Respect property rights, public and private

No global government (no ANY government), without individual rights. No global economy, (no ANY economy), without accounting for economic externalities. Or you could say, no disrespecting property rights, private or public.

Economic externalities means the hidden costs of what we do.

No one buys a hamburger with the intent of encouraging people in far away places to destroy the rainforest, but it happens as a consequence of millions of meat-eaters in “developed” nations using the economic system to satisfy their desires.

What if the prices we had to pay for what we want included the cost of fees that producers would pay to destroy forest, erode soil, pave the earth, pollute the air and water? If the fees are set high enough, then producers would not destroy forests, pollute the air and water, or pave the earth–at least, not beyond what the people say is acceptable.

Money is not the root of all evil. It is a tool which we have not yet learned to use properly. The consequences of our failure to take account of externalities now have a global reach; and, since there are now so many of us, the consequences are enormous. The adverse impacts of what we are doing spell global catastrophe, (collapse of our natural resource base), unless we change our ways. We need to start taking account of those adverse impacts so that prices will tell us the truth about the real costs of what we are doing.

When we make this change, higher profits, (which today are closely associated with those for whom adverse impacts are well hidden), would flow to producers who promote individual AND community interests. Success will go to those who produce wealth for customers WITHOUT imposing disproportionately high burdens on others, in the form of dirtier air, depleted resources, destroyed habitat or extinct species.

The fee proceeds would be a monetary representation of the natural resource wealth of earth–wealth NOT produced as a result of human ingenuity or effort. It could be shared equally among all people. (We ALL own the air and water). This would spell an end to abject poverty. It would mean a more fluid labor market. It would address concerns about poverty and disparity of wealth, (while preserving individual freedom), without the need for burdensome government programs. It would give citizens a mechanism, (by increasing or reducing fees where appropriate), for sculpting the overall human impact on the earth.

A biological model for politics and economics

A terrorism-disparity connection?

With no offense intended to the OP: What’s with the recent manifesto-ization of the SDMB?

OK, I’ll bite. Who gets to decide how much these fees are (and gets to decide who has to pay them)? Who collects them? Who decides the punishment of those who elect not to follow this scheme? (I’m particularly interested in how you’re going to get everyone to agree in the proper fine for eating a hamburger given its ultimate effect on the rain forests <g>) How do you propose to enforce this punishment? You say that we should share the proceeds equally - how do you handle those who claim that it’s their rain forests that are being destroyed, not yours, so you evil hamburger-eaters shouldn’t be participating in the proceeds?

I’m trying to picture the nations of the world agreeing to some sort of international collaboration here, and all I can come up with is the problems the Europeans are having just determining the proper import/export fees for the inter-country markets for their products just between themselves…

What does this mean? Our democratic government in the USA already respects individual rights. All economic systems (except communism) acount for economic externalities.

You would have to first provide a link between that hamburger and cutting down rainforests.

You would also have to find an alternative for developing nations who cut down rainforests in order to build factories, roads and other infrastructure designed to improve their standard of living.

It is. When government regulations force companies to pay for things like reforestation, anti-polution devices and so on, those costs are passed onto the consumer.

Money is simply a convenient medium of exchange that we have used for 1000s of years. We know how to use it just fine.

If you make it more expensive for companies to conduct business, they will either a) find ways to conduct business in secret so it is cheaper b) stop producing.

This is a little vague. How do we do this, exactly?