government issued dividens

Economics Political Theory
1

Governments act as state capitalist entity

We understand that the government runs as an investment scheme on the behalf of people, regardless of the system of government all governments or just about make investment decisions on the behalf of people, both majority and minority. In what most would find familiar as mob rule, ochlocracy or the common term democracy, the majority always coerces the minority to invest on their behalf, generally with them. Though they are investments that even anarcho capitalists would sympathize with, such as military, police and civil services as well as some useless things. We understand that competition for providing these needs could provide a better service.

Though I am against such things, I would say that if the government where to make a good decision, one that where profitable, there is no reason for it to issue a dividend. Given that it would eventually make a profitable investment on the collective behalf or in some cases run into vast amounts of resources. Also given the US where to privaties a great deal of its assets it would receive a profit once debt was removed, as such, it would be appropriate for it to issue a dividend. So I would suggest a policy of 1-20% of taxes or government revenue should be given to people as a yearly cheque, type of dividend as a starting point given either profit from state investments or liquidated assets. This concept should come with some notices:

You should only be eligible to receive government issued cheque after 18 or 21 years of age/pa.

It would also mean that the state has to protect its access to citizenship, limiting citizenship but not necessarily the granting of working visas. People could still come to harness the opportunity to work and the natural resources, but granting citizenship should be limited, as both majority and minority have over time collectively (majority vote) invested into “the state.” So it would seem natural that if you consider the state a business, access should be limited, or smth only granted given a level achievement.

Perhaps this is where things should start.

2

We understand that the government runs as an investment scheme on the behalf of people

I missed the meeting where this concensus was achieved.

3

no insinuation was intended, i was more of an avid criticsim of how things run.

If you issue a government dividend, in the usa,UAI or some other country it could change peoples attitudes about taxation and give people some idea of the

conflict of interest there is in living of each other through taxation. Hopefully it would be presented as a socialist policy but end up changing peoples minds to capitalism. Start by issuing a tax dividend of 1% on the state level and federal level.

question: if the usa has more value in its assets than its debts, how would it distribute that wealth?

nationalsim is the barrier preventing people from entering countries, but you have to agree with >1 billion people wanting to enter the usa it may be a

somwhat resonable barrier, since people get free health care in most countries and other services, if you run your country as a business you end up with more

people being able to enter over the long and short term, by limiting citizenship but not working visas, so people pay as they go…

What i’m yet to hear anyone discuss is that it is not just nationalism but somewhat of a ligitimate concern that if everyone who would want to enter the G8 etc could those countries esential services could never cope with such an influx.