The World

[as I find it]

Some proposals

Here are four proposals for the improvement of society that I have had occasion to think about this weekend. I do not know much about the technical feasibility of any of them, but I put them forth as ideas for others to refine:

  1. Burn food that gets thrown away. That’s right: we should start mechanically metabolizing the food we throw away and harvesting the energy this produces, instead of simply letting it rot or even making compost from it. We are facing an energy crisis; yet every living thing on the planet has an efficient system for turning organic materials other than petroleum into energy. By setting up a chemical process that simulates human (or another species’) metabolic processes, then feeding it food that would otherwise be thrown away, we would create an efficient, non-oil based source of storable energy that would help reduce a huge source of waste. One problem this would create, of course, is that animal metabolism produces carbon dioxide. By adding to our metabolic process a series of ecological controls for this, like the plants used in this rest stop on the Vermont highway, we can reduce carbon dioxide output as well. Another problem is the building of infrastructure — but haven’t we solved this problem for every other energy source we’ve ever relied upon?
  2. Raise taxes or tolls for private car use, while providing tax breaks for public transportation use. One of the biggest problems facing public transportation in Philadelphia, at least, is that it is constantly underfunded, and new contracts and funds must be secured every year. The solution to this is not to throw more money at a broken system. Instead, we should provide greater incentives for the people who currently avoid the system (because it’s dirty, because it’s slow, because it’s unreliable, because they can afford to drive) to use it by raising taxes on non-public forms of transportation, and put the added revenue into much-needed changes. Meanwhile, we should provide tax breaks for people who use public transportation, just as we provide them for other practices that help the environment and benefit the public. This will foster greater public support for the system, which in turn will make improving it easier.
  3. Revise copyright law so that rights and restrictions have a “sale depth” of 1. This one takes some explaining; I admit that the idea isn’t totally well-formed in my mind yet. The idea is that we should continue to protect the benefits of artists with copyright law, to foster creativity, while preventing restrictions on copying once an artist has already benefited. It’s probably true that if creators did not have the exclusive right to license copies of a work, we’d see less creation. But once an artist has benefited from a work by selling the copyright, or by selling copies, the restrictions on further copies should be drastically reduced. Many people are willing to pay for “depth one” copies — copies of works originally produced by the artist or the publisher to whom the copyright was first sold. “Depth two” copies — copies made from depth one copies, or made by a second publisher who bought the copyright from the first — should be completely free and unregulated. If I buy a CD, I should have to pay for it, and I should not be able to profit from making copies of that CD and selling them to others while the artist or first publisher still holds the copyright. But I should have the right to make copies and give them away for free. Market regulation (i.e., the cost of producing physical copies) will ensure that I can’t do enough of this to really harm the artist. Virtual copies (e.g., song files ripped from that CD), though extremely cost-effective to distribute, are not really copies of the original work, and sharing them will only increase, or at least not decrease, sales of “depth one” copies (cf. this study). This again protects the artist’s profit without placing harmful restrictions on the public or allowing too much profit to secondary entities that does not filter up to the artist. This proposal does entail that some artists and publishers may make less money, but it is unlikely to harm those who really need the protection of copyright law: independent artists and publishers, who often suffer from the high costs of production and advertising. A system which allows people to share work that they really like will reduce these costs and add to profits, since the work of advertising great but undiscovered works will be passed onto the public, who will do it freely. Only the large corporate publishing entities and overpaid “artists” whose practices are currently harming the public stand to lose out, since they will no longer be able to prevent people from previewing works before they buy them, and strangling competition from independent sources by advertising and distributing their products ubiquitously. Quite frankly, I am not concerned about protecting the rights of artists and corporations to profit beyond the profit that any other type of laborer may make. No artist should have to worry about just scraping by if their work really is beneficial; but neither should they make millions of dollars by preventing the public from obtaining the benefits of their work.
  4. A tax to fund political campaigns. I heard several times in the news this week that presidential candidates for 2008 expect to need to raise $100 million to run any kind of “serious” campaign. This means they’ll need to raise at least $2 million a week to have enough by the time the race really heats up. That’s a lot of money by any reasonable standard, which raises the question of why on Earth it should cost so much to run a “serious” campaign, a question I unfortunately cannot address here. However, raising this money presents at least two other problems: (1) to raise $2 million a week, it seems most likely that it will have to come from pockets deeper than the average voter’s, which means candidates will be beholden to special interests even more than in the past; (2) raising that kind of money takes time and effort, which means our most promising political leaders will be doing a lot less of what they should be doing right now: representing people in government. There’s a simple solution to both these problems. The federal government should levy a tax to fund presidential campaigns. There are over 200 million persons of voting age in the United States today; each of them should pay a small tax of, say, $10 into this fund, which will make $2 billion of public funds available for presidential candidates. Even supposing that $100 million really is required to run a serious campaign, that’s enough to fund the campaigns of twenty presidential candidates, which is certainly more than the number of “real contenders” we have seen in any recent election. Candidates should receive this money in increments after demonstrating certain amounts of popular support. Thus, the public would select its candidates as the race progressed, instead of having candidacy available only to those already in a position to raise vast sums of private money. The result would be a set of candidates answerable only to the public, who don’t have to worry about significant fundraising, and who can therefore focus on doing their current jobs. Moreover, the cost of this system is minimal. I would certainly be willing to pay $10 every four years to ensure that my candidates would not be subject to undue pressure from special interests. Even without a tax, we could create this fund by diverting a small portion of the federal budget: setting aside $2 billion for publicly funded political campaigns is less than the cost of two weeks of the war in Iraq.

Please discuss.


Written by whereofwecannotspeak

February 17, 2007 at 6:43 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I was pleased with the level of thought put into this internet posting listed above. I’m not much for this interweb hullabaloo, myself; too much bluster, not enough fiber. Far too democratic for my tastes. However, I am glad Mr. Lawrence is doing his small part to correct this sordid state of affairs. One grows cynical in old age, and it is indeed refreshing to see someone bringing the cooling water-spout of rigid logic to the barren discourse that populates one’s average internet talkroom sitemap. He is tending his own garden, so to speak. And the world does love a gardener, basking in the glow of the seasons as they come, communing with the glory of nature, pastoral nostalgia blah blah blah blah blah.

    Keep up the good work, Mr. Lawrence. Though I do wonder at the feasibility of a large scale metabolic process solving our current energy crisis, mainly because I doubt the plebes will be able to sort food waste from non. With today’s American diet, who even knows the difference?

    Q. J. Walpole III
    Minister of Sarcasm
    Third Earl of Duke
    Vice-Principal of the Uncommunicative
    Her Majesty’s Second Stepping Stone

    Q. J. Walpole III

    February 19, 2007 at 12:47 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: