Capitalism's Fatal Flaw, and the Way Forward: ‘Birthright Equity’ All-Citizens’ Trust Funds VERSUS Irksome Bureaucracy. Part 2. of the ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Friday, January 09, 2026

‘Birthright Equity’ All-Citizens’ Trust Funds VERSUS Irksome Bureaucracy. Part 2. of the ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’ series. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

‘Birthright

Equity’

All-Citizens’

Trust Funds

VERSUS

Irksome Bureaucracy.

Part 2. of the

‘Citizen Birthright

Equity’ series.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

There is no doubt that converting social property, all-citizens’ national funds, to the personal property of individual citizens, by right of birth, as detailed in Karl Seldon’s book Marx’s Missing Blueprints, involves “moral hazard”, if expenditures from those trust funds are not somehow limited to socially desirable – to majority class electorate desirable – uses.

What sober citizen would want new Citizens, starting at 18 years of age, to be able to squander their socialized trust funds on alcohol, cocaine, heroin, gambling, or myriads of other socially destructive – and personally self-destructive – activities.

The U.S. version of the Equitist amendment – or ‘amendatory annex’ – to the U.S. Constitution, should spell-out, broadly, the approved uses of Birthright Trust Fund assets.

The regulations – after nationwide citizens’ review and electoral consent – of the Social Trust Funds Administration, should spell-out in detail, the rules, per the majority electorate’s will, regarding for what kinds of purchases are permitted for Birthright-Trust funds.

However, it would be exceedingly irksome, and would brook continuing, smoldering, seething popular resentment, about paternalism, and bureaucratic despotism, if planned spendings of Birthright-Trust funds were required to be submitted, before expenditure, to the national Social Trust Funds Administration bureaucracy, allowing that bureaucracy to exercise prior restraint upon Birthright Trust Funds spending.

It would be far less irksome, we hold, to adopt, instead, an analogue of a longstanding and largely successful business practice with regard to business expense accounts.

For example, if you work for a business, and travel on behalf of that business, it is typical to, first, be asked to read the rules for the types of, e.g., business travel expenses for which that business allows reimbursement, and then to bring your receipts for your travel expenditures back with you from your business travels, and to submit them to that business’s accounting arm for reimbursement review.

If some of your receipts are for expenses that are ruled non-reimbursable, per that business’s expense-accounts rulebook, then you don’t get reimbursed for those expenses and, if you want to keep your job, you probably don’t want to protest those non-reimbursed expenses too much.

So we think, with Seldon, that ‘Birthright Equity Trust Fund’ expenditures should be managed on a reimbursement basis.

If your local arm of your national Social Trust Funds Administration turns down one of your reimbursement requests, you are in a better position to protest than if you were an employee of a capitalist business.

As a Citizen, you can’t be “fired” for protesting such a decision not to reimburse your personal funds expenditure from your Birthright Equity Trust Fund.

You have abundant, multi-level opportunities to appeal that non-reimbursement within the Social Trust Funds Administration.

If you have exhausted all levels of appeal within that Administration, and are not satisfied with the results of your appeals within that Administration, you have standing to file a lawsuit against that Administration with the proximate ‘Tribunal for Citizen Birthright Equity’, and even to appeal through all levels of those Tribunals, and, if still unsatisfied, to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Of course, if the Justice Officers of any of these courts – who are elected, mandated, term-limited, and recallable by the electorate, even within their limited terms – find your appeal to their court to be without merit, they can refuse to hear your appeal. And, if your case is heard, but you lose on that appeal, you are liable for the court costs of that appeal.

If the general expenditure regulations of the national Social Trust Funds Administration become too onerous for the majority of the electorate, at any time, a petition campaign can be successfully launched from the “grass roots” of that electorate, and a national referendum held to change the onerous general regulations nation-wide.

Granted, this is not a “perfect” solution. Such “perfect” solutions are not available in the human Domain. But it is, we hold, a far less irksome and far less offensive alternative than a “prior restraint” regime.

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 –