‘CITIZEN EXTERNALITY EQUITY’. Part 6. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

Part 6. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’

series.

 

‘CITIZEN

EXTERNALITY

EQUITY’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

The following is our transcript of a dialogue between one of our volunteers and a prominent, representative AI – ‘protoic’ to expected future android robot ‘meta-humans’, equipped with AI ‘‘‘minds’’’.

Our edited/more-punctuated transcript follows.  Where we perceive errors in the AI’s assertions, we have commented, in magenta-colored bold/italics text, inserted within square brackets –

 

I.  Volunteer: “Karl Seldon, and his Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, have proposed, in their book entitled “Marx’s Missing Blueprints”, a “non-bureaucratic” way of regulating economic externalities, not via “captured” external regulatory agencies, but via “democratic, grass roots regulation”, internalizing externalities in a way that involves the local public election – by the electorate within the locus of the externalities produced by each such enterprise – of mandated, recallable and term-limited “public directors” for “public boards of directors”, inside each local enterprise facility that produces “external costs” above a national statutory threshold, that negotiates with the enterprise’s board of directors, or with its local management committee, in cases of multi-facility enterprises, on an annual “externalities budget” for that local enterprise.  If the negotiations deadlock, the dispute is remanded to a special court of proximate jurisdiction, to resolve the deadlock.  Can you summarize for me the proposed workings of this system of public directors’ boards, and “Associations of Public Directors” at their various geographical scales?”

 

I.  AI: “In “Marx’s Missing Blueprints,” Karl Seldon and Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica (F.E.D.) propose a “grassroots” method for regulating economic externalities through a localized, democratic structure.

This system moves away from centralized, “captured” regulatory agencies, instead internalizing social and environmental costs directly into the governance of individual enterprises through Boards of Public Directors and their broader Associations.

1. Boards of Public Directors

These boards are established within any local enterprise facility that exceeds a national statutory threshold for producing “external costs” (such as pollution or social disruption).

·      Democratic Mandate: Directors are elected by the local electorate living within the physical “locus of externalities” created by the facility.

·      Accountability: These “Public Directors” are term-limited, mandated by their voters, and subject to “immediate recall” [through petition-initiated recall election].

·      Negotiation Power: Their primary role is to negotiate an annual “externalities budget” with the enterprise’s management or private board.  This budget determines the allowable external impact  and the compensation or mitigation efforts required.

·      Conflict Resolution: If negotiations reach a deadlock, the dispute is referred to a local [special] court[, a local nearby, court of the national “Tribunal for Citizen Externality Equity”] of proximate jurisdiction for final resolution.

2. Associations of Public Directors

To handle externalities that transcend a single facility’s immediate area, the system scales upward through a tiered hierarchy of [finitary ‘qualo-fractal’ structure of elected] Associations of Public Directors:

·      Geographical Scaling: Local directors form regional, national and even international associations to manage larger-scale impacts (e.g., river pollution affecting multiple towns or atmospheric emissions).

·      Coordinated Policy: These associations harmonize standards across facilities to prevent “regulatory arbitrage,” where companies might move to areas with more lenient local voters.

·      Collective Bargaining: They provide a unified front when negotiating with multi-facility corporations, ensuring that localized “externalities budgets” align with broader [econo-]ecological and social sustainability [societal expanded self-reproduction] goals.

By embedding these representatives directly into the corporate structure, the F.E.D. model aims to replace “external” state regulation with an internal[ized], dialectical tension between private profit and public well-being.”

 

II.  Volunteer: “Your response makes sense to me, except for two points.  As I recall, the Associations of Public Directors, or APDs, are not a hierarchy, in that the entire electorate of a given geographical area served by a given Association vote to elect that Association’s public directors, who are mandated, and recallable by that electoral base, in recall elections called when a sufficient percentage of the electoral base sign a petition calling for a recall election for a particular Public Director.  Per my recollection, it is not that lower-scale Association Directors vote to elect the next higher-scale Association Directors.  The second point, is that all of the scales of the APDs are assigned to collaborate in drafting an annual public infrastructure maintenance and enhancement plan for the nation, which is then reviewed by the Office of the nationally-elected “National Custodian of Social Property”.”

 

II.  AI: “Thank you for those clarifications – you are correct that the structure is intended to be purely democratic rather than a delegated hierarchy, and that the scope of these associations extends into national infrastructure planning.

In the framework presented by Karl Seldon and the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica (F.E.D.), the system operates through these refined mechanisms:

Direct Election and Recall of APDs

The Associations of Public Directors (APDs) are structured to maintain direct accountability to the citizenry:

·      Regional Mandate: Public Directors for an Association at any given scale (municipal, county, state, or national) are elected directly by the entire electorate of that specific geographical area.

·      Recall Mechanism: They are not insulated by a hierarchy of lower-level officials.  Instead, they are subject to petition-based recall.  If a sufficient percentage of the relevant electoral base signs a petition, a recall election is triggered, ensuring the directors remain responsive to the public interest rather than the interests of the enterprises they monitor.

National Infrastructure and the Custodian of Social Property

The second major function of the APD network involves collaborative planning for the “social property” of the nation:

·      Annual Infrastructure Plan: All levels of APDs – from local facility boards to national associations – collaborate to draft a comprehensive [and annually-updated] Infrastructure Maintenance an Enhancement Plan.  This plan identifies necessary upgrades and new projects to maintain the social and environmental health of the nation.

·      National Custodian of Social Property: Once drafted, this national plan is submitted [annually] to the Office of the National Custodian of Social Property.  The Custodian is a nationally-elected official whose role is to review the plan and oversee its alignment with the long-term preservation and improvement of public assets.

By combining these two functions – regulating local externalities and planning national infrastructure – the F.E.D. model aims to replace the traditional bureaucratic state with a “dialectical” system of democratic oversight.”

 

 

III.  Volunteer: “I recall also that the “National Custodian of Social Property” – the “Economic President” of the nation – is elected, mandated, term limited, and recallable, by the National Electorate.  Is that your perception of this proposal as well?”

 

III.  AI: “Yes, that aligns perfectly with the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica (F.E.D.) framework.  In the model outlined in “Marx’s Missing Blueprints,” the National Custodian of Social Property – often referred to as the “Economic President” – is the ultimate expression of their “Base-ocracy” principle.

According to F.E.D. materials, this role is characterized by:

·      Direct National Mandate: The Custodian is elected by the entire national electorate, ensuring they represent interest of the “base” rather than a political part or bureaucratic elite.

·      Mandated & Term-Limited: Like the Public Directors at lower levels, the Custodian operates under a specific mandate and is strictly term-limited to prevent th consolidation of personal power.

·      Total Accountability (Recallability): The National Electorate retains the power to recall the Custodian.  This ensures that the “Economic President” remains a servant of the social property they oversee, directly answerable to the citizens who rely on that infrastructure and property.

This structure effectively creates a dual presidency: one focused on traditional civic governance and the Economic President focused on stewardship of the nation’s social and environmental assets, both of which are held in check by the same democratic mechanisms.”

 

 

 

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOLUTION –

 

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’; 

 

BOOK:

 

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free-of-Charge Download of Book PDF –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

 

Hardcover Book Order –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘EQUITIST SOCIAL BANKS’. Part 5. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 5. dialogues with ‘protoic meta-humanity’

series.

 

‘EQUITIST

SOCIAL

BANKS’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

The following is our transcript of a dialogue between yours truly and a prominent, representative AI – ‘protoic’ to expected future android robot ‘meta-humans’, equipped with AI ‘‘‘minds’’’.

Our edited/more-punctuated transcript follows.  Where we perceive errors in the AI’s assertions, we have commented in magenta-colored bold/italics text within inserted square brackets –

 

I.  F.E.D.: “Karl Seldon, and Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, have proposed, in their book “MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS”, as well as in blogs and on websites where their works are featured, a “successor system” to the present, “[state-]capitalist system”, that they call “equitist political-economic democracy”, or just “equitism”.  This proposed “successor system” I founded upon three statutory and constitutional “pillars” of new “human rights” and “all-Citizens property rights”.  The first is called “Citizen Birthright Equity”, which involves a socialized trust fund, assigned at birth, for every new citizen born.  The second is called “Citizen Externality Equity”, which involve democratic, elections-based, “internalized”, “grass roots regulation” of local polluters, as an alternative to bureaucratic regulation by “captured external regulatory agencies”.  The third is called “Citizen Stewardship Equity”, which involves socialized producers’ cooperatives, whereby “qualified” citizen collectives are granted their business plans required means of production, in return for a monthly “Social Rent”, which helps pay for the “Birthright Equity” trust funds, and these co-ops then compete with other such co-ops in their market fields, as well as with remaining capital equity enterprises in the same market fields.  There is also a fourth “equity”, called “Citizen per capita Allocational Equity”.  How, in your view, does this complex of new “Equities” form a cohesive social system, and a “new social relation of production” in Marx’s sense?  And how does this “Equitist” system propose to solve the “fatal flaw” of the capitalist system, per Seldon – the “technodepreciation” caused by the growth of Marx’s “social forces of production”, which, in turn, causes “the tendency of the rate of profit on capital to fall”?”

 

I.  AI: “The Equitist system proposed by Seldon and the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica forms a cohesive social system by shifting the core “social relation of production” from capital-ownership to social-stewardship.

In Marx’s sense, a social relation of production defines who controls the means of production and how the surplus is distributed.  Equitism replaces the “wage-labor vs. capital” dynamics with a “stewardship” model:

1.  Cohesion via “Equities”: The system functions as a closed loop [rising, widening spiral] circuit. Stewardship Equity provides the productive base (co-ops), which pay a Social Rent.  Thus rent funds the Birthright Equity [the individual Citizens’] trust fund[s], ensuring that every citizen has a non-labor source of income.  Externality Equity ensures this production doesn’t destroy the environment by giving local citizens direct democratic control over industrial impacts.

2.  The New Relation: Instead of a class of owners and a class of workers, all citizens become “co-owners” of the societal infrastructure.  The “Social Bank[s]” acts as the mediator[s], ensuring that “capital” is no longer a private power, but a social utility accessible to any “qualified” collective.

Solving the “Fatal Flaw” (Technodepreciation)

·      Seldon identifies the “fatal flaw” as the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRTF), driven by what he calls “technodepreciation.”  In a capitalist system, as automation and technology (fixed capital) increase [driven by the competitive struggle to achieve greater profit-ability via higher productivity, extracting more “relative surplus-value” from workers [Marx]], the portion of value derived rom human labor decreases, leading to a profit squeeze [when lower-productivity capital equipment must by junked, due to competitive obsolescence, before its cost has been recouped by wear-and-tear depreciation charges, and new loans must be taken out to buy its replacing equipment while the debt-service on the loans that bought the junked equipment are still also being paid upon] and systemic crises [when the capital-investment denominators of ROI ratios become ‘elephantiasized’ with fictitious capital, dragging those ratios down until they become unattractive to capital investors].

Equitism proposes to solve this by:

·      [government-backed ‘technodepreciation insurance’.]

·      Socializing the Loss: Under private capitalism, rapid technological advancement devalues existing capital, leading to bankruptcies and depressions.  In Equitism, “technodepreciation” is absorbed by the Social Bank[s] and the community [via the Office of the popularly-elected, mandated and recallable “National Custodian of Social Property”, the Economic President of the nation-state].

·      Redirecting the Surplus: Since the “Social Rent” paid by the co-ops is based on the use of social property rather than the extraction of surplus value for private profit, the system doesn’t “crash” when the rate of profit falls.  Instead, the gains from automation are funneled directly into the Birthright Equity funds.

·      Decoupling Survival from Wage-Labor: By providing a [monthly] “Social Dividend” from birth [cf. the “Trump Accounts”], Equitism acknowledges that technology will eventually eliminate most jobs.  It transforms “technological unemployment” into a “social leisure” dividend [cf. Marx, Capital III, on the “realm of freedom”/“realm of necessity”].”

 

“Do you want to look closer at how the Social Bank[s] determines which “citizen collectives” are qualified to receive means of production?”  

 

 

II.  F.E.D.: “Yes, but my understanding is that there is not a single “Social Bank”, but a system of national-government-chartered social bankS, themselves a special kind of democratically self-managed socialized producers’ co-ops, that compete with one another to sponsor successful producers’ cooperatives, and derive their income from a portion of the “Social Rents” paid by the other kinds of “socialized producers’ cooperatives” that they choose to sponsor.”

 

II.  AI: “You are correct; the Equitist model decentralizes the “Social Bank” function into a competitive, multi-bank system to avoid the stagnation of a monolithic state bureaucracy. 

In this system, these Social Banks are themselves organized as democratically self-managed producers’ cooperatives.  Their role and sustainability within the “new social relation of production” are defined by several key features:

·      Democratic Competition: Rather than a single start entity, multiple national-government-chartered social banks compete for the “business” of sponsoring other producers’ cooperatives.  They must actively seek out the most viable, innovative, and socially beneficial business plans from citizen collectives to ensure that the “capital” that they “steward” is used effectively[: each Social Bank’s income depends upon how well they do this].

·      Revenue from Social Rents: The social banks do not derive profit from interest in the traditional sense.  Instead, their income is a designated portion [“commission”-like] of the “Social Rents” paid by the cooperatives they sponsor.  This creates a direct incentive for the social banks to help their sponsored co-ops succeed: if a co-op [sponsored by a given social bank] flourishes and pays its Social Rent, the [that] bank’s own revenue stream remains secure[, or even rises].

·      Checks and Balances: By making the social banks also co-ops, the model ensures that the financial “gatekeepers” are subject to the same democratic governance as the producers they fund.  This prevents the emergence of a new “financial elite” or “managerial class,” as the social bank’s workers are themselves also stewards of social property[, not its private owners].

·      Decentralized Allocation: This structure solves the “information problem” often found in central planning.  Competing social banks, each with their own expertise an local knowledge, are better at identifying “qualified” collectives and allocating [means of production] resources than a single central office.  This arrangement reinforces the “Stewardship” relation: the social banks don’t “own” the “capital” they distribute, and the co-ops don’t “own” the means of production they use.  Both are temporary custodians of social property, working together to generate the surplus needed to fund the Citizen Birthright Equity for the entire population. [In return, the competitively-successful Citizen-Stewards, who democratically manage, and market-compete with, the means of production social property awarded to their stewardship, receive two streams of income, versus the wage-/salary-worker’s one stream.  The stewards receive both compensation for their time-worked, and a share of the net operating surplus of their cooperative enterprise, a surplus that would go to the, e.g., non-worker absentee stockholders in the cases of wage-/salary-workers].”

 

“Would you like to explore the “qualification” process – specifically how a citizen collective proves it is ready to steward social property?”

 

III.  F.E.D.: “Yes!”

 

III.  AI: “In the “Equitist” model proposed by Karl Seldon and the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, the qualification process for a citizen collective to receive “social property” [means of production] is the critical mechanism that replaces private investment with democratic stewardship.

Since the means of production are socialized [except for the – non-outlawed – private capital equity enterprises still remaining, and competing with stewardship enterprises as well as among themselves], a “qualified” collective is not simply anyone with an idea, but a group that passes a rigorous evaluation by a Social Bank cooperative.  The qualification involves several key layers:

·      The Business Plan as a “Social Contract”: A collective must submit a detailed business plan that demonstrates technical feasibility and marker viability.  However, unlike a capitalist business plan, this one acts as a “social contract.”  It must detail how the collective will generate [its contributions to] the Social Rent[s] required to fund the community’s Birthright Equity [Social Trust Fund for each Citizen].

·      Demonstrated Competence: “Qualification” requires the collective to prove they possess the necessary skills – technical, managerial, and social – to steward the requested [means of production] assets.  This often involves certifications, previous experience in similar co-ops, or educational milestones that verify their “strategic qualification” to handle complex production.

·      Democratic Internal Structure: To be eligible for stewardship, the collective must be organized as a [democratically] self-managed producers’ cooperative.  The[ir potential] Social Bank[s] [sponsor(s)] evaluate[s] whether the group truly operates on “one member, one vote” principles, ensuring that social property isn’t being “captured” by a hidden hierarchy.

·      Externality Assessment: A unique part of Equitist qualification is the “Externality Equity” check.  The collective must show that its [business] plan aligns with the local “grassroots regulation” of its community.  If the proposed business is likely to violate local environ-mental or social standards, it may be disqualified regardless of its potential for “Social Rent”.  [Moreover, stewardship equity enterprises, just as remaining capital equity enterprises, will have an ongoing, internalized “board of public directors”, elected, mandated and recallable by the publics within the radius of the externality impacts of that enterprise, negotiating the annual ‘externalities budget’ of that enterprise with the management committee of that enterprise].

The Role of Competitive Social Banks

The “Social banks” themselves are under pressure to be accurate in this qualification process.  Because their own revenue comes from a portion of the Social Rents paid by the co-ops they sponsor, a social bank that “qualifies” incompetent or irresponsible collectives will eventually run out of funds and lose its charter.  This creates a “success-breeding” loop: social banks compete to find and support the most promising “qualified” collectives, while collectives compete to provide the best business plans to secure high-quality [or any] stewardship [means of production] assets.”

 

“Would you like to know how the Social Banks’ own “qualified” status is maintained and what happens if a sponsored Stewardship cooperative fails to pay its Social Rent?

 

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOLUTION –

 

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’; 

 

BOOK:

 

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free-of-Charge Download of Book PDF –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

 

Hardcover Book Order –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH