There's more I need to address to be unassailable. For one, I need to stress that there is no longer any commons. There is longer any natural state of resources, freely available to the public. There used to be, including here in America. There were vast lands of untapped woodlands, by us, at any rate; where people could quite literally go out and pick apples off of trees to survive. Is this correct? I could be wrong. I'm talking about the "Wild West" but more generally that in early America there were entire states and mega-states completely unpopulated, whose property belonged to no one rather than the people at large, where it was not being put to any use. If you didn't like the jobs available to you in your state, perhaps you could argue your state still owes you a share of the apples which it took, and the fulfillment of picking them. But even beyond that, to save us some time now in arguing, you could at least go to that uncharted land and pick your own apples, which indeed many people did. You cannot do that now. First of all, I am suspicious of the argument that even in that historical land a state can deny you that share and its fulfillment, because you should not have to consider entirely different states if a sufficiently large portion of a united commons has been picked such that taking from the common pool is not possible. I'm suspicious of that, too, and not saying that even that former scenario was acceptable. But, even allowing for that for a moment, you could at least go out in the commons and do your thing. People did. You can't do that now. Even if we allow for the counter of "Well, there are always other commons," that doesn't hold, because now there are no longer. That's even if we allow that counter, which I will likely rebut soon. But even if I don't, it doesn't hold because the commons no longer exist.

–-

That one line is beautiful. A job that's promised is not an equal replacement, because "a job is conditional on the permission of an employer, whereas the commons offered unconditional, sovereign access to the means of life." The sin is twofold: theft of property and theft of fulfillment of using that property.

I'm right to not give them an inch, lest they take a mile! Even taking the commons in early America and saying there are more 1000 miles away is unacceptable, because that imposes an unnatural burden of work on the person. In nature, you did not have to go 1000 miles to find an apple off a tree. You may have had to walk a bit, but not that far. Even arguing there were a commons, and there are no longer today is an incorrect understanding, at least in the context of early America and similar contexts. The minute you completely use the resources of a reasonably large portion or body of the commons, such that moving to another portion is an unnaturally large amount of work, you have stolen the resources from everybody to which they originally belonged, as well as the fulfillment of harvesting those resources. It's not that the commons used to exist in America and they don't anymore, so now we need to do something. That argument never held any weight and never will, because forcing people to travel that far because of resources that were taken from them in the first place is unacceptable.

The commons have been taken, and there are no more. There haven't been commons for a very long time, certainly not, in many cases, even in the 19th century.

Now, the "you could go someplace else" argument does hold some weight in certain contexts. But you have to be precise. It's like: if you live in Virginia, and you decide you want to go into nature and work yourself, you should not have to all the way to Montana; that is unnatural and there in violation. The government must provide you with the fulfillment of work they've taken from you.

But, there is a historical parallel on this continent that works with a civilization being established and going someplace else that makes sense. Take the very first civilizations that settled in America. Plymouth, correct? Plymouth was a small colony on the East of America. This colony, this little village, like the other early ones was, as I recall, by itself. A lonely village consisting of a single town in a genuinely barren and untapped land. Yes, not completely untapped, there were people there, but let's just simplify the metaphor slightly for the sake of honoring the opposition's concerns. Other people can contribute to the full picture momentarily. Regardless, the picture still holds true in the matter at hand.

If you were a villager on Plymouth, you were for all intents and purposes surrounded literally by barren land. It was just a few feet from you. If you disagreed with the government of Plymouth or its job opportunities, you could just walk out into nature and do as you wished, picking apples off trees and harvesting its equal resources. Yes, you would be taking a very big risk, but you could do it. You had that opportunity. Some people may have even done so. I can't recall the exact details: Grokipedia says that the colony encountered "territorial conflicts as colonial expansion encroached on native lands," (emphasis added) indicating that people did go and expand the colony, and potentially go and pick their own apples from nature as work, with no government contract or provider to bargain with. Regardless, the point remains: you could go out into nature on the colony of Plymouth, and pick your own apples. If the colony picked all the apples within that small block of land, it'd be really silly to argue they owe you what they took from the commons, because there are far more commons just within walking distance.

Now, take it up to very early America, and the opposing distance argument may have some weight. If you live in Virginia, and you have to walk to a very Western part of Virginia to access the commons, that's a bit of a foot movement, but it's still reasonable that the government or anyone else has not unnecessarily taken the resources of nature. If you have to talk to the territory west of Virginia, completely outside of the state, that's a bigger movement, and so you have a little more argument that nature's bounty has been unduly reaped, but it's still somewhat reasonable.

Fast forward to the day of the Homestead Act, and the argument fails. You should not have to go from Virginia to Montana to access the commons that the government has taken from everybody. That's a completely unnatural movement to pick the world's plentiful fruit. And now fast forward to today, and there are no commons left. The argument already vanished due to distance in the 19th century, at least for many people who lived far from the West. Now, it's not only demolished, it's completely eviscerated. There are no commons, and so the natural resources that belong to everybody in the state of nature, and the fulfillment that comes from freely and without human arbiter harvesting them no longer exists. This very continent and what would become this nation was founded on Puritans who believed in their freedom so much they sailed across the Ocean and settled the wilderness to express themselves and their religion without oversight. And now, would we deny ourselves the ability to live freely and work as in nature, with the dignity work provides? The only solution is to give people the representation of the commons that has been harvested and the fulfillment that comes from harvesting it, which is the reasonable amount of money a man would expect to derive from nature. This is why it is The Civic Dividend, and not some welfare. It is a small amount of money that equates to the apples one would harvest, and the pleasure one would derive from harvesting those apples of their own free will, risk, and boldness.

This still gives people the ability to decide how to spend that money. If they spend it unwisely, they may still die. They need to decide as well on how to spend it, which is the pleasure they are owed since deciding how to spend money is pleasurable; since the apples they would have liked to take have been picked. Money is not itself worth anything, even if it represents the apple in the hand that is worthwhile. They must figure out how to bargain or use it to acquire the apple in hand, which equals nature's plenty of apples.

Furthermore, the people still undergo some labor upon the environment in this setup. The people must hold the government accountable in ensuring that they keep their end of the bargain and use the apples responsibly and in accordance with the fundamental law of nature. Given the history of government, this is no easy task, and every man in a government contributes to it, so they are owed by virtue of that work its fruits: the money the government is allowed to secure from profiting off nature's bounty in man's place. Is it not true that people forming a contract with government, which every citizen in a nation does, and delegating certain responsibilities to the government exerts effort: by forming a government so, one large and capable enough of harvesting any apples, the people exert dutiful and meaningful work, the fruits of which that the government assumes by harvesting such resources must be given in reasonable proportion back to those whose effort has made their harvesting possible.

–-

But how would I respond to critiques of the argument? They would be viscous, many of them rejecting the notion of The Civic Dividend before even hearing its legitimate case. I can try to reframe it by calling it something else, but that's only a superficial fix, although it could be part of it. The opposition will be fundamentally opposed, perhaps irreconcilably so, to any policy that proposes anything that resembles to them a "handout," even if this is quite literally the opposite of a handout, but simply acknowledging the law of nature over natural resources and the fulfillment of harvesting them.

They would be opposed to it, and again I'm not saying any of this makes sense, because of anything that is automatically transmitted to people or their bank account. Maybe I can change it, slightly, then.

Instead of a The Civic Dividend system where you are automatically given the money, automatically transmitted to your account, perhaps people have to do something to acquire it. This would have to be something with no human oversight, in order to retain the indifference of nature; there can be no human element. The closest facsimile I can think of that's helpful is the right to keep and bear arms, especially with the Supreme Court's rightful recent interpretations. They struck down, correctly, may-issue permits. Now states may permit the right to bear arms, but they cannot impose human oversight; it must be based on objective criteria. Perhaps various states could accord with this principle: people have a right to some version of the natural resources all men have access to in the state of nature, but the states decide exactly how that manifests provided it is objective and impartial.

Some states, to use the gun analogy, have Constitutional Carry. No permit. You got a gun, you can carry it. You don't need to ask, no paperwork. Other states have shall-issue permitting systems. You need a permit, but as long as you get proper objective training, you're not a violent criminal, and you're not mentally insane, you get a permit to bear arms. You get the picture. You can decide how people carry a gun, as long as you don't decide–objective criteria do. So you can decide how people get access to these natural resources, as long as it's objective.

Perhaps some states will choose universal access. Others against that idea might try some kind of test. You need to fulfill certain civic duties, like maybe voting. Maybe you need to state an aim for yourself as a citizen, what you wish to achieve in life, and as long as it is reasonable you get that resource. Something like that. As long as it's based on an objective set of criteria that's impartial like nature.

–-

That's a beautiful way to put it. Yes, it's like that. And that's actually a reasonable proposition, even if I disagree.

In the state of nature, you indeed had to pick the apple. They were abundant but required picking. If my opposition is caught up on that aspect, the lack of picking, then that can be restored. That models nature. Apples were abundant, but you had to go out and pick them. So the access to common resources now in society that represent that should be objectively available, but the citizen should, it's reasonable, have to go out and somehow pick that. This requires a bit of genuine work, creativity, and effort on their part. In nature, it was straightforward to pick an apple off a tree, yet it still required some difficulty and proactivity, so it's fair to critique the argument that transmitting the resources straight to someone's bank account is not like nature in that regard.

But if someone has to perform some duty, some action, that emulates that. There would be an element of search, an element of action, an element of labor. But, like nature, it must be indifferent and objective, not governed by a human which is unnatural. This natural work is the most dignified form, of one's real volition where there is no judge. What would some good civic actions to acquire this natural resource be to offer to my opposition, that would expressly indicate this concept of impartial, yet genuine search? What would my opposition be most swayed by?

–-

That's genius. As for the volunteer hours, that would be possible only if there were many government owned or operated/sponsored volunteer organizations that accepted anyone as long as they were willing, no matter how incompetent or unfit. If you apply or are willing, you will volunteer, and can stop anytime you want. That would eliminate the human oversight or manager signing a form, which is unnatural work. The rest are all acceptable and reasonable options. I may agree or disagree, but those are reasonable and, as described, inherently natural.

I actually am a fan of quite a few of these. I can see even the most staunch conservatives or libertarians who oppose it being in agreement, considering it is A) based on the fundamental principle that they hold dear, that of the dignity and liberty of human nature that stems from the state of nature, and B) still requires and offers the ability for man to pick the apples by taking a series of actions, and C) can be a decision delegated to the people and their elected representatives (the states), as with gun rights, therefore allowing different jurisdictions to impose different levels of civic activity to embody the picking aspect of the commons to which they have claim by birth.

Another question that would be good to address is precisely how it should be implemented. Let's say I'm dealing with the most staunch conservative there is. They won't budge. But I manage to get them to give consideration for a moment, by offering a system where you get access to the common resources to which you are entitled by doing all of those duties: you vote in a federal and state election, you file an annual civic purpose declaration, you complete a FEMA certification, you participate in government-operated volunteers (that accept all willing people without assessment or human oversight whatsoever), and you complete an online financial literary course. You do all of these things. Even the harshest opposition might at least be more willing to hear something about this, especially considering it would likely prompt more citizen participation, if for no other reason there is proof it is valuable because it is monetarily defined, instead of not: even if you didn't want or need the money, more people might vote or get FEMA certs because they are swayed of their value, knowing it must be valuable because it is defined by money, if that makes sense. And who doesn't want more people prepared for a disaster who are conservative or libertarian? How many staunch conservatives themselves, in all fairness and honesty, can they say the fulfill each and every one of those criteria which they probably would say are important for a citizen to fulfill?

But the question in that case would be what would be the more persuasive way to argue that the money should be dispensed? This common resource picked. Would it be more persuasive to this staunch conservative opposition to say the money should be given immediately, in whole, upon completion of all civic duties? Should be given piecemeal upon completion of each civic duty? Should be given only after all civic duties are fulfilled, but not as a whole; instead a portion each month, perhaps to prevent splurging. Or should be given each month, but proportionally to how many civic duties have been fulfilled. I.e., if you voted in the last federal election, you get $20/month. Vote in federal and state election, $40/month. Do that and have a FEMA cert, $60/month, and so on. What would be most persuasive? Personally, I feel like the last one would be to them, right? But do not let me sway you. Assess it as objectively as you can without my input. Be careful, as my opposition might be fierce and I need to be precise. Remember, this is assuming a case where you need to perform all duties to receive the common resources; but how so extended most persuasively?

–-

Now, in my opinion, for it to be reasonable and natural, it should be enough to cover what a man would be reasonably expected to accrue in the state of nature, with a reasonable amount of action and integrity. So I think it's fair to at least cover the following: enough food to survive each month, two pairs of clothing (for the whole year), some means to sleep, maybe even just a sleeping bag but perhaps something more, and some basic necessities like a toothbrush and water bottle. So I've got two mission objectives.

I want to identify precisely what it's reasonable to expect a man, in nature, to be able to accrue who takes reasonable actions with integrity. That's definitely enough food to at least not starve to death, but it does not mean Thanksgiving, either. 2 pairs of clothing for a year is reasonable, and perhaps more? The ability to have something or somewhere to sleep in? What would be reasonable there? A sleeping bag? Some bare modicum of habitation? In nature, would we expect a man to have nothing more than the ground to sleep in, or some sort of habitat, like even a little tepee or something even more advanced like a little house? He'd probably have some basic tools, etc.

Then, roughly, how much money would that be worth? Is $1200 too little? To me, that seemed like a pretty small mount for a year, but I could also be very wrong. I'm not sure.

Let's make this as reasonable as possible, and explain it, so my opposition can see precisely where the resources are derived from and represented.

–-

And, briefly, how much is that per civic duty among the ones listed?

–-

And my opposition would once again be vehemently opposed, even if it makes sense. They'd be fierce. $10,000 a year! $900 a month! Are you kidding me? And probably say a number of things that I'd find hard to rationally argue with as a result. The thing is, $10,000 a year is what a natural man could derive from nature with reasonable diligence, and it is moreover distributed over time for each civic duty each month, so the citizen still must pick them and perform effort. They might also still die. If they only work with nature, and nothing else, $10k is very difficult to live on. You could very well die as in nature.

But they'd still argue. This is why my argument needs to be like the 2A one, but be based on core principles. We give the decision of implementation to the states. As long as it is reasonable, it is legal. So the states get to decide on the exact monetary amount, and this is fair. Nature is equally plentiful, yet exactly what a man can be expected to reasonably derive from it is a matter of interpretation, it may be argued. Let them decide. The point is the interpretation must be reasonable.

What do you think it is reasonable for a man to derive from nature? Perhaps they'd say very little. A little food, scarce–here and there, few clothes, and maybe nothing more than the ground to sleep on. And honestly, that's fair enough. Others might think differently. Others may think in nature they'd be able to do a whole lot. They might think they could build a log cabin, a huge garden, and clothes from sewing strings together. Again, also, fair enough. Some people are that resourceful. It depends on the person.

So the states get to decide. But there reasoning needs to be deliberate. If the states reasonably believe and can articulate in their decision why they believe a man would be able to only accrue very little resources in nature, maybe only $1000 a year, then fair enough. That's less than $90 a month.

If a state believes a person in nature can accrue, with integrity, a lot of resources, and equate that to about $20,000 a year, and can articulate exactly how they arrived at that conclusion and it makes sense, then fair enough. It'll be that state and the people paying that money, at any rate. Now, if a state says that man, in nature, would earn $100,000 a year, that's unreasonable. While that might happen to some people, that's really unreasonable to expect that as an outcome for all people in such a state. Same thing in reverse: a state deciding a person would expect $0 from nature is unreasonable. You would at least expect a person to be able to forge some berries, or pick an apple off a tree, which is worth some money.

So that's how I can argue it. Like the 2A, give it to the states. $10,000 is a lot of money. Would a man be able to get that in nature from the representative fruits of their labor, with genuine integrity? Maybe. Maybe not, you could say, though, I suppose, just to humor my opposition. You could say they'd only accrue $500 a year. To me, $500 is really far too low to expect a human being to get, but if you can reasonably articulate why that is, then fair enough. It's up to the people and their representatives in the states to decide. But the core principle remains: people, by right of birth, have a right to the common resources of the Earth, which belonged to all before government. They still have right to the core of that common resource after government, since it still exists in plenty, just in a different form.

They still need to go out and pick that resource, don't they? An apple off a tree is useless unless picked. But the states would both get to decide:

A) the objective civic duties/actions that would equate to this picking,

B) the amount of work a man would reasonably be expected to perform and the results accrued in this natural state, and

C) the exact manner in which these resources that are representative are given to the people, i.e., either monthly, yearly, in whole or in proportion to duties fulfilled, and so forth.

This abides by the natural law, retains the fundamental human dignity that comes from the fulfillment of genuine, natural work that is impartial, and keeps the impetus to action inherent to humanity.