Employment and Taxation

Bucky Fuller proposed a system wherein people would no longer be forced to work at jobs which they disliked and regarded as meaningless. Instead, each individual would be liberated to pursue work and/or studies that intrigued him or her, and which might be more likely to benefit the planet as whole.

Dylan Thomas called a job “death without dignity” (per Frank McCourt quoted at http://www.achievement.org/), reflecting the miserable resolve felt by those who toil at jobs they hate.

And world traveler and writer Harold Stephens, a man whose life has been filled with more adventure than most people could even imagine, has said he’s been able to live an exciting life by simply never worrying about trying to make a living, but just doing what has felt right for him at the time. Bucky Fuller himself also adhered to a similar philosophy. And the ancient Greek and Roman philosopher-scientists we so admire today also undoubtedly would have avoided any type of work that didn’t totally intrigue them. Either through the good fortune of possessing pre-existing wealth, or the conscious choice of a Ghandi-like spurning of material possessions, they afforded themselves the luxury of being able to engage in whatever intellectual pursuits they thought important, and probably would have looked down on those who settled for less.

As mentioned earlier, wealth disparities among members of hunter-gatherer societies were minute compared to those which are commonplace today. After all, think of the tremendous difference in material wealth between Bill Gates and even the average U.S. citizen, let alone people in “less-developed” countries. And then think of the material possessions of the chief of a tribal society compared to the other members of his tribe. Perhaps the chief had a more impressive horse, better weapons, or more wives, but otherwise his “standard of living” was basically the same as everyone else’s.

And while there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy, there’s also nothing wrong with being satisfied with having “enough.” The problem for the “wage slave” today is not that of having too little, but of never being satisfied and always wanting more. Bigger houses, more expensive cars and the like are now considered necessities by many people, who in order to pay for them, slave away at jobs they hate.

In Natural Capitalism, Hawken and the Lovinses propose a future in which there are no longer any income taxes levied on personal income or savings interest. Instead, taxes would be levied on businesses that pollute the environment (of which there are plenty). Thus an incentive would be created – businesses would rapidly shift to more efficient, less-polluting methods of operation, and pollution would decrease. But as standards became increasingly intolerant of any pollution, there would probably always be enough polluters around to fill the tax coffers.

In addition, the authors of Natural Capitalism also insist that commerce and environmentalism can and must co-exist. Further, they insist that by doing so, there will be benefits on both sides – increased efficiency of production and an improvement of the environment. And they’re not the only ones who feel this way.

Founded by the late actor Dennis Weaver, the Institute of Ecolonomics seeks to demonstrate “that creating a symbiotic relationship between a strong economy and a healthy ecology is the only formula for a sustainable future.” As previously mentioned, Weaver practiced what he preached, having his cake and eating it too by having his (eco-friendly) mansion built of recycled materials.

Along similar lines, the late Jacques Cousteau’s concept of Ecotechnie is an attempt to bring together economics, technology, and the social sciences to advise decision-making based on long-term consequences of what we have done and will do in the future. By taking the long view and combining the best thinking from many disparate disciplines, this exciting new approach could perhaps improve the future for the majority of Earth’s inhabitants, human and otherwise.

There is no inherent reason why environmental protection and individual prosperity cannot go hand-in-hand.

(CONTINUE READING)