Clean-Slate Government

America became a superpower from nothing more than a rebellious colony all thanks to capitalism and the ideals of freedom.

I think a true Republic thats doesn't censore freedom of speech (such as in Europe where some nations make racism illegal) and a libertarian society with capitalist ideals.

So what would you like? Capitalism, socialism, communism, or what?

First of all, welcome, and thanks for the discussion. Well, I think a clean-slate approach would give the opportunity to set limits on some of the negative aspects of capitalism. This can be done from the start, and implemented in a constitution.

Also, personally, I'd like to see a few government-sponsored monopolies where it might be advantagous. A combined state banking/loan/investment system might be more efficient and beneficial to the economy as a whole. Although, importantly, private competition should be encouraged.

Generally, I think the concept of communism is flawed. However, as we are discussing a clean-sheet government, the ideal aspects of all governments could be somehow implemented.

I guess I'm pretty much a libertarian. However, I think freedom should go hand in hand with the right to personal protection. In other words, you can do what you want, so long as you don't intrude onto others.

A comprehensive, perhaps state-run or subsidized, employment system might be on the cards too.

Some other things I would like to see: Honesty in advertising and none of this '99c' instead of '$1' crap.

Perhaps capitalism with a small blend of socialism is the answer to a new society.

Hey isn't it true that Alaska is Libertarian? I heard something about that

Oh and another question. Communism.

I hear communist on the internet say all the time how "pure" or "True" communism has never been created. What was the Soviet Union then? wasn't the USSR as close as communism as you could get?

I'm not sure of the specific reasons why the USSR didn't really have pure communism, though I agree that they didn't. I think the cause of the problem was that the russians were pretty much revolting from the tzars, which were 100% in the other direction from communism. Like many peoples under represive regimes, when they revolted they went too far in the other direction. Perhaps, then, communism in the USSR was too extreme?

I think we have a great deal of lessons to learn from history when drafting this new clean-slate government.

Recently I have been thinking about how the people in the western world are so comparatively content, that people may be unpassionate about supporting a clean-slate country. However, because they have nothing to revolt against, they will have less propensity for extremeism when drafting the principles of this clean-slate country.

Highly modernistic countries like Sweden or the US are a good starting point. Perhaps these models just need to be tweaked.

Quote :

I'm not sure of the specific reasons why the USSR didn't really have pure communism, though I agree that they didn't

Their government got corrupted very quickly. The people had little or no control over it.

Well there we go. I bet most government models would work well if there was no corruption. But it seems communism had greater propensity for corruption, a weakness to it, and this was its undoing?

Here's a few thoughts I've had about a clean-slate government:

- Perhaps multiple governments, laws, policies, etc can be accomodated within the framework of an encompassing and authoritative government, perhaps like a state system, where there are governors and mayors who oversee their particular jurisdiction within the city-state, which may be free to cover any citizen or residence which aligns itself with that particular government or party, and may or may not include 'hometowns' or fixed areas of jurisdiction, as in the traditional model, but probably rather only cover each individual seperately.

- This is so there is no repression of the minority by the majority, as the minority can simply align to whichever sub-government system they prefer. However, within the sub-government itself, there may still be the same compromises inherent in that system of government.

- These mini or sub-governments may practise any form of government (or perhaps even economic system) they like, so long as it fits within certain guidelines. This may include: Democracy, Communism, Capitalism, Marxism, Republic, etc. Even monarchies or oligarchies are possible.

- Each of these sub-governments may have its own policies and laws, and any citizen will be accountable and tried by the system to which they are aligned.

- In any case, there will be a default and supreme government, with extreme authority over the sub-governments.

- Perhaps it is also possible to have satellite-cities which are situated outside of this clean-slate city-state, and are entirely independent of it.

What about this default and supreme government then?

Well, it will probably be an evolution of the current state of the art; a democracy of some form. Perhaps a direct-democracy, as this is the natural next-step in the evolution of government, but I am concerned about the negative aspects of such a system, especially the consequences to the minority (which is why I have explored the system I described in the previous post).

Leadership (especially long-term leadership) is also an important concern with such a system. Perhaps some sort of monarchy-democracy hybrid could work? This would provide long-term leadership, and at the same time limit the powers of the president and the people, thereby preventing any sort of 'Hitler-esque' corruption of the majority. However, checks will need to be put in place to limit the power of the monarch also.

Here are a few more notes I made after putting some more thought into the subject:

- Americas state system effectively limits the tendency for democracy to allow the majority to oppress the minority, by dividing the country into seperate jurisdictions. This allows each state to enact tailored legislation which is appeasing to a larger majority than if nationally decided legislation was enforced across all states.

- Because of the expected demographic diversity of the new clean-slate city-state, I think it is important that a similar system is used. However, the system used will have to work well within the environment of a single city, where a citizen may live, work, and travel between multiple jurisdictions within a single day. With this in mind, it may be best to think of the system as one where town councils are given similar sovereignty as a state government, rather than working the other way where one can envision multiple state regions being squeezed together into an area the size of a city. Actually, there may be good examples of similar instances within countries like the US; where one may live in New Jersey, but work in New York, for example.

- I can imagine a system whereby a CSCS citizen in a similar situation would be able to vote about residential matters in the locality in which he resides, and issues relating to work in the locality in which he works. Citizens who have more complex associations with multiple jurisdictions will probably be dealt with in a way which leans toward voting rights within the jurisdiction of his residence, and of residential matters, only. Of course, all citizens of the CSCS will have the opportunity to vote in nation-wide matters.

- Also, with a good direct-democracy system, the different levels of governance required to keep the system working efficiently will be mostly within the hands of the people. This should limit the bureaucracy involved in state interactions; further streamlining government.

- The idea here is that the groups most affected by proposed legislation are ensured the right, and are given the best opportunity, to vote on it.

- There will be absolutely no outright censorship of anything, at least not within the city-state as a whole. Rather, in order to control the consumption of undesireable materials, varying amounts of taxation (i.e. tariffs) will be used, and this tax will be strictly enforced. Things which may be taxed to limit their consumption may include drugs, pornography, alcohol; perhaps even unhealthy foods may be taxed.

- This system might have quite interesting effects (depending on how large the taxes are on each good), but should be beneficial to the city as a whole. Perhaps this is one area where different localities may choose to enact different legislation. Some regions may choose to ban the consumption of drugs or alcohol outright, for example. (Legislation cannot be passed which allows undesireables to evade minimum tariffs). However, it is important that these liberties exist within large areas of the city, so that consumption is not concentrated within only a few small localities. Perhaps this is where some degree of fluidity of the area of jurisdiction becomes important (where the borders of jurisdictions may move around in response to changing demographics). In any case, the power to enact all levels of legislation will be upon the people.

- Also of great importance is that the necessary checks are put in place to ensure that legislators and voters are sufficiently educated about the relative matters before being able to participate in any decisive actions. Perhaps this will be the systems major point of difference to current systems.

- The responsibility of education will also be the domain of the people. This is to ensure that the state cannot act to deceive or misdirect the process. However, the state may have as much right to participation in the process as any individual, and can therefore attempt to guide the decision process by citing facts, offering suggestions, etc, just as any individual has the same opportunity.

- The design of the system which facilitates the direct-democracy process should be of prime importance. It will have to be well thought-out, so that it is easy and efficient to use, but with appropriate checking and sorting systems to keep information relevant. At the same time, it is important that any information uploaded to the system is not denied or deleted, but rather only sorted or categorized, so that a paper trail of all contributions, comments, or any other activities, always exists.

- Another way in which the government can be kept small and efficient is through the use of cash prizes and other incentives which may be offered to private companies, rather than through the traditional operation of government agencies. Space exploration, medicine, and even defensive services may be carried out this way. However, where there is more benefit to the city as a whole, government-operated institutions may still be used. I personally think a government-operated banking/loan/investment system could be a lot more efficient than traditional private systems. Furthermore, such a system may integrate well with the tax system. Of course, assurances will have to be made that the government has no will nor right to interfere with anyones money, at least not without proper justification by law. A government-operated employment system might also be more effective than private systems as well, and likewise may integrate well with the welfare system.

"People don't know what they want". This is probably an oversimplification. I think the problem is, people form their opinions, get their ideas, etc. from other 'higher' sources; upon which they attribute more respect. The effect that popular media has on the public is a well documented example of this effect. You see, people may not know what they want, but they know what they want when they see it. The case seems to be that ordinary folk, whose busy lives do not allow them the time to delve into political issues, but at the same time are also the largest voting power, find it easier to evaluate the pre-existing opinions of others, thereby quickly formulating their own opinion. In other words, the majority of people aren't creative enough. Creativity in any subject requires a sufficient depth of knowledge in that subject, and also a passion for it. It is a great compliment to cite that everday people simply have more interesting things to do... This is why Leadership, as a concept, is so valuable.

Today I came across the new concept of Microcredit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit.

While reading through it, I began to ponder the potentials of a state-owned banking system. To me, it seems logical that an enterprise such as a banking system is a vital part of the infrastructure of the economy of the country, in the same way as more-commonly state owned infrastructures such as roads and electricity. It is there for the good of the people. All people. To me, it would be just as natural for the bank system to be government owned, just as other civil services are government owned. What is needed then, is the necessary checks and balances, so that the system does not become corrupt, expoitive or abusive, to the people it serves. However, I can imagine that this would be a public-relations issue, and in the interests of maintaining a good image for investors and the national and international public, it would be naturally self-checking. Also, thorough rights to the treatment of wealth (including the right to be free from excessive taxation, etc.) may be included in the national constitution, to protect citizens rights to their money and assets.

Perhaps the main benefit of a state-owned banking system is that this new concept of Microcredits, or micro-accredation, which would prevent the destructive nature of poverty, could be seamlessly integrated within the system from the beginning.

Another benefit of the system (which would incorporate banking, loan, insurance, and investment systems into one) would be increased networking with likewise state-run education and employment systems.

There would be no entry requirements into the system. Instead, citizens would automatically be entitled to the seamless array of services.

Contrary to what you might think, I beleive a state-run banking system would actually decrease the power of government.

This is primarily because an efficient state-run banking system, which acts in the interest of the economy and society as a whole, with additional benefits such as micro-accreditation, would negate the need for a state run welfare system, and also allow the abolition of minimum wages, both of which I believe unnaturally distort free market ideals and decrease economic competitiveness.

Intersting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

Actually, a Guaranteed Minimum Income, Negative Income Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax, or similar system, may solve both the welfare and poverty traps, as well as allow labor-dependent industries to be internationally competitive by lessening the need for minimum wages.

However, I still have the concern that if the guaranteed minimum income or tax rebate matches the poverty line, that the poverty trap may still be a threat to those individuals with addictions or other expenses such as debts.

Perhaps food and shelter aid can be used in place of a monetary payment.

Also, perhaps it would be possible to have (an un-enforced) 'guaranteed employment' system, whereby the unemployed are guaranteed work for a small (non-minimum) wage in addition to their guaranteed minimum income payment.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin

More about possible e-democracies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency

Looking into this topic a bit more, I can see maybe two major paths of possibility:

1) A highly-tweaked modern democracy. Based on traditional priniciples and methods of existing state-of-the-art democracies, such as those in Sweden or America, but highly-tweaked and improved to minimize democracies inherent flaws.

2) A completely radical e-democracy-like system. This would be completely new, perhaps based on democratic principles, but incorporating completely new methods allowed by widespread internet use and bespoke software. Not necessarily a democracy either, but something which allows direct participation without representation. Perhaps civil-servicemen would be tasked to carry out decisions set via consensus-making methods.

I guess there is a third possibility also:

3) Some sort of combination of the traditional and radical government models above. A 'hybrid' government, if you will.

Actually, thinking about it now, perhaps the third option would be the best, at least during the early stages of Esperance City's development.

Perhaps by keeping a small traditional government at the core, with minor and local issues served under a second level of internet-enabled almost self-government, at least a certain level of stability and certainty would exist.

Perhaps, when the e-democracy systems become more evolved, the traditional government could shrink down as it gradually hands over more areas of responsibility. To ensure this future possibility, an apropriate decree could be written into the constitution which would allow a gradual evolution of government as systems improves and social views change.

This new sovereignty would best have non-nationalistic intentions (i.e. refrain from attempting to influence its citizens in political or cultural matters). Rather, the city-state should embrace and celebrate the diversity of cultures that would no-doubt be represented in the city. In other words, the city-state would be multi-national.

(You could read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Diaspora_nationalism for clues of what I'm advocating. In this respect, every immigrant would be diasporal to some degree)

However, this mode of play should not inhibit the formation of the city-states own culture. Foreseeably, nationalism towards the city-state itself would inevitably develop; perhaps alongside predisposed foreign nationalisms, or perhaps as an enveloping pan-nationalism. In any case, it is important that there is no inhibition of foreign nationalism (for so long as they are contributing to the city-state, nationalism should be irrelevant ;-).

Perhaps a 'Deliberative Democracy' would suit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy

How about a corporocracy. The city is own and managed by a publicly held corporation in which every citizen is a shareholder. Ideally this ensures that positions within government are decided on merit and not popularity but that ultimately it is still accountable to the shareholders, i.e. we the people.
Really it's the ultimate expression of 20th century capitalism. Citizenship becomes something that can be bought and sold depending on the share price which depends on the success of the city. People aren't taxed, they're charged for services rendered. Literacy rates and rta's become corporate targets. Democratic assemblies become agm's. Every time the city expends new shares can be offered. the possibilities are endless.

Sounds very interesting, lkm. I think I'll do a little research on that one and come back later with comments. Do you have any links to further information?

BTW, welcome aboard.

I'm afraid if there are any links out there they're all going to be serendipity because I was speaking off the top of my head. It was just something that occurred to me as a useful conceptual model given you'd need a development company to build the place anyway.

this is actually very interesting. I beleive this could be a good solution. But maybe make shares cost percentages of income, instead of a set price. The increace in value of the share can pay for services. This also fits like a puzzle peice into an economic system I've been formulating. I'll post more later.

I think it may be instructive when thinking about a corporatocracy to first think about what a government actually is.
Whatever form it may take all governments basically break down into a layer of perhaps publically accountable management overseeing a range of divisions providing disperate services to the public in exchange for collected money. A successful government provides good services with money left over and a bad one does the reverse. Now replace the word government with public company.
A public company is owned by it's shareholders and is accountable to them, but it is important to remember that a customer in not necessarily a shareholder and vice versa. Therefore in a corporatocracy a citizen is somebody who has purchased shares in the corporation and his influence is proportional to the shares that he's purchased. The value of the shares are thus clearly, as with any other company dependent on the perceived worth of the city.
As a corporation it's driving force is to turn a profit for the shareholders, which means to generate more tax return or 'service charges' than it requires to spend to deliver those services and to deliver shareholder value by improving the share price through improving its service.
The attractiveness of the model lies in the fact that the shape of the successful modern company has been derived through centuries of Darwinian competition to a state of high efficiency while the profit motive introduces some attractive policy choices not open to conventional government, the ugliness is that those with the least money have the least say.

Having different forms of government in one city is dangerous.

I don't know quite what you mean, but I would say there is great strength in diversity, in all shapes and forms.

How are different forms dangerous? As long as they're accountable, I see no problem having different districts or sister cities being governed differently, but accountable to a central governing body. It gives people the opportunity to decide what type of government they want to live in, and should a district's government fail, others will take control.

Re: Corporatocracy

Give every citizen a certain number of shares based on different criteria. Everyone receives a default number upon birth, and throughout their life they can buy or earn more. Shares could be earned through contributions to the greater good, inventions, outstanding service, etc. This gives hard-working but lower-income citizens the opportunity to raise their economic status, while helping everyone in the process. Shares would only be available to citizens of the city; outsiders interested in purchasing shares would have to pay a premium or move to the city.

Even those with fewer shares will benefit from developing the government (or corporation); everyone wins.

lkm mentioned accountability being given to the shareholders to determine. Proper governing is based on an accountability to the people, so this is no different.

That's the solution to the problem I had with the corporacy. I didn't like the idea of people being able to buy the country, as it were. But the solution you've come up with is to have shares earnable, so the more you contribute to the city the more say you have (with a maximum allowable amount under 50%, of course )

But if you edo the reverse, would you lose shares?

I do like the idea giving people a golden share at birth, also rewarding socially beneficial behaviour with small numbers of extra shares does sound nice, but effectively your letting your "government" purchase more votes from people it likes at the expense of those it doesn't.

The government wouldn't be purchasing votes, but it would be rewarding the people it likes. The people it likes would be people liked and approved of by the entire society.

If you still feel that's considered buying votes, then perhaps each community (community of 1000 maybe) can award citizens they consider worthy through monthly voting.

As originally conceived, a corporatocracy would be a public company accountable to its shareholders just like any other. i.e each share has a vote, the more shares you have the more votes you control, when it gifts extra shares to people it is also gifting them extra voting rights. On the one hand this could mean that the most valuable productive memebers of society get a a larger say in the government, on the other the government could just start gifting shares to its own supporters.

Perhaps in our corporatocracy, voting wouldn't be determined by the number of shares you control. While this strays away from typical business models, remember this is a government. Equality is paramount.

I thought it was fairness?

Equality of opportunity is fairness.

but is it really?

Yes.

Two people apply for a job, one is supremely qualified, has worked hard towards the position for years and would excel in the role. The other is is decidedly none of those things, do you really consider it fair that they should posess an equal oportunity of getting the job?
Two people go through life, one works hard is kind to his mother and through persistence gains success, the other is git of the highest order and does nothing, do you consider it the height of fairness for the fruits of their labours to be split equally between the two?
Two men, one murders and rapes his way through the subcontinent, the other brings peace to the middle east, turns water into wine, and solves climate change, do they really deserve equal deliberation for a Nobel peace prize?
Two people, one has worked hard all their life and has invested considerable savings into the purchase of a hundred thousand shares of the corporacracy, the other is an eighteen year old with the single one he was born with, should they really have equal say in the future of company when one has invested so much in it and the other has barely been born?

Quote :

Two people apply for a job, one is supremely qualified, has worked hard towards the position for years and would excel in the role. The other is is decidedly none of those things, do you really consider it fair that they should posess an equal oportunity of getting the job?
Two people go through life, one works hard is kind to his mother and through persistence gains success, the other is git of the highest order and does nothing, do you consider it the height of fairness for the fruits of their labours to be split equally between the two?
Two men, one murders and rapes his way through the subcontinent, the other brings peace to the middle east, turns water into wine, and solves climate change, do they really deserve equal deliberation for a Nobel peace prize?
Two people, one has worked hard all their life and has invested considerable savings into the purchase of a hundred thousand shares of the corporacracy, the other is an eighteen year old with the single one he was born with, should they really have equal say in the future of company when one has invested so much in it and the other has barely been born?

1) Yes, they have an equal opportunity to apply for the job, but the discretion of the employer prevents one from even having the chance. I don't really see your point.

2) If the first is hard-working, then he would have more shares than the second, and therefore profit more from them.

3) Again I'm missing your point, why would the first even be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize?

4) Two people are just that: people. You can't become more than a person, or less. Perhaps we're taking the concept of a corporatocracy too literally, or perhaps too far.

The point I was trying to make through increasingly extreme examples is that equality does not always equal fairness. A job interview decided on a coin toss would be scrupalously equal but patently unfair, a state that strives towards total material equality creates great unfairness as 70 years of communism showed, equality that ignores all considerations that would create unequality would move beyond the unfair to the absurd.
If you want people to invest in something, you must give them something in return, the more they invest, the more you need to give them. It's that simple.

Perhaps the only way to be equal and fair is to determine certain aspects of the government where a citizen would only get a single vote, and others where their voting power would be determined by the number of shares they own.

The reason I say this is there are certain issues that shouldn't be determined just because you're wealthier or more influential than the next man. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I fully understand that this is one of the limitations of this form of government, I probably pointed it out as such in my first post on the subject, I was merely trying clarify what this sort of government would entail, and to establish that equality and fairness aren't necesarily the same thing.
A corporatocracy is well suited to the intial design, funding and construction of this sort of new city state as well as offering unique profit opportunities, but by it's nature it most certainly offers a democratic deficit with careful planning.
Perhaps, there should be a directly elected, one man one vote, city council to represent the people to the company board.

Alternatively, how about a biannually selected focus group chosen to represent a cross section of public opinion based on demographics and regular polling.
No more politicians, representatives are chosen to have power rather than seeking it.

A Federal Representative Democracy, when properly implemented and properly controlled, is the only way to go.

The devil is in the details. In the US, county, state and national governments are in no way coordinated. Legislatures write laws and hand out money without any particular direction.

We need the executive to write the budgets, and a legislature that stands guard over the public treasury, not preys upon it.

Commodore wrote:

A Federal Representative Democracy, when properly implemented and properly controlled, is the only way to go.

The devil is in the details. In the US, county, state and national governments are in no way coordinated. Legislatures write laws and hand out money without any particular direction.

We need the executive to write the budgets, and a legislature that stands guard over the public treasury, not preys upon it.

A federal representative democracy IF properly implemented and IF properly controlled, MIGHT be good.

If our present executive wrote the budget, this country would be bankrupt. He has shown little interest in what is good for the country and is only interested in his egomaniacal agenda.

davamanra wrote:

If our present executive wrote the budget, this country would be bankrupt. He has shown little interest in what is good for the country and is only interested in his egomaniacal agenda.

Without getting into the individual politics, there's so much of the budgets of all levels of government that is redundant, counterproductive, and unnecessary, and yet at the same time is a political third rail that no single elected official could touch even if they wanted to for fear of the spin and backlash they would face.

So most of them don't, and it snowballs, and we get stuck with a nearly overwhelming tax burden and are still under served in many areas.

There wouldn't be a tax burden if everyone would pay their share of taxes instead of finding ways to weasel out of it. Granted, there is redundancy, but this is true in any organization with a tiered structure. Social security is supposed to be an entirely separate entity in the US budget so I will put that aside. The biggest fraction of the American budget goes to defense. I could come up with a list of ways to reduce that expense. Interest on debt is another huge portion of our deficit. Even if we were to have maintained the budget surplus that we had in 2000 and took that 277 billion dollars to pay down the debt, it still would have taken at least 30 years to pay off the national debt. Instead of doing the fiscally responsible thing and maintain the revenue that we were bringing in, tax cuts were issued thus ensuring that the next year there would be no surplus. Then war breaks out and the budget skyrockets, but revenue is reduced even more with more tax cuts. Now the nation deficit is higher than it has ever been and the national debt has ballooned. The national debt right now is 9.5 trillion. That's over $30,000 for every man woman and child in the US, and that's increasing at 8.1% per year IF the budget was balanced. That's just the FEDERAL budget.
The national debt has more than doubled in the past eight years. No consideration has been taken regarding paying it down. If an individual were the federal government he would be considered a bad credit risk.