Unanimously Agreeable Philosophy of Governance is the only (unique) basis for voting by lawmakers
on a proposed rule of governance of We the People

Dr. Sankarshan Acharya
Founder, Pro-Prosperity.Com and Citizens for Development

September 25, 2017

Unanimously Agreeable Philosophy of Governance (UAPG) is the only (unique) basis for a lawmaker – who swears to uphold the Constitution – to vote on a proposed rule of governance of We the People

What is UAPG?

  1. The crux of UAPG is to not rob public or private wealth either for self-aggrandizement or for distribution as doles to voters (needed for self-entrenchment in power), even surreptitiously.
  2. UAPG is unanimously agreeable because even robbers do not prefer to be robbed.
  3. Being unanimously agreeable, UAPG trumps democratic majority opinion.[1]
  4. UAPG is fundamentally fair.
  5. UAPG is not some idea, dogma or opinion of its author. 
  6. UAPG attains, rationally, in general equilibrium of a contemporary dynamic mathematical game-theoretic model of the economy in which net-worth maximizing banks, non-banks and households compete and the market prices securities fairly while a non-profit government minimizes its cost of service to people.[2]
  7. UAPG is akin to ancient Indian philosophy - thrust of Gita - of not usurping public or private wealth, even surreptitiously.  Gita has been accepted by Indian courts as a philosophical document. The New York Times has recently recommended Gita as a philosophical text for philosophy departments in all European and American universities.[3]
  8. UAPG is akin to what Jesus Christ fought for in a Jerusalem temple: to not take away others’ hard-earned savings even surreptitiously.  
  9. UAPG is akin to the basic preamble of the U.S. constitution that has been adapted by democratic nations world-wide. 
  10. UAPG is absolute knowledge in governance of We the People because it is unique.  In Sanskrit, UAPG is like “Eka Brahma, Dwitiya Nasti.”
  11. UAPG is antithetic to the philosophy of systemic (legalized or rules-based) robbery, which has made Robber Barons and their allies rich and powerful while the robbed enterprising wealth creators have become poorer.[4]

Examples of UAPG:

  1. Safe Central Banking is unanimously agreeable.[5]
  2. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, FDIC Act and SEC Act created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, Housing Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and the Obama Administration Policy to sweep all profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are unanimously disagreeable and unconstitutional.  These laws are responsible for systemic weakness in the US economy.[6]
  3. Measuring economic prosperity based on net-worth (not income) of individual households is unanimously agreeable.[7]
  4. No-subsidy mantra in governance – which attains the most efficiently competitive economy - is unanimously agreeable.  While some individuals may voluntarily sacrifice their wealth for the needy, no one (including lawmakers) prefers a government takeover (even surreptitiously) of their wealth to subsidize others.[8] 
  5. The Affordable Care Act is not unanimously agreeable because it subsidizes a group of people based on usurpation of others.  No one prefers to be usurped to subsidize others.  The ACA usurps (a) taxpayers who do not get healthcare subsidy and (b) home mortgage borrowers and shareholders of Fannie and Freddie who face higher interest rate and the risk of economic instability as the government drains out the net profits of Fannie and Freddie (by breaking existing corporate law) to fund ACA.  ACA is also fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional because it is founded on robbery of others.   
  6. Unanimously Agreeable Health Insurance Act (which involves no subsidy) is needed to shrink the cost of healthcare in USA to a level at which enterprising wealth creators can bear.[9]
  7. The social security benefit system can be made actuarially fair by eliminating subsidies and by providing an option to refund the contributions plus interest.  Only then can the system of social security be unanimously agreeable.  If current social security beneficiaries are unwilling to sacrifice the subsidy they receive from others, they cannot agree to have some of their savings usurped to subsidize others.  If the current social security beneficiaries disagree to subsidize others, why will others agree to be taxed unduly to subsidize the SS recipients?  The system of subsidy in social security system is thus unanimously disagreeable.

[1] http://pro-prosperity.com/Unanimously-Agreeable-Fundamentally-Fair-Alternative-to-Democracy.html
[2] http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/moralhazardliberty.pdf

[3] http://pro-prosperity.com/triumphantphilosophy%20-%20one.pdf
[4] http://pro-prosperity.com/Unanimously-Agreeable-Philosophy-of-Governance-is-Antithetic-to-Ethos-Underlying-Every-Modern-System-of-Governance.html
[6] http://pro-prosperity.com/Systemic%20Weakness%20in%20the%20United%20States%20Economy.html
[7] http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/Constitutional-Monetary-Finance-System.pdf
[8] http://pro-prosperity.com/Research/Governance-and-Most-Efficient-Competitive-Economy.pdf
[9] http://pro-prosperity.com/Unanimously-Agreeable-Health-Insurance-Act.html