sarixe
12th September 2006, 07:17
I've been thinking about what a really awesome form of government would be, that has focus on the individual, yet works better than individualist anarchism. I realized that massive populations being controlled by a small government is bound to fail, because the government will serve themselves. Also, a large, spread out government would be really difficult to manage, and corruption could easily go unnoticed. Laws make some people happy, and others unhappy, so you can only please some of the people at a time.
So what to do? I've come up with a form of government that I hope considers the individual, while serving the interests of keeping things managed in an appropriate way. Here it is.
Structure
-----------
I tend to be in favor of individual rights. However, individualist anarchism is a pretty inefficient way to go about things. It seems that broad governments don't do such a hot job either, as they are only thinking about the masses rather than the individuals. So, I thought, why not split up the masses into more manageable, smaller communities? Five to fifteen people would be completely reasonable. The community would decide what rules fit their lives, and broad-based government wouldn't have a thing to do with it. The only underlying infrastructure would be a decent, elected committee at the top to keep everything reasonable. They would make decisions and actions that apply to everyone without a doubt, and these would be few and far between. In essence, there would be almost no laws, just agreements.
About the group itself, it would be essentially independent of every other group. There would be thousands of these groups, five to fifteen people in population. Each group would be lead by a single leader, but the leader would govern loosely and act more as an ordinary member, just with the ability to lead if and when he or she sees fit. Each group would work to improve itself, every member contributing something. However, there wouldn't really be any competition between the groups, because there would be no goal. The groups would just work for themselves, not looking to help or hurt any other group.
Education
-----------
In this system, there wouldn't be any formal education mandated by the government. It would be up to each group to educate its members how it sees fit. Again, broad-based systems are generally not good. It's better to have the groups adapt to each of their environments and make their own decisions, rather than have the system control them. However, there would have to be a large focus on common sense, whatever else they decide to teach. And actually, there wouldn't even be teaching in the formal sense, just the group learning and growing, and therefore becoming better at life.
Economy
----------
There will be no money. People will decide amongst themselves what things are worth, claim things for the group, or for themselves, based upon usage. Whether an object belongs to an individual or the group will be a general agreement of the group. Trade would be based on desire for the object. Whether between two groups or two individuals, the two parties in question must come to some agreement on what to trade. It's up to them, and that's it.
War
-----
The top committee would be concerned with war. A general policy of defense only would be enforced, and war would only be declared upon attack. Groups will be able to defend themselves, and during a state of war, any group that wants to may attack the enemy at any time, even collaborating with other groups to find the best strategy to win the war. If the war is lost, then sucks to us. If the war is won, then it's alright, we'll live longer.
So what to do? I've come up with a form of government that I hope considers the individual, while serving the interests of keeping things managed in an appropriate way. Here it is.
Structure
-----------
I tend to be in favor of individual rights. However, individualist anarchism is a pretty inefficient way to go about things. It seems that broad governments don't do such a hot job either, as they are only thinking about the masses rather than the individuals. So, I thought, why not split up the masses into more manageable, smaller communities? Five to fifteen people would be completely reasonable. The community would decide what rules fit their lives, and broad-based government wouldn't have a thing to do with it. The only underlying infrastructure would be a decent, elected committee at the top to keep everything reasonable. They would make decisions and actions that apply to everyone without a doubt, and these would be few and far between. In essence, there would be almost no laws, just agreements.
About the group itself, it would be essentially independent of every other group. There would be thousands of these groups, five to fifteen people in population. Each group would be lead by a single leader, but the leader would govern loosely and act more as an ordinary member, just with the ability to lead if and when he or she sees fit. Each group would work to improve itself, every member contributing something. However, there wouldn't really be any competition between the groups, because there would be no goal. The groups would just work for themselves, not looking to help or hurt any other group.
Education
-----------
In this system, there wouldn't be any formal education mandated by the government. It would be up to each group to educate its members how it sees fit. Again, broad-based systems are generally not good. It's better to have the groups adapt to each of their environments and make their own decisions, rather than have the system control them. However, there would have to be a large focus on common sense, whatever else they decide to teach. And actually, there wouldn't even be teaching in the formal sense, just the group learning and growing, and therefore becoming better at life.
Economy
----------
There will be no money. People will decide amongst themselves what things are worth, claim things for the group, or for themselves, based upon usage. Whether an object belongs to an individual or the group will be a general agreement of the group. Trade would be based on desire for the object. Whether between two groups or two individuals, the two parties in question must come to some agreement on what to trade. It's up to them, and that's it.
War
-----
The top committee would be concerned with war. A general policy of defense only would be enforced, and war would only be declared upon attack. Groups will be able to defend themselves, and during a state of war, any group that wants to may attack the enemy at any time, even collaborating with other groups to find the best strategy to win the war. If the war is lost, then sucks to us. If the war is won, then it's alright, we'll live longer.