Hey, Mr. Knowles.
Stephen Yearwood

You are mistaking disappointment for hostility. I think a title should reflect your main point. It did not make me mad or even sad. I mentioned it hoping you would pick what I would consider better titles in the future.

I think that any organizing structure for a society that does not address what is to be done with those who break the rules is incomplete.

You did not answer my question about incomes for the self-employed.

Regarding “No ethic can change people’s behavior (unless they happen to choose to change their behavior because of its existence)” you can change peoples behavior by providing the proper incentives and disincentives. If the virtuous succeed and the evil suffer there will be fewer evil. If you created incentives to do evil you will get more evil. Anyway, you talked some about ethics but mostly you were pitching your democratically distributed income.

Regarding “As a general statement, government would still exist — funded at the current per capita rate of spending — and could be used for any purpose, such as universal access to medical services as needed” that give shot shrift to the very important subject of reforming our government but if you acknowledge that and left that for some other story I would understand. I would have imagined that a discussion of ethics would have talk as much about our justice systems as it would about how to provide incomes to the poor.

Don’t be so defensive about criticism. Sorry if my tone seemed hostile. It was not intended. I want what you want and I want to make your idea better.

One more criticism, don’t get mad. You claim to be non-ideological. I think you are very ideological.

Ideological = based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, especially concerning economic or political theory and policy.

I think you were meaning apolitical not non-ideological.

Apolitical = not interested or involved in politics.

What do you think?