Digital Direct Democracy
   
e-mail
-
Κωδικός
-
 
- -
  -Κατάλογος μελών | Διακήρυξη
 
     
-  

From the distribution of goods, in the distribution of tax burdens

By Demosthenes Kyriazis.

 

The format and objectives of the production process

In the past and even more in the present, the production of goods and services was and still is a collective and not an individual process. Note that even in small primitive societies of hunters, acquiring the prey was usually a collective process. The collective production process apply to all living beings; swarms of insects, with characteristic example that of bees, flocks of birds, herds of wild animals.

The main objective of the production process was and still is the quantity and quality of the product produced. But in today's society in which the production process became highly collaborative and complex, a second target that of the distribution, equivalent to that of quantitative-qualitative production, became important. But distribution exists only when there are products from the “production process”.   This of undeniable correctness axiom imposes the following hierarchy: First the production and then its distribution according to reasonable and ethical rules. However, several of the professional representatives of civil society, act as if they believe in diametrically opposite axiom: First the distribution and after the production.

 

Principles and norms of distribution

The distribution rules that were in force and are still applicable, can be classified into two broad categories:

To logical rules summarized in the doctrine: "Distribution among those who worked on the production." Extreme formulation of this doctrine and even theological, is "who does not work will not eat".

To ethics rules summarized in the doctrine: "Distribution to all members of the society according to their needs." But to ensure adequate production, necessarily, this doctrine was followed by forced participation in the production process of those who did not want to work or want to work in the field of their choice; that is it was accompanied by limiting the freedom of citizens. 

The establishment and implementation of production / distribution rules, was, is and will be done from the people of power.  This means that the logic and ethics of the rules  depend primarily on the regime and secondarily on the logic and ethics of the people of power 

 

The evolution of production / distribution rules

In the past, all regimes, monarchies, oligarchic, parliamentary- democratic, applied the doctrine “First the production”. The distribution however of the production to the power people, was done with the logic and ethics of  ' the lion's share'.  But the "Lions / power people" are created by the human laws, which are creations of the power people (!!!). Major motivation for logical and ethical distribution, was to increase the quantity and to improve the quality of the production.

From the comparison of the distribution rules in the jungle and in the societies, arises the following conclusion: The "lion's share" granted because the lion has from Nature muscle strength greater than that of the other animals and hence is an action compatible with the laws of Nature. Unlike the "lion's share" issued to people of power is acquired because they have the contractual-institutional right to manage the power of the people and not because they have greater spiritual and moral forces from the other people. Examples need not to be mentioned. People know enough about the spiritual and moral forces of some representatives / people of power. However people perceive the aforementioned contractual-institutional right, not as the sum of the power of citizens, which is managed by the elected or arbitrary representatives, but as their own power.

In the past the above virtual power (contractual right), passed from father to the son; it was inherited. But today, in most countries - with the exception of some with "enlightened" leaders - this right is granted to citizens’ representatives, who are also ordinary people and are elected by the citizens. The transfer of power to children formally has been canceled.  But the breadth and the rules of representation, which is determined from the representatives and not by citizens, annulled the …cancellation (!!!).

Every citizen knows enough about this issue; about the nepotism in the Representative Democracies.

From the breadth and the rules of representation, not only nepotism was born, but many other distortions of the regime of true democracy; the democracy of ancient culture. The most important of these are:

(1)The deterioration of Law. In the ancient Greek Democracy, Governor was the Law and not the man/ leader (’ρχοντας).  Today the Law became the tool of exercising the power from the citizens’ representative/lord. In some Countries, the Referendum, from top and uncompromising mandate of the citizens on their representatives, downgraded to a tool of exercising the power from the representative!!!

 (2).In order to abolish the unfair, but compatible with natural determinism, distribution of the “lion’s portion”, they exterminated the “lions of the production process” and through human laws created the “lions of the party”, which have no particular logic and moral force, but dispose great party power.

(3) In the public sector and in the areas controlled by the government, the dedication and contribution to the party is rewarded, while the productive work is ignored and effectively punished.

(4) Top if not unique goal of representatives/ rulers became the conquest and retention of power and not its exercise for the good of the citizens.

As a result of all these distortions was the decline of the production and a substantial failure to provide basic goods to citizens. This decline has created a serious problem because the distribution of goods is the vehicle assignment of civil power to dealers; the vehicle of power conquest.

Those exercising the power have faced this problem by borrowing and with false expectations for benefits. But when the fiesta of borrowed and of the false aspirations ended and the provision of goods became impossible, then a new method was used; "the distribution of large tax burden, with “socially fair” manner.

The “social fair” distribution of weights without goods’ production, creates significant risks for total destruction, especially when it is not compatible with the laws of Nature and is with the human laws; the laws of the party of power. This happened in the following story:

An animal lover, Commander of some British colony in Africa, who adored the graceful antelopes, ordered his servants to kill the lions because they killed and ate the antelopes. The lions were killed. But after some time the antelopes died too; their population grew too much, resulting to the extinction of plants which were their food.

May the "death" of enterprises / Lions in our country, lead not to the result of history with lions and antelopes.

May the new method “of taxes’ distribution instead of goods", which kills large and small lions of production, not to lead to a total destruction.

 

 Conclusion

Tackling dangerous situations such as the "fair distribution of tax burdens instead of goods”, requires the revival of the regime of “The ruling and ruled Citizen”. It requires the rational allocation of power,  to the citizens themselves and to their representatives so that: (1)The representatives of the citizens eliminate the current mentality of the prince and obtain that of the leader (άρχοντα) of the ancient Greek Democracy, and (2) Today's voters / followers of political parties to became again Citizens with authority and responsibility.

The creation of citizens with responsibility but without power is utopian; the power and the responsibility are an indivisible unit.  Exception exists to representatives / leaders of some countries , who took care to create laws to have power without responsibility

 

-Σχόλια

Σχόλιο /Απάντηση (θα πρέπει να κάνετε login για να αναρτήσετε νέο σχόλιο)

-