For Your Consideration

     Some questions were raised about a parenthetical remark in a previous post, about preferring a minimum income to a minimum wage, that I'd like to address in greater detail, which may take a couple of posts. So in this one, I'd like to address the issue raised by the first comment, paraphrased thusly: "What is the value of money given 'free of charge'?"

    This is a common objection to minimum income plans, that they amount to giving people something for nothing. The most obvious counter to that is: So what? What's wrong with giving people something they didn't earn? People inherit wealth they didn't earn. People collect rent and interest and other income just from owning stuff, without actually doing anything beyond merely being the legally recognized owner of something, whether or not they did anything to deserve it. In our free market capitalist system, we don't object to people making money through the ownership of capital, including capital they merely inherited. So what exactly is the harm in giving people money they didn't do anything to deserve?

    But I want to argue that, in fact, we do deserve it, all of us, because of our collective ownership of the enterprise we call the state. And what is it that we have paid for our ownership, or as we say in contract law, what valuable consideration did we provide? I argued in an earlier post about the liberty dividend that we invest our liberty, but that's a rather abstract and intangible thing, even if it does count as good consideration at law. When we agree to do or not to do something that we might otherwise have done, such as in a non-disclosure agreement when we agree not to exercise our freedom of speech in a way that reveals someone's secrets, that is a real and valuable consideration capable of supporting contractual obligations on the other side. 

    So what I want to argue here is that what we give the state in exchange for our share includes something much more tangible: everything that anyone else owns, that it is possible to own. I mean this literally, because the entire concept of ownership is a creature of the state, of society. What prevents you from using "my" property? You may say it's your morality, and that's all well and good, but people's moralities differ, as do their ideas of who should own what, and it is the courts, applying the laws of the state, which will decide that. In other words, I have surrendered my freedom to use (or attempt to use, and probably end up fighting over) everything in the world that is deemed by the state to belong to someone other than me. Now, the state might deem that there are things which belong to me, which  this means that you, too, have surrendered to the state the freedom to use my stuff (again, a subset of all of the stuff that belongs to people other than you).

    Therefore, since it is the state which exercises ultimate authority over who owns what property, we have each of us invested all the property in the state. We don’t usually speak of it this way, but this is exactly what sovereignty is: the exclusive right to make and enforce rules or policies about who can do what with what. In free countries like Canada, the state generally delegates much of the decision-making to individuals by defining in its laws what we think of as private property rights, but these are ultimately conventions, subject to legislative or judicial amendment, and thus in a very real sense we have endowed the state with all the property there is.

    I claim, then, that for this reason every citizen of the state should be considered a shareholder in it. When, as in Canada, the Crown retains the rights to natural resources like forests, fisheries and minerals, it should manage these assets to the benefit of its shareholders (citizens), whom it owes a fiduciary duty closely analogous to that owed to a corporation by its board of directors. The shareholders are entitled to a voice in management, which usually involved electing delegates to represent them and advance the policies they favour.

    I do not intend to argue here that issuing regular dividends from the proceeds of the corporation is a good idea. I’ll probably address that in a later post. All I mean to establish here is that doing so would not at all be giving people “money for nothing”. We obtain our shares in the state not “for nothing” but by virtue of being bound by its laws, which is good and valuable consideration. And owning a share in the state means that any dividends that state may issue (such as a universal basic income, for example) are not charity, but a duly earned benefit.

False Flags

    Every once in a while I see a meme shared that purports to be a letter from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was Canada's 7th Prime Minister, urging that newcomers to Canada from all nations are welcome but they must become Canadian, dagnabbit! and learn to speak English or French and leave behind all them thar furriner customs that clash with our beer, hockey and Timbits. (It didn't actually reference these thing, but it was very much about assimilating to the Canadian way of life, whatever that is.) One version of this meme even came with a grainy black and white photo attached, showing a man apparently giving a speech in what looked like a campaign rail stop. 

    "Hmmm," I thought upon looking at the picture, "That looks nothing like Wilfrid Laurier. In fact, I think it looks like Teddy Roosevelt." So I googled a few key phrases from the letter, and sure enough, Laurier never wrote it: someone had taken the real letter, which had been written by Roosevelt, and just replaced all the references to the U.S. with Canadianized replacements ("English and French" in place of "English", etc.). Apparently it had been circulating enough to warrant a French news service debunking it here.

    It was at once both infuriating and hilarious. Infuriating because of the sheer dishonesty involved. There's no way this was an innocent mistake; whoever took that Roosevelt letter and altered it to present it as coming from Laurier knew perfectly well that they were fabricating a deliberate lie. What possibly could possess them to think this was an act of Canadian patriotism? If it was meant as a joke, though, it was hilarious, taking an expression of distinctly American nationalism and passing it off as Canadian patriotism by slapping on a few superficial (and false) Canadianisms. 

    I feel the same kind of insult whenever I see a vehicle drive by with a big Canadian flag waving, often supplemented with "F*CK TRUDEAU" or similar slogans. It's not that I think a true Canadian shouldn't criticize the Prime Minister. Rather, it's that I feel like my flag is being co-opted to stand for something that's not really Canadian, as if I won't notice a cheap "LET'S GO BRANDON" knock-off.