Question: Isn't this just
another form of socialism with
the Payers owning everything
and lording it over everyone
as the government?
Answer: The short and simple answer
is "No, it is not socialism." But
this question would not have
come up if there wasn't something
about this new kind of money
that suggests socialism to
some people. So let's see what
we can discover.
Necessities are free to all
as needed.
Probably the first hint of
socialism comes from the sixth
principle of the new money
which states: "Goods and
services designated 'necessities'
are free to all, as needed." This
reminds many people of the
old communist principle of "from
each according to his ability,
to each according to his needs" or
something like that. It sounds
like a government welfare system
where the government, like
in Rome of 2000 years ago,
distributes food to the masses.
So why isn't this making of "necessities" freely
available socialism?
Well, first of all, the government isn't involved in people being
given anything. Those who give
necessities to others get paid
for doing so if what they
give actually helps the others.
Naturally, the Payers do all
the paying. Anyone who wants
to gain money may do so by
giving necessities to those
who need them. No one is required
or coerced into giving because
there is no need. It's a free
market and the invisible hand
of the free market will lure
people into giving necessities
to others just as it lures
people into trading their goods
and services in any other free
market.
Second, the government doesn't
have any control over any bureaucracy,
even itself. "He who pays
the piper calls the tune" as
the old saying goes and the
government doesn't pay its
workers. Therefore the government
can't really control anything.
Finally, all property in the
new money system is the private
property of individuals. Anything
which is not owned by anyone
can be acquired merely by taking
responsibility for it. Then
it becomes property. Therefore,
the government, not being an
individual, cannot own any
business or industry or tools
or anything at all.
The Payers as government.
Since the Payers are the only
people who can see that others
come to have money, they probably
remind many people of an overbearing,
cradle to the grave, "nanny
government" trying to make
people do what they think is
the "right
thing." They imagine the
Payers paying mothers for caring
for their own children and
paying farmers for giving their
crops to the poor and so forth
all as if the Payers were forcing
people to do those things.
As if that weren't bad enough,
the Payers will almost certainly
organize themselves into a
bureaucracy. Governments have
bureaucracy and lots of money
and the payer organization
certainly fits that bill. So
why aren't the Payers just
another kind of government
trying to tell everyone what
to do?
The basic reason why the Payers
are not another form of government
is that they have no luxuries
and must live among the poorest
of the people. What difference
does that make? Well, they
are vulnerable to the people
they live among. Lacking luxuries,
they cannot escape other than
by going into their quarters
and closing the door. Even
then they would need to come
out for food. If the Payers
are not accomplishing what
the general public wants them
to accomplish, they will be
objects of severe social sanctions.
They will be unpopular. Therefore,
they must do what they can
to keep people happy.
So how do they keep people
happy? By paying for net
benefit.
By paying for the good consequences
of the actions of others. They
cannot succeed if they pay
before the benefits are manifest.
They cannot succeed if they
pay for what the producers
intended or hope to achieve.
They can only succeed in keeping
the public happy if they pay
only for actual beneficial
consequences.
Now if they tell Joe to do
something and Joe does it and
the result is not beneficial,
Joe will be angry at them for
not paying him. If they pay
Joe then they are not paying
for other things which could
make the public happy and then
the public will be angry at
them. (Joe would also have
contempt for them.) Therefore,
the best thing the Payers can
do to keep the public happy
is to avoid telling anyone
what to do.
But let's assume that the
Payers haven't learned that
yet. Let's assume that they
do try to tell you what to
do. You can tell them to shut
up and go away. You don't need
them. If you produce net benefit
they pretty much have to pay
you because if they don't you
will stop doing it and all
the people that were benefitting
will be mad at the Payers.
So it doesn't matter to you
whether they tell you what
to do or not. You can ignore
them. Experience will soon
teach them to just wait and
see what you do.
Finally, all the Payers can
do is reward people for the
consequences of their actions.
They have no ability to punish.
So they are no threat to anyone.
Who's paying, really?
The amount of goods and services
necessary to feed, clothe,
shelter, and keep in good health
the entire population of an
industrial nation is huge.
By today's prices that costs
billions of dollars. Somebody
has to be paying for all that.
Only a government has that
kind of money and the power
to force people to contribute
to such an effort. Doesn't
that indicate that this is
socialism in disguise?
This is a natural assumption
in the present world with our
present money. But you have
to keep in mind that
the money doesn't have to come
from anywhere for the Payers
to credit someone's account.
That means that there is never
a shortage of money to pay
for net benefits. It never
costs the Payers any money
because they have no money
and can never have money. They
can't even have what money
can buy. Therefore they don't
mind crediting people's accounts.
Furthermore, no one has to
give up anything they would
rather keep. If you are a farmer
and want to keep your entire
crop and eat it yourself, that
is just fine with everybody
else. No one cares. If you
produce enough to feed several
people, why would you do all
that work just to let the food
spoil? Why not give it to others
and get money for having done
so? You don't have to be forced
to contribute because if you
contribute you will be rewarded.
It's as if all those people
out there had plenty of money
and would pay you for what
you do for them. No force is
needed nor would it be acceptable.
People don't like being forced
and they would make the Payers
very unhappy if they didn't
pay to stop those who were
trying to force others.
|