Example of a city gov't in Nightwatchmen system?

Assuming that the CSCS is established on the systems of a Nightwatchmen federal government, and you are a well prepared delegate to one of the constitutional conventions, what is your proposal for the government of that state?

(This one is aimed at Terraformer specifically)

Hmmm, hard one. I haven't really thought that far ahead. Are you asking for the governmental powers only, or the entire design of the city?

In terms of laws, it would be quite liberal, with some restrictions - open drug use and selling is banned, as is pornography selling in shops; however, you can do what you like in your own home so long as it doesn't violate federal law. Open carry is allowed, along with the other trappings of a free society. Public land belongs to everyone, so you're free to go hunting on it if you have a permit, unless the creature in question is a pest, in which case there's nothing stopping you (obviously, permits for rare and endangered species would be unavailable).

As for the government... some form of direct democracy, coupled with a 10% veto, as well as an elected council. If the population of the city-state is big enough, it would be split into regions, each of which would be the city duplicated. Actually, for the direct democracy part I'd probably try out an indifference vote system, rather than a 10% veto. I suppose you could call it a form of consensus decision making.

For the city design itself, I'm quite fond of the description of Atlantis... it should aim to be self sufficient in it's needs, as well as defensive. For these reasons, it should be an island in an artificial lake - essentially a huge moat, then fields, then a moat, then fields... finally reaching the citadel, which houses a population of about 500-1000 on an artifical island, with the houses and shops in a ring on the outside and the public buildings (Town Hall, Church, School, Clinic/Hospital etc) inside. The moats would be interconnected, serving as both irrigation and transport. GM crops would be grown on the fields, and harvested by machines, possibly working with humans (don't try telling me this ain't possible - we've been doing it for centuries), then automatically processed into flour. Similar setups would work for providing milk and eggs (these are already automated). Fish would live in the moats, and be free to anyone who bothers to catch them. These raw ingredients would be provided free to everyone who's a member of the city, who would probably have their own machinery for processing it further into foodstuffs. The very inner ring would be fruits and such, which are for anyone who is willing to spend the time and effort picking them.

There. However, not everyone would like such a system. Well, maybe the city design, but not the law or form of government. In that case, I'd let them start their own.

Education would not be compulsory, although quite possibly freely provided. There would not be one set age at which someone becomes an adult - instead, it would be graded, and based on emotional, physical, and mental maturity. As a rough guideline, people would gain the right to vote at the age of 12, which is when standard education would end; after this they'd go into either an Apprenticeship, Polytechnic, or University (old-style, that is, teaching one curriculum). The age of sexual maturity would be based on emtional, physical, and quite possibly mental maturity, while the right to drink would be based mainly on physcial maturity. The right to bear weapons is the same for all ages - yuo get it when you prove you can handle it responsibly.

The economy would probably primarily be a gift one, although they'd still use the federal hard currency in some cases. There's definately be a public workshop in the town - we are a culture of tinkerers, poets, artists, and engineers, after all.

Hmm, I can't say that I agree with the city planning standpoint (Streets, especially if they have many levels, are more efficient), and it doesn't address the issues so much of de facto inequality. I also absolutely hate the idea of indifference voting, since that essentially hands off society to those that have more money. People should not be compensated for being losers.

What? People should not be cpmpensated for losing the vote? Eh?

Redsand11j wrote:

Hmm, I can't say that I agree with the city planning standpoint (Streets, especially if they have many levels, are more efficient),

I'm not trying to fit a massive population in, though. It's small enough to not require streets.

Quote :

and it doesn't address the issues so much of de facto inequality.

Eh? What do you mean? It gives the raw materials to people for free. I'd also have a biogenic generator for converting waste into energy (deals with the sewage problem), as well as other means which should ensure energy is freely available to all. Any further inequality is created by natural variation and choice - if the other person gets to eat meat and have sugar, it's because unlike you they've actually bothered to hunt and gather it.

Quote :

What? People should not be compensated for losing the vote? Eh?

No, absolutely not. That costs money that the locality may not have. Additionally, not all benefits are monetary or can even be measured in money. It gives the rich undue influence in a society, and not even the people who would really be rich in that little commune- just those that happen to amass a large amount of paper money that is otherwise useless. The idea that people should share the benefits that society confers upon them is a good one- but monetary compensation is absolutely not. Where there's money, there's greed and corruption. It's better to keep the money out of elections as much as is physically possible in order to keep out the corruption. Look at campaign financing- now there's a nasty mess.

Then there's the issue of the economy of your commune. It will be fundamentally incompatible with any other economy except for that of another commune, and even then there will be significant difficulties. 500-1000 people isn't enough to have a high level of technology and self sufficiency at the same time.

What commune?

Quote :

The economy would probably primarily be a gift one...It gives the raw materials to people for free.

aka a commune.

No. I said probably, since I imagine most people would end up making the economy mainly gift based, but at the start at least it would be a good old fashioned currency based one. Also, the only raw materials provided would be those which machines can produce - grain, eggs, and milk, and perhaps cloth if that's possible. If you want fish, you have to either catch it yourself or buy it. If you want fruit, ditto. Services... stump up the cash, or barter for it - if someone's not willing to simply give it to you.

If the economy is mainly gift based, then it is a commune. There is nothing wrong with it being a commune, I have no problem with the idea of not institutionalizing selfishness, but you are proposing a society that has many of the aspects of a commune.

What, don't like the idea of being a commune-ist?

I just didn't understand why you called it a commune. Sure, it would probably end up with a gift economy, but it wouldn't be built into the system. I imagine it will actually be partly currency based and partly a gift economy, actually.

A gift economy is more or less an essential part to a commune. Perhaps the essential part. Remember that theoretically (Although I don't want to get into the realities in this case, USSR etc), communism is no private ownership of property, but instead community ownership. Ideally, that's not so bad.

That is what you're proposing, though.

But this would have private property as an essential part of it... the only things you get free is that which can be provided for by automated machines with little human effort involved.

But that is nevertheless a significant proportion of the economy, given out for free. That would be a commune in large part.

Don't think that that is a downside, it depends very much on how it's implemented. As I've said before, I have no problem with the idea of a commune. If you're going to make one, though, at least admit to yourself that it is one.

Like I said, the only thing you'd get for free is food (grain, eggs, and milk) and maybe fresh water (although I imagine that would be provided by machines in each house). Actually, it might be possible to automate the production of cloth, as well. Power would possibly have to be paid for, but each house would probably have it's own power generation system as well (solar, wind, and biogas; perhaps hydroelectric if the town is built on a stream or river). Yes, it should be possible to automate that much...

So, the inhabitants would get, freely provided for them:

• Grain
  
• Eggs
  
• Milk
  
• Cloth
  
• Water
  
• Energy
  

In addition to that, they could gather or trade for at little cost to themselves:

• Fruit
  
• Vegetables
  
• Fur
  
• Red meat
  
• Fish
  

Then, using their own machinery plus energy budget, they could refine all that to get:

• Sugar
  
• Flour
  
• Butter
  
• Cream
  
• Cheese
  
• Flavourings
  
• Clothes
  

With further refining (by machine, of course)...

• Bread
  
• Pasta
  
• Cakes
  
• Yogurt
  
• Ice cream
  

Of course, you could make a lot more than this small selection I've presented here. Nevertheless, this should be enough to demonstrate that a post-scarcity society - when it comes to the basics of living - is already possible (milking is already automated, milling machines are used on an industrial scale, bread and yogurt makers are found in lots of home). What we need to do is use that favorite of louis, scaled down machines, and get the land to start experimenting.

Also, while most people would jump at the oppertunity to live in such a society, some wouldn't (Amish, anarcho-primitivists...). I'm fine with that; it's their time they're wasting after all. But they need somewhere to live. Again, other people are completely anti-drugs, and think all drugs should be banned - they should have somewhere to live and legislate as they wish. Other's want to live completely anarchistic lives - again, they need somewhere to do that. Some might want to live in mini-caliphates, and they should have the right to do so. Having only one city is not going to allow for that.

Personally, I think my idea is the best one... but it will only work if everyone in the cleanslate town agrees with me.

Post scarcity essentially involves community regulation or control of resources so as to not create the inequalities of wealth that cause problems today and to provide a fair standard of living for everyone. AKA, a commune. Post scarcity really makes that kind of thing possible. There is nothing wrong with that.

Of course it is pretty inefficient to do that in your home, so a more structured commune where there are central factories with larger machines that cost much fewer resources and are used on a much more regular basis.

The thing about post scarcity is that you need to have enough of everything that you make for everyone. If nobody has a TV or computer, that's post scarcity. If you can make enough so that 1 person in 2 can have a TV, scarcity is back.

And if it's a good system, people will agree. But maybe people in another system will try to sabotage yours because people are stupid, especially politicians within bad systems.

Trying to get rid of inequality is fundamentally immoral and unethical, since it involves saying to people 'yopu can't have x, unless everyone esle has x'. That's not what I want to do. I define post scarcity as a state where everyone has a basic standard of living, and doesn't have to do much work to get it.#

So it wouldn't be regulated to prevent that sort of inequality. AKA not a commune.

Nevertheless the community would have to play a very significant part in this economy, presumably in a gift economy type of way, because otherwise there would eventually be inequalities in the capabilities of people's machines to make everything. Breakdowns etc- if you're going to guarantee post-scarcity, you're actually guaranteeing a good deal considering how much of the world lives at levels below what we would call subsistence.

Remember- this CSCS will have heavy interaction with the surrounding areas, which will almost certainly be a fairly badly off third world nation. On that note, we better make sure we don't end up colonizing the surrounding areas through undue economic influence. If people are becoming a part of the CSCS through economic ties, then they should be incorporated, or governmental influence should be absolutely illegalized.

Quote :

Of course it is pretty inefficient to do that in your home, so a more structured commune where there are central factories with larger machines that cost much fewer resources and are used on a much more regular basis.

Maybe so, but I want pasta while another wants bread as their staple. Besides, it introduces an element of control over what people eat and wear - something that is highly undesirible. An even more centralised system would be even more efficient, but makes control a lot easier in turn.

Quote :

The thing about post scarcity is that you need to have enough of everything that you make for everyone. If nobody has a TV or computer, that's post scarcity. If you can make enough so that 1 person in 2 can have a TV, scarcity is back.

Except that, under my system, if you want a TV you have to work for it. There wouldn't be a factory where widgets are made by people on a rota basis, and then given out - you have to earn enough to buy it from someone else whose made it, or make one yourself. Again, my definition of post-scarcity differs from yours; I defi9ne a post-scarcity society as one in which a basic lifestyle (e.g. the essentials of life, TV is not essential) is available with very little work required.

That's what welfare is for- would you say that we're at post scarcity now, since you can just apply for welfare and survive?

Yes and no. I'd say the technology is here to provide a basic standard of living to everyone with only about an hour of work per week being required, but those on welfare are relying on the work of others, who still have to work for a living.

Put simply, if everyone can stop working and survive, we're there. But if they can't, we're not.