. . Subject: Re: FREE MARKETS ! . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... [...] > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... IOW: 'because the past was irrational & insane, let's not bother about making the future rational & pleasant' ? Maybe I wasn't clear enough: unlike most theories - if not all - by esteemed economists and Usenetters alike who as a rule can be completely explained in several paragraph and as such contain little else but a vague direction of policy, my system is a system of Government, of company ownership, of soil distribution and of finance, which is worked out into a tightly build system of 239 Constitutional laws and endless pages on the details of that system and more pages on the kinds of policies to implement in that system (from how to (for example) structure hospital management, to the order bylaws of Government councils, to the symbols of Government representative ranks to the way how to generally govern a nation, to what the dimensions of the head of state 'chair' (throne if you like) are to be). It is that level of detail that will cause, even completely irrational and insane people, to at least a portion of the time behaving in a rational and helpfull manner (for themselves, and the nation). It's not ''uh oh, the corp will become a democracy.'' You and I know that such will only breed chaos, infighting. People can't do it, they couldn't reach an agreement on anything. That's why vague hand-waving won't accomplish anything. I'm not vaguely handwaving though: you can choose between democratic models B, C, D, E and O which are provided for in the Constitution of the nation itself. After the corp has been handed to the founder - probably under a decision of a Justice following the laws for such a hand-over - the employees have to select one of the 5 forms of democracy for their corp. They have to hand that selection over to the Judiciary, who will log it. At that point their democracy type choice is part of the law of the land. They have no choice anymore to follow their democratic system, their are legally required on to follow it (although they could still change the model, the O model is where they can write their own rules.) Model B is the least democratic: select a Boss, he/she will do everything, can fire everybody at will, decide what wanted etc, except can't destroy the business and can't keep secrets if demanded by employees to show them. Then model C is where you have a more cooperative system between management and labor. Model D is where the employees steer themselves in meetings (model D1 is one employee one vote, model D2 is one employee one vote per worked hour). Model E is where the employees then/there present can immediately decide (and re-decide). But the key in all this is that even though it is highly detailed, it is the opposite of a system where everyone 'just has to follow along and go against its own will/interest for the sake of the nation.' No: everyone is supposed to follow their own interest, it's just that the systems are set up such that by following self-interest, it will come together and work for everyone. Like in that corporation democracy system: it is a tightly described model ? More or less, yes. Can't go wrong ? You'd have to be very dumb to make that go wrong, and if you do you could probably get out of your issues easily (for example by switching from model D2 to model B, reducing opportunity for infighting.) Example: Government employees are to take care of business investments, at the direction of the Government councils, they are payed and judged by the people. Now I know that this may often not work at absolute optimum, but it doesn't have to: we are already making a big difference in that we are giving the public the chance to rule over investment policies, as opposed to letting that be done with a profit motive and basically in secret. Even if it works sub-optimal, it works a lot better then privately, because done privately you will get the worst possibly investment policies: investment is most profitable where labor is abused, so that's where the money goes. Also note that people can learn how to operate the new system, the system is very shock-resistent and collapse resistant, because unlike any Government model previously: it can resurect itself trivially. You can't erect a neo-Roman state from its ashes, so you get a military dictatorship during chaos. Very practically you can't erect a neo-Roman state, because you need a centralized voting system first. There need to be ballots made, there need to be publication of the participating parties or persons, you need an entire infrastructure of counters and if that isn't credible your neo-Roman state is nothing, has no standing. A neo-Roman state is weak and fragile. Once it dies, it dies. Dictatorship is neither that easy to set up, because who is anyone to be the dictator ? How, in an entire nation, is decided who will be that dictator ? Then predictably you end with fighing gangs who will settle who is the dictator: the boss of the winning gang. In my model this all goes completely different. What was the problem of the other models ? They need a centralized point of authority to boot their system up. So effectively: they need the cure before the solution, they need to have a Government before they can have a Government. My model does not need a centralized point, it is all scripted out how people who have that script in their hand all over the nation ... This script: http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet3.txt I'm not hand-waving, that is the text which is to do it. They read that, and people who like this idea can print a lot of them and throw them in people's their letter boxes. Once my model has been done once, all homes will probably have that document but also they have ongoing experience with how to do that model and are already organized into its voter-groups. Therefore once my model is done once, setting it up after complete chaos is not just easy: it is trivial. Actually it is trivial exactly like that word says. Briefly: people will combine in defined groups, in a way that it can actually be done in an area that knows about nothing yet. They will combine in groups of 50 or a few more, elect someone to run an internal vote, and then elect a delegate. The delegates are suggested to go to meeting points that can be found in the city and neighborhoods on pre-defined times/days in the week (although in reality they will obviously find each other in other ways too, but this way it is more structured, credible, gives people a more secure feeling that it's going to be ok, which it is.) Then you can have a Government erected in one neighborhood and it actually has a power. Meanwhile other areas of the nation may already have come as far as to erect a Government all the way to the provincial and national level (their part of that at least, of that national council), while other areas might still be total chaos. Then the parts that have it together can infuse the parts still in chaos with how it's done and get it done, assist. It's like an organic system of Governance that grows up from anywhere and everywhere at the same time, and that combines fluidly both when the areas become larger that are doing it, and when there appear more delegates in the areas that already have done it. So it grows in area coverage and in participation. Meaning: if the people make a total chaos of everything, they can re-do everything from the ground up no problem, as if it where another revolution. I note one danger: Constitutional law breaking by the Government and not sufficiently resisted by the people (who have a total power to stop that any moment if they wanted that, unlike under the USA model). There is a danger that this whole system backfires: ruthless boss at the top, commandeers everyone down to street level. Obviously all laws are set up so that this does not happen, and that when it seems it might that it will be harmless. But pretty much: for such a dictatorship the dictator needs a second arm of power, for example a people-hostile military. So then it's basically the military/police who are the Government. Such dangers exist now and they seem a lot worse now then they would be under my model. -- http://www.socialism.nl