Subject:
|
RFC: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:55:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
371 times
|
| |
|
|
Disclaimers
===========
First off, I don't have the benefit of being incredibly smart, so there are
bound to be holes. But even the simplest idea can spark others into greater
feats of insight and imagination - hopefully that will be the case.
I didn't intend to publish these ideas before I had oportunity to research and
mull them over a bit more.. but in the spirit of fair play, and a fair bit of
"Give us an alternative then", I present one for the noose..
Disclaimers aside - I welcome any comments, so feel free to fire away with good
or bad or good and bad, or whatever. It doesn't have a name, but in view that
Libertarianism is so long.. you can call this A-ism, aism, whatever!
Introduction
============
I will start off by saying that it will take time, maybe 2, 20 or 200 years
before we know not only what we want, but how we can implement and achieve it.
But I've got ahead of myself already - what is it that I percieve that we want?
Liberty
-------
At the very least the freedom to do whatever one wants with their property as
long as it does not violate the rights of others.
A social philosophy should allow its members the freedom to create whatever
consentual sub-groupings as desired. Whether any moral guidelines should be
enforced upon the sub-grouping is another issue.
Happiness
---------
Was it the greek philosophers who said that happiness was being able to become
learned at something, and being able to use this knowledge? (Terribly
paraphrased, and it probably wasn't them - it's late). Anyway it is evident
that a great deal of dissatisfaction comes from being unutilised or not being
able to fulfil potential.
Community
---------
Although these still struggle for survival, many people don't even know those
who live next door to them. Community can perform many important social
functions, not least self-regulation and in the right circumstances
self-responsibility.
Family
------
Parents and children spend increasingly long hours apart, as working hours get
longer and commuter lines more crowded.
Government
----------
Too centralised and too corrupt. It gives too much power and claims little
responsibility from those who make the decisions.
Those are just a few things that our current social structure doesn't encourage
to change. In fact, this is because society has evolved as a whole, and evolved
structures find niches, exploit them, and are more geared towards self-survival
than allowing change.
Now we have identified a few problems, I'd like to propose that we consider
redesigning our governmental and social systems - from the bottom up if need
be. This is redesign rather than change something, as that may encourage
something else equally unsuitable to evolve in its place.
How and What?
=============
We've got a vague idea that we'd like something that gave us freedom, gave
opportunities to be happy, encouraged community and families to flourish and
took the power from Government and shared it between the people it effects.
Everything stems from how you slice and dice Government - Libertarian Policy
gives all the power to the individuals, all other Political Policies seem to
give all the the power to the state.
We will use the word power to mean, power to make decisions and have affect in
the current local sphere.
We will use State Responsibility to mean making sure rights are not being
violated. Such rights, and the extact extent of the State Responsibility is
determined by those exercising the Power.
I propose a heirarchical tree structure:
* States/Greater Regions grouped under one Country
* Cities/Regions grouped into States/Greater Regions
* Towns grouped into Cities/Regions
* Communities grouped into Towns
* Individuals grouped into Communities
Power goes up from the individual towards the top. No power goes down.
State Responsibility goes down from the top.
Individuals would be appointed to sit upon Community Councils. Whether they
were elected, randomly chosen etc is not our decision, but that of the
community itself. These Community Councils would perform a lot of the nitty
gritty - organising community events, taking suggestions, discussing them, and
organising community voting etc. They are directly accountable to individuals,
and they have no power over individuals, unless individuals are violating
anothers rights.
Members from each Community Council would meet together under a Town Council,
here is probably the most interesting political locus. Remember the power and
responsibility directions? If three out of four of the communities think a
local nuclear power station is a good idea, but the proposed location is in the
middle of the community voting against, then it doesn't happen - no questions.
Similarly, if one community would like to open a cinema, and have money to do
so.. then it happens - even if the other surrounding communities think that it
lowers the intellectual tone of the town!
Members from each Town Council would meet together under a City or Region
Council. If one Town was planning to build a Nuclear recycling plant, then the
nearby towns would only be able to veto this if the risk of contamination was a
geniune violation of their rights. This of course depends on the set of rights
adopted by the City or Region.
Similar stories, untill you reach the top of the tree.. and what is at the top?
A committee, who don't have power, but whose task it is to implement those
things that filter up to that high level.
Conclusions
===========
Money
-----
This relies on funding for the heirarchical structure - renting meeting halls,
buying paper, etc. There are other biggies as well, such as national defence.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but even Libertarian Policy requires a tax to pay for
these things?
For the structure to work, it would require mandatory fees, or tax of this
kind. Administration costs and State Responsibility fees are the ONLY
neccessary public charges.
Communities have to pay town tax, towns have to pay region/city tax etc.
I guess what this does is to provide a structure for something like
Libertarianism to flourish? Ie - if a community want a school - they can buy
one, if they can't afford it then they can appeal to the other communities of
the town they are in.. if that doesn't work - tough.
If a town (collectively) likes the idea of tax, then it is free to adminster
its own to provide services.
Wacky Ideologies
----------------
Yep - if this isn't wacky enough for you then a community upwards can implement
any political ideology they wish - if a Communist community sells enough
potatoes to pay their Town Fees then they could flourish. If a community of
ex-polititions can sell enough smarm to do the same then that's fine too!
I hope that I'm not being too optimistic, but I think even Libertarianism could
work under this system. If you would forgive the subject heading, which is
meant in good-humour ;)
Evolution
---------
I touched upon this earlier, but with so many concurrent, adapting communities
and towns etc.. good efficient schemes and techniques would evolve. The ability
to change dynamically, not just every 5 years (and then not even), would mean
that inefficient strategies would not have to be kept as there would be proven
ones else and everywhere.
Liberty
-------
I believe that a structure like this would provide a true freedom - freedom to
choose what sort of life you wanted to live, without fear of losing rights.
Freedom to effect your environment, and directly effect those that govern you.
And Good Night..
----------------
I'm sure there's more than enough here for you to sink your teeth into and
dismember! Carpe Jugulum!
Dedication
==========
To Larry P, who is never wrong in obvious ways.. just subtle ones.
Thanks for calling my bluff, I think.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
| Need to dig in deeper (over the weekend?) but... I think this has a lot of merit. Not perfect. Nothing is. But better, perhaps than what we have now. And not that different from Libertopia! Where I see an area in need of further exploration is in (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An Alternative..
|
| Its late, I may be too tired to think straight (1). At first glance, I had plenty of arguments and questions, but I don't feel those are necessary just yet. I think the system you are trying to devise is our current world. Since man began, we have (...) (24 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
| I am a little curious as to why no non-Libertarian people have commented so far.. does it look like I've strayed? :) Have I fleshed out the power and funding areas any further, or is there a lot more that I haven't considered? Richard (24 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
