AUTONOMY - a rational solution to politics.

On autonomous expenditure.

We have established why the income of an autonomous nation should arrive from the ownership and revenue of the inherent value of scarce resources.  But what sort of expenditure of this revenue promotes self-rule?

The huge problem with government expenditure is that everyone serves their own self-interest more than that of others; our DNA is programmed to make our DNA survive, which, in the case of politics, manifests in sophisticated ways of influencing the governmental system.  The best interest of the people is undermined in these two ways:


  • When a minority makes decisions on behalf of others.
  • When a minority controls the information available to others.

    • [We act on what we subjectively perceive.]

If the people making any sort of decisions do not have your identical set of interests, you should assume that they will favour their own interest more than your interest.  So in regard to political systems, we should craft a design based on this law:

    
Law of corruption
Anything that can corrupt, will corrupt.

    
If any flow of cash can be manipulated by special interest, then this cash flow will corrupt.  Maybe you diminish this dynamic by an intricate form of direct democracy, but also in this case there would be a major effort to influence your political decisions, and there is also the question of who would frame the decisions you would vote on.  However, there exists a simple and beautiful answer to the Law of corruption:

    
Law of governmental expenditure I
All expenditure must benefit everyone equally and unconditionally.

Law of governmental expenditure II
Expenditure must never fund the special interests of any minority.

    


    


    Distributing value uncondtionally.
    
Capital is power or influence, and whoever controls the inherent value of scarce resources has huge influence over society.  For this value to reflect everyone's interest, the value must be distributed to everyone.

But who should decide how much value is distributed to each individual?  No one.  No one can, and no one should, decide what represents value to others.  The notion that bureaucrats should judge which individuals deserve to sustain themselves, is a disgusting practise mostly benefiting those who are good at exploiting the system.  A bureaucracy should not play god, and judge which individuals in society generate value for others, judge which people have good ideas, or judge which people are 'valueable'.

To protect & reflect your interest and each other person's interest we need an autonomous system that cannot be manipulated by any minority interest.



    


    Universal basic income (UBI)
    
The most unconditional expenditure possible is to funnel revenue directly to every citizen, no questions asked.  Such redistribution of the inherent value of scarce resources also require almost zero bureaucracy.

UBI is the most healthy societal incentive for giving people the economic freedom to opt out of poor working conditions and corrupt organisations - the freedom to say no.  This is a swifter solution than a thousand regulatory demands, as companies must achieve real trust with their workers who are not absolutely forced to stay there by economic dependency.

Replacing welfare with UBI annihilates the many dysfunctions of the welfare state, such as rewarding you for not working.

In Autonorway, we found that the inherent value of scarce resources amounted to €15.000 per person.  If half of this, €7.500, was funneled directly to each individual (or parent), then people would have support while shifting jobs, while studying, while being entrepeneurs, or in being "starving artists".

If you aimed to only live on UBI, you would be quite poor, but still able to sustain yourself, and more so if you teamed up with your fellow human being.  However, one should assume that the drive for higher socioeconomic status, and the drive to do something rewarding, will continue to compel people to be creative and productive in a myriad of ways.



    


    Scarce infrastructure (SIS)
    

The value of scarce resources can be provided to people through its monetary value, but it may also be necessary to provide access to scarce resource direcly, which would be 'Scarce infrastructure'.  Creating a decent network of roads may only be profitable in populous areas, but we all need to get from A to B.  Everyone needs the ability to communicate over the internet.  Everyone needs clean water.  A territorial organisation needs law & order for both rich and poor.

The principle here could be to universally provide the same end value in the realm of scarce resources.  Defining scarce resources is again a democratic process, but the approach is at least scalable:

    
access to scarce resources<---YES---SIS---NO--->preferences/special needs

    
By democratic decision, I expect that SIS might include these:



Beyond scarce infrastructure, in the realm of abundant resources (which includes most services), the free market must figure out on its own how it wishes to organise health problems, what kind of education companies require, what kinds of food people want to eat, what kind of culture people are interested in, et cetera.  Once you allow giving extra money to people with specific needs, you are immediately creating a corruptible system.  This can absolutely not happen.  One must organise and support specific needs outside of government, through the help of family, friends, communities, business, philantrophy, crowdfunding, et cetera.

--In the case of public infrastructure dealing with the private sector, all contracts must be formed through transparent auctions, open exclusively to companies within the national economy to prevent influence from international capital.


    


    PERFECTLY BALANCING UBI AGAINST SIS
    

    Income from scarce resources (Y) = UBI (Y/2) + SIS (Y/2)
    

If expenditure is balanced between 'Universal basic income' and 'Scarce infrastructure in a 1:1 ratio, then the economy becomes a function of itself.  A strictly limited budget of SIS for government puts stress on the system to provide more value for the available funds, as opposed to receiving more funds for doing a poor job.

All public professions must be compensated with the same standard wage, or the bureaucratic handing out of salaries will corrupt, as well as institutionalising inequality and a negative psychosocial climate in society.  Fortunes ought to be created from adding value through the free market, and not in any shape or form through corporatism or lucrative public positions.

    
Budget of Autonorway:
Revenue (€75.000 million) = UBI (€375 million) + SIS (€375 million)
...per person...
Revenue (€15.000 million) = UBI (€7.500) + SIS (€7.500)

    


    


    An idea.
    I hope I have inspired you to think differently about politics and the organising of resources.  I consider the model here presented to make a hell of a lot more sense than what's out there!


    The economic model of Autonomy:

inherent value of scarce resources  -->
unconditional expenditure (basic infrastructure + basic income)

    Institutionalised non-intervention