Search This Blog

Friday, April 12, 2024

Right to a healthy environment

 
The right to a healthy environment or the right to a sustainable and healthy environment is a human right advocated by human rights organizations and environmental organizations to protect the ecological systems that provide human health. The right was acknowledged by the United Nations Human Rights Council during its 48th session in October 2021 in HRC/RES/48/13 and subsequently by the United Nations General Assembly on July 28, 2022 in A/RES/76/300. The right is often the basis for human rights defense by environmental defenders, such as land defenders, water protectors and indigenous rights activists.

The right is interconnected with other health-focused human rights, such as the right to water and sanitation, right to food and right to health. The right to a healthy environment uses a human rights approach to protect environmental quality; this approach addresses the impact of environmental harm upon individual humans, as opposed to the more traditional approach of environmental regulation which focuses on impacts to other states or the environment itself. Yet another approach to environmental protection is rights of nature which tries to extend the rights enjoyed by humans and corporations to nature as well.

Slash and burn deforestation along the Rio Xingu, Brazil endangers both indigenous rights to the land as well as the larger right to a healthy environment. Case law like the Colombian Climate case protecting the Amazon forest from deforestation have historically relied on the rights of nature and children, the right to a healthy environment would provide additional protection.

Role of the state

The right creates an obligation of the state to regulate and enforce environmental laws, control pollution, and otherwise provide justice and protections for communities harmed by environmental problems. The right to a healthy environment has been an important right for creating environmental legal precedents for climate change litigation and other environmental issues.

Attempts to amend constitutions

An environmental rights amendment, also called a green amendment, is type of amendment usually proposed to a constitution or a bill of rights. These amendments guarantee citizens the right to a healthy environment. Related rights included in these proposals often include a right to a stable climate, clean air and water, environmental justice, preservation of natural, scenic, esthetic and historic values of the environment.

The right to a healthy environment can be implemented into constitutional law other ways, such as written into constitutions in their drafting, such as in Tunisia, or enforced through climate change litigation, such as in Colombia. In the United States, most advocates are focused on amending existing state constitutions or enforcing existing state constitutions, such as in Held v. Montana, where youth sued for enforcement of the existing state constitution.

International approaches

Historically, major United Nations' human rights instruments, like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights do not recognize the right to a healthy environment. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration recognizes the right, but is not a legally binding document. The 1992 Rio Declaration does not use the language of human rights, although it does state that individuals shall have access to information regarding environmental matters, participation in decision-making, and access to justice. The currently proposed UN resolution, the Global Pact for the Environment, if adopted, would be the first UN human rights instrument to include the right to a healthy environment.

Over 150 states in the UN have independently recognized the right in some form via legislation, litigation, constitutional law, treaty law or other legal authority. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, Escazu Agreement, Arab Charter on Human Rights, and ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights each include a right to a healthy environment. Other human rights frameworks, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child refer to environmental issues as they relate to the framework's focus, in this case children's rights.

UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights and the Environment John H. Knox (2012–2018) and David R. Boyd (2018–) have made recommendations on how to formalize these rights in international law. This was endorsed by a number of committees at the UN level, as well as local legal communities such as the New York City Bar, in 2020.

The right to a healthy environment is at the core of the international approach to human rights and climate change. The effects of climate change on human rights are presented by OHCHR in a fact sheet with the most frequently asked questions on the subject.

UN Human Rights Council Resolution

In 2021 during its 48th session, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution (put forward by the core group comprising Costa Rica, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland and the Maldives, with Costa Rica being penholder), recognizing "The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment", marking the first time that the body declared a human right. The resolution is not legally binding, but it "invites the United Nations General Assembly to consider the matter".

UN General Assembly Resolution

In 2022 during its 76th session, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution put forward by a core group including Costa Rica, Morocco, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the Maldives once again recognizing the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, this resolution was welcomed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, multiple special rapporteurs and members of some civil society organizations.

Citizens Against Government Waste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Against_Government_Waste

Citizens Against Government Waste
AbbreviationCAGW
Formation1984
TypeAdvocacy group
Headquarters1100 Connecticut Avenue NW
Location
  • Washington, D.C.
Region served
United States
President
Thomas A. Schatz
Websitehttp://www.cagw.org

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization in the United States. It functions as a "government watchdog" and advocacy group for fiscally conservative causes. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW, organized as a section 501(c)(4) organization and therefore is permitted to engage in direct lobbying activities. According to its website, "CAGW is a private, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than one million members and supporters nationwide. CAGW's stated mission is to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government."

History

CAGW was founded in 1984 by industrialist J. Peter Grace and syndicated columnist Jack Anderson. Grace was chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission (also known as the President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control).

CAGW is located in Washington, D.C. Thomas A. Schatz has been president since 1992.

Publications

CAGW produces a number of publications critical of government expenditures known colloquially as "pork-barrel" projects. The CAGW-published Congressional Pig Book Summary (Pig Book) is an annual list of such projects and their sponsors. The 2008 Pig Book identified 10,610 projects in that year's congressional appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2008, costing taxpayers $17.2 billion.

Related publications include Prime Cuts, a list of recommendations for eliminating waste in the federal government and Porker of the Month, a monthly press release.

Since 1989, the CCAGW has examined congressional roll-call votes to determine which members of Congress are voting in what they view as the interest of taxpayers. CAGW makes public what legislators are engaging in "pork-barrel" spending based on 'key' votes for each congressional session.

Activities

CAGW and CCAGW seek to influence public policy through public education, lobbying, and mobilization for email and letter campaigns to elected officials. CAGW claims to have helped save taxpayers $944 billion through its campaigns.

CAGW was one of the critics of a $23.5 billion Air Force plan in 2001 to lease and then buy 100 refueling tankers from Boeing. Congress squashed the plan after it was revealed that an Air Force official inflated the price in exchange for an executive job at Boeing.

CAGW was a critic of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and his efforts to secure a $2.3 billion federal loan for a railroad company that once employed him as a lobbyist. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) cited an "unacceptably high risk to taxpayers" in denying the loan to the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad (DM&E) in 2007.

CAGW named Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) its June 2008 Porker of the Month for accepting a preferential mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial which stood to benefit from a mortgage bailout bill he was pushing through Congress.

Microsoft's antitrust case litigation

In 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that at least two dead people had sent a form letter by CAGW opposing the antitrust case against Microsoft to Mark Shurtleff, then Attorney General of Utah. State officials found that the decedents' family members had crossed out the names on the form letters and signed for them; another letter had come from the nonexistent city of "Tuscon, Utah".

Freeware initiative

In 2003, CAGW put out a press release opposed to what it called the "Freeware Initiative" in the State of Massachusetts, which it claimed would have required "that all IT expenditures in 2004 and 2005 be made on an open-source/Linux format."

Responding to the press release, a state official denied the existence of such an initiative and said the state was simply considering ways to integrate disparate systems using open standards such as HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), XML (Extensible Markup Language) and Java.

CAGW and tobacco

The St. Petersburg Times reported that CAGW "got at least $245,000 from the tobacco industry" and subsequently lobbied on its behalf. Internal tobacco industry documents made available by the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement indicate that CAGW and its affiliates supported the tobacco industry in several instances. Specifically, in 2001 when an industry-sponsored bill entitled the "Youth Smoking Reduction Act" was introduced in Congress, CAGW provided a letter of support, despite the opposition of most public health organizations. CAGW was also contacted by Phillip Morris to include ASSIST (Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test), a federal tobacco control program, in their Pig Book. ASSIST was considered an imminent threat to industry activities at the time.

Asked about his group's tobacco work, CAGW president Tom Schatz said, "We have always welcomed contributions to support the issues we support. Many of them have to do with fighting higher taxes and more regulations."

Other

Throughout its history, CAGW has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to give them the appearance of "grassroots" support.

According to the St. Petersburg Times in 2006, the Pig Book has been used to benefit corporate donors, specifically health clubs who donated to CAGW. It listed federal grants to YMCAs who compete with those health clubs as waste. CAGW's president countered that "The Ys are there because they qualify as pork. Period."

A Senate Finance Committee investigating ties between CAGW (and other non-profits) and Jack Abramoff in 2006 stated in a report that the non-profits: 'probably violated their tax-exempt status "by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff's direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff's clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff's clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff's clients."'

In 2007, CAGW supported a bill that would limit damages resulting from malpractice lawsuits. Many consumer watchdog groups opposed the bill.

"Chinese Professor" ad

The CAGW launched an ad, now commonly referred to as "Chinese Professor" for the 2010 midterm elections, which portrays a 2030 conquest of an indebted United States by China. Local Asian American extras were used to portray the Chinese students, although the actors were not informed of the nature of the shoot. Columnist Jeff Yang said that in the campaign there was a "blurry line between Chinese and Chinese-Americans". Larry McCarthy, the producer of "Chinese Professor," defended his work by saying that "this ad is about America, it's not about China."

CARES Act

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the group received assistance between $150,000 and $350,000 in federally backed small business loan from Truist Bank as part of the Paycheck Protection Program, saying that the funds would allow them to keep 17 jobs. Their loan was seen as notable, since they campaign against excess government spending and are small-government advocates. CAGW said it was the first time they have accepted government money. Danny Westneat of The Seattle Times quipped that "We're all socialists now, apparently", calling CAGW an anti-debt crusader.

Market economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy
Pike Place Market, Seattle, Washington, United States, 1968

A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution to the consumers are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production. Market economies range from minimally regulated free-market and laissez-faire systems where state activity is restricted to providing public goods and services and safeguarding private ownership, to interventionist forms where the government plays an active role in correcting market failures and promoting social welfare, as seen in some mixed economies. State intervention can happen at the production, distribution, trade and consumption areas in the economy. The distribution of basic need services and goods like health care may be entirely regulated by an egalitarian public health care policy (while having the production provided by private enterprise), effectively eliminating the forces of supply and demand.

State-directed or dirigist economies are those where the state plays a directive role in guiding the overall development of the market through industrial policies or indicative planning—which guides yet does not substitute the market for economic planning—a form sometimes referred to as a mixed economy.

Market economies are contrasted with planned economies where investment and production decisions are embodied in an integrated economy-wide economic plan. In a centrally planned economy, economic planning is the principal allocation mechanism between firms rather than markets, with the economy's means of production being owned and operated by a single organizational body.

Characteristics

Property rights

For market economies to function efficiently, governments must establish clearly defined and enforceable property rights for assets and capital goods. However, property rights does not specifically mean private property rights and market economies do not logically presuppose the existence of private ownership of the means of production. Market economies can and often do include various types of cooperatives or autonomous state-owned enterprises that acquire capital goods and raw materials in capital markets. These enterprises utilize a market-determined free price system to allocate capital goods and labor. In addition, there are many variations of market socialism where the majority of capital assets are socially owned with markets allocating resources between socially owned firms. These models range from systems based on employee-owned enterprises based on self-management to a combination of public ownership of the means of production with factor markets.

Supply and demand

Market economies rely upon a price system to signal market actors to adjust production and investment. Price formation relies on the interaction of supply and demand to reach or approximate an equilibrium where unit price for a particular good or service is at a point where the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied.

Rwanda fruits at the market

Governments can intervene by establishing price ceilings or price floors in specific markets (such as minimum wage laws in the labor market), or use fiscal policy to discourage certain consumer behavior or to address market externalities generated by certain transactions (Pigovian taxes). Different perspectives exist on the role of government in both regulating and guiding market economies and in addressing social inequalities produced by markets. Fundamentally, a market economy requires that a price system affected by supply and demand exists as the primary mechanism for allocating resources irrespective of the level of regulation.

Capitalism

There are different variations of capitalism with different relationships to markets. In laissez-faire and free-market variations of capitalism, markets are utilized most extensively with minimal or no state intervention and minimal or no regulation over prices and the supply of goods and services. In interventionist, welfare capitalism and mixed economies, markets continue to play a dominant role, but they are regulated to some extent by government in order to correct market failures or to promote social welfare. In state capitalist systems, markets are relied upon the least, with the state relying heavily on either indicative planning and/or state-owned enterprises to accumulate capital.

Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of mercantilism. However, it is argued that the term mixed economies more precisely describes most contemporary economies due to their containing both private-owned and state-owned enterprises. In capitalism, prices determine the demand-supply scale. Higher demand for certain goods and services lead to higher prices and lower demand for certain goods lead to lower prices.

Free-market capitalism

A capitalist free-market economy is an economic system where prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are expected by its supporters to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy. It typically entails support for highly competitive markets, private ownership of productive enterprises. Laissez-faire is a more extensive form of free-market economy where the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights and enforcing contracts.

Laissez-faire

Laissez-faire is synonymous with what was referred to as strict free-market economy during the early and mid-19th century as a classical liberal ideal to achieve. It is generally understood that the necessary components for the functioning of an idealized free market include the complete absence of government regulation, subsidies, artificial price pressures and government-granted monopolies (usually classified as coercive monopoly by free market advocates) and no taxes or tariffs other than what is necessary for the government to provide protection from coercion and theft, maintaining peace and property rights and providing for basic public goods. Right-libertarian advocates of anarcho-capitalism see the state as morally illegitimate and economically unnecessary and destructive. Although laissez-faire has been commonly associated with capitalism, there is a similar left-wing laissez-faire system called free-market anarchism, also known as free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism to distinguish it from laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, critics of laissez-faire as commonly understood argues that a truly laissez-faire system would be anti-capitalist and socialist.

Welfare capitalism

Welfare capitalism is a capitalist economy that includes public policies favoring extensive provisions for social welfare services. The economic mechanism involves a free market and the predominance of privately owned enterprises in the economy, but public provision of universal welfare services aimed at enhancing individual autonomy and maximizing equality. Examples of contemporary welfare capitalism include the Nordic model of capitalism predominant in Northern Europe.

Regional models

Anglo-Saxon model

Anglo-Saxon capitalism is the form of capitalism predominant in Anglophone countries and typified by the economy of the United States. It is contrasted with European models of capitalism such as the continental social market model and the Nordic model. Anglo-Saxon capitalism refers to a macroeconomic policy regime and capital market structure common to the Anglophone economies. Among these characteristics are low rates of taxation, more open international markets, lower labor market protections and a less generous welfare state eschewing collective bargaining schemes found in the continental and northern European models of capitalism.

East Asian model

The East Asian model of capitalism involves a strong role for state investment and in some instances involves state-owned enterprises. The state takes an active role in promoting economic development through subsidies, the facilitation of "national champions" and an export-based model of growth. The actual practice of this model varies by country. This designation has been applied to the economies of China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam.

A related concept in political science is the developmental state.

Social market economy

The social market economy was implemented by Alfred Müller-Armack and Ludwig Erhard after World War II in West Germany. The social market economic model, sometimes called Rhine capitalism, is based upon the idea of realizing the benefits of a free-market economy, especially economic performance and high supply of goods while avoiding disadvantages such as market failure, destructive competition, concentration of economic power and the socially harmful effects of market processes. The aim of the social market economy is to realize greatest prosperity combined with best possible social security. One difference from the free market economy is that the state is not passive, but instead takes active regulatory measures. The social policy objectives include employment, housing and education policies, as well as a socio-politically motivated balancing of the distribution of income growth. Characteristics of social market economies are a strong competition policy and a contractionary monetary policy. The philosophical background is neoliberalism or ordoliberalism.

Socialism

Market socialism is a form of market economy where the means of production are socially owned. In a market socialist economy, firms operate according to the rules of supply and demand and operate to maximize profit; the principal difference between market socialism and capitalism being that the profits accrue to society as a whole as opposed to private owners.

The distinguishing feature between non-market socialism and market socialism is the existence of a market for factors of production and the criteria of profitability for enterprises. Profits derived from publicly owned enterprises can variously be used to reinvest in further production, to directly finance government and social services, or be distributed to the public at large through a social dividend or basic income system.

Advocates of market socialism such as Jaroslav Vaněk argue that genuinely free markets are not possible under conditions of private ownership of productive property. Instead, he contends that the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests. Additionally, Vaněk states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits (based on the overall performance of their enterprise) in addition to receiving their fixed wage or salary. The stronger incentives to maximize productivity that he conceives as possible in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises might be accomplished in a free-market economy if employee-owned companies were the norm as envisioned by various thinkers including Louis O. Kelso and James S. Albus.

Models of market socialism

Market socialism traces its roots to classical economics and the works of Adam Smith, the Ricardian socialists and mutualist philosophers.

In the 1930s, the economists Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner developed a model of socialism that posited that a public body (dubbed the Central Planning Board) could set prices through a trial-and-error approach until they equaled the marginal cost of production in order to achieve perfect competition and pareto optimality. In this model of socialism, firms would be state-owned and managed by their employees and the profits would be disbursed among the population in a social dividend. This model came to be referred to as market socialism because it involved the use of money, a price system and simulated capital markets, all of which were absent from traditional non-market socialism.

A more contemporary model of market socialism is that put forth by the American economist John Roemer, referred to as economic democracy. In this model, social ownership is achieved through public ownership of equity in a market economy. A Bureau of Public Ownership would own controlling shares in publicly listed firms, so that the profits generated would be used for public finance and the provision of a basic income.

Some anarchists and libertarian socialists promote a form of market socialism in which enterprises are owned and managed cooperatively by their workforce so that the profits directly remunerate the employee-owners. These cooperative enterprises would compete with each other in the same way private companies compete with each other in a capitalist market. The first major elaboration of this type of market socialism was made by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and was called mutualism.

Self-managed market socialism was promoted in Yugoslavia by economists Branko Horvat and Jaroslav Vaněk. In the self-managed model of socialism, firms would be directly owned by their employees and the management board would be elected by employees. These cooperative firms would compete with each other in a market for both capital goods and for selling consumer goods.

Socialist market economy

Following the 1978 reforms, China developed what it calls a socialist market economy in which most of the economy is under state ownership, with the state enterprises organized as joint-stock companies with various government agencies owning controlling shares through a shareholder system. Prices are set by a largely free-price system and the state-owned enterprises are not subjected to micromanagement by a government planning agency. A similar system called socialist-oriented market economy has emerged in Vietnam following the Đổi Mới reforms in 1986. This system is frequently characterized as state capitalism instead of market socialism because there is no meaningful degree of employee self-management in firms, because the state enterprises retain their profits instead of distributing them to the workforce or government and because many function as de facto private enterprises. The profits neither finance a social dividend to benefit the population at large, nor do they accrue to their employees. In China, this economic model is presented as a preliminary stage of socialism to explain the dominance of capitalistic management practices and forms of enterprise organization in both the state and non-state sectors.

In religion

A wide range of philosophers and theologians have linked market economies to concepts from monotheistic religions. Michael Novak described capitalism as being closely related to Catholicism, but Max Weber drew a connection between capitalism and Protestantism. The economist Jeffrey Sachs has stated that his work was inspired by the healing characteristics of Judaism. Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks of the United Synagogue draws a correlation between modern capitalism and the Jewish image of the Golden Calf.

Christianity

In the Christian faith, the liberation theology movement advocated involving the church in labor market capitalism. Many priests and nuns integrated themselves into labor organizations while others moved into the slums to live among the poor. The Holy Trinity was interpreted as a call for social equality and the elimination of poverty. However, the Pope John Paul II was highly active in his criticism of liberation theology. He was particularly concerned about the increased fusion between Christianity and Marxism. He closed Catholic institutions that taught liberation theology and dismissed some of its activists from the church.

Buddhism

The Buddhist approach to the market economy was dealt with in E. F. Schumacher’s 1966 essay "Buddhist Economics". Schumacher asserted that a market economy guided by Buddhist principles would more successfully meet the needs of its people. He emphasized the importance or pursuing occupations that adhered to Buddhist teachings. The essay would later become required reading for a course that Clair Brown offered at University of California, Berkeley.

Criticism

The economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that markets suffer from informational inefficiency and the presumed efficiency of markets stems from the faulty assumptions of neoclassical welfare economics, particularly the assumption of perfect and costless information and related incentive problems. Neoclassical economics assumes static equilibrium and efficient markets require that there be no non-convexities, even though nonconvexities are pervasive in modern economies. Stiglitz's critique applies to both existing models of capitalism and to hypothetical models of market socialism. However, Stiglitz does not advocate replacing markets, but instead states that there is a significant role for government intervention to boost the efficiency of markets and to address the pervasive market failures that exist in contemporary economies. A fair market economy is in fact a martingale or a Brownian motion model and for a participant competitor in such a model there is no more than 50% of success chances at any given moment. Due to the fractal nature of any fair market and being market participants subject to the law of competition which impose reinvesting an increasing part of profits, the mean statistical chance of bankruptcy within the half life of any participant is also 50% and 100% whether an infinite sample of time is considered.

Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert claim that "markets inherently produce class division". Albert states that even if everyone started out with a balanced job complex (doing a mix of roles of varying creativity, responsibility and empowerment) in a market economy, class divisions would arise, arguing:

Without taking the argument that far, it is evident that in a market system with uneven distribution of empowering work, such as Economic Democracy, some workers will be more able than others to capture the benefits of economic gain. For example, if one worker designs cars and another builds them, the designer will use his cognitive skills more frequently than the builder. In the long term, the designer will become more adept at conceptual work than the builder, giving the former greater bargaining power in a firm over the distribution of income. A conceptual worker who is not satisfied with his income can threaten to work for a company that will pay him more. The effect is a class division between conceptual and manual laborers, and ultimately managers and workers, and a de facto labor market for conceptual workers.

David McNally argues in the Marxist tradition that the logic of the market inherently produces inequitable outcomes and leads to unequal exchanges, arguing that Adam Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy espousing equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free markets he championed. The development of the market economy involved coercion, exploitation and violence that Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance. McNally also criticizes market socialists for believing in the possibility of fair markets based on equal exchanges to be achieved by purging parasitical elements from the market economy such as private ownership of the means of production. McNally argues that market socialism is an oxymoron when socialism is defined as an end to wage-based labor.

The role of supply and demand in a market economy

Supply and demand play an instrumental role in driving market economies by setting both prices and quantities traded in markets. Supply is defined as any increase in price leading to an increase in supply from producers; demand on the other hand means any drop leads to an increase in desired quantities from consumers; these two laws meet at equilibrium when provided quantity equals quantity demanded - known as equilibrium price/quantity equilibrium point. Prices play an extremely vital role in market economies by providing important information about commodity and service availability. When there is strong demand but limited supply, prices increase, signaling to producers that there may be opportunities to increase profits by producing more of that product. Conversely, when there is low demand with increased supply then prices reduce, showing manufacturers they must either reduce output or find methods of cutting costs in order to stay competitive and remain profitable.

External factors, including shifting technological standards, new government laws, and natural catastrophes can have a substantial impact on supply and demand. Technological innovations may increase supply, while laws issued by governments could decrease it or even demand. Natural disasters have the ability to severely disrupt supply chains, creating shortages of key items that increase costs while simultaneously decreasing demand. Supply and demand play an indispensable role in any market economy by ensuring prices reflect market forces accurately, adapting accordingly as conditions shift between supply and demand situations, while producers adjust production according to price signals from consumers, fulfilling customers' requests while giving individuals freedom in making purchasing choices based on personal preferences or financial constraints. Thus supply and demand play an instrumental part in shaping and stabilizing economies governed by market forces.

Sustainable market economy

A sustainable market economy seeks to balance economic expansion and environmental preservation. It acknowledges that sustainable environmental protection and resource management are essential for long-term economic growth. To achieve this balance, implementing sustainable practices across sectors, such as lowering carbon emissions, developing renewable energy sources, and putting circular economy ideas into practice. Tax incentives, carbon trading programs, and environmental requirements are just a few ways government rules and policies encourage enterprises to adopt sustainable practices.

At the same time, consumer demand for eco-friendly goods and services and understanding of these issues may influence market dynamics to favour more sustainable options. A sustainable market economy may encourage innovation, provide green employment, and guarantee the welfare of future generations by incorporating environmental factors into economic decision-making. Prioritizing sustainability while preserving economic development needs cooperation between governments, corporations, and people.

Free-culture movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lawrence Lessig standing at a podium with a microphone, with a laptop computer in front of him.
Lawrence Lessig, an influential activist of the free-culture movement, in 2005

The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content or open content without compensation to, or the consent of, the work's original creators, by using the Internet and other forms of media.

The movement objects to what it considers over-restrictive copyright laws. Many members of the movement argue that such laws hinder creativity. They call this system "permission culture".

The free-culture movement, with its ethos of free exchange of ideas, is aligned with the free and open-source-software movement, as well as other movements and philosophies such as open access (OA), the remix culture, the hacker culture, the access to knowledge movement, the copyleft movement and the public domain movement.

History

Precursors

In the late 1960s, Stewart Brand founded the Whole Earth Catalog and argued that technology could be liberating rather than oppressing. He coined the slogan "Information wants to be free" in 1984 to against limiting access to information by governmental control, preventing a public domain of information.

Background of the formation of the free-culture movement

In 1998, the United States Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which President Clinton signed into law. The legislation extended copyright protections for twenty additional years, resulting in a total guaranteed copyright term of seventy years after a creator's death. The bill was heavily lobbied by music and film corporations like Disney, and dubbed as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Lawrence Lessig claims copyright is an obstacle to cultural production, knowledge sharing and technological innovation, and that private interests – as opposed to public good – determine law. He travelled the country in 1998, giving as many as a hundred speeches a year at college campuses, and sparked the movement. It led to the foundation of the first chapter of the Students for Free Culture at Swarthmore College.

In 1999, Lessig challenged the Bono Act, taking the case to the US Supreme Court. Despite his firm belief in victory, citing the Constitution's plain language about "limited" copyright terms, Lessig only gained two dissenting votes: from Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.

Foundation of the Creative Commons

In 2001, Lessig initiated Creative Commons, an alternative "some rights reserved" licensing system to the default "all rights reserved" copyright system. Lessig focuses on a fair balance between the interest of the public to use and participate into released creative works and the need of protection for a creator's work, which still enables a "read-write" remix culture.

The term "free culture" was originally used since 2003 during the World Summit on Information Society to present the first free license for artistic creation at large, initiated by the Copyleft attitude team in France since 2001 (named free art license). It was then developed in Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture in 2004.

In August 2003 the Open Content Project, a 1998 Creative Commons precursor by David A. Wiley, announced the Creative Commons as successor project and Wiley joined as director.

"Definition of Free Cultural Works"

In 2005/2006 within the free-culture movement, Creative Commons was criticized by Erik Möller and Benjamin Mako Hill for lacking minimum standards for freedom. Following this, the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" was created as collaborative work of many, including Erik Möller, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill and Richard Stallman. In February 2008, several Creative Commons licenses were "approved for free cultural works", namely the CC BY and CC BY-SA (later also the CC0). Creative Commons licenses with restrictions on commercial use or derivative works were not approved.

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation described their definition of "open", for open content and open knowledge, as synonymous to the definition of "free" in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works", noting that both are rooted in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition. Therefore, the same three creative commons licenses are recommended for open content and free content, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0. The Open Knowledge foundation additionally defined three specialized licenses for data and databases, previously unavailable: the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL), the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL).

Organizations

Creative Commons logo

The organization commonly associated with free culture is Creative Commons (CC), founded by Lawrence Lessig. CC promotes sharing creative works and diffusing ideas to produce cultural vibrance, scientific progress and business innovation.

Student organization FreeCulture.org, inspired by Lessig and founded 2003. The Building blocks are a symbol for reuse and remixing of creative works, used also as symbol of the Remix culture.

QuestionCopyright.org is another organization whose stated mission is "to highlight the economic, artistic, and social harm caused by distribution monopolies, and to demonstrate how freedom-based distribution is better for artists and audiences."

QuestionCopyright may be best known for its association with artist Nina Paley, whose multi-award-winning feature length animation Sita Sings The Blues has been held up as an extraordinarily successful example of free distribution under the aegis of the "Sita Distribution Project". The web site of the organization has a number of resources, publications, and other references related to various copyright, patent, and trademark issues.

The student organization Students for Free Culture is sometimes confusingly called "the Free Culture Movement", but that is not its official name. The organization is a subset of the greater movement. The first chapter was founded in 1998 at Swarthmore College, and by 2008, the organization had 26 chapters.

The free-culture movement takes the ideals of the free and open-source software movement and extends them from the field of software to all cultural and creative works. Early in Creative Commons' life, Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the free software movement) supported the organization. He withdrew his support due to the introduction of several licenses including the developing nations (retired in 2007) and sampling licenses. Stallman later restored some support when Creative Commons retired those licenses.

The free music movement, a subset of the free-culture movement, started out just as the Web rose in popularity with the Free Music Philosophy by Ram Samudrala in early 1994. It was also based on the idea of free software by Richard Stallman and coincided with nascent open art and open information movements (referred to here as collectively as the "free-culture movement"). The Free Music Philosophy used a three-pronged approach to voluntarily encourage the spread of unrestricted copying, based on the fact that copies of recordings and compositions could be made and distributed with complete accuracy and ease via the Internet. The subsequent free music movement was reported on by diverse media outlets including Billboard, Forbes, Levi's Original Music Magazine, The Free Radical, Wired and The New York Times. Along with the explosion of the Web driven by open source software and Linux, the rise of P2P and lossy compression, and despite the efforts of the music industry, free music became largely a reality in the early 21st century. Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Creative Commons with free information champions like Lawrence Lessig were devising numerous licenses that offered different flavors of copyright and copyleft. The question was no longer why and how music should be free, but rather how creativity would flourish while musicians developed models to generate revenue in the Internet era.

Reception

Skepticism from Richard Stallman

Initially, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman did not see the importance of free works beyond software. For instance for manuals and books Stallman stated in the 1990s:

As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.

Similarly, in 1999 Stallman said that he sees "no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software". Other authors, such as Joshua Pearce, have argued that there is an ethical imperative for open-source hardware, specifically with respect to open-source-appropriate technology for sustainable development.

Later, Stallman changed his position slightly and advocated for free sharing of information in 2009. But, in 2011 Stallman commented on the Megaupload founder's arrest, "I think all works meant for practical uses must be free, but that does not apply to music, since music is meant for appreciation, not for practical use." In a follow-up Stallman differentiated three classes: works of practical use should be free, works representing points of view should be shareable but not changeable and works of art or entertainment should be copyrighted (but only for 10 years). In an essay in 2012 Stallman argued that video games as software should be free but not their artwork. In 2015 Stallman advocated for free hardware designs.

Copyright proponents

Vocal criticism against the free-culture movement comes from copyright proponents.

Prominent technologist and musician Jaron Lanier discusses this perspective of free culture in his 2010 book You Are Not a Gadget. Lanier's concerns include the depersonalization of crowd-sourced anonymous media (such as Wikipedia) and the economic dignity of middle-class creative artists.

Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0, criticizes some of the free culture ideas in his book, Cult of the Amateur, describing Lessig as an "intellectual property communist".

The decline of the news media industry's market share is blamed on free culture but scholars like Clay Shirky claim that the market itself, not free culture, is what is killing the journalism industry.

The free art movement is distinct from the free culture movement as the artist retains full copyright for the work. The free art movement is the practice of artists leaving art in public places for the public to remove and keep. The artwork is usually tagged with a notice stating it is free art, and either with the artist's name or left anonymously. The movement was reinvigorated by British street art practitioner My Dog Sighs coining the term "Free Art Fridays". Clues to the location of artworks are sometimes left on social media to combine treasure hunting with art.

Neo-feudalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neo-feudalism or new feudalism is a theorized contemporary rebirth of policies of governance, economy, and public life, reminiscent of those which were present in many feudal societies. Such aspects include, but are not limited to: Unequal rights and legal protections for common people and for nobility, dominance of societies by a small and powerful elite, a lack of social mobility, and relations of lordship and serfdom between the elite and the people, where the former are rich and the latter poor.

Use and etymology

Generally, the term refers to a 21st century form of feudalism—akin in some respects to what was seen in Medieval Europe, but unfolding as an emerging phenomenon in modern times. In its early use, the term was deployed as both a criticism of the political Left and of the Right.

On the other hand, Jürgen Habermas used the term Refeudalisierung ("refeudalisation") in his 1962 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere to criticise the privatisation of the forms of communication that he believed had produced an Enlightenment-era public sphere. While not talking about "neo-feudalism" as such, later commentators have noted that these ideas are similar to the idea of neo-feudalism. Correspondingly, in 1992 Immanuel Wallerstein expressed views on global development, listing neo-feudalism among three other variants. By neo-feudalism, Wallerstein referred to autarky regions with a localised hierarchy and hi-tech goods available only for the elite.

Description

The concept of neo-feudalism may focus on economics, though it is not limited to it. Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neo-feudalism in contemporary society, are: class stratification, globalization, neoconservative foreign policy, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism".

According to Les Johnston, Clifford Shearing's theoretical approach of neo-feudalism has been influential. Shearing "use[s] this term in a limited sense to draw attention to the emergence of domains of mass private property that are 'gated' in a variety of ways".

Lucia Zedner responds that this use of neo-feudalism is too limited in scope; Shearing's comparison does not draw parallels with earlier governance explicitly enough. Zedner prefers more definitive endorsements.

Neo-feudalism entails an order defined by commercial interests and administered in large areas, according to Bruce Baker, who argues that this does not fully describe the extent of cooperation between state and non-state policing. The significance of the comparison to feudalism, for Randy Lippert and Daniel O'Connor, is that corporations have power similar to states' governance powers. Similarly, Sighard Neckel has argued that the rise of financial-market-based capitalism in the later twentieth century has represented a 'refeudalisation' of the economy.

The widening of the wealth gap, as poor and marginalized people are excluded from the state's provision of security, can result in neo-feudalism, argues Marina Caparini, who says this has already happened in South Africa. Neo-feudalism is made possible by the commodification of policing, and signifies the end of shared citizenship, says Ian Loader. A primary characteristic of neo-feudalism is that individuals' public lives are increasingly governed by business corporations, as Martha K. Huggins finds.

John Braithwaite notes that neo-feudalism brings a different approach to governance since business corporations, in particular, have this specialized need for loss reduction.

Author Jonathan Bluestein has written about neo-feudalism as a feature of social power: economic, political and martial alike. He defines the neo-feudal sovereigns as those who, while not directly referred to as lords, aristocrats, kings or emperors, still hold an equivalent power in a modern sense. That is, people who are not subject to everyday laws, can create their own laws to an extent, dominate large markets, employ immense swathes of individuals, have the means to hold a private military force, wield the economic might equivalent of entire nations, and own assets, especially real-estate, on a massive scale. In his books, Bluestein both criticizes this phenomenon, and proposes social and economic solutions for it.

Being the first to coin the term: techno-capitalist-feudalism, or TCF for short, political economist, Michel Luc Bellemare, released a seminal tome on the subject, titled 'Techno-Capitalist-Feudalism', in early September 2020. Described as the political economy of Scientific Anarchist-Communism, or structural-anarchism, TCF is a compilation of 15 years of economic research by the author, which began in the mid 2000s. According to Bellemare, in the book, "the epoch of techno-capitalist-feudalism is the epoch of totalitarian-capitalism, whereby the logic of capitalism attains totalitarian dimensions and authoritarian supremacy". One of the primary characteristics of the age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, according to Bellemare, is "the degeneration of the old modern class-system into a post-modern micro-caste-system, wherein an insurmountable divide and stratum now exists in-between the "1 percent" and the "99 percent", or more specifically, the state-finance-corporate-aristocracy and the workforce/population. Moreover, according to Bellemare, in the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, "the determination of values, prices, and wages are no longer based upon the old Marxist notion of socially necessary labor-time, but rather upon the arbitrary use of force and influence, namely, through an underlying set of ruling capitalist power-relations and/or ideologies, which impose by force and influence, numeric values, prices, and wage-sums upon goods, services, and people, devoid of any considerations pertaining to labor-time". Ultimately, in the dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, "whatever a capitalist entity or a set of entities can get away with in the sphere of production and/or in the marketplace is deemed valid, legitimate, and normal, regardless of labour-time expenditures". As well, contra Marx, Bellemare's book argues that, in the dark age of TCF, "workers can be paid below subsistence levels", wherefore, they must now work a multiplicity of jobs and more hours in order to make ends meet, which, in many instances, they cannot do without social assistance. In turn, according to Bellemare, "in the dark age of TCF, most machine-technologies are capitalist in origin, meaning, these technologies are congealed power-relations and/or ideologies that are impregnated and programmed with capitalist biases". That is, a set of specific biases that maintain, reproduce, and expand, the power of the ruling capitalist relations and ideologies, undergirding the overall system. Thereby, according to Bellemare's book, in the dystopian age of TCF, "most capitalist machine-technologies are used to maintain, reproduce, and expand, the divisions in-between the '1 percent' and the '99 percent', by keeping the '99 percent' predominantly bolted-down upon the lower-stratums of the system, all the while, keeping the '1 percent' perched atop the upper-stratums of the system, indefinitely. In sum, in the dark age of TCF, the new aristocracy, that is, the capitalist oligarchy or the 1 percent, concerns itself first and foremost with the accumulation of power, control, and capital, as well as, reproducing hierarchical-stasis by any means necessary". As a result, for Bellemare, in the dark age of TCF, "the capitalist aristocracy does not seek to steal units of unpaid labor-time from workers, but rather, it seeks to influence and control all aspects of the workers' everyday lives". Thus, the accumulation of power, control, and capital, orchestrated by the 1 percent, their corporations, and the State, "is always at the expense of the workforce/population, which itself, is gradually impoverished, disempowered, and continually relegated to the margins of the system, namely, the margins of the techno-capitalist-feudal-edifice, as lowly wage-serfs and/or debt-serfs".

During the course of the years 2020-2021, Yanis Varoufakis has written and lectured much about his theory concerning neo-feudalism. He posits that traditional capitalism has evolved into a new feudal-like structure of economies and societies, which he refers to as 'techno-feudalism'. Varoufakis explains that unlike in capitalism, feudal economies have the quality of being dominated by very small groups of people, and predetermine the behaviour of markets as they see fit. Taking the example of massive online enterprises such as Facebook, Amazon and others, Varoufakis noted that such venues are primarily governed by the whims of single individuals and small teams, and thus are not truly capitalist markets of free trade, but rather feudal markets of stringent control. Others, such as Jeremy Pitt, have raised similar opinions and concerns, also noting that techno-feudalism threatens freedom of information over the Internet.

In early September, 2022, Bellemare, has offered a short and direct critique of 'techno-feudalism', on the grounds that 'techno-feudalism' skews the facts and daily realities of workers, toiling under the jackboot of totalitarian-capitalism, or more accurately, the jackboot of "techno-capitalist-feudalism". According to Bellemare's article, using the term 'techno-feudalism', instead of “techno-capitalist-feudalism” is a disservice to workers. To drop the term 'capitalist' from techno-capitalist-feudalism, "only muddies the clear blue waters of the terminal stage of capitalist development", namely, the new dawning epoch of totalitarian-capitalism, that is, the new dystopian dark age of techno-capitalist-feudalism, run-amok. As Bellemare states, in the article, "just because the old capitalist bourgeoisie has embraced digital algorithms and invasive surveillance technologies as its own, and abstracted itself at a higher-level of socio-economic existence, away from the workforce/population, whereby, it now appears invisible and increasingly distant from the everyday lives of workers, does not mean the old capitalist bourgeoisie has vanished into thin air, or has been usurped by a strictly technological aristocracy". According to Bellemare's article, "what has happened is that the old capitalist bourgeoisie has become a techno-capitalist-feudal-aristocracy, since, the logic of capitalism, capitalist profit, and capitalist technological innovations continue to inform and motivate this authoritarian capitalist aristocracy and all its overlapping networks of large-scale ruling power-blocs". Thereby, the specter of capitalism haunts 'techno-feudalism', in the sense that 'techno-feudalism', or more accurately, 'techno-capitalist-feudalism', is the result of "the capital/labor relationship at its most lopsided, oppressive, and technologically dominating. The capital/labor relationship continues to hold, since, the logic of capitalism continues to be the foundation and the fundamental under-girder of this new economic system". Therefore, within the evolutionary whimper of 'techno-feudalism', "the logic of capitalism is thriving, laughing all the way to the bank, as the term 'techno-feudalism' only empowers capitalist supremacy at the expense of workers’ liberation and self-management".

In popular culture and literature

After the financial crisis of 2007–2008, American technology billionaire Nick Hanauer stated that "our country [i.e. the United States] is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society". His views were echoed by, amongst others, the Icelandic billionaire Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson. The idea that the early 21st century boom and bust in Iceland saw the country returning to feudal structures of power was also expressed by a range of Icelandic novelists, among them Sigrún Davíðsdóttir in Samhengi hlutanna, Bjarni Bjarnason in Mannorð, Bjarni Harðarson in Sigurðar saga fóts, Böðvar Guðmundsson in Töfrahöllin, and Steinar Bragi in Hálendið: Skáldsaga.

Similar ideas are found in some Anglophone fiction. For example, Frank Herbert's Dune series of novels is set in the distant future with a neo-feudalistic galactic empire known as the Imperium. In these novels, after a series of wars known as the Butlerian Jihad humanity has come to prohibit all kinds of "thinking machine technology", even its simpler forms. Subsequently, the political balance of power in the Dune Universe gradually became dominant by a myriad of royal houses, each dominating one or several planets. Albeit operating in the distant future, the social and political dynamics of said royal houses are similar in many respects to those previously seen in medieval times.

In David Brin's near-future science fiction novel Existence, American politicians campaign on legally transitioning the United States into a neo-feudalist society.

In the year 2020, head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab published a book titled COVID-19: The Great Reset. The book argues that the COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity for politicians and governments to change the world's economies, societies and structures of government, by introducing a system of "Stakeholder Capitalism", doing so via the guidelines of a plan known as 'The Great Reset'. Schwab also refers to his goals as "The Fourth Industrial Revolution". Other authors have criticized The Great Reset as being a form of Neo-Feudalism.

1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported b...