no foreign entity or agent of any kind, for any reason, including loans, credit, or charity. All foreign assistance has to be provided privately through the church for Christian ends, that is to build the church. No institution providing funds for overseas AID is permitted to receive any assistance from any level of Government.
Governments who operate with a deficit are not in a position to supplement the costs of other nations. Responsible governments do not offer AID if it will create a deficit position in its own country. All AID is to come from private donors and surplus capital which may be organized and coordinated by the federal government.
Governments that take an active position as regards the giving or getting of charity to overseas entities exceed the authority and legitimacy of government. Government exists to serves the people who elect it. This service is direct and measurable. Speculative activities done because a tenuous connection is seen between it and the public good exceed the duties and authority of government.
Government must not presume to act on the behalf of the people in cases where the people’s position is not validated by the people’s own actions.
The church is sufficient for all nation’s charitable needs. Government mandated, and orchestrated AID must be scaled back and put in the hands of the church or eliminated. Foreign AID does not belong in the hands of agenda-driven statists.
Democracy is not the solution most people think it is. Compared to many other possibilities it looks good but democracy suffers from several weaknesses.
Direct Democracy is cumbersome and prone to becoming a tyranny of the majority. This is not serious in a fairly homogenous population but where there is a distinct cultural divide this can become a serious issue.
Representative Democracy does not totally eliminate the problems with Direct Democracy
Locavores United promotes locacracy, the rule of markets or locavores, those who are accountable for the local jurisdiction.
Conventional elections are based on Utilitarianism and the idea that the purpose of an election is to satisfy the most people and harm the fewest. An election allows the most motivated to vote in the greatest numbers and this increases the probability that those who are the most engaged in the ongoing debates will have their candidate elected. The group less impacted by the issues will vote in fewer numbers and skew the results in favor of the impacted group.
Also, the results allow people to see if their concern were widely shared or less supported by the votes provided each of the candidates. For the most part democracy is an effective way for conventional Utilitarian ideas to be implanted in the political sphere.
Utilitarians support a Utilitarianism that is more useful, that provides more utility, and that is more useful within the context of providing political representation. Utilitarians reject the claim that Utilitarianism is about making the most people happy at the lowest cost in unhappiness for others. We reject the claim that the purpose of man is to be happy or that our purpose is to make others happy or even that we are obliged to ensure we make the least unhappiness.
A person’s happiness or unhappiness is not about us or their situation it is a choice made by them as to how they will respond to a phenomenon. We cannot make ourselves responsible for a person’s happiness. Nor can we make our happiness the focus of our existence. If for no other reason that happiness is immediate, and no rational human being can base his or her life on his or her emotional state.
One of the biggest problem democracies face is this focus on short term events and a pandering to people's emotional reactions to what are often mischaracterized events. Politics requires a more objective methodology of problem solving, a greater reliance on quantified data rather than subjective opinion.
The present model of democracy is not capable of providing this level of accountability. Politicians are able to manipulate people’s emotions to get elected and once elected it becomes difficult to control their actions.
It is also reasonable to suppose what is important to a party may not be what is important to the electorate. What makes a person a good party member may not be precisely what makes for a good leader of a nation or other community.
Utilitarians propose to reform the way politicians get elected. The social unit of the nation will be the church or Exchange. Exchanges are small groups of neighbors, a local community of people who share face time or at least close geographical proximity. These groups will number about a dozen people, though this number will vary.
Each group represents the concerns of that local area and appoint a chairperson. This will be the person whom the group goes to with their concerns.
These chair persons form a larger conclave, known as a village or neighbourhood. Each neighborhood has its political representative that chairs meetings and serves to represent this jurisdiction at meetings of the next political level. Chairpersons at each level appoint the chairperson who represents the jurisdiction at the next higher level. In this way political power remains at the base.
Those at the base can always control the decisions made at the higher levels by informing their chairs as to the way they vote regarding an issue.
If a Province or State decides to build a road the lower jurisdictions can indicate to their representatives which way to vote and this position can rapidly be conveyed up the chain of chairpersons to whatever level the issue is being discussed.
This model enables decisions to be made where they are relevant. The response is scaled to the level at which the issue is felt to be a concern.
Because the base holds the power the organization remains flat and upper echelons can be held immediately accountable for the decisions they make or want to make. Referendums are easily held and in fact cannot but be held because every issue will be something debated at the grassroots level and the choices made known immediately through the chairs of the groups.
The important point to note is that these people get their position because of the value they bring to the group. A chairperson is a person who adds value to discussions and to the choices made by the group. The higher up the political body the person rises the more able that person is to generate real, measurable value for the group and the nation. Thus, the people will have quantified data to base their decisions on and a way to hold each and every political representative accountable for what they choose to do.