Attention: Jessop (and Others) The National Dividend is an unconditional inheritance due to each citizen. It is to be paid to everyone regardless of age, sex, economic circumstances or any other consideration--to millionaires and paupers, who have a right to dispose of it as they see fit. Social Credit presupposes Abundance wherein there is sufficiency for all in an environment that accommodates diversity of individuals and individual fortunes. Social Credit does not stand for equality but rather quality--except for equality before the law and for the DIVIDEND ITSELF. Equality of incomes would only occur if labor ceased in any way to be a factor and cost of production. Until that theoretical condition transpires, total incomes would in principle be earned variably and supplemented by increasing universal and equal Dividends.
Douglas made a couple of early interim proposals which allowed for a brief transitionary period regarding the introduction of Social Credit policy in order, as I understand it, to avoid short term negative human responses resulting from conditioning by the old dispensation. He deals with the Dividend in "The Monopoly of Credit" (first published in 1931 and revised or reissued on later occasions): See Chapter 9, "DIVIDENDS FOR ALL"--not for SOME. How do you tell someone what is their inheritance? An inheritance is not negotiated or dictated by a third party. The Dividend emanates from the increments of free association functioning according to natural (or Divine) law. It comes from God and/or nature. It is not determined or dictated by authoritarian political decisions to be imposed upon individuals. To make selective dividends is a socialist policy--not a Social Credit policy. It assumes that the state has the right of dictatorial policy in this matter. IT HAS NO SUCH RIGHT AT ALL! The Dividend is to make the individual independent to the extent of the Dividend (working with the Compensated Price)--in other words to effect the Just Price as a modern application of the medaieval concept of the jus pretium. Perhaps the most important forms of independence is to be free from threat of disinheritance and abuse by the State itself--so that every man (or woman) "shall sit under their own fig tree and none shall make them afraid." So the State disapproves of your political views--religious views? Or decides by some politically or allegedly "morally" motivated factors that your otherwise impartial and statistically determined Dividend should be altered to serve some sectional interest. Does it then have the right to deprive you of your dividend, in part or in whole? Talk about the "thin edge of the wedge!" The Dividend should be constitutionally guaranteed and anyone who attempts to interfere with this absolute right should be subject to severe penalties and any attempt to deny any citizen of this natural and constitutional right should be resisted with our very lives. We cannot allow the State to appropriate the National Dividend to build monuments of glory to itself--an almost inevitable consequence of the political process unmoderated by genuine economic democracy, which it is the purpose of the Dividend and Compensated Price to effect. Any policy designed to issue selective National Dividends is based upon the old dispensation of scarcity economics--not the economics of Christian Abundance. Sorry Jessop--but no "fiddling" with the National Dividend! Think about the nature of the Dividend. It is something received by RIGHT and not as a matter of privilege. If someone wishes to donate their National Dividend to some cause of choice AFTER RECEIVING IT, that is of course their own business. Sincerely Wally ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:55 AM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] National Dividend Means Test? > I find this paragraph from * Social Credit, Part III: The Design of Economic > Freedom APPENDIX* rather interesting. Any comment? > > * * * ** * * > DRAFT SOCIAL CREDIT SCHEME FOR SCOTLAND > > Any administrative change in the organisation of the Post Office should > specifically exclude transfer of the money and postal order department and > the savings bank. No payments of the national dividend will be made except to > individuals, and such payments will not be made where the net income of the > individual for personal use, from other sources, is more than four times that > receivable in respect of the national dividend. The national dividend will be > tax-free in perpetuity, and will not be taken into consideration in making > any returns for taxation purposes, should such be required. Except as herein > specified this dividend will be inalienable. > * * * * * * > Seems to contradict some thinking expressed on this list. Did Douglas recant > at some later stage? > > Jessop. > PS. I like the idea of either not paying to those who have no need, or > grabbing it back via the tax system. > > > > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
