- 17 Jun 2014 09:58
#14422901
I have recently finished reading a light and thought-provoking book by this name.
The setting is as follows:
A 20th-21st century billionaire with terminal cancer commissions a hidden cryogenic chamber in which he is successfully suspended until accidentally discovered some 300 years in the future.
Restored to life and health he gets to know that future society which is the subject of the book.
Technologically, it is very advanced, with mature nano-technology enabling substantial life extension, youth restoration/retention, radical body alterations, incredible engineering feats, etc.
Politically, the society is organised as a less-then-minimal (but not anarchic) solar-system-wide state. Government is constitutionally barred from taxation (on its source of revenue immediately below) or monopolise any market (including law-and-order enforcement), though it does seem like the government's supreme court is the ultimate appeal jurisdiction.
The most notable aspect of society is personal incorporation. Upon birth, 100,000 shares are issued for each person. Of those, 5% go to the government and 20% to the parents. The rest become the property of the person and are typically sold to fund education and other early-life costs. By law, a person's self-holding may not drop below 25%.
Shares entitle their owners to a fraction of the person's earnings (hence government's 5% is effectively a 5% flat tax). In addition, majority of shares can override a person's occupational choices. In particular, one needs to achieve (re-achieve?) self-majority before one can hope to retire.
The plot of the story revolves around repeated attempts to compel our billionaire to incorporate himself, and the societal consequences of his refusal to do so.
From a libertarian perspective, the compulsory nature of incorporation is clearly problematic. Incorporation would really be a way for people to raise money by issuing long-term, transferable (tradable) commitments for shares in their future earnings.
How do people feel about voluntary incorporation? What if self-holding was limited to at least 50% such that the issue of compulsion to work didn't exist (or, equivalently, that the shares issued were "non-voting" shares)?
At what point would we be crossing the line to (voluntary) slavery?
The setting is as follows:
A 20th-21st century billionaire with terminal cancer commissions a hidden cryogenic chamber in which he is successfully suspended until accidentally discovered some 300 years in the future.
Restored to life and health he gets to know that future society which is the subject of the book.
Technologically, it is very advanced, with mature nano-technology enabling substantial life extension, youth restoration/retention, radical body alterations, incredible engineering feats, etc.
Politically, the society is organised as a less-then-minimal (but not anarchic) solar-system-wide state. Government is constitutionally barred from taxation (on its source of revenue immediately below) or monopolise any market (including law-and-order enforcement), though it does seem like the government's supreme court is the ultimate appeal jurisdiction.
The most notable aspect of society is personal incorporation. Upon birth, 100,000 shares are issued for each person. Of those, 5% go to the government and 20% to the parents. The rest become the property of the person and are typically sold to fund education and other early-life costs. By law, a person's self-holding may not drop below 25%.
Shares entitle their owners to a fraction of the person's earnings (hence government's 5% is effectively a 5% flat tax). In addition, majority of shares can override a person's occupational choices. In particular, one needs to achieve (re-achieve?) self-majority before one can hope to retire.
The plot of the story revolves around repeated attempts to compel our billionaire to incorporate himself, and the societal consequences of his refusal to do so.
From a libertarian perspective, the compulsory nature of incorporation is clearly problematic. Incorporation would really be a way for people to raise money by issuing long-term, transferable (tradable) commitments for shares in their future earnings.
How do people feel about voluntary incorporation? What if self-holding was limited to at least 50% such that the issue of compulsion to work didn't exist (or, equivalently, that the shares issued were "non-voting" shares)?
At what point would we be crossing the line to (voluntary) slavery?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.