Levels of Government

To use America as an example, we have an overarching layer (the Federal government), moving down to the state layer, through the county layer, and ending at the town layer.

Obviously, there are somethings that should be organized at a Federal layer, defence for instance. I see the Federal layer as a sort of net, which connects the states. This layer is responisble for Defence, and serves to support projects states might not be able to do on their own (Space Programs for instance). Basic laws (such as those against Murder) are enacted here (tricky are the problems of Abortion and its ilk, things like the Born Alive act would be decided here). This keeps the States in line, is responsible to a limited extent for welfare (i.e. acts in the case of all Abuse if the State won't). Ensures that the rights of people are being adhered to (the main one is the right to move state).

The second layer down is the State layer. This layer represents it's counties in the Federal government. I see this layer as being the maximum, but not the minimum, that Social Security should be enacted. This is responsible for most of the laws (it's a Federation, so Federal laws trump state laws, and counties have some autonomy). These keep the Federal layer in line.

The next layer is the county layer. social security can still work at this level, and I am of the opinion that it should be enacted at this layer. This layer is responsible for some of its own laws, and has some leeway when it comes down to ages of majority (this can still be challenged by the 'minor' wishing for emancipation in court). This layer

The furthest down is the Town layer. This layer is still at the point were Social Security can just about work, but I don't think it should be, as they lack the wealth that the county does. This layer is responisble for the running of some public services (swimming pools, public workshops, gardens etc). Planning permission is decided at this level.


The tax system I have though of goes like this: the town taxes the individual, the county taxes the town, the state taxes the county, the feds tax the state. How much each layer is taxed will depend on its population, with states with more people being taxed proportionatly more. 'Tax' money can be brought in by any means; a town may decide to tax only businesses and will work fine as long as it can get enough cash to cover its services and pay the county from those taxes.

that is an interesting idea. Perhaps in the CSCS, it will be reduces to 3 or so levels, maybe building, block, city, or something of that nature. I suppose you intended town to be say 10,000-15,000, then county to be 100,000 to 150,000, then state 10,000,000 to 15,000,000, then country whatever.

The tax structure is interesting, and would most certainly embed the different levels into society. I'm not totally sure about the merits of this tax structure, though, it might reduce unneeded bureaucracy, or it might end up being a corrupt mess.

I don't really know. Any other opinions?

I like the idea of rational, efficient, clean, self-sufficient urban centers (versus the current idea of "cities"). I think it would alter the way political power is distributed.

Our current political structure was crafted for an agrarian society, which we are not.

Redsand wrote:

Perhaps in the CSCS, it will be reduces to 3 or so levels, maybe building, block, city, or something of that nature.

When you say 'building', I presume you are refering to something like a Tower block or Skyscaper?

I'd seperate the city up into districts, whcih would then be responsible for their own Social Services and Laws (to an extent). I think one of the problems we have is phrasing the CSCS as a 'City', which may be to small to truly implement the ideas discussed.

How can the tax system be any more corrupt than it is at the moment?

This was, I believe, the system they intended to implement in America. As a side note, originally you had to own land to get the vote, since only landowners were taxed. This led to people bying small scraps of land. I'm not saying we should implement such a situation though, as it gives the rich (assuming they're intelligent enough) the ability to have more say.

I like FairTax. Perhaps that could be a 'state/district' thing.

This applies to political power as well. The 'Federal' layer would essentially be responsible for guarding the constitution, and be answerable to the 'states'. Which themselves can be challenged by the 'counties' and individuals.

How much do we need for the top layer, assuming we can automate a lot? Probably not much, maybe a few million.

I would invert the levels of government configuration.

I would start with the cities or counties. What ever they can do, they should do and what they can't do needs to be rolled further up the line to the next level of government.

On the State level they do what they can do that too big for the cities at the State level of government. What too big for the state to do, is then rolled up to the Federal level of government.

At the Federal level we would do things that can't be done at the state level like National Defense or generating new credit from the government. The Federal Government would also do major project that would be too big for either the City/County or State Governments ability to do. NAWAPA would be one of those projects where the United States would have to negotiate with Canada to bring down 10% of the Mackenzie into the western part of the Western Part of the United States irrigate that area of the United States.

Then there are project that we would want to pull all three or four levels of government to both provide funding and build up of massive infrastructural projects like a muti level rail system. We would want sixty to seventy city with a new subway system or upgraded old subway system. We would want to interface it with a New levitated passenger rail system that goes between those subway system in those down towns. We want to replace those diesel trans with new electric trans and upgrade those old tracks with new replacement tracts. This would require the involvement of all three levels of government doing there part to get it done.

So I have no cut and dried idea of which government is responsible for which job. I only have a general idea of what it should look like. One government can assist the other government or work with a co equal government to achieve some project that needs to get done. A city might get state or federal funding to build a subway system if one was deemed necessary to have one.

Larry,

How is that inverting the levels?

Why does the Federal government need to do projects that are too big for a single state to do, but which 3-4 states acting in partnership could achieve?

How I am I inverting the order.

I am starting with what the lower levels of government can do first like the cities or counties. What they can do they should do for the express purpose of trying to keep on local stage, instead of going to the highest level of government first. I believe local government should control it, because it closer to the people that elected them.

There are a lot of things that should be kept on the local level of government for management like schools district, water department and that kind of thing. We want the people to have as much control over there own life as reasonably possible.

Actually, I support both have a bottom up and a top down approach to government. There a reason for coming in the other direction also.

Why do the states need to have the Federal Government directing a muti State very big project?

Once we go out side those individual states with very big and massive project that are very, very expensive, it almost has to go Federal Government. You run into problems of who going to pay what and who has what control over something. If we have three states in line with each other and the center state changes there mind and the on either side, who may have invested heavily in this project are now with a White Elephant for all the world to see. Because they have to go across that state that between them to complete there project.

An example of a project that is just too big for the States to handle on there own, would be NAWAPA. It is an Acronym for, North America Water And Power Agreement. NAWAPA was one of the Plains that the US Government came up with in the 1950 through 1960 era to deal with the water shortage problem in the Western Part of the United States. Matter of fact every state west of the Mississippi would benefit in one way or another if the NAWAPA project were to go forward and would have spur a massive development of the Western Part of the United States. We probably would have built ten to twenty new cities in the population range of one million people as a result of building this project called NAWAPA. This taking 10% of the Mackenzie River and going down the rocky mountain trench. The average flow of this new river that we intend to create, would have roughly twice to three times the average flow of the Mississippi River at New Orleans. So we are talking about a lot of water that we intend to transport south to do this thing. At Montana the lay of the land is if we can get the water up to that point, then it will flow backward like a backward river going to it tributaries instead of coming from those tributaries water a large section of the West and making them great farm lands and giving us the ability to build new cities there also. So now we have to develop a pumping station so we can pump that water up to that point in Montana so it can flow down hill to where we want that water to go. This project also include digging canal along some parts of this project, which will also be ship navigable or barge navigable for water traffic. How much would this project cost in today dollars? Probably about one trillion dollars or so.

Imagine those states getting together to do this NAWAPA Project on there own. It not going to happen. Also, we would have to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada, because that where the Mackenzie River is. There are some projects that are just too big for those states to handle and so the Federal Government has to do them.

I believe that we should dust off the NAWAPA project and negotiate with Canada and actually do the NAWAPA project. Canada would also benefit from this project also. Matter of fact, probably about half the navigable canal will be in Canada. Canada would basically have a water way all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean by way of rivers, canals.

Larry,