We are on a journey now to monetize environmental impact of every use and product. This requires the creation of a public trust “ownership” over every physical thing. Use is seen as an impact for which the public must be compensated through the issuance of allocations and “credits” - which can be traded in exchanges benefitting very rich people.
http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ecosystem_services.htm
The Great Transition - the Great Revaluing - make good things cheap and bad things expensive. Building social and environmental value should be the central goal of policy-making;
the Great Redistribution - redistribution of both income and wealth would create value as resources are moved from those who do not need them to those who do. Goal to share working hours and tasks more equally. Foster a redistribution of ownership to create a form of ‘economic democracy’, where company shares are progressively transferred to employees in a resurgence of mutual and co-operative ownership forms.
Great Rebalancing - markets but where pricing reflects true social and environmental costs and benefits, and a broader definition of “public goods”
Great Localisation moving real power away from the centre to devolved “democratic” (stakeholder) bodies.
Great Reskilling returning to appropriate scale for agriculture, manufacturing and the arts.
Great Economic Irrigation taxing environmental and social ‘bads’ such as pollution, consumption and short-term speculation. consumption taxes reflecting the social and environmental costs of goods
Great Interdependence wealth transfer to developing countries. New Economics Foundation http://www.neweconomics.org/
Stewart Wallis on the Great Transition video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVRD0ZppzRo&feature=player_embedded
Nonsense. That a socialized pricing system exists doesn't make it so. Just because Gretchen Daley came up with a flawed theory doesn't mean that the observations upon which it is based are totally wrong. Her observation was correct, but her corrective action was an abomination. That a bunch of crooks jumped on her bandwagon only makes it worse.
You still don't get it. A true mitigations market would be a boon to private property owners. If people want the results of the management services they provide, they should pay for them instead of running to mommy government demanding they be forced to provide it free in the name of public safety.
While at first interesting, the harsh reality is that your post 12 is predicated upon collective decision making.
That was tried by the Pilgrims during the “Starving Winter” and discarded after it killed nearly half of them.
The issue remains to day just what it was, is, and will always be - Centralized or individualized.
Does the collective decide or the individuals involved?
The Founders chose the individual, operating within the bounds described in the Founding Documents.
History shows they were correct.
Do you side with the Founders?