© Written and (C)opyright by Jos Boersema. This text is released into the `public domain', do what you want with it.

        democracy: governance by and for the people, the people govern
                   themselves, the people decide on how the nation is governed
        dictatorship: a country is governed by one person, the whole nation
                      is doing or forced to do the will of a small minority


In this text mistakes in the organization of society are pointed out, solutions to these problems are worked out in detail into a national constitution proposal, the story concludes with how to achieve the desired objective of implementing the constitution. The international scene is envisioned as a free cooperation model between completely sovereign nations.

The problem of society is lack of economic equality of power, expressed as private capitalism, monopolized resource hoarding, and the dictatorial business style that results from these. The trade between two productive people is the central idea in the solution. It is an agreed cooperation between two entities made explicit, the essence of trade is therefore cooperation. It demands equality of power to be fair and therefore useful. This equality of power is achieved by resource ownership right, and turning businesses in democracies once the entrepreneur leaves. The nefarious private finance sector that distorts the markets becomes in whole a tool for democratic policy making by elected government. This adds one more power to the state: finance. To keep this working for the people, the government is organized so that it is tied hand and foot to the will of the people.

Because history has shown that the rich don't want to do what is in the interest of the people, humanity or nature, a revolutionary perspective had to be developed; but the quiet road to success is also mapped out in detail, needless to say that is the preferred way to do it. Both ways rely heavily on knowledgeable majority support and are therefore by definition democratic.

It isn't necessary to read everything from beginning to end in order to understand it.

                     Table of contents
                 Democracy, forms
                 Dictatorship, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy
                 The Limits of Democracy
                 Morality of trade
                 Revolution, system change !
                   End Capitalism
                   Companies, financial pressures (picture)
                   Companies, market pressures (picture)
                   Capitalism development (picture)
                   Investor choices (picture)
                   Post Revolutionary Constitution plus reasoning (txt|ps)
                   Good work by Moses
                   Non-profit finance fund set up prototype
                   Self Critique
                   `What about me ?!'
                   DAVID text simulation

Democracy, forms

[[Error? In Microsoft Browser the below is not rendered
correctly for unknown reason. Upgrade to Linux and a
tables capable browser, or click here.]]
State Forms
dictatorship, police state form of government where the will of the people is expressed through violent battle with security forces of the state, and other forms of physical resistance; if no such will is expressed, the state can evolve into becoming a monarchy
monarchy form of dictatorial government where the job of being the dictator is handed from father/mother to son/daughter
constitutional monarchy the power of the hereditary monarch is limited by laws which he/she may not change; this form of government has a form of representative democracy, expressing the limited power of the monarch
represented democracy form of government where the people vote for "politicians", who lose their power after a predefined amount of time, after which the process repeats
constitutional democracy the power of the elected politicians is limited by laws which they can not change easily
winner-takes-all the politicians-group with the most votes, even if not a majority, forms the new government
coalition government politicians-groups must cooperate with other politicians-groups until the combined group has a majority, the combined group forms the new government
Republic form of representative democracy without a monarchy element; every member of government is elected by the people (directly or indirectly)
Direct democracy form of government where the people decide and vote on issues "directly"; this form of government is often mixed with representative democracy
Suffrage People who are allowed to vote for government
Rich only Historically first only the most powerful/rich were allowed to vote
Everyone Eventually under pressure from the less elitist more people were voting, until everyone except children voted
Workers only: Soviets System that only allows votes to people who do productive work, who elect a factory body which elects wider bodies until the state government is elected: bottom-up democracy, based on employees, particularly large factories. Macro democratic organization as a function of micro democratic organizations, for the direct purpose of denying exploiters the power of state.


People's will Expression
Civil war Physical violence between different sections of the people of some region, often fighting for power/influence over the same territory; often devastating
Revolution Physical violence between the people against their (previous) government, this can result in a new government; often in reaction to devastating circumstances
Strike Refusal to work, denying government the proceeds of that work, putting pressure on those depending on it; striking people may be helped by non-striking sympathizers or saved funds for this purpose, because striking often denies strikers their income
Solidarity strike striking to make a strike by other people more powerful
General strike strike by all or most sectors of productive activity; strike of workers as a class against the present leadership
Boycot and Donations Selecting trading partner for other reasons then price/quality of directly received product
Demonstration Mass gathering to "demonstrate" opinion to government and/or other people
Petitioning Circulating a written opinion and gathering written support statements from people on it, which are then presented to a government which has been unwilling to address the issue in the direction of the written opinion
Voting System to measure opinion in a group: members of the group are typically asked to perform a small task that encodes their opinion, these opinion-tokens are then counted, after which a predefined action is to occur depending on which opinion(s) gathered most support
Hand raising The members meet, and raise their hand when they hear an opinion they agree with
paper ballot People are presented with a list of options, they can mark their opinion and deposit the paper in a box; the contents of the box is often counted in public view and/or by committees selected to form a neutral group, to prevent fraud; voting is often monitored by special vote-monitors; sometimes secondary voting takes place, to get a second result which can be compared to the first
object-token People get a token for each opinion, and deposit the token encoding their opinion in the vote-box and the rest in the not-vote box (ancient system, hardly in use today; but not unlike voter verified voting)
Electronic voting People press an area encoding their opinion on a sensitive electronic machine, the machines are (presumed to have been) build to count all votes together automatically; control of vote-counting is in the hands of a small group creating/verifying the technology, and the crackers attacking the systems; supported by compuphobics politicians and naive voters
Electronic voting with "Paper Trail" Voting machine that prints a paper ballot for the voter to verify and cast by hand, combines paper ballot and electronic voting techniques
Tell one person Voters tell one person their vote, this person comes forward with the total; similar to Electronic voting but with the voting machine substituted by a human being (hypothetical system, not in use)
Voter verified voting system where each token representing opinion has been marked and/or is being marked by the voter, all votes are later displayed allowing voters to "verify" their vote; tokens are randomly distributed to voters for anonymity
Free vote (loosely defined) Voters can form their vote creatively; voters may explain their vote in more detail; voters may define their own subsidiary voting process inside the comment space, also giving the power to ask questions to voters

(This combined with "voter verified voting", is the voting process of the sede computer program)




Economic Systems
trade Swapping services/goods in an agreed quantity; when power is equal between the trading partners both swap a comparable amount of effort, when power is unequal the effort exchanged becomes unequal
capitalism A system of trade that allows the trading actors to be themselves traded; creates a separate influence on the trading actors besides consumer choice; stimulates high excess profits, businesses of a more dictatorial type able to keep wages low and profits high, resulting in higher investor profits; ideology: "Be a winner, use the losers !"
socialism system aiming to supersede capitalism because of the high and unfair disparity between rich and poor; stimulates directly democratic businesses; brings finance under direct government control; has historically viewed trade itself as part of capitalism, as it has little value when people have no excess money to play with; ideology: "Workers of all lands, unite !"


Dictatorship, Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy


In a dictatorship, a minority dishes out orders and the majority must follow them or receive some kind of punishment. Virtually all of modern businesses have this type of organization. This is a reflection of several factors.
- Workers apparently don't care enough to resist dictatorship in their immediate environment.
- Consumers (for the most part off-duty workers) are greedy enough to fall for the lower prices dictatorial businesses can provide ... and/or don't see the connection with their own working conditions.
- Too many people dream too much of being rich themselves, preventing support for a maximum on personal wealth. Without such a maximum, capitalism is invited. The resulting poverty creates the wish of being rich.
- The people in general do not seem to recognize sufficiently, that big financial investments are 1. a task of democratic government, 2. not part of the actual markets, but the place which trades the actual markets. This trading with enormous amounts of money of businesses that actually provide services/products, is taking place in the interest of profits for the inherently unproductive financial pseudo-markets. The financial pseudo-markets comprise a gambling industry, where productive people are the horses running the race, and producing the rewards for the winners of this pseudo gambling industry. Note: the actual casino gambling industry (poker games, slot machines) is part of the productive markets; the entertainment industry, providing its own games for amusement and selling them in competition with other forms of entertainment, just like - in a certain way - every productive business.
- People and especially media/politicians seem unwilling to make sense of free market values. The free market is a "good thing", because 1. it allows consumers choice (which is power, democracy), 2. it allows people to organize themselves (freedom, direct consequences to activity), 3. it makes sure unproductive companies go down automatically (survival of the most popular). For the free market to operate at all, politicians seem to have taken to the idea that they must stimulate *competition for extreme wealth by extreme minorities*. That is not what free market values are about, although it may be what these politicians are about.

For there to be *choice* for consumers, privatization is not always necessary: one can split a productive "group" in such a way that consumers can choose. For instance they are allowed to choose between varies government-owned hospitals. The democratic government (that is the people themselves) can then control the hospitals both from above and below. The hospital which does attract more costumers is doing something better, which is valuable information. If one hospital doing badly does not change, it might have to be reduced in size, losing jobs. There is no need to privatize hospitals and cater to monstrous greed, for there to be consumer choice, free market operations, incentives to deliver quality work.

For there to be consumer choice, there have to be many different companies to choose from, and new businesses must be able to start up quickly, and badly behaving companies must be able to die off quickly and without trouble. Some industries are able to meet these criteria perfectly. It is for instance quite easy to open a bar, or a small shop, and if one of them goes under that is not a great problem at all. This results in there being in the region of at least 20, 30 or more offerings to costumers, to buy their goods (in cities). This large amount of offers means costumers can get good services and fair prices. There is always pressure on existing businesses to not start behaving like a monopoly, from new startup companies.

Some industries however are patently unable to provide even the most rudimentary consumer choice and therefore market operation. The best example of this is probably the railway. Is it possible to have 10 or more train companies offering costumers the same ride in the same hour as the traveler may wish to travel ? For that, you need to have 10 tracks side by side, which is expensive. The result is that with free market operation, prices will be extremely high. Can you trivially start up train companies, can one be allowed to go bankrupt and have its components scrapped ? It is certainly possible to privatize a train company, but that does not buy free market operations. It only buys a monopoly, which is much worse then a government managed system, because a government managed system is at least controlled by the people from the top (through democracy), while the monopoly is a private dictatorship of a section of the economy.

In practice, any industry that will probably always have fewer then 20 to 30 serious and roughly similar offerings to a costumer, may need to be seriously looked at as an industry that may not be suitable to privatization type free market operations. It may need other ways to ensure the people have their power over that type of system, like (fractional) government ownership. When the number of offerings is low, the market becomes a "sellers market", under excess power of the sellers causing prices to rise. There are also likely to be explicit or implicit pricing agreements. It should be noted that businesses do not need to meet in order to negotiate a price cartel. They all know (are presumed to know) the margins of their business, if a company raises prices for no particular reason, it is an obvious invitation to other companies to do the same: no secret meetings required, no laws broken. Only with sufficient offerings to costumers can this danger be reduced, as the chance is higher someone will not play along but grab the chance to choose a lower price, higher volume and grow that way. For this reason, no business should probably ever be allowed to control more then 5% of the market, and if it does there may have to be additional safeguards to make sure it does not overprice. This is especially true in markets that are hard for startup companies (like public transport, energy production, mining, investment banking). The natural choice is that the democratic government increasingly comes to control the company, providing a natural slope toward complete government ownership for companies that have a 100% market share (monopolies).

Such things seem all but too obvious. Capitalism is not about free market, it is a cancer that eats the free markets, stimulates dictatorship in business, and then in government as governments come under increased pressure from the business dictatorships. Although retail investments and retail banking can be part of the regular productive markets and/or are not a great threat to the free markets and democracy, above a certain amount of money the power becomes so great that it becomes a matter of national interest, and national importance. What exactly this point is is up to the people.

To combat capitalism successfully, and protect free markets and democracy, military peace (etc), I guess choices in this direction and in the same venue, which actually stimulate the free markets (but not unwanted greed), may work while not being shocking to the economy/society. The "free market" is a good play garden for people, where they can organize themselves along varies principles. It is up to the consumer to make decisions about these things: if consumers are greedy, they stimulate low prices, and therefore bad working wages. It is their choice, their greed. If consumers distinguish between companies on the basis of how employees are treated, if they are willing to know, find out, and pay for it, other companies would be more successful, in turn hiring them as well.

But this can not work under a free financial "market of markets", with its negative selection on adverse working conditions and stimulation of excessively aggressive competition between producers (too much money available for all kinds of nonsense). Controlling "Big Money" is a task of democratic government, just as "Big Power" (the army, the police), and Justice are (among others, like health care, probably). Trade does not work for these problems. Moreover: `investment banking' with "Big Money" is by definition a monopoly business, because if all or most people owned enough "Big Money" to become a player, inflation would have wiped out all that money. Other problems include that a normal trade involves a swap of "productive effort", trading "Big Money" itself does not involve such a swap: it is not a `real swap' (only people who initiate an investment with earned money are conducting a `real swap'; but that is not "Big Money", it is peanuts and mostly irrelevant for the economy as a whole (suggestion: "invest" in a better world by donating to a Good Cause, spend the money for something real, or invest in the business you work in yourself ... private investment for profit is immoral, because other people do the work and if you could invest you could also donate ... why does an investor need the profit if he can already do without the primary sum ?)).

Other interesting solutions are the taxation on financial movements, or the theoretically elegant but perhaps practically complicated `giving every person 1/population of the Earth, as an inalienable right'. Wealth concentration is the main cause of poverty, and therefore the cause of a high birthrate and therefore overpopulation (war), and wealth concentration causes much unnecessary environmental pollution.

In the days of the world wars and depression, the rich had their ocean liners with the luxury of Royal palaces. Today, the rich are building aircraft with the same type of luxury on board. This type of luxury has little to do with satisfying genuine human desires (as part of the motivation to keep people interested in being productive). It is part of a quest to appear superior, to put others in the dust. Worse still: these rich people are often not productive at all, severing the link between being productive and wealthy. This quest for domination is part of animal instincts that had their place before the dawn of technology. It is aimed at generating bodily violence and death, that is its purpose.

Limitless greed is a raging cancer, terminating the understanding of mutual interest between people.


The Limits of Democracy


Democracy ensures that the majority of the people get their way. Since the majority is usually in more places, is being confronted with the results of choices more then a minority, the system not only ensures most people learn something from a mistake, the majority also usually has the most interest in good decisions.

However "usually" is not "by definition", it is perfectly possible to have a majority that is exploiting a minority. The system can be democratic, but it could be the minority which is feeling the results of the bad decisions, while the majority is making them. The majority might then never learn anything, the situation can become stagnant.

This is the an obvious limit, where democracy fails to perform in terms of skill progress by making mistakes, and in terms of defense against an exploitive and abusive minority. The answer seems to be, that within the rules of "democracy" has to be included, the right to decide to what group you want to belong. If you are forced to belong to a certain group, but always loose there, that is "no good". A person should at least win some of the votes, for there to remain an interest to stay within the group.

In the earlier example: the exploited minority decides to form their own group, on a defined territory. Now the majority has to face the realities of life on their own, they will become better because of this. The formerly exploited minority can form their own culture, and needs to address the issues of making choices. Eventually both regions would probably be better for it, and could even merge later.

In addition to this reason for sub-groups: localized and decentralized democratic groups and subgroups, means decisions and decision making procedures are closer to the people it concerns, therefore more democratic. But some decisions may still need to be made by the largest group (if they affect everyone) ... :

Limits of Solution for Democratic Limits

The solution to have different groups split off, and form their own unique culture is elegant. However, if absolutely any kind of culture would be allowed, that includes cultures who wish to conquer and dominate other cultures. This domination is an obvious break of democratic principles, even if not a break with the diversity of culture.

This problem is the same as the problem of `freedom'. Freedom is good, as long as everyone can have it (equality), and as long as that freedom is not abused to hurt/exploit other people (solidarity). What a murderer calls freedom, is what its victim calls crime; what a good person calls equality, a criminal calls oppression; what a positive person calls the freedom to do good or solidarity, a criminal calls insane. Freedom is nothing without equality and solidarity. Nothing but a license to misbehave, exploit, murder and torture. (Sorry for stating the obvious (again and again ...).)

Practical Conclusion

For the above reason (at least) international war has to end. Defense of countries against foreign threats will have to be conducted on the soil of the home country, following the examples of grassroots guerrilla with small arms, denying aggressive attackers the fruits of conquest. It has been shown that such a defense strategy is adequate even against the worst of enemies, while it is also low cost, and less likely to become offensive. When there are no attacks on other people in other regions, there is no reason for terrorism to be created, while defense against it can be superior (as this is a law enforcement issue, for which there will be more funds and people available). Secondly, because of the low cost of a grassroots guerrilla defense strategy, the enormous amounts of money saved, can help lift the country, even other countries, out of poverty, making the world a better place in general. The armies will be in the service of democracy and the people, not in the service of the few who think they should control a country as their private farm, and defend personal control over the country rather then the country itself.

The current modern armies are not a defense force, they have offensive weapons and are ordered to use them for conquest and general destruction. The armies of the world have to be (partly) retrained, to deal with natural disasters areas, and for a guerrilla type defense strategy, which is completely and always contained on the home territory, prepared to fight a foreign occupation that has already invaded and officially taken over the country. Such a defense strategy may even want to take the acts of this occupation force into account, because in some cases an occupation force that is not misbehaving, might be better dealt with peacefully and politically. The aim is not to keep the current powerful and rich in power, the aim is to protect the people and democracy (long term).

For this to work, some of the money saved on hardware could be diverted to a salary increase for the soldiers, until they retire. They would be doing dangerous work (danger bonus), they would be retrained (contract breach of sorts), some may need to be bought (bribe) which may end up being cheaper then the alternative; all who end war deserve a reward. Many army people will probably be much happier doing something constructive and honorable, rather then destructive and criminal. It is just a happier business.

Such things should naturally be implemented especially by the most offensive powerful country, but even other countries probably should start with such a strategy immediately (if they haven't already), because it can be the reason for the collapse of such a powerful military from the inside in time, even if such a military is able to inflict significant damage somewhere. The political forces supporting a powerful military will increasingly run dry of reasons to make their case. Even in countries with powerful armies, the local people seem only to support this for mostly just causes. Only a small minority in any country seems to support conquest for conquest. Deprived of (rich) dividends of conquest and especially long term control (because democracy fights back), all that modern military hardware can produce, is destruction. That is not something any population will stand for in the long run, and it should be a contributing factor to internal collapse of the popular support for an offensive military. To make the case "at home" for attacking a country which has made it clear has no offensive military, because it strives for long term world peace, will be harder. To conduct such an attack anyway, could contribute more to the collapse of the platform for offensive war.

The alternative is more and more weapons, more and more war, which will reach higher and higher levels of destruction previously unimaginable, because military hardware is rapidly becoming more and more destructive. The continued war will continuously provide "solid" reason for more weapons. The loop has to be cut somewhere.

Sorry again for stating the obvious. The real question is of course: why is it taking so long. Most people don't care, I guess.

Disclaim: when things of democratic nature are being implemented, especially democratizing ("nationalizing") ``big money'' and/or reforming heavy army weapons, it is possible/likely that regions that do not reform and rich local people, will attempt to harm as much as possible the reforming region in any possible way, in an attempt to "prove" that the changes do not work (it has happened, it is happening). The real effects may become completely lost in this type of war. Disclaim more: The economy and production should shrink, then stabilize, to make room for nature and her recovery: reduction of available luxury. When the world is made fairer, some regions, perhaps entire continents, will permanently lose a level of luxury currently being imported from other regions. If luxury is the aim of human life, don't follow this plan.

Intriguing similarities Cancer & Capitalism

* Cancer tumors always want "more, more more".
* Capitalists always want "more, more more".

* Cancer tumors pretend to be healthy, part of a healthy organ: lungs, bone, muscle, etc. Enough cells buy into this, the tumor escapes attack.
* Capitalists pretend to be a healthy part of trade: swapping of productive effort between producers. Enough people in error buy into this, the capitalists remain.

* Cancer tumors are not productive parts of the body, if anything they are destructive, especially if there is too much cancer.
* Capitalists are not productive parts of society, if anything they create a class society, especially if there are too much of them.

* The "job" a tumor concerns itself with, is consumption of body resources.
* The "job" well developed inner capitalists concern themselves with, is consumption of products and services.

* The cells in the tumor can be said to have taken on their own life, divorced from the goals of the body. They have individualized, treat the body as in principle hostile, a kind of host, eco system. They take the risk of turning against their own larger body, a kind of mutiny.
* The capitalists are only interested in improving their own well being at tremendous cost to others and society at large. The job they usually are concerning themselves with is "taking personal risk" with things already stolen. This serves no purpose of society (although society is made to think it needs it, capitalists failing this task won't last).

* Cancer eventually infects the whole body, making it suffer and ill.
* Capitalism eventually infects the whole society, making it suffer and go to war.

* Cancer eventually kills the host body, then dies itself too.
* Capitalism is the driving force behind global environmental destruction in its quest of forever more and more, eventually likely to devastate the world which could end modern civilization in its current form at least.


But there is also an important difference: in a healthy body, all cells start out as good, although they may in the distant past have behaved hostile to each other. In society, which is still closely descendant from apes and full of animal type mutual violence, individuals can have different ethical development, and can often have a conflicting moral inclination. The Capitalists can be said to simply be the most morally backwards parts of humanity, rather then a mutiny of otherwise healthy individuals. In that sense, the social/technical progress of humanity means that those not changing with it, are increasingly behaving as if they were sick, while they in fact remain the same, retain their human-to-human violent tendencies. This seems stupid, but could be a biological adaptation: if all individuals drastically change, a species can't recover easily when the conditions revert. By now the change of humanity is taking so long relative to technological progress, that those who haven't changed are initiating a change back to prehistoric levels of society themselves. Rather then be reserve players "just in case something bad happens", they are self creating this "something bad". I guess therefore, that capitalism/crime have outstripped their usefulness for survival, even under the most advantageous analysis.

That sounds rather harsh. How about this: if society doesn't want to rid itself of capitalism, it may not possess the intelligence, strength and/or interest needed to survive high technological development. It is the job of the capitalists not to make it too easy for humanity.

Error K. Marx, A. Smith

K. Marx. Karl Marx has apparently concluded from practical evidence and assigning (undeserved) credit to what `capitalists' claimed about what they were, that free market competition is a bad thing which would never serve the purpose of the people. Even factories controlled by workers would create bad conditions as workers become their own exploiters ! In this he has assumed that costumers will always only be interested in lowest price and highest quality, or only have so little money that they have no choice but to choose for lowest price. This directly conflicts with another Marxist idea, that the workers are an enlightened and brotherly class: if they are, why would they only care for lowest price highest quality ? Why would they always have so little money as to be forced to choose lowest cost and generate the highest wealth for themselves ? Would they not factor in social, political and environmental factors ? And if they did, wouldn't that protect workers from having to solely compete for lowest price ?

It is probably true that a stable free market is to a degree a luxury item, because it can only sustain itself if all people have money well above subsistence, and are therefore able to factor in social, political and environmental issues. Such luxury may have seemed unimaginable in the 19th century, with workers dying of starvation and poverty. Under such conditions, nationalizations of some or all industries may be prudent, to be able to alleviate immediate suffering. Market freedoms are no excuse to let people die from hunger and disease !

Because of the fundamentally erroneous analysis of market operations and trade, the solution with respect to "ownership" could not be in the direction of fractional ownership, "for each person something". That was likely to stimulate many different businesses and market operations between them, which was expected to yield bad results. The reverse solution was collective ownership or "no ownership". Unfortunately "collective ownership" in practice means: ownership by the leaders of the group, who are then enticed to become the exact same type of exploiters (eventually). "Collective ownership" seems to be a hollow phrase, "no ownership" is even worse. With fractional ownership, people have the freedom to pool resources to have the benefits of a collective, but retain individual power (democracy), final control. Marx also seems to have coined the just stupid term "dictatorship of the proletariat" (although it was meant to mean `democracy'), and failed to realize that after the "bourgeoisie" had been ejected, that it would disintegrate and could not be found anymore. Where would it hide ? In whatever body of power (eventually) ! Always on the lookout for positions of power, through deception or whatever ... it is the nature of "the beast". Marx' theory of a revolutionary avantgarde (club of revolutionaries), which was - essentially - to rule the "ignorant masses" (apparently) and guide them to their liberation, is a problematic strategy. The concentration of power is the method, principle and goal of bourgeois, criminals and naked animals alike. It is this concentration of power, in state, business and ownership which denies people their power to make their life better. The foremost revolutionary strategy of Marx carries in it the essence of what is the problem, it proposes a continuation of the class society albeit under new names and with a new moral demand placed on "the new leadership class." It is a sacrifice of (democratic) principle for tactic, which is in principle a bad strategy in the long run. Since Marx' was probably going to be part of this revolutionary elite class, he shows himself to be perhaps somewhat part of the bourgeois problem ... This tactic results in a situation of tyrannical rule by the revolutionary club after a successful revolution, which is then supposed to step down and submit itself to democratic elections. That is possible in theory but unlikely in the case of corruption. The power concentration attracts the wrong people, the chaotic situation after defeat of criminal rule makes proper election difficult, the role the masses are assigned does not promote a working democracy after the revolution.

Apology: Since workers were working, they have had little time to develop a theoretical understanding, especially since they had to fight tactical battles day to day with the capitalists, and attempting to survive poverty and abuse. But, the social battles of the past (Marx included) have freed up a lot of time for us now, which we can use to build more accurate theories. One of the explicit goals of the past battles has been exactly that: to free time in order to be able to develop another culture.

In many ways the most famous theoretical parts of Communism are a pure anti-thesis of Capitalism. The famous Communist theorists have suggested that history progresses from `thesis' ("what exists"), to its `anti-thesis' ("its opposite"), to a `synthesis' ("going beyond both"). The theories of Communism around 1900 were only the anti-thesis, the rejection of capitalism; it had little in the way of a self confident alternative. Its theories were pretty much the opposite of everything that Capitalism said, whether good or bad. A real alternative "should be developed later". The name anti-capitalism most closely conforms all that is was and is Communist, a telling name for an `anti-thesis.' These theories (certainly Marx) also rejected what was good about the things that existed, namely a level of State Democracy (certainly better then tyranny), and free markets (completely misunderstood by most Communists). Holding these (somewhat superficial IMHO) communist theorists to their own theory: they form the anti-thesis and therefore not a solution. We now seem to live in a period where both primitive Capitalism and primitive Communism have more or less historically failed. Capitalism failed because it does not solve ownership and private Capital; Communism failed because it organizes a multi million person society as if it were just an extended family in need of a little discipline, ignoring the potential for corruption, self generated renewal (cleaning) and diversity. Democracy is a good system, always supported by the (original) Communists, but it is not enough to organize the whole state as one singular democratic block: states are too big.

Perhaps the ideal `freedom' captures Capitalism as in: `freedom run wild' (too much freedom to accumulate Capital and ownership, turning freedom into slavery for the many); the ideal `brotherhood' captures Communism: `brotherhood run wild' (too much slavish belonging to a massively sized collective, ultimately turning brotherhood into tyranny). Which would leave the ideal `equality'. This is just a play on words, but may have some historical merit since it seems to fit events.

A. Smith.

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by
in `The Wealth of Nations.'

A. Smith as champion of free market operations, did probably not recognize that under capitalist conditions - private investment of sums of money so vast that they have collective influence, by definition a monopoly sector and therefore in principle in need of break-up or nationalization - these private investments create a second form of free market pressures on businesses, besides consumer choice. The theory of a free market is simple and elegant: have a lot of businesses, let the costumers - who are also working and organizing businesses - sort them out. The true elegance of it, is that the costumers can decide what they think is important in these businesses. Perhaps price/quality, perhaps not. It can go all ways, and is therefore democratic and open ended (free). Unfortunately this elegant solution does not describe a capitalist free market, it only tells half the story. The other half is, of course, that private investors - playing with a collective power, and not with an individual power because of the size of the money - are distorting this elegant solution. Investors want something, and they have to always want the same thing: profit. Marx saw this correctly, capitalists (but not individual costumers!) have to always strive for profit, because those that don't are soon out of money and drop from the pool of capitalists. This profit comes from a share of the profits of companies, this share can be greatest when the profit is greatest. Profits are greater when production costs are lower and market share is greater, therefore investors always have to invest in businesses that cut wages, and have a strategy "to take over the world". Which can eventually create monopolies, breaking down trade from the amount of choices available, while it is already forcing down wages, forcing costumers to look more and more for lowest price, terminating this democratic and open ended promise of a free market. Another possibility is a finance sector which continuously and consciously plays "divide and conquer" against industry, so as to keep industry in a state of dependence and mutual strife, while finance itself is left free to pick up the profit. Profits of companies have to be centralized, otherwise they can not be extracted: this requires dictatorial forms of business. Hence, investors will have to invest in business dictatorships, rather then in democratic businesses. Those that don't follow the dictate of "pure greed", lose out in the race to become the biggest and most powerful capitalist. The more powerful a capitalist, the more it can set more things in its advantage, crushing other capitalists. The direction of private investors is always to ultimately destroy free trade from both ends, choice and wages; that is: the freedom to decide on what basis to decide. All people are forced to adopt `maximization of wealth', are forced to be each others enemies.

There is therefore a significant difference between the profits of a company, and the profits of a private investor. Profits of the first are primarily a function of free market operation, effort, luck and talent. Profits of the private investors are always parasitic and destructive, destructive to the host body: free markets.

A solution to this seems to be to go back to the elegance of free markets: build an investor who does not by definition seek more (and more and more) wealth. Who is this magical investor. The democratic majority: the people. The people as a group are a collective force, to them belongs the power to direct sums of money that can not be fairly generated by one person from honest labor. Small amounts of money have a private "force", enormous amounts of money are a collective "force". The simple solutions seems to be: there will be a maximum on what any one person is allowed to own, all above it falls into the collective domain, and is decided by a collective democracy of producers/costumers. It will of course be good to compute a sustainable goal income, or compute the world/region average income as a goal. Policies and action would center explicitly around "balance", rejecting the principle of an open ended "more". People with power obviously should not have a high income at all, because it is the clearest possible sign that person is missing the skill to handle power/money on someone else's behalf.

When trade is being destroyed, the race for capitalists would be on to become part of a new land lords class of direct owners and slave drivers. The capitalists jump the ship of free trade which they have exploited effectively when it is breaking down, and return society to its prerevolutionary state in some way or the other. However, no well developed disease kills the host, destroying trade in favor of a more explicit and simple form of dictatorship. The people have resisted it before. The fogginess and divisiveness of capitalism prove effective; the multitude and life cycles of volatile businesses, the uncertainties of the job market and political, military, criminal or whatever else attention grabbing issues, keep the people in general unhappy, uncertain, confused, divided. It can be said that the democratic revolution is still in progress: control over collective sized money is still not there. It should be part of a ministry of finance, and probably be under extremely detailed democratic control. In a real sense: capitalism is the ultimate corruption of the ministry of high finance.

A danger with this solution is if it is implemented in name "nationalizing banks", but without practical real time democratic control over state investments. That would only create a monopoly bank, who by virtue of monopoly is able to misbehave perhaps even worse, although it must at least pretend to produce for the public interest. What is termed "investment profits" under capitalism, would be renamed "corruption". Solution to this might be to fracture the ministry of finance and its investments, into branches for different industries. The top democracy would allocate maximum amounts to be invested in all the industries, people working in these industries could use their experience, interest, and democratic leverage to direct these investments. Private banks would be reduced to being a services industry, rather then wield the Control they do now. They would be assigned to deal with money below a certain amount, such that retail services would be available, but not grand economic/political influence. For instance you could get a private mortgage on a home, but a private bank could not buy a railway.

Private investment, particularly large sums, is not part of the proper markets. They buy and sell "control and power", not "services of effort and products". Investors spray toxic money on the market, they make the markets non-free.

Morality of trade

To call capitalist and (therefore) dictatorial policies ``free trade'', is part of the smoke-screen that automatically develops when right wing populists and media use their advertisement skills on political issues. It goes without saying that all political-economic manoeuverg happen under a favorable name, whether that name fits or not. It is more popular to be `pro free trade' then it is to be `pro private Capital'. Private Capital is not popular, free trade is. Therefore everything is called `free trade' whether it is or not is completely besides the issue. The idea is simply to grab support from the section of the people who don't investigate, an important majority ;-).

You have to separate Capital from trade, because both are contradictory.

* Trade, solidarity and cooperation are more or less the same thing, just different words.

Proof: solidarity means supporting others who support you. This could be practical, like: if we strike, you strike with us, and the other way around. But if you don't strike with us when we ask you to, then we aren't likely to strike with you later. This is a trade, swapping effort. And if you stop doing your part, we tend to stop our part.

Proof: cooperation does not mean `I do everything and you do nothing'. Cooperation means `I do this and you do this'. For instance: `I do the development of a constitution, and you try to find the mistakes.' Or: `I grow potatoes and you make knives, what we make more then we need, we give to each other, according to its "fair" value.'

This `fair value' is of course dependent on the effort involved and the need for a particular product. The `law of supply and demand' tends to work out that way roughly, if power between people is equal (which it currently isn't). Because trade works so well, it has been in existence for thousands and thousands of years. Trade has nothing at all to do with a "trade ideology", trade simply is here because it works. In a "social" analysis, it works beautifully.

Trade can (and should) provide an anti-capitalist tool/logic. This is simple: when you trade, what makes it fair is the effort. Compare: If I grow potatoes, I put them in the ground etc etc, I do a lot of actual work. Work as in `time in which I can not do something else', like laying on the beach or playing a game. While I'm doing something, you are `making knives', meaning heating steel and molding it, etc. Or maybe you have a machine, but it needs to be monitored and repaired, you displace actual effort. What we then end up swapping should roughly be an equal effort in order to get the label "fair". If you work 5.000 hours for 5.000 knives, and I work 5.000 hours to find 5 pearls, a typical exchange would also approach 1.000 knives for one pearl. This is basically needed to find the pearls in the first place, because one needs food during the time something that takes a lot of time to do. Therefore watches tend to be more expensive then apples, because it takes so much time to make. The typical exchange-rate would probably roughly equal the amount of equal effort, plus/minus. I can not give pearls away for 10 knives a piece. If the market price is that bad I can't find pearls because there is no living in it. Law of supply and demand works, and therefore it continues to exist.

So far, so good (roughly speaking, and it doesn't need to be perfect, it just has to work and be relatively OK).

Now look at Capital: suppose I have a 5 billion fund, I invest money in you. Now you start working on finding the medicine for Cancer. 10 years later, you finally find it. You have displaced a lot of effort in that time. I have displaced no work at all, I could do what I wanted all the time. When we compare the effort we are going to swap between us, you get to maybe 1.800.000 hours worked total with your 100 man group (and 25.000 hours of lost sleep, several accidents, etc). I didn't do any work, I just entered in an (exciting) state of risk-taking with money I didn't need in the first place (didn't need it to live, or else I couldn't have invested it in you, temporarily or permanently losing it). Yet we might have agreed to split the returns 50%-50%. Suppose the profit will be 2 billion, so we trade: you give 1.8 million worked hours and get 1 billion, I do nothing and skim of 1 billion off what was going to you. The trade is completely unequal in terms of `swapping effort' (zero=/=1.8mil), therefore it wasn't "fair" even if it was agreed, and because it isn't fair we ought to destroy these kind of things in the economy (with law!). That's what laws are for. What would be fair is that I would also work during that time, and then get about 101th share of profit, not 50%.

The exact some thing happens with concentrations of ownership. Suppose I own a mine, you do the work and therefore people trade with you an equal effort. You work 1 million hours for 1 million ton of coal, everyone buys one ton roughly for the buying power so that one hour the consumer worked, equals the amount of coal you produce in that same hour. Your neighbour gets a ton of coal from you, you get a one hour dinner. But now I demand pay from your income, because I gave you the "privilege" of not being fired upon by the police in removing you from what is according to the State laws "my property", my "right" to have you removed or not. `Not excersizing this right' leaves me free to do all kinds of things. I can go bowling `while not excercizing that right', and hence I am not displacing effort or doing work. But it means quite a dramatic thing for you miner: you work your equal share to produce 1 ton of coal, but you get only half the amount of buying power back for it. The other half disappears in me, for doing nothing. The coal-mine owner is a pure parasite. To what exact degree any `owner' is a parasite depends on exactly how much (positive) `work' he/she is doing, so it is too easy to dismiss all owners as parasites. It depends on work and income. Even as owner, I could still demand a small and fair share for doing some accounting, for instance. Then you get your true value for your coal work (even while deprived of natural power).

Capitalist and ownership income is a special kind of `trade' or `negotiation'. It is special because normally one would exchange effort, but the Capitalist and the owner do not exchange any effort (in the real sense of the word, sweating, doing something specific and productive, that prevents doing whatever else at the same time). The Capitalist is `risk taking', that is not effort. People do that for fun all the time. The owner is `not calling the police', which is neither effort.

What the Capitalist and owner do in the media, is call themselves `traders', part of a `free trade ideology', but it doesn't hold up. Trade has essentially a good name because it works. But it only works if effort is displaced. Nothing is fair in a robbery, the point is that the robber isn't displacing positive productive effort. A robber displaces effort, but it is an unwanted product. In a more narrow sense the robber trades `not firing the gun' for your `hard earned cash'. `Not firing' is not effort. Robbery, Capital investment, and ownership of major resources, are the same class of non-effort swapping pseudo-"trades" ! Is trade bad because robbers call themselves businessmen ? No, that is nonsense.

I feel therefore, that `trade' is a useful concept when it comes to social changes. Not only is it useful, it already exists. It exists so much that it can't even be removed, nor should it be. What do criminals (in the movies at least) often call themselves: business men. That's exactly the problem: everyone attempts to be a trader, but not everyone actually is swapping effort for effort. In the current economy, workers are traders who continuously lose fair value because of pseudo-trades with Capital and owners. Only workers really do deserve the name `trader' (`trader' as in `swapper', not just someone who buys/transports/sells). The rest is just vermin to be crushed by the law. Under that clearly fall: Capital investment, income from hoarded resource ownership titles, and plain robbery/thievery (basic crime). These things simply do not classify as trade/swapping, because they lack the moral ingredient: effort.

Given the above analysis, it seems an absurdity to blame trade for the disastrous capitalist/imperialist rampage across the globe. Trade, as it is supposed to work meaning negotiated swapping of the results of actual work, is the exact opposite of everything that Capital and Imperialism have done. But how happy are the criminals, Capitalists and Imperialist robbers, that they are allowed to fly the banner of `free trade'. It white washes their crimes. Take that flag from their ship, it doesn't belong there.

Revolution, system change !

Moving from `anti-private-capitalism', to `pro-public-capitalism'. Changing the system, not the administration, and moving beyond being trapped in an eternal revolution. When a revolution does not solve how it wants to shape a new society with sufficient detail, the process of the revolution itself prevents it from doing so later. Building a new model requires: time, effort, focus, sufficient debate. When the revolution has taken over power, there is: a state of emergency, many practical problems, one does not know who can be trusted as easily anymore, and the practical distribution of power is likely to trickle down into the new design, the new design can become an attempt at legitimizing the new practical situation. When the revolution had no practical alternative plans, for what reason should it be capable of making them at a much more difficult moment ? The post revolutionary emergency government will be trapped and will likely trap society into a state of constant revolution and constant emergency. This is worsened because without a strong and clear alternative plan, the revolution was that much more difficult to achieve, has made more enemies, in turn preventing the needed stability to make a systematic change. Revolutionaries should do their home work, and that extends to everyone who is on the left in Parliamentary Politics. This is made more easy by the achievements of the past. We have the time, we have the resources.

End Capitalism

Ideas related to post-capitalism, end capitalism

The idea is to remove private investment from the system, the next problem is how. If it is enough to declare private investments are no longer advised for the obvious reasons, then that would be an easy way out. Now some other ideas ...

- A "don't positively support it" solution. This is easy, it only means not to use state resources to support private investment. When an investor invests money, a certain understanding exists between investor and recipient. Currently this relation is supported by law and judicial procedures, affording the investor the comforts available to real commerce. Since productive commerce is productive, it deserves these comforts, the common interest is served by productive commerce. It makes sense to "do something in return". This is not true for private investment, it is not productive, rather parasitic. It should therefore be excluded from judicial support.

In practice that can take a simple form: wherever money is invested outside the framework of political finance - which is not necessarily nefarious - all understandings and contracts will be void in court. The money transferred is a transfer of money for void reasons, a donation. The recipient of the money can therefore accept the money, and declare it its own. The recipient can then do whatever it likes with the money, even declare the business a shell to attract investor's money, which is then going to be lost to it. These shell businesses perform a service to the common interest: discourage private investment.

- An "no legal gains" solution. The problem with investment lies primarily in its quest for profit above the invested sum. Sometimes people like to invest in efforts not aimed at making profit. The transferred money, though not a simple donation, is meant to provide working funds. When the effort fails, the money is lost. When it is payed back without profit or even with a profit, the end effect is still positive. If someone has saved funds on its bank account, perhaps for a bad financial period, this can only be a good thing. If this money is invested to further non-greed goals, that is even better.

To remove the greed-investing, but not the social-investing, the solution can be to make sure that capital will not be allowed to generate more capital. That is the aim of greed investing, but not of social investing. Profit separate the two. A solution can be to declare all investor profits illegal and liable to confiscation. This confiscation can be done by the state, or by the party invested in.

- A "law enforcement at the point of spending" solution. Presently, there exist only laws on how one is allowed to acquire money. Once it has been acquired - legally or illegally - there are no limits on spending. However, there is a fairness limit to what one person can possibly acquire by working productively. In seeing that some people work to the absolute maximum of physical endurance (and beyond), yet acquire nothing but poverty, it is clear that what one gets is not necessarily what one deserves. Things become murky at the other end: at one time someone did invent the wheel. What was the economic value of that ? The true economic value is possibly greater then the entire current economy. What is the economic value of scientific understanding, which may not become apparent after the discoverer is dead. To make matters worse: there are many skilled financial experts who will reap the financial rewards of other people's discovery, and pretend they earned it. A famous example is the telephone, it is a known problem. The discoverer is probably an expert in his field of discovery, not an expert in extorting money from society. In many cases the discoveries are made out of idealistic motivations, the discoverer doesn't even want money.

Solution seems easy: money is not deserved for ``actual economic value'', because it is impossible to compute (will often be negative without anyone yet knowing), and because it doesn't work. Money is deserved for actual hourly effort, it is deserved for sweat, not product. It is the talent of one person to produce 100 hockey sticks a day, it is the talent of another to make an invention. Now it is clear that there exist sums of money that can not be fairly gained. This opens up the possibility of law enforcement at the point of having and spending.

In a market economy, there can be a great deal of volatility of wages. Sometimes someone can perform a service that people are willing to pay a lot of money for. Sometimes a person is only able to perform this service for a limited time in its life. What is wrong with that. One could make a grumpy argument that the person shouldn't be as greedy, not demand so much money for itself. True as that may be, the money was earned using agreed trades, and it usually is about luxury services. Nobody needs to buy them, but people do. The person is providing an actual service, unlike the private investors, it can't be blamed from that angle.

Law enforcement at the point of spending does not appear to be simple. But something may be possible, different amounts of money have different qualities. Money at the lowest end is `life or death' money. Money above that is `health or suffering' money, money above that is `comfort or discomfort money', above that `luxury or comfort money'. Money above that becomes a political force, is cutting so much into the resources of society that it is becoming a generalized strain, `Political or luxury money'. Now the money spending steps into a new arena, from the personal into the collective. People who have nothing to do with the group making someone rich, have to deal with the Big Spender, provide it services. Is that fair, no its not. So, that seems to be a fair cut off point: once the quality of the amount of money turns from personal luxury to amounts of political interest, society should reserve for itself the right to deny individual people to own so much money, however they acquired this money.

Such a limit will be high in practice. People who have reached the peak, will be presented with a choice: stop and look at yourself, what are you doing ? Then they could relax a bit on their greed, and enjoy life. Or they could attempt to become criminals and evade detection. If they become criminals, they put themselves in danger. That is something worthwhile for society, as we do not need people who are so exclusively greedy.

If the resources of a country become limited, it can be a choice to limit spending further, and disallow levels of luxury to preserve the unity of the people.

This means in practice: an upper limit to personal total wealth, including items owned. Wealth earned above the limit can be confiscated by the state. To prevent corruption it should probably be an automatic law. No doubt rich people will give money away to their close circle, but continue to control it. This way the limit can be exceeded by a certain factor.

The state can delegate its power as political capitalist. As a function of this, the state can decide to allow someone or group to own more money. This is a political choice, some kind of public permit system.

As an example of how this currently fails: there are individuals in this world who own so much money that if spend for the common interest, it could provide clean water for every human. That is a clear example of political level money of the highest order in private hands. If nothing else, it is an insult to the sovereignty of the people at large, however this money is spend. It is not up to an individual to make such decisions, they have no right, especially because in most cases the money will only in part be fairly earned. Who supports the business of the rich person ? Where was their cut ?

Because the limit would be high, the large group of people who dream of luxury and riches are not denied the fulfillment of their dream. In fact more people may see it fulfilled, as money above a certain extend become distributed. If someone is no longer allowed to own X money, instead only Y money, that has the potential to make X/Y people reach the peak, instead of just one person. Even the dreams of wealth could see chances improved ...

- A "rotate currency" solution. The greatest threat to end capitalism comes from rival private capital, it has effectively resisted nationalizations before. Among threats are selling and therefore devaluation of the currency, rival investments, (continue with) sponsoring of deception campaigns through mass media, even investing in violent extremist groups and terrorism. The most decisive way to collapse this threat is perhaps to declare the value of the currency to have become 0, and to confiscate extreme wealth (ownership of mines, estates, large companies*). This reduces to nothing all hoards of wealth, and makes it impossible to convert it. It is easy to hide billions on secret bank accounts, not as easy to hide a large mining company.

For every person a limited amount of money can be converted, for instance all debts and savings up to a reasonable amount. This to minimize impact on real people, and keep the economy going (mortgages, consumer debt, life savings). Companies that more or less accidentally hold now worthless old currency because they trade with the country, can by exception have this currency converted to the new currency, to maintain trust in the currency of the country. What with reserves in foreign banks ? Case by case compensation depending on whether the country has acted as a positive force, not compensating all privately owned banks (who represent private investment) ? The currency and power would then be in a cleaner state, without the burden of the past. From then on it should become illegal to own above a certain (reasonable) level.

The old cash could get a new design feature, and be introduced quickly as new money. Old cash could be converted up to a maximum per person (carry along money yes, massive fortunes no). All regular bank accounts under a certain maximum credit can be automatically converted to the new currency currency to it. When it is certain there aren't massive hoards of cash stored by future private investors, the old cash could be kept going as it is. The operation would then be confined to collapsing credit on bank accounts and seizing property. Hoards of gold and the like are of course confiscated for the same reasons: prevent rival private investorism. Gold should probably be dumped on the market as a regular commodity, reducing its value to what it naturally should be.

This certainly seems to be a daring plan. The larger the area that pursues rotation of currency, the more stable it probably will be. It may be best to keep the currency not convertible, that it can not be traded except for tourists or international trade (and some practical exceptions like immigration). Currency speculation should be resisted, it isn't productive anyway. Money rides in value with the local economy: if you have a lot, make sure the local economy does well.

I can imagine currency rotation to become a complete failure for some reason, perhaps even because of a practical and not strategic mistake. It could be overkill, perhaps not worth the trouble. The rich are especially smart about what to do with their money. But even the threat of "currency rotation" would at least not work in their favor. Someone holding the currency without good trading reasons could end up with nothing, so the rich might have a hard time moving their wealth to different currencies. Hopefully it leaves their wealth stuck with nowhere to go, nowhere to hide. revenge, but everything with protecting democratic capitalism from rival financial terrorism. Individuals who see wealth or companies confiscated should therefore not be compensated at all (unless they are the original entrepreneur). Large companies are to be donated to their workers, unless they fall in the (semi) monopoly sector *) Formerly rich - perhaps having been rich for generations - are left with what ordinary people have. If they want more they can apply for a job somewhere, like everyone else. Under democratic (properly administered) capitalism, ordinary jobs should (eventually) see better compensation, it is in their interest to make it work once they are past a certain point.

It is possible that universal suffrage may not be enough to achieve a government that is loyal to its people, it may be necessary to give rich people less power over government. Rich power are virtually by definition disloyal to the people and the common interest. History seems to suggest that union leaders and leftist parliamentary politicians pose the greatest threat to progressive democracy, because unlike right-wing politicians, managers and bankers, they retain a level of credibility. They have used this credibility to undermine progressive democracy, and return the situation to what it was, with their previous positions intact (the obvious aim).

When a democratic revolution is to succeed, it is to take control of the currency. Currency policy may be the most difficult and technical part of taking state power. Without it, all policies have to deal with hostile private investorism, currency manipulations. Should a progressive government succeed in restructuring the economy, the banks might dump the currency - or commit other acts of financial warfare - and wreak havoc with international trade, thus bringing the economy in trouble, thereby "proving" the government was incompetent and the policies were "bad". The government will have a choice: relieve the capitalists of their power and take it on itself, undo the changes and get the capitalists on their side again. Once a conservative group takes power and returns parts of the economy to private control, the capitalists could end their negative instruments, making it appear that the conservatives have a "successful" policy. Although the economy will be saved from trouble, it isn't the result of good policy, but the result of being popular with the capitalist power, who then restore international trade and currency policy to favorable values. The government is the sometimes misbehaving pet of capitalism. As long as this situation persists, the democratic government is the small wheel on the ship. Because of this, right-wing pundits can correctly point to "for the economy" dangerous left-wing policies, because indeed the economy can suffer. But not necessarily from direct policy, rather from capitalist power. Capitalist power does not have to act as a conscious effort: when the policy is negative for their wealth, they have a natural interest to move away their wealth from that currency, causing devaluation. Whatever power capitalists have, it is always negative for progressive policies, because progressive policies have the object of collapsing their wealth, distributing it more fairly. Naturally they act contrary to that effort, even destroying a national economy if that saves their wealth. I don't claim to understand it all, but taking control is always better.

Rotation of currency is aggressive way to clear capitalist power, like resetting a computer. If an attempt to improve society does not want to contemplate restructuring the money system and seizing all large value, the attempt may be destined for long term failure. Capitalism may grow back.


Several centuries of Capitalism, and still the exact same problems.

Ideas related to post-capitalism, start socialism

The idea is to remove private investment from the system, the next problem is how. When private investment is removed, there might be a hole in the system, what should fill this void. It should be agreed first why we need to be fundamentally rid of private investment. Otherwise there is not enough will to deal with (initial) problems, failure might be blamed on the principle, rather then on details of a solution.

- A "deny liquidity" solution. When investors invest, their money can come from different sources, for instance savings, or company profits. Banks use another method: other people's money that they have stored for safe keeping. They use this money to invest in companies, and make consumer loans. From the often absurd profits they make, considering the effort put in, people offering their money for safe keeping get a yearly percentage. This percentage is usually around the inflation level, though, so it really doesn't amount to anything. If someone is offered 3% on a savings-account, it may well be that it is paying 1%, if inflation is 4% (real inflation, not what government figures claim, governments lie too much). Because banks invest in companies, and reap a share of profits therefore denied to companies, working against fair business practices because they are eventually less profitable, it is in the end payed for by the working people in reduced wages and fair business practices. What is 3% worth, if it costs you 4% on your salary, or 40% ? The money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it. Wealth isn't created out of nothing, it has to be build.

By nature, when a company is making profits, there is a strong incentive to spend this either on personal consumption or invest it in the future of the company. Personal savings are scattered and individually don't amount to much, and they are often owned by working people. When a retail bank opens business, there can be hundreds of thousands of people, millions, that put their money in that particular bank. Now this bank controls a lot of money. Because the bank has no other way of making money, it is going to be an investor out for profits. Unlike for any other business, this is bad.

A solution can be to make sure there is no such concentration of consumer funds in private hands. One way to perhaps do that, is to have the government create a bank-account for every person. On this account the government has the power to offer an inflation correcting percentage, to make it attractive.

This government accounting system can act as a true bank, where a person can have the usual banking services. For people who like to pay for better services, business can be set up which interface to the government accounting system for the costumer. But such a bank can take funds entrusted to it from a costumer, and put it on its own account. This way that bank will be able to re-invest that money, and create the problem of private investing again. This may not be a bad solution, because it offers people a choice: use the government (politically administered) system directly and prevent all re-investment, or entrust funds to a front-end business. Such a setup allows for banks to go bankrupt without much trouble, this will not necessarily affect a lot of real people. It also allows for banks to offer the promise of social investment, it gives people a recourse besides whatever the government is doing. A front-end retail banking business can also hide individual transactions from a government, offering a privacy service.

Because in the system the government has unlimited capability to invest money, this political economic power can and should be used as part of the democracy. It is possible for the government to combat the effects of private investment, and even to combat the survival rate of certain types of banks. In the economy there are fragile commercial banks floating on top of a government accounting service, and the super powerful government bank (with unlimited spending power, enough to destroy or fix the economy).

This government investment capability has its own problems with corruption, it should therefore have a certain structure, limiting high end corruption and malpractice.

- A "political capitalism" solution. The problem with professional private investment is that it always has to seek profit, that it attempts to make capital from capital, which is an anti-social influence on raw consumer competition between companies, and unproductive in its own right.

A financier needs to be found which does not rely on profits to exist, which acts in the common interest: the people themselves, through (real) democracy. If a psychopathic government is elected, lying and cheating their way through the polls, they get their hands on infinite creation of legal money. If they are in power for 4 years, they can do some serious economic damage.

One solution might be to create enough sub organizations, they can be assigned to regions and/or types of business. It can be a political issue how much money is going to be given to each sub organization for investment (crediting its account). Where the investments are to be exactly made is then a matter of (local) democracy. The top decisions control the total amount, and therefore the level of inflation, which is offset and supported by taxes. This would prevent local malpractice to the cost of the currency.

Taxes are just a means of creating deflation, which the government can then leverage as inflation.

- Lending: what to do with consumer lending: mortgages, consumption credit. These services make sure that someone buying an expensive product can pay down the supplier immediately, so that suppliers get payed immediately and can move on with their business. It is in theory possible to do this fractionally over time without any lending, but this is probably not practical. The problem is who can provide lending services without too much corruption. If a government agency with unlimited capability to create money offers mortgages, no doubt certain government bank employees will be tempted, as well as high level officials and politicians. A government does not easily go bankrupt, general inflation pays the price. Some politicians are known for their short sighted vision aren't they, they'll be tempted to hand out money in return for popularity. This produces inflation and should reflect on the politician, but by then the politician has moved on or found some scapegoat. It may be difficult for government employees to turn apparently bad applications down, costumers are likely to accuse the government of unequal treatment.

In a scheme with government bank-accounts and front-end private banks (above), front-end private banks exist that can offer such lending. This invites back in the problem of private investment, and it remains to be seen if such companies come to exist in this system. The government accounting system could in theory offer personal loans. This would then need to be regulated in great detail, essentially be a judicial system rather then a political system. In this large investments and personal loans would be different things. Therefore they should probably be handled by different organizations. (I am unsure about whether this will work properly, but it probably could.)

These solutions all seem to have one thing in common: they are soft solutions. A heavy handed way to end capitalism would be to nationalize all banks. Is that `prudent', or is that `crude' ? Nationalizing banks is basically what the above amounts to. If levels of detrimental capitalism persist there are two tools to combat it: the super government bank wielding unlimited funds (minor power), and the creation/termination of laws (major power).

The overall difference between this `democratic capitalism' and `private capitalism', is that private capitalism assumes that people always behave out of pure greed, where this `democratic capitalism' makes room for other ways to express freedom in a stable manner, although it doesn't force it on anyone.


A government model as proposed in constitution proposal:

Example `as if capitalism were already defeated'

A cleaning company `IIS' is forcing cleaners to work ever quicker and quicker, for less and less. Things aren't getting clean anymore, workers drop out everywhere to be replaced with new cheap throw away workers, but profits of IIS are booming.

To solve this, an investor war is declared on `IIS': the state has to be forced to take this in hand. There are now a wide range of ways to defeat IIS.

- It can invest (the State is the only strong investor) in a new business. Strikes by IIS workers can cripple the trust of someone that is making use of an IIS cleaner, makes him/her look for another option. This option is available in the form of the new business. A new worker is installed, the new cleaner is getting a higher percentage of the profits of the business. The worker fired can apply for a new job with the new business. This could be a coordinated action.

- It can buy IIS, accepting a level of inflationary losses to the state, and restructure IIS from the top down using its new ownership right. After the business has been altered, it can be sold, perhaps to a workers council of IIS workers who deploy a democratic procedure to keep management under control.

- It can invest in all other businesses except IIS, temporarily reducing cost on costumers until IIS has been bankrupted. All consumers get a tax break for their cleaning costs, except when they use IIS.

- It can declare IIS forfeit, take it over by force of law, and don't spend another penny defeating IIS economically.

- It can levy an additional "social" tax on any business using IIS services, until IIS changes its policies or goes bankrupt.

- It can launch a public awareness campaign, letting consumers know when IIS services have been used in the production of a product or service, asking them to defeat IIS by conscious economic choice.

Since there isn't much of a counter-strike by private capitalists (who currently wage this same war in the opposite direction), the new better behaving business isn't likewise financially and then competitively attacked. If consumers come to understand that it is in their own interest to support businesses with fair wages and conditions because they and their children will work in these businesses, they can use their consumer influence out of self-interest. A `self cleaning' economic mechanism. It does not rely on idealism (alone), but on well understood long term self interest. In any case, with finance under democratic control, any kind of workers' struggle will be much more effective. The state doesn't necessarily have to wage this war itself. No effective professional private finance means one influential enemy less.

Disclaimer: You implement these things on your own risk. Don't do it unless you are willing to accept responsibility for it yourself.

Do you notice that in the above proposal there is at least one apparent contradiction: how can you not support contracts of investment in the judiciary, yet have Public Finance make investments and grant loans. Are these investments gifts ? Or did you assume the government has a special privilege to demand being payed back ? Something else ? How do you want to solve this contradiction in principle, and why. How do you want to implement your principle, and why. Is your solution workable ? Can it deal with corruption from the top as well as the bottom, or does it need a group of saints or demand a certain type of behavior from the public to-be-educated ? What does it likely mean for one individual act of investment, and what is the overall effect of over the long term ?

My idea is: the government has a special privilege, because there has to be a break on how much money is being put into the economy, and recipients of investment must not profit just from receiving an investment. This does not solve pressure on an individual employee that deals with granting loans, so that the employee will make too many `sympathy loans', which are not being payed back (racketeering costumers). The government can hardly go bankrupt over this, but it is an invitation to fraud and weak practices (just as the stock markets are now). If the employee can point to another source where someone can go for money, the employee is less likely to fall for this, because costumers still have other options to try (lower volume is more attention, crime can go elsewhere, more diagnoses by different organizations some of which can go bankrupt). To facilitate this, the government can grant a permit to select private enterprises, to also be able to make loans enforcible by law, an extension of its own right. The government can engage in all kinds of contracts with such businesses, in order to keep them in line. This way costumers have all kinds of options, and do not have to rely on one source for consumer credit. Loan businesses can not effectively operate outside the government granted permit system, because if they do, all their loans are gifts. This does not prevent violent loan crime, but it diversifies the economy of credit, and creates independence and privacy from government. A likely source of credit businesses are banks because they have liquidity (control much money), if they will emerge in this system. If the Public likes to, the bank can be granted an enforcible loan permit. Then they can utilize their capital to make capital from capital, which is dangerous. The terms of the permit may therefore need to deal with this danger. The amount that can be loaned may be limited, the purpose of lending may be limited, etc. Loans for consumption can probably be supported against collateral, it is just a deal between two partners, who cares. Loans for business upstart or business growth are different, they have potential to affect more people, especially future employees. It may be efficient to have one permit for simple consumer credit that makes the economy run more smoothly (mortgages), and have a different set of rules for business upstart/growth. Granting the latter with more political attention, and the former with more economic attention. Loans repayable in time against collateral are always less dangerous then control/power instruments such as shares and endless claims on future profit. Such instruments of perpetuating drain should not be supported in law or by permit (the government can still do it of course). If these limitations don't prove effective, permits can be altered, or be recalled (etc), and the government bank can take all kinds of economic action.

... all kinds of details which can probably make or break the system ...

One solution may work for this group, another group may need another solution; one solution way work for a while, but then need change. It does not depend on the internal logic of the system what the people should be doing, but what the people do can determine the system. The system is therefore alive, always adapting. If the people aren't willing and able to successfully tinker with the system, it is probably no use to even begin. If the people don't control the government, it is neither any use. If a government currently not under control is going to implement these changes, it is most likely to build in any number of back-doors to defeat it. Allowing corrupt people to build and staff a system aimed at reducing corruption is probably not a good idea. It all hangs on one ultimate principle: political investment. Are the people able to force political investment for the common good, or will the state behave the same way as private investors.

Ideas related to post-capitalism, free markets

The idea is to remove private investment from the system, the next problem is how. Under private investment many things besides capital that do react wrong to market pressures for varies reasons, are under private control. There is no "counter pressure", keeping these systems healthy. But not all of these systems have the same problems with proper market pressures.

Industry: consumer products/services, retail

- A "promote small over large businesses" solution. This is easy because small businesses already exist, it doesn't require immediate action. Large businesses don't have to be bad, as long as their popularity is based on free market choice and not financial warfare, it is apparently what the people like. Large businesses suffer from these problems: because profits are concentrated they create demand for excessive luxury markets, they move wealth away from the area it is created to the area where the owners live and spend their money, it stimulates general power concentration. Small or locally owned businesses do better: profit is spend on relatively normal items, stimulating the area in which the business operates. Large businesses can be more efficient and more economically resilient. A law that stipulates how much the profit in a company can be concentrated may be useful. When this threshold overflows, money has to be shared with the base. This way geographic exploitation by large chain companies can be controlled. Typically consumers can reach a large number of different such businesses in an hours travel. Garages, bakeries, clothes-shops, etc. Typically not: water out of the tap at home.

Industry: monopoly sector

- A "nationalize monopoly sectors" solution. There are a great many types of business where market pressure does not work well, because of infrastructure problems. When there are 10 shops selling food needed in an area, each could be a different company. Where one large food shop could operate, two half that size would be fine as well, and offer consumer market pressures between them. Now picture a kitchen with 10 taps, 10 complete water systems side by side. Out of every tap comes a different water from a different company, and companies compete for price and quality. Certainly this provides market pressure, but the cost of 10 concurrent water infrastructures is much higher then the theoretical downside of a nationalized water supply under democratic political control. Nationalizing has a downside: it can be bureaucratic and slow to react to new demands of consumers, however it also has an upside and that is that it is non profit. Water is a good example of something which needs nationalizing: 1. the infrastructure prevents efficient consumer market operation, 2. the product just needs to be the same reliable water, year in year out. Postal services are another example: if we have 10 postmen come by every day, and a row of 10 different post-office-boxes, we run a high risk that every choice has to be much more costly because the volume of post has to be divided between all competing companies. With the lower volume per company, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure and paying all postmen, has to be divided between fewer posted items, so the cost to the consumer per item goes up (isn't it obvious ?!). My favorite example remains to be the railway: picture 10 complete railways side by side, possibly using different competing systems. Will either be able to run with the low cost of one nationalized rail company. Run trains for different companies over the same railway ? Travelers want to be somewhere at a certain time, they are not going to be there 60 minutes early because they want to travel with one specific train company. The overhead of all these different companies does the system little good, and in addition profits need to be payed. The railway can also not be allowed to go bankrupt, which allows management to gut the company for short term profits, correctly assuming that government will eventually step in and fix the problems for them.

The great fallacy of privatizing companies that are unsuited, is that a privatized management is somehow able to energize the company, rushed on by its own limitless greed. The politicians betray their own lazy nature: from the position of a company employee it is confronted with management either way, political or private. Politicians should take a hands on approach if they want certain monopoly sectors to perform better, rather then hire someone else. If they want to hire someone else declaring themselves incompetent in the process, they shouldn't have come to politics in the first place.

Industry: semi monopoly sector

- A "divide and conquer" solution. Some sectors lie somewhere between systems that have a total infrastructure like tap water, and sectors that have no or little in the way of a high cost infrastructure, like restaurants, bars, clothing shops. One example can be hospitals. In large cities there can be numerous different hospitals and in many cases `costumers' (diseased people) will be able to make a practical choice between them. If one hospital gets a reputation for bad heart surgery, costumers may choose to go elsewhere, eventually ending that heart surgery department. This is useful market operation, the hospital may decide to revamp their heart unit to win back trust (fire that drunken surgeon), and all can end well. However if hospitals are allowed to be private enterprises, they will start catering to the rich because that's where the money is at. People who work hard but earn few will get second grade care, rich - possibly criminal - people get luxury rooms with 5 star service. This is morally not acceptable. A hospital is neither something you can grow from a humble beginning, it is a large capital investment in trained staff and machines, medicines. Although its infrastructure isn't pervasive, it is costly. Public health in any case is a public concern, not comparable to the fashion colors of fall. Hospitals seem to operate somewhere between general enterprise, and the clear monopoly sector. Consumer market operation is possible and useful, but to give it free completely seems doubtful for many reasons.

A solution can be to allow people to choose to which government owned hospital they go. The government can force all hospitals to provide the same care to each patient, for instance against zero cost circumventing needless bureaucratic overhead from financial insurance constructions. Health care not concentrated in hospitals could be left to the consumer market. Another area like this might be schools. This area is probably the most difficult to design because it is in between two more simple systems (free market or nationalized).

Industry: land

- A "fractional ownership" solution. This is probably a futuristic or archaic idea: every person gets to own for life without right to sell his/her share of the resources of the area or even planet. In areas that are not complicated this can work simple: farmers get their share of soil and can work on it. If they want more, they hire it from someone else, but own the products on the land. The reason that someone can not sell it, or hire it away for eternity, is that it is also a safeguard when someone becomes unemployed. If someone is unemployed, he/she can farm their land. Fisheries and even mines could be included in this scheme. People could swap their explicit resource with someone else. In a more futuristic setting, people could hire their resource to a bank type enterprise. It could manage many resources, hire them out when possible. In theory (but perhaps not in practice), this can provide a new kind of social security. People will own enough land to swap under their home, only having to pay for the home, no land-ownership speculation. People who live above each other retain a lot of resources, these can be hired out: people who live small get a natural reward.

Some area's of the world live primarily from trade, regions around major ports for instance. In other regions enormous profits could be generated from a single mine. Should everyone hold a portion of the harbor, and an angle of the mine shaft, where does "everyone" start and end, the local town, country, continent, Earth. Mining and strategic points such as harbors could become object of war. This is not what we would want, of course. The logical solution seems to nationalize these areas, "unique infrastructure element". The government could take in hand exploitation of things like this itself in some way. There is usually some kind of natural limit to the resource: a large port serves a land behind it of certain size, a mine serves a certain section of the market (if 10%, then 10% of the Earth surface could be its natural size). Political realities will probably dictate what the area will be.

I will agree that this system seems quite futuristic, possibly fantastic. I like it though, it seems so elegant and natural. Obviously a percentage N needs to be given to raw nature.

More: there are all kinds of rules possible to make the markets free and fair

- A "eventually the company passes into workers hands" solution. When someone builds a business from scratch, that is usually a creative and productive job (depending on the type of business). When the original "entrepreneur" goes away it currently has power to do with the business as it pleases. It can sell it to investors, liquidate it, or leave it to its children for instance. None of these people can claim the expertise the original entrepreneur has had, none of them has therefore a claim to a natural right to lead the company. The obvious solution is: the company must be left to the workers, who comprise the second part of the success of the business. They have more expertise then investors (financial gamblers), and in any case have most interest in keeping the business going successfully. The problem is: how to make the transfer happen smoothly. What is in it for the original entrepreneur, and how can it be prevented from destructive activities just before worker take over. The "win over" part can take the form of a pension from the company for the entrepreneur over a period of N years (for instance 10), or for life. This is not enough in many cases, liquidating the company may yield much more money then a pension could. The entrepreneur may have personal funds invested in the company and wish to free them, which is a fair demand. Because the workers will have to run the company (and/or hire/fire their own future managers), it seems natural that the workers and previous entrepreneur negotiate the take over. Goal of such negotiation can be: leave the entrepreneur without "unfair" debts, and provide a reward in the form of a pension. This means that an entrepreneur does not have the power to sell its company, not without consent from the current workers.

- A "workers more power" solution. Workers usually get badly payed, far below the value actually created, because they lack power. The job market shifts power to employers because there are fewer employers then employees, it is a "buyers market". One obvious solution to this is to subject employers to the same power of hiring/firing: making it possible the workers can hire/fire their owner/bosses. This situation occurs naturally from the above "company eventually passes into workers hands" solution. Once workers control management, they can decide how profits are distributed, and how new employees are hired. The beauty of this system is that the economy will have a wide variety of differently organized businesses. The cooperatives will have to compete against the dictatorships for the favors of the consumers (but not for the favors private investors who only want profit and low wages, because there aren't any if things go right), etc.

Market / Planned economy

Some people seem to like the idea of ``complete integration'', where there are no companies and no market pressures between them and with the consumer public. Everything is decided by applying direct intelligence, ``production to satisfy human needs, not profits'', a consciously planned world, everything nationalized and therefore in a state of monopoly. I think this is a naive idea, resulting from the simplistic idea that private investor profit-seeking is the same thing as productive company profit seeking. Once this simplistic idea has taken hold, everything that is in favor of "market pressures" has to be bad, and the next step is to nationalize and monopolize everything under direct democratic control.

The limitations of this `conscious planning' idea are clear when they are applied where they can work.

Trade is a device to protect both trading partners against being deceived: the partners do not give away freely but demand an immediate proof of productivity from those they give something to. They don't give a pound of grain to a king, unless the king agrees to do the dishes for them right now. That this doesn't happen is not the fault of trade itself, but of the power plays that warp trade. However, no such proof is needed when the trading partner is your co-worker whom you see working every day. You know him, you know he is productive via an alternative means: direct knowledge. Therefore you do not need to trade with this person from moment to moment.

The circle of people whom you can know to this detail is limited, and that is the natural limit of a planned economy without trade. Hence, a planned economy can only work for small groups, perhaps stretching it up to several tens of thousands. When dealing with hundreds of millions of people, not everyone knows each other even in the slightest. Trade is simply useful to make sure you are dealing with someone productive, as you see immediate proof. To remove trade means to assume everyone is basically a holy saint. It will likely grind human beings to a pulp between the vast bureaucratic machineries that control production. When you are part of a continent wide planned bread system, you are nothing. Your choices don't matter, 10.000 others for you. When you work in a local independent company, steering itself through the market of consumer favoritism, your choices decide everything. The issues that work on what decides your life are immediately visible, exist on human scale. The quality of your work is immediately reflected in your success. You have the freedom to organize your work as a sovereign team of people, can do new things and renew what the consumers can get. If you do something bad, it will bite you immediately; when you do something good, it will reward you immediately. Isn't that the nature of living.

The people who want to plan everything may be people who should be working in the `monopoly sector' where consumer competition is understood to be detrimental or impossible. It are usually sectors that don't need much renewal of products, it is more about reliability (tap water, public transport, ...). Meeting a number of quality standards, and keeping it that way. Since planning is in its right place here, and the infrastructure is "one single unit" of which everyone should hold its part to produce the whole, individuals carry individual responsibility again. Tap water needs to be the same everyday, decade after decade. The organization can become highly experienced and efficient. The same can not be said about clothing, consumer products, food, movies, etc etc. Everyday the exact same bread, and it will soon taste like nothing. Since individual groups can perform the tasks of making bread locally (and often better), it breads discontent that the orders of a vast bureaucracy have to be obeyed for no good reason. This may result in mutiny and even more substandard production. It doesn't take the people serious, has no faith in them.

This problem: why what to nationalize and why what to leave to the markets seems to have created the greatest rift between progressive people. On the one hand the people who want to nationalize everything, on the other people who refuse to acknowledge the detrimental effects of private capitalism or that there could be invented an alternative besides "limited direct action and slow progress", which too often is an excuse to do little and pave the way for private capitalists. I hope both sides will see the limitations of their own extremist points of view, and acknowledge that a combination can stand up to criticism better then either. This solution is both utterly anti-capitalist, yet is pro free markets. It can be called more liberal then the liberals, more communist then the communist. It is not a compromise or "search for a third way", although the solution does seem to have points that make it in hindsight fit the description "third way". Private capitalism is to be gutted though, no compromise with capitalism is possible on principle as the objective. As a practicality when Sovereignty is lacking then compromises may have to be negotiated for the time being, in the hope of ending the abuses over a longer time, winning more people to that cause.

The above solutions may not be enough to strangle private capitalism, or they may be overkill. Trying is knowing. More can be created, some can be removed, others can be strengthened, or weakened to fit the current situation temporarily.

The tactic by which to reach the goal of ending capitalism is another problem. It seems that as long as the goal is detailed, clear and widely supported, it does not matter whether it is effectuated through parliament, mass strike, revolution, or combinations. Agreeing on a clear goal means the pressure can mount sufficiently high until something gives.

I think we live in Western Europe in a "bribed zone", an area with excessive wealth sucked from the rest of the world. This excess wealth is a kind of buffer zone for the capitalists, it buys local support and supports the luxury economy they want to live in. While the poor used to live at the edge of town, they now live on the edge of the world. Removing the capitalists, removes this effect. It is possible that defeating private capitalism means living conditions to go down in the bribe zones, and for bribed classes of workers in particular (especially university people, and other groups with a little more power then your everyday wage earner). Eventually technical advances make all living conditions go upwards again, though. Don't come to me when you end up with even fewer buying power. The mismanagement of capitalism has done much damage already, the cost of this damage is yet to be taken out on society. This cost should not be confused with mistakes of a post capitalist system, even though the post capitalist system may have to deal with them. The longer capitalism goes on, the higher this cost could become.

Capitalism has its own direction of evolution. The essence of capitalism is not trade or free markets, the essence of capitalism is racketeering and greed (as differentiated from company management). It is ultimately a system of wild animals, I think it will therefore eventually return to systems employed by wildlife. That is: brutal oppression, war, tribalism, dictatorship, class society. Just as capitalism emerged from feudalism, so can feudalism emerge from capitalism. The old feudal lords would have defeated democracy at long last. Theories involving nationalization of everything could then even play into their hands.
Companies, financial pressures (picture)
Companies, market pressures (picture)
Capitalism development (picture)
Investor choices (picture)
Post Revolutionary Constitution (Conclusion). (txt|ps)

This post revolutionary Constitution is meant to drive a revolution onward after it has achieved power, so that it does not become stuck. Drive it past a state of eternal emergency and into a new stable and relaxed situation, where private Capitalism is beaten by a new system. This new system is not a Utopia, but to be stable it needs a level of moral development. Moral development can be shown to exist in the large amount of progressive initiative that exists in the world, even if it is mostly not aimed at system change. Being willing to put in effort and money for social improvement is what this Constitutional model needs in terms of stabilization (see Companies, market pressures). If the Capitalists give up their position which is no longer intellectually defensible at any level (neither in terms of coherent system, in terms of trade success, or in terms of survival of the fittest), that would be great.

Constitution Proposal

(Link to short version.)

 ``That democracy and extreme economic inequality form, when
   combined, an unstable compound, is no novel doctrine. It was a
   commonplace of political science four centuries before our era.
   Nevertheless, though a venerable truism, it remains an important
   one, which is periodically forgotten and periodically therefore
   requires to be rediscovered...''
                              R. H. Tawney, Equality (1938 edition)

                              As quoted in: Paul Foot, The Vote, p.340
                              Penguin Books Ltd, 2005, 0-670-91536-X

Constitution, Draft / minimalist framework, 9 Tevet 5767 / 30 dec 2006 The below is meant to be used as a minimalist Draft version, but enough to present a coherent model. This model has as its main element trade, because trade is a direct protection against exploitation. A trade economy demands equal spread of power, without equal trading power for all people, the trading system becomes a problem instead of being a solution. Equal power is achieved on three levels of size: individual, group and all or country. For the country or all it means absolute democracy, the government can and should only do what the majority wants, good or bad. (When something turns out bad it is supposed to be a learning experience for future choices, meaning a growing opportunity for most people.) For groups it means that most businesses larger then some small size will be forced to become democracies after the first-starter goes away. This first starter will be fairly compensated in value and/or future profits, but while the first starter rules he can be a dictator if he/she wants to. However this is also has its limits when the company becomes larger. For the individual, power means the right to use and rent out raw resources. This right is important in order to deny power concentrations of ownership somewhere else. This right does not constitute anarchy, and the democratic central government can decide what can and what can not be done with whatever resources, in order to prevent chaos and disintegration. Some parts of productivity do not respond at all or poorly to market pressures because of inherently lacking or impossible competition. Such parts become nationalized productivity groups. One interesting part about this constitution is the use of capital, larger sums of money. Money is made the slave of the absolute democratic government. Government has a right to protect the people against power imbalances by means of nullifying all money and transplanting minor sums and debts of common people to a new currency. This sudden destruction of hoarded money is a safety valve which will probably need to be employed when this constitution is first implemented in order to correct the extreme power imbalances in the current economy. This constitution sets a maximum on ownership, but does not set a minimum. It supports a minimum wage to which the wage of politicians is tied. First the draft needs to be ratified (by you) as going into a generally desired direction. Parts which resist such ratification can be be changed, altering the direction in major ways. When doing this, it might useful to realize that the Chapters 5 to 9 strengthen each other: weakening one likely weakens all. The Chapters 1, 2 and 4 are stand-alone, can be changed without causing ripples. Chapter 3 needs at least enough democratic subjugation of Government to ensure the power of finance is used in the interest of the People, and not in the interest of profit / corruption. Second the draft can be expanded with more detail articles. For example there are many human rights which can be added to Chapter 2, chambers of Government in Chapter 3, etc. I don't think it is a good idea to base Government (for long) on worker councils running companies, because these councils have a different task (running a company). Giving them two tasks is asking for trouble and power abuses, the two different responsibilities can conflict. Workers could elect a Government official together, but we shouldn't first elect company worker council, who then also elect Government officials. If a full scale revolution (tough against tough) is needed to achieve (more) democratic government, Government based on worker-councils might be a temporary solution because of the people temporarily stationed there (depending). This should be changed later. Government can be based upon constituencies of voters (not worker councils) grouped per company or groups of companies, or geographically or country-wide (depending on chosen representative system): Government directly based on the voting public, no intermediate layer that has other concerns. The below constitution proposes free formed groups of voters, who send in one delegate. Thirdly a coherent body of common law, which is not to conflict with the Constitution, is needed for the details that need regulation. These laws are not part of the Constitution. Most of these laws can probably be taken directly from already practiced law, removing them only where they conflict with the constitution. This would provide continuity of culture, which makes a change more feasible. Regions with different legal traditions can alter the draft in these three steps, so as to agree with the will of the local People, without altering the deepest goal, which is to make the Elected Government the only Government. End the "dual power" situation that the elected Government is in with the privatized financial sector, which acts as a second Government, a result of the revolutionary situation all parliamentary democracies are in. The most crucial of the draft is therefore Chapter 8 (finance). Taking that out is taking out the heart, without public finance the system will choke in the long term. When only enacting public finance Chapter 8, one is setting a country free from the choke hold on progress resulting from private finance, to complete the system you would also need to distribute resources as in Chapter 9. It is probably easiest to read the constitution one Chapter at a time starting from Chapter 9 and then upwards to 1. The last chapters contain the economic system, the first chapters just round it of to make it a coherent constitution for immediate use. Click background for ideas on which this Constitution is based. 9 Chapters, 239 (1=23 2=18 3=95 4=15 5=12 6=24 7=3 8=36 9=13) Laws. Table Of Contents: Chapter 1: Structure of Constitution Chapter 2: Structure of Individual protection Chapter 3: Structure of Government Chapter 4: Structure of Disaster Relief Chapter 5: Structure of Monopoly Sectors Chapter 6: Structure of Free Markets Chapter 7: Structure of Special Markets Chapter 8: Structure of Finance Chapter 9: Structure of Resources
Chapter 1: Structure of Constitution Articles 1.1: Power of the Constitution 1.1.a Power 1.1.a-1 Changes 1.1.a-1.1 Changes, warning 1.1.a-1.2 Changes, delay 1.1.b Scope 1.1.b-1 False law 1.1.b-2 Unity of Law 1.1.c Flag 1.1.c-1 Flag of war 1.1.c-1.1 Flag democracy Articles 1.2: Territory 1.2.a Territory 1.2.a-1 New Territory 1.2.a-1.1 New Territory, lost 1.2.a-1.2 New Territory, border 1.2.a-1.3 New Territory, more 1.2.a-2 Larger Territory 1.2.a-3 Territorial Limits 1.2.a-4 International Territory Articles 1.3: Nation of Law 1.3.a Equality 1.3.a-1 Lasting Freedom Articles 1.4: State of Chaos 1.4.a King Rule 1.4.a-1 King Rule, Banner 1.4.a-2 King Rule, Stability
Chapter 2: Structure of Individual Protections Articles 2.1: Individual Protections 2.1.a No Harm 2.1.a-1 Compensation 2.1.a-2 Animals 2.1.b Free speech 2.1.b-1 No insult 2.1.c Freedom of Assembly 2.1.d Property Right 2.1.e Privacy Articles 2.2: Justice 2.2.a Fair trial 2.2.a-1 Presumed innocent 2.2.a-2 Equal pleading effort 2.2.a-3 Competent Defense 2.2.a-4 Observe Trial 2.2.a-5 Trial not Punishment 2.2.b Fair punishment 2.2.b-1 Fair punishment, reading Articles 2.3: Additional rights for Children 2.3.a Right to be cared for
Chapter 3: Structure of Government Articles 3.1: Structure of Government 3.1.a Government Intention 3.1.a-1 Declare opinion 3.1.a-2 Task Accountability 3.1.b Referendum 3.1.b-1 Initiative Referendum 3.1.b-2 Scope Referendum, particular 3.1.b-3 Scope Referendum, law 3.1.b-4 Transparency 3.1.b-5 Decision Repealed 3.1.b-6 Representatives Repealed 3.1.b-7 Authority 3.1.b-7.1 Vote Decay 3.1.b-7.1.1 Vote Decay, speed 3.1.b-7.1.2 Vote Decay, addition 3.1.c Electing Government 3.1.c-1 Electoral Committee 3.1.c-1.1 Electoral Committee, mandate 3.1.c-1.1.1 Electoral Committee, mandate eject 3.1.c-1.2 Electoral Committee, vote 3.1.c-1.3 Electoral Committee, sovereign 3.1.c-1.4 Electoral Committee, free 3.1.c-1.5 Electoral Committee, salary 3.1.c-1.6 Electoral Committee, immunity 3.1.c-1.7 Police Loyalty 3.1.c-1.8 King Elect 3.1.c-1.8.1 Duty of the King 3.1.c-1.8.2 Sovereign Inspector 3.1.c-1.8.3 Speaking to the King 3.1.c-1.8.4 Protect the Throne 3.1.c-1.8.5 Protect the King 3.1.c-1.8.6 End of Reign 3.1.c-1.8.7 Start of Reign 3.1.c-1.8.8 King Income 3.1.c-1.8.9 King Election, fraud 3.1.c-2 Decisions 3.1.c-3 Public Government 3.1.c-3.1 Public Government, finance 3.1.c-4 Structure 3.1.c-4.1 New Government 3.1.c-4.2 New Government, limit 3.1.c-4.3 New Government, delegates 3.1.c-4.4 New Government, deputies 3.1.c-5 Delegate Compensation 3.1.c-5.1 Delegate Compensation, Council 3.1.d People Government 3.1.d-1 Government Body, minimum size 3.1.d-2 Closest Government Body 3.1.d-2.1 Council Agenda 3.1.d-2.2 Council Law Making 3.1.d-3 Further Government Body 3.1.d-4 Advice Council 3.1.d-5 Country Council 3.1.d-5.1 Country Council, Constitution 3.1.d-5.2 Country Council, Currency 3.1.d-5.3 Country Council, Core 3.1.d-5.4 Country Council, Local Law 3.1.d-6 Ministries 3.1.d-6.1 Ministries, Distributed 3.1.d-7 Immediate representation 3.1.d-8 Discipline Day 3.1.d-9 No Bribes 3.1.e Public Consultancy 3.1.e-1 Public Consultancy, Practicality 3.1.e-2 Public Consultancy, abstentions 3.1.e-3 Public Consultancy, Government Limit 3.1.e-4 Public Consultancy, Registration 3.1.e-5 Public Consultancy, Public Proxy 3.1.e-6 Public Consultancy, Demonstration Articles 3.2: Law enforcement 3.2.a System of Justice 3.2.a-1 Courts of Justice 3.2.a-1.1 Courts of Justice, Judges 3.2.a-2 Judge Court 3.2.a-2.1 Judge Court, Judges 3.2.a-3 Law Court 3.2.a-3.1 Law Court, Judges 3.2.a-3.2 Law Court, Discipline 3.2.a-3.3 Law Court, strength 3.2.a-3.4 Law Court, removal 3.2.a-3.5 Supreme Law Court 3.2.b System of Police 3.2.b-1 Demonstration 3.2.b-1.1 Demonstration, Government limit 3.2.b-1.2 Demonstration, size limit 3.2.b-1.3 Demonstration, frequency limit 3.2.b-2 Company occupation 3.2.b-2.1 Company occupation, limit 3.2.b-3 Anti Pirate force 3.2.b-3.1 Weapons Authorization 3.2.b-4 Police and Privacy 3.2.b-4.1 Police Privacy, oversight 3.2.b-4.2 Police Privacy, Compensation Articles 3.3: Equality of Government 3.3.a Inclusive Articles 3.4: Space 3.4.a Local Space 3.4.a-1 Space protection 3.4.b National Space Articles 3.5: Money oversight 3.5.a Money oversight
Chapter 4: Structure of Disaster Relief Articles 4.1: Purpose 4.1.a Purpose 4.1.a-1 Separation of Task 4.1.b What war 4.1.b-1 local Battle 4.1.b-2 No Police Tasks 4.1.b-3 Inside the Land 4.1.b-3.1 Training 4.1.b-4 Not for Profit 4.1.c Unity of Humanity Articles 4.2: Dispatch 4.2.a Army Dispatch 4.2.b Army Loyalty 4.2.c Individual Right to Reject Dispatch 4.2.d Collective Right to Reject Dispatch 4.2.d-1 Collective Right to Reject Dispatch, majority Articles 4.3: Limitations 4.3.a No child soldiers
Chapter 5: Structure of Monopoly Sectors Articles 5.1: Monopoly Sector 5.1.a Definition Monopoly Sector 5.1.b Service rendered 5.1.c Service Group 5.1.c-1 Service Group, Appointed Dictator 5.1.c-2 Service Group, Representative Democracy 5.1.c-2.1 Service Group, Representative Democracy semi limited 5.1.c-2.2 Service Group, Representative Democracy limited 5.1.c-3 Service Group, Public Democracy 5.1.c-4 Service Group, Costumer Democracy 5.1.c-5 Service Group, Other 5.1.c-5.1 Service Group, not immune 5.1.c-6 Service Group, privatization
Chapter 6: Structure of Free Markets Articles 6.1: Free Markets 6.1.a Free Market Articles 6.2: Initiate Businesses 6.2.a Establish business 6.2.a-1 Establish business, dictatorship 6.2.a-2 Establish business, rule book 6.2.a-2.1 Rule book, limit Articles 6.3: Hand over Business 6.3.a Reaching Democracy 6.3.a-1 Reaching Democracy, employee protection 6.3.a-2 Reaching Democracy, employer protection 6.3.a-3 Reaching Democracy, employer debt protection 6.3.a-4 Majority Business 6.3.a-4.1 Continuity of Democracy 6.3.a-5 Unity of business 6.3.a-5.1 Number of Companies per person 6.3.b No International Businesses Articles 6.4: Minimum Working Conditions 6.4.a Minimum conditions 6.4.a-1 Minimum wage 6.4.a-2 Worker safety 6.4.a-3 Environmental safety 6.4.a-4 Public safety Articles 6.5: Anti Monopoly 6.5.a Anti monopoly 6.5.a-1 Nationalization 6.5.a-2 Break up Articles 6.6: Open markets 6.6.a Open markets 6.6.a-1 Open markets, money
Chapter 7: Structure of Special Markets Articles 7.1: Special Markets 7.1.a Definition Special Markets 7.1.a-1 Special Markets, no limit 7.1.b Special Markets Service Group
Chapter 8: Structure of Finance Articles 8.1: Emergency Power 8.1.a Emergency Powers 8.1.a-1 Emergency Powers, limit 8.1.b Rotate Currency 8.1.b-1 Rotate Currency, new money 8.1.b-1.1 Taxes in money 8.1.b-2 Rotate Currency, debt 8.1.b-2.1 Rotate Currency, debt limit 8.1.b-3 Rotate Currency, credit 8.1.b-4 Rotate Currency, foreign 8.1.b-5 Rotate Currency, foreign capital 8.1.c Continuity of Existence Articles 8.2: Democratic Finance 8.2.a Democratic Finance 8.2.a-1 Creation of money 8.2.a-2 Equality of happiness 8.2.a-3 Taxes 8.2.a-4 Bank service 8.2.a-4.1 Consumption credit 8.2.a-4.2 Result pay 8.2.a-4.3 Corruption 8.2.a-5 Investment service group 8.2.a-5.1 Investment service group, short 8.2.a-5.2 Investment service group, loan maximum 8.2.a-5.3 Investment service group, credit 8.2.a-6 Investment permit 8.2.a-7 Investment Monopoly 8.2.a-7.1 No debt trade 8.2.a-8 Capital Monopoly 8.2.a-8.1 Capital Monopoly, limit 8.2.a-8.2 Capital Monopoly, exclusion 8.2.a-9 Insurance permit 8.2.a-10 Company Capital Limit 8.2.a-10.1 Company Capital Limit, other 8.2.a-11 No Business Gambling 8.2.a-11.1 No Gambling, self reported 8.2.a-12 No Speculation Articles 8.3: General Lending Limits 8.3.a Loan Default, no collateral
Chapter 9: Structure of Resources Articles 9.1: Structure of Resources 9.1.a Structure of Resources 9.1.a-1 Resources, limits 9.1.a-2 Resources, nature 9.1.a-3 Resources, public 9.1.a-4 Resources, usage 9.1.a-5 Resources, resource bank 9.1.a-6 Resources, rent 9.1.a-6.1 Continuity usage 9.1.a-6.2 Continuity terms 9.1.a-6.3 Continuity produce 9.1.a-6.4 Continuity government 9.1.a-7 Resources, home 9.1.b Price Maximum
Articles with variable 1.1.a-1.2 Changes, delay 1.2.a Territory 1.2.a-1 New Territory 1.2.a-1.1 New Territory, lost 1.2.a-1.3 New Territory, more 1.2.a-3 Territorial Limits 3.1.b-1 Initiative Referendum 3.1.c Electing Government 3.1.c-1.8 King Elect 3.1.c-1.8.1 Duty of the King 3.1.c-1.8.6 End of Reign 3.1.c-1.8.8 King Income 3.1.c-4.2 New Government, limit 3.1.c-5 Salary 3.1.c-5.1 Salary, bonus 3.1.d People Government 3.1.d-1 Government Body, minimum size 3.1.d-2.1 Council Agenda 3.1.d-2.2 Council Law Making 3.1.d-3 Further Government Bodies 3.1.d-7 Immediate representation 3.1.d-5 Country Council 3.1.d-8 Discipline Day 3.1.d-9 No Bribes 3.1.e-3 Public Consultancy, Government Limit 3.1.e-6 Public Consultancy, Demonstration 3.2.a-3.3 Law Court, strength 3.2.b-1.2 Demonstration, size limit 3.2.b-1.3 Demonstration, frequency limit 3.2.b-2.1 Company occupation, limit 3.2.b-4.1 Police Privacy, oversight 4.3.a No Child Soldiers 6.3.a Reaching Democracy 6.3.a-1 Reaching Democracy, employee protection 6.3.a-5.1 Number of Companies per person 8.2.a-7 Investment Monopoly 8.2.a-8 Capital Monopoly 8.2.a-8.1 Capital Monopoly, limit 8.2.a-10 Company Capital Limit 8.2.a-11.1 No Gambling, self reported 8.2.a-12 No Speculation 8.3.a Loan Default, no collateral 9.1.a-6.1 Continuity usage 9.1.a-6.2 Continuity terms 9.1.a-6.3 Continuity produce 9.1.a-6.4 Continuity government
Chapter 1: Structure of Constitution Articles 1.1: Power of the Constitution _1.1.a Power The constitution has no value outside the support of the People. . . Reasoning. Democracy. _1.1.a-1 Changes The Constitution can only be changed by the People directly. . . Reasoning. Since the Constitution is enacted by the People, yet . laws are enacted by Government, the purpose of the Constitution . is (also) to protect the People from Government law changes. . Therefore the Government must not be allowed to make changes to . the constitution, or it could not protect the People from the . Government. _1.1.a-1.1 Changes, warning When a Referendum is to be held proposing change to the Constitution, that Referendum can not be held before time has passed of equal length to the time a Government can be in office (see Article 3.1.c, Electing Government), starting from the moment the Referendum is posted in the required location as to be held (see Article 3.1.b-4, Transparency). . . Reasoning. If the Constitution is to protect the People, . it is better if the Referendum is not held under the same . mandated Government as the Referendum is proposed under. . The long time delay means sufficient time to alert people . and form an informed opinion. _1.1.a-1.2 Changes, delay Changes to the Constitution become law after a three month waiting period, starting from the day both the procedure for changing the constitution has been met and the result has been published widely. Before the last month of the delay starts, the ratification Referendum can be done again, the Referendum with most people casting a vote will decide. . . Reasoning. A waiting period after fulfilling the protocol gives . people the time to still organize a counter referendum or . consider other options. When a dramatic change happened few . people had anticipated, it can still be changed in the last . moment before it becomes law, because that is a time when it . will be increasingly clear to everyone, what exactly the change . is going to mean. Changing a Constitution should not be taken . lightly, hence the long time-path. The delay is also meant . so that would-be law-makers will be inspired to consider the . seriousness of their work, knowing that the change will be . happening in an otherwise quiet circumstance, being visible . without the chaos of campaigns, voting and tallying surrounding . it. Also so that society has time to adjust quite leisurely to . changes that are by then surely coming, which will be more . stressful if the change happens at the moment it is known that . it will be happening. . . The power of representatives to fill in abstentions is retained . under the argument that many changes might be minor and . non-controversial, and that it would therefore not be worthwhile . to mobilize much of the country for every single change. The . difficulty lies only in the delays, not so much in the protocol . of decision making itself. . . It might happen that people don't want a change, but somehow . don't find out until the change becomes `widely published.' . If they really care to undo it, they should manage to set up . an undoing direct Referendum within 2 month, and undo it with . a larger vote. This rule should prevent unpleasant surprises . for people who don't want to follow things closely. _1.1.b Scope The constitution is the supreme set of rules. . . Reasoning. The purpose of a Constitution, is that it provides a . basic framework for all other laws, giving them common direction . and limiting them for the sake of protecting the people from . law makers, and volatility of Government. The Constitution stands . above treaties. _1.1.b-1 False law Laws and Government decisions conflicting with the Constitution are void. Police is not to enforce, the Judiciary is to reject, and the Government is to retract such laws and decisions. . . Reasoning. Strengthening 1.1.b, making all major parts of . Government individually responsible to reject conflicts with . the Constitution. _1.1.b-2 Unity of Law The constitution is one and the same across the entire Nation. . . Reasoning. Without unity of Constitution the Country is not . coherent, and predictable enough. If regions want different . supreme rules, they should instead create a new nation. _1.1.c Flag The flag of the Constitution is divided in a top and a bottom half. In the middle a shape resembling an Omega letter. This represents a pair of scales, symbol for democracy, it is the peace flag of the Constitution. The peace flag of the Constitution is to be displayed alone by itself or in the highest position above an identity flag. . . Reasoning. This flag is a tool for democracy, it is used to define . whether the Government is at war or peace, and individuals can use it . to vote for peace, war, and what they think is currently true. The . colors in top and bottom half are important, to recognize the orientation . of the flag more easily. The Article leaves room for pretty and unique . designs. _1.1.c-1 Flag of war When a Government is at war - or orders to use weapons greater in power then needed to kill a lion to subdue other human beings - all the Constitutional flags in possession of the Government are to be turned upside down. This represents a bull head with horns, symbol for war, for when the Government is at war, it is the war flag of the Constitution. The war flag of the Constitution is shown under a flag which denotes the identity at war. Nobody is to accept any order from any commander to wage war without the official widespread display of the war flag. Exception: see Article 3.2.b-3.1, Weapons Authorization. . . Reasoning. You can vote with this: displaying the configuration as . you would like it to be, war or peace. Then you can add a black . ribbon/flag/banner, to indicate "mourning" that it is not as you . want it to be, or a white banner/flag/ribbon to indicate "happiness" . that it is as you want it. . . This flag system means that the Government is forced by the Constitution . to display a war flag when going to war, and soldiers etc are forced . to disobey orders toward war if there is no war flag displayed. That . means the public will be aware that the Government goes to war, . and can hence mobilize in favor or against this, it works both ways. . It makes war more effective, and it makes a Government less likely to . be able to wage war without its People's agreement. . . Some identity flags can also have a lot of white, then the . Constitutional flag could be light blue for instance. The changing . position above/below is useful to make a quicker determination of . whether the flag is upright or reversed, the color to the side of one . half also make the flag position more obvious. The meaning of . the Constitutional flag suggests that the peace flag is the "high" . flag, and the war flag "low" flag, therefore the identity flag below . the Constitutional flag during peace if on the same mast. Another option . is to show both flags in top for peace on two masts, and for war put . them both on one mast, the identity flag above and the Constitutional . flag reversed below it. This would be a clear configuration, with . a lot of difference between the two. It does also not "demote" the . identity flag to a lower position (see figure). . . The Government can not practically subvert the "peace configuration . with black ribbon", because 1. a peace flag is the supreme order to . end all hostilities and reject all orders toward and continuation of . hostilities, and 2. the Government can not both "want peace", and . then say that "it is not so", because if the Government wants its . soldiers - which is what the flag refers to for the Government - to . stop fighting "but they don't", then the government is effectively . saying it has lost control, that they are no longer a Government. . That leaves the Government to display a war or peace flag, either . correctly or in deception, and that leaves the People free to vote . with the flag for or against war, while defeating a potential . Government attempt at muddying the signals by adding a black ribbon . to defeat a Government that claims it is at peace while at war . (according to the flag-waver). When Government attempts to muddy the . meanings of these things, it can be a signal of a coup against the . flag system. The signals, meanwhile, do not by themselves do anything . (voting never does much by itself). The flag system is a fall back . democracy protocol for during war, it will probably be more effective . if maintained during peace. Point of the protocol is that one can . vote equally for and against peace/war, which should result in a more . accurate result. It also gives indication to what degree people care. . New meaning for the term `waving the flag.' It remains to be seen . if people will do this, but at least it is possible. Whether they'll . vote or not, the Government is forced to follow the protocol, so that . the People know whether it is war or peace. This could cause the . People to use the protocol for their own purposes. _1.1.c-1.1 Flag democracy A Constitutional peace flag signals a wish for peace and not war, referring to the the identity of the identity flag if one is shown. A Constitutional war flag - which is the Constitutional war flag below an identity flag - signals a wish for war action by that identity. A reversed Constitutional peace flag without an identity flag above it has an unidentifiable meaning, it is a display of error on the part of the display construction. With the Constitutional flag display can be displayed ribbons in several colors. A black ribbon signals there is not currently war or peace as it is wished by the Constitutional flag shown. A white ribbon signals there is currently war or peace as is wished by the Constitutional flag shown. A blue ribbon signals a wish for change of the Government identified by the identity flag. A green ribbon signals a wish for the present Government identified by the identity flag, to remain in power. A golden ribbon signals a wish for King Rule in the Country identified by the identity flag. See Article 1.4.a, King Rule. . . Reasoning. Having stated this means that the Government . and People can both not deny the meaning of these votes, . because if they do they are at least acting contrary to the . Constitution. This really does not mean a whole lot, but it . starts meaning something when there are large majorities . toward either end, consisting of much of the entire . population. The flag democracy provides a way to cast a . vote equally to either end, but no way to tally them or make . any kind of action happen on them. It can, however, be used . to cut the government and have new elections either by the . delegates, or the electoral committee. If the great majority, . for instance, demands peace through the flag democracy . protocol, this can be the explicit and somewhat verifiable . reason to cut the Government and have new elections. It is a . protocol somewhere between mass rallies and ballot casting. . The protocol would probably only be needed in time of war, . because that tends to be a time when democracy is coming . under attack, from outside and inside. Without war threats, . hopefully other protocols would be working well enough. . You obviously don't have to wave complete multi square meter . flags to vote, a recognizable flag could be 1 x 2 cm. Articles 1.2: Territory _1.2.a Territory The Country assembles not more then 100.000.000, one hundred million, potential voters. . . Reasoning. When countries get too large, internal democracy . is eroded too much because of the size, the distances. The . international balance of power is also eroded, and international . objectivity suffers when there are fewer significant countries. . Under this Constitution, there is no exploiting non-working ruling . class, it is only that class which has an interest in as large . a territory as possible. Without that interest, the larger the . country also the larger the burden of Government, a larger country . may have benefits and down sides, it is not only good. _1.2.a-1 New Territory Groups of 1 million residents in a consecutive geographic area can step out of the Country if they achieve a Two Third Majority in a Referendum where abstentions count as votes against stepping out, two consecutive times with an interval of 5 years between them; without there being a Majority against leaving the Country with at least half of the local people voting in it, within 10 years after the first of the two consecutive Referendums. Then the region is independent and out of the Country, 10 years after the first Referendum. These Referendums must be widely published in the concerning area, or they will be invalid. The New Country is formed by taking with it an amount of natural resources equal to the combined total of resource rights for the people who come to live in the new territory, including an equal amount of non-distributed natural resources - such as nature and public land - according to the percentage of people that will be living there. . . Reasoning. It is useful for Democracy to be able to leave . the group, a kind of veto. The set-up should provide an equal . economic division. If there is a valuable natural resource in . the new country, making the new country smaller then desired, . the new country could cut a deal that leaves part or all of the . valuable resource under the control of the original country, . so as to gain more territory. People who don't want to live in . the new country would have to move, people who are against the . new country but don't move, become part of the new country and . their resources would be added to the new country. Presumably . such people don't care enough to move, if their resources were . subtracted they would lose value. . . The anti-Referendum with normal majority is meant to give . the resisting forces a chance to verify there is no support . for them, even if they organize the referendum. The 10 year . waiting period means 5 years after the second referendum, giving . sufficient adjustment time for residents. _1.2.a-1.1 New Territory, lost When the new country contains fewer then 1 million people before 100 years have gone by, the area falls back to the original country, unless the original country decides to reject it. . . Reasoning. This provides some way to mop up failed attempts . without legal problems. If after 100 years the country still . contains one million people, presumably there is some viability . to it, at least someone to talk to and to decide whether to . rejoin the original country or not. If people flee from the . new country, they can automatically put it back with the . original country, even if they are no longer in that area to . vote about its status. _1.2.a-1.2 New Territory, border The border of both Countries will not develop enclosed sovereign areas. It will be a simplified line, in such a way that both Countries will have a coherent shape necessary to easily determine in what Country a person is. . . Reasoning. It may happen that as a result of the Referendums, . a computation can be made that results in a "Country" with . jagged and even detached areas. This is likely: the referendums . will result in a patchwork of areas in which the formalities have . been won, either with or perhaps without a certain continuous . area in the middle. This article forces the new country to be a . self coherent area. That means certain people groups that want to . be in will find they are out, and others that want to be out will . find they are in. This requires swapping of areas, homes can . hopefully be sold between people who want a different position. . This is the kind of problem that adds greatly to the cost of . setting up a new country, which is why it is a good idea to make . it not too easy to set up a new country. . . The rule against enclosed areas means that new countries can not . develop in the middle of others, because that would mean the new . Country is not really as sovereign as it could be, being more . dependent on good will of just one Country. Enclosed sovereign . countries, to the degree that can even exist, make the original . country have complicated borders, which are probably not . beneficial to governing it; it would be somewhat counter . intuitive. Given this rule, people who want out of a Country . need to have a connection with the border of another Country or . international territory. That is likely to more often be the case, . and would protect the center of the original country by not . cutting out just any part. If a country feels some parts will . become independent, that may cause it not to invest there as . much as it could for fear of losing the investments (though . it could also invest more to keep it). In that case the wheels . of separation are already turning, becoming independent could . become the better economic choice at a certain point. _1.2.a-1.3 New Territory, more An area bordering a New Territory will join that New Territory before 10 years have passed of it having become independent, if they reach a Majority in Referendum where abstentions count as votes against joining, if the New Territory accepts the application to join. . . Reasoning. It can happen that a certain area reaches the . point where it can step out, but other areas are in doubt, . where these doubting areas will later decide they want . to join. For this they need a 1 million group size again, . which if it is not available will result in smaller border . communities that are in the wrong country. With this rule they . can still join within 10 years, which will also reduce the . political pressure on the original Referendums, because there . will be second chances to join. After 10 years the one-Referendum . window closes, then the more difficult procedure needs . to be followed again, multiple Referendums and minimum . group-size. The rule is a normal majority, so as to find a . fair place of balance for the border for the two Countries, . not procedurally in favor of either. . . These rules where Referendum vote `abstentions' are votes . assumed with a certain content, are meant to refer to people . with voting rights, who decide not to vote. _1.2.a-2 Larger Territory The Country Council, see Article 3.1.d-5, Country Council, can accept a new area into the country. . . Reasoning. The People can always undo a Government decision . through Referendum, presumably most people won't care much if . the Country gets larger, as long as the country council thinks . it can handle it, since it would basically be more burden for . them. _1.2.a-3 Territorial Limits The territory extends as far as the eye can see into uninhabitable territory - such as the sea - with respect to that right for other Nations. . . Reasoning. When a nation extends its territorial claim, this can . be profitable for it. Then when a nation extends it more aggressively, . it could be rewarded for it, while a friendly Nation is punished . for not being so bold. This law sets a basic rule from inside the . country. A nation that behaves accordingly may find it is held in . higher regard for it by other Nations/Peoples, and hence be rewarded. _1.2.a-4 International Territory When a petition of Nations representing more then Two Third of the world population is offered regarding an issue on International Territory, the petition will be read before the Country Council, see Article 3.1.d-5, Country Council. This right exists only once a year for a half hour duration. . . Reasoning. This is presumably the weakest possible obligation . regarding international territory, reading a petition does not . involve accepting it. However, it means that it is at least . acknowledged that the petition exists and that the content has . been considered, even if it is rejected later. .. Updated (ammended) zo feb 5 10:15:21 UTC 2012: . The above law is threatening to be abused by an Imperial government . which combines two third or more of humanity under its umbrella. . If this mechanism is not further limited they can use it to inundate . the national council with nonsense in an effort to gain control. . Proposed to add: . "This right exists only once a year for a half hour duration." .. End ammendment. Articles 1.3: Nation of Law _1.3.a Equality All people living in the Country are equal under the Law. None are above and none are below the Law. . . Reasoning. Naturally all must be equal under the Law, as if there . could be any doubt. The article leaves some room for policy . because it says `living in the Country.' Normally this would include . everyone, except the dead. But it could for instance exclude an invading . army, for which it can be said it `does not live in the country,' since . it is `dying in the country.' Even though everyone is equal under the . Law, the Law could still say different things about people matching . different descriptions, such as it does when regulating the duties of . people matching the description of a delegate. This article is just . to close a loophole for someone who claims the law does not apply to . them for some reason: if they are here it does apply for that reason . alone. _1.3.a-1 Lasting Freedom When no National Laws in the common interest, no decisions to favor the common interest from bodies created by the Constitution in the common interest, curtail a person its freedom, that person is assumed to have an active right to make any decision desired. A person can not lose or sell their right to make decisions: a person can not sell itself into slavery. A person cannot lose or sell their entitlements and responsibilities awarded to them by the law. . . Reasoning. This article is meant to make sure only the Law acts . as the curtailer of actions, making it illegal that within the land . occur constrictions of freedom not based on the Constitution and . common interest. This law makes it easier to prosecute things like . slavery. It also makes it illegal to sell or lose certain personal . rights, such as the right to vote. If the law doesn't describe . it, it is assumed to be allowed by the Law, Police, Judges (as if . that isn't implicit). This article describes certain freedoms are . beyond reduction, particularly future decisions, the right to be a . decision-maker about your own life. This is a natural right, but law . could go against that in theory (and has done so in the past), so it . might be useful to explicitly not allow dictatorship through excessive . contracts made in the past. This is not intended to have consequences . for such contracts as marriage, which potentially are being made . by both parties fully equal, in the interest of possible children . (not slavery with one in power and the other without). The marriage . can probably not be kept good by law anyway, hence amending the law . to explicitly exclude marriage may not have useful consequences. It . may have negative ones, where certain marriages might degenerate . into legalized forms of slavery. The law also awards decision right . to children, which does not (is not intended to) imply parents have . no power over their children. This article leaves room for further . law to describe problems, as long as they are solved in the common . interest. A law that describes a certain punishment right for a parent . can imply that a child can not sue a parent, because the punishment . and therefore disallowing certain decisions of the child would have . been (presumably) a `law in the common interest.' It does require . that such a common interest law or decision will have to be made . somewhere flowing from Constitutional power/rights, otherwise such . a case could default to legal freedom as far as the Police/Judges . are concerned, in principle the child could sue the parent and win, . which is does not imply that that is therefore wrong. This problem . seems sensitive and weighing different interests (in favor of . the child, various and varying needs for freedom and discipline). . One way to look at it: is a baby fully a `(legal) person' ? If . that personality is diminished in stature (such as it is in a child . compared to a parent with respect to making decisions in this world), . the article can also apply in a proportionally diminished fashion ... . When someone is half way between adult/child, the competence of a . certain decision can therefore decide the level of freedom to it, . if there is no reason to deny it, then it is allowed, unless there . are other laws describing it in better detail. . . The requirement `common interest' means a legal protection for . people from erratic and self serving groups or pseudo-Government. . The responsibility to do punishment for a crime can not be sold. . . This article implies no law or decision has legal and Police pressure . behind it, unless it is in the common interest. This may protect the . Police from overzealous Government: the Police may sue against certain . decisions it feels are not common interest. That can dramatically . undercut the ability of a detached Government to abuse its Police . forces against the People, the Police is not a blind toy for the . Government to wield at will. Articles 1.4: State of Chaos _1.4.a King Rule The Electoral Committee declares a state of chaos when the Country is in Chaos, at which time the King takes over the Government and the making of non-Constitutional Law. The Electoral Committee can end the state of chaos at any time. The state of chaos lasts not longer then one year and one day, after which there is one month of normal Governmental rule. One month after the end of the state of chaos, new elections for the Electoral Committee are being held, unless the condition of Article 1.4.a-2, King Rule, Stability, has been met. See Article 3.1.c-1, Electoral Committee. See Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. . . Reasoning. The whole system as proposed here is highly bottom . up democracy. But when that fails, it has fails and results in . chaos. What then, since there is no top-down replacement. When there . is no top-down fall back, anything may happen. So in effect, this . system actual protects democracy in a state of chaos, by describing . what should happen during chaos. That in itself reduces chaos, and . sets the clock ticking for normalization. Since there can only be . a state of Chaos declared if there is actually "chaos," the Courts . will decide when there is doubt and a challenge raised to the Courts. . The Government can obviously enact common Laws that work this . problem out in more detail, giving Courts more structure. It may . be strange that there is a King who just has a tiny backing of . all People, King by virtue of being oldest. But since there is . a good chance there is but limited popularity, those Kings should be . less tempted to try its hand at despotism when it is not warranted. . `One year and one day,' why shouldn't a Constitution have some . poetic qualities ... puts things in perspective. _1.4.a-1 King Rule, Banner During the state of chaos, all the flags in possession of the Government are to fly a golden banner. . . Reasoning. Since `King Rule' changes everything, it seems . necessary to advertise the issue. The banner color also give . the People a chance to vote for `King Rule.' Naturally flying . the "want new Government" during `King Rule' negates `King Rule.' _1.4.a-2 King Rule, Stability When the same King is re-elected after a period of King Rule, then gets another period of King Rule within one year after that election, and after that second closely following period of King Rule is again elected King, then the obligation in Article 1.4.a, King Rule, to elect a new Electoral Committee after a period of King Rule is suspended until the King loses its Kingship. . . Reasoning. It is not useful to re-elect the same King every . year. When a King has proved itself and is re-elected twice after . King Rule, then it must be a good King. When a King sets a country . in order in one year, that is good and might earn it a re-election . as King at the end of it. When the EC needs to declare another . period of King Rule within one year, that could also reflect badly . on the King for not having set the country back to order before, . and hence prevent its third election. When it reflects badly . on the Government, and the People - growing tired with chaotic . Government - elect the same King for a third time, the EC may . declare continual King Rule periods of one year, with one month . normal Government periods in between. The EC may choose to go for . that heightened King power or not, by declaring a new period of . King rule within one year or after one year. When they wait more . then a year, the trigger is off. Once a King does not get automatic . elections after King Rule, there are still possibilities to get a . new EC. The King can not change the Constitution by itself, and . therefore does not control the election process of Government . delegates. These delegates can organize a referendum for a . new EC at least in the month when there is no King Rule. Maybe . there are other possibilities which depend on the courts, which . are established in the Constitution and can not be discontinued . by the King. . . The police is to be loyal to the Law, and Justice decides on the . Law, the highest authority in these matters of Constitutional power . would still be the Court. The powers of King are derived from the . Law. On the other hand, judges are appointed by the Government, . which means by the King during King Rule. All power ultimately . derives from the Constitutional law, and the general support it . has. Which cuts both ways: if there is strong loyalty to a King, . that will have to be reflected in how the Law is interpreted, . because the Constitution is based directly on support of the . People. But even King Rule is a situation of Rule of Law in the . country, supported by the Constitutional law. The King would be . nothing without the law giving the King its powers. But when . things do get out of hand with the King, sooner or later the . King will be gone one way or the other, and sooner or later . the condition for electing a new EC are met, and an election . can be held after a year, on a date set by the Government, see . Article 3.1.c-1.1, Electoral Committee, mandate. When things . totally get out of hand with the King, there may need to . be a full scale revolution to re-establish democracy under . the Constitution. Since the size of a country is only so big, . it may be possible to flee from the situation to other Nations. . It seems reasonably unlikely that a King will act strongly against . the laws that give it its power, but it is possible if the . King has a strong personal following. When the King does have . that kind of following, one may wonder whether this is not in . fact best for the Country. Democracy would already have proven to . be a failure for that Country at that time, though in the future it . might still come to work if there is more self-discipline and less . corruption. Both discipline and obedience to the law/Government . may be inspired by a period under a strong King (like a study).
Chapter 2: Structure of Individual Protections Articles 2.1: Individual Protections _2.1.a No Harm The human body can not be harmed. Not for the purpose of of extracting information (torture), or for the purpose of punishment, or any other purpose against the will of that particular human body (person). . . Reasoning. The human justice and investigative systems are . not perfect because they are not all knowing. For every . act of aggression, justice can demand retribution and . compensation. If a person is physically harmed in the process . of creating justice, it can become impossible to rectify . the aggression. The threat of being subjected as an innocent . person to state violence is a form of mass punishment on innocent . people, punishment without crime. Torture is punishment before . conviction, therefore punishment of innocent people. . There can be no death penalty because it violates these . principles, and because too little is known about death. _2.1.a-1 Compensation The People or in their absence the Government will set compensations in case of convicting innocent people. . . Reasoning. Innocent people are not to be locked up, and no . punishments implemented for which there exists no sufficient . compensation. _2.1.a-2 Animals Animals are not to be treated with cruelty. . . Reasoning. Cruelty is to inflict pain where this is not . necessary for any reasonable purpose to help the creature that . is suffering the pain. This is evil and needs to be outlawed, . although it is not strictly necessary to do so in a Constitution. _2.1.b Free speech People have the right to express any opinion they want. . . Reasoning. Without being able to speak freely (speaking, writing, . signing, etc), development of policies and understanding is unfairly . restrained. The right to speak freely is augmented with the natural . right to not listen and ignore the speaker. _2.1.b-1 No insult People have a right not to be repeatedly, apparently directly, apparently purposefully insulted in public areas, in a difficult way to escape. . . Reasoning. The `freedom of speech' can be abused beyond its use, . which is stimulating debate and opinion, to become `freedom to . insult' and `freedom for pestering.' This article aims to differentiate . between `writing a public letter in .5 mm high font and posting it . on the inside of your own window facing outward', and `playing a . tape with meaningless insults toward a certain population group all . day every day on the only road into town.' Clearly there is a . sliding scale between what is fruitful opinion and what is vengeful . insult, potentially different for speaker and listener. One may . also take the view that it is often better to ignore a singular insult, . which might even be taken as a provocation to make a legal case, . part of a pestering campaign, which may lead up to physical violence. . If an insult can be easily avoided from being received, then it . can be part of the duty of the receiver to try to avoid receiving it. . At least the limit here is set high, so that the behavior is . clearly "out of line" according to most people, and may be the verbal . provocations leading up to physical violence. Having all kinds of legal . cases about "insult" is too costly and has too little meaning to bother . with. If a person holds a long monologue about the "ills of whatever . group", and does not show up every day to do the exact some thing in . public, it is not repeatedly and possibly neither purposefully, and . therefore it fails to qualify. Written signs/messages that are visible . all the time do qualify for `repeatedly', if they contain otherwise . meaningless insults it is `apparently purposefully insulting', if in . a public place it is also `apparently directly,' and if the message . is in 1 meter high font on a road cumbersome to avoid it is also . `difficult to escape.' Then these signs should be taken down if . someone wins the legal case (if a government mechanism hasn't already . removed it). When someone goes walking through a town looking for . insulting messages to make a legal procedure, finding any can not . qualify because they aren't `difficult to escape' if one is looking . for them. It only qualifies if one encounters them during regular . activities. Detail issues what to do with postal services and such more . special problems can be solved in the `common laws' or by judges (`can . you escape it by not taking such a job if you are easily insulted', or . `are people not to insult (the group) a post-man (might belong to)'). _2.1.c Freedom of Assembly People are free to assemble themselves in organized groups. Groups who have as their aim the changing of the Government and/or society system in whatever way, can not be disbanded because of their ideas. . . Reasoning. Public democracy demands complete freedom of speech on . political matters. Ideas can not be criminal, only actions. Political . parties can be a motor for change, even though their ideas at first . seem reprehensible or even criminal to the majority. _2.1.d Property Right Your legal property can not be taken away from you. You can not take away the legal property of someone. . . Reasoning. Robbery is not allowed, when people own things legally, . this is essential for their life. People have to be secure in the . property that they earned, or why would they even bother working and . assembling anything. If people can't profit from their work, the . good who are productive are not rewarded, rather the bad that steal . it away without being productive are. This would be a long term threat . for society, causing degeneration. _2.1.e Privacy A person has a natural right to Privacy of his personal belongings, body and home. See also Article 3.2.b-4, Police and Privacy. . . Reasoning. It may happen that Government feels it wants to know . things, to be a more efficient Government or some other common interest. . It may then come into the temptation to demand access to private homes. . This article is to discourage that (making it illegal). This also . extends to other people: other people may not invade the privacy of . another's belongings and home. The word `natural' means to hint at . some `common-sense' regarding this: is the door to a home open, then . looking in is not illegal, but more or less `natural.' If the person . wanted to claim the privacy right, it would have closed the door. . Does an open door does not imply the right to walk through it ? These . kind of things depend on the nature of the situation: a shop, yes, . a home, probably not; but if it was open and one wanted to warn the . owner, the punishment could be much smaller or non-existent, etc. Articles 2.2: Justice _2.2.a Fair trial All people when sufficiently suspected of a crime are tried by an objective, impartial and competent judiciary. Equal cases are treated equally. In case of a public prosecutor, neither the prosecution or Judges know the defendant personally or have a direct relation with the defendant. In case of two claiming parties, the Judge knows neither personally or has a direct relation with either. Justice is done according to the published Laws that held on the moment the crime occurred. . . Reasoning. Need objective government system. The rule for Law . old law ruling old cases makes it impossible to pass a law and then . sentence people under it that could not know that what they did was . illegal because it was not illegal (long established principle of . Justice). `Equal cases ...' is copied from the current (2007) Dutch . Constitution. _2.2.a-1 Presumed innocent People suspected of crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty. . . Reasoning. Objectivity. _2.2.a-2 Equal pleading effort Someone suspected of crime has the right to plead its case at least for one and a half the amount of time as its accuser(s) are pleading. . . Reasoning. Objectivity. Trying to avoid convictions of innocent . people on prejudice. The additional time may wear down a prejudice, . provide breathing room for the opposite viewpoint. _2.2.a-3 Competent Defense Each person accused of a crime appearing before a Court is either represented or assisted by someone competent in the Law and evidence. This competent defense will attempt to make it appear that the accused person is not guilty. Judgement about guilt must be left completely in the hands of the Judge, to no extend is it the job of the defense. When the Judge believes the defense is significantly lacking in the quality of its defense under the Law, the Judge will resolve the matter after consultation with another Judge, until a competent defense and objective Justice is being provided. . . It may happen that someone who is defending someone else is . leaving an obvious argument unused, while the Judge is well aware . of the superior line of Law application. In such a case the accused . person is being taken in by incompetent defense, and the objectivity . of the Judge may be compromised to some extend. To regain the needed . objectivity and authority, the Judge consults the issue with another . Judge, and then proceeds in whatever way to correct the lacking . defense. This can be by notifying the defense of the insufficient . argument or by ruling a better quality defense assistent will be present. . To safeguard objectvity, the Judge who is now mingling with the defense, . can decide that a new Judge must hear the case. The prosecution may . also demand this, if it can make a case of Judge and defense mingling. . Such a procedural case can also be held in the Judge Court (court of . appeal). Since no trial can happen without competent defense, it is . implied one will be awarded at no cost if the accused person is unable . to provide competent defense. All people accused will have competent . defense present even if they don't want that, because (often) they . are overestimating their own competence under the Law, which may . inadvertently lead them to their own conviction. They could defend . themselves, as long as they do it competently. . . The defense is basically allowed to go against its own sense of what . is true. The defense in that sense is performing a stage act. That . is useful because while lying in defense, the defense may well be . saying the actual truth, and its own idea of the truth may well be . wrong. It is only for the Judge to make that decision. These are all . common principles of Law. _2.2.a-4 Observe Trial Trial proceedings can always be observed by anyone willing, unless vital interests of presumed victims or accused person(s) or witnesses would be significantly undermined beyond the court case, not including the potential of being mistaken as being guilty by the public, in which case the doors may be closed. Doors of a Court case can never be closed for someone who is a Law Court Judge (see Article 3.2.a-3, Law Court) or observers appointed directly by and reporting only to a Law Court Judge. . . Public trials are usually better then closed trials, but . the nature of certain crimes and the security of certain witnesses . and such issues may cause a certain trials to fail just because of . their open nature. It is impossible to predict the details of . future cases, therefore the issue is left to the Judges. But the . interest is on the side of the people appearing in court, closing . the court is not to be done in the interest of the Judges themselves, . since that has some danger of creating the dreaded `star chamber' . style of pseudo justice (a star chamber is a form military "justice" . which is known to be closed doors, and may not even allow the defendant . to defend itself or present evidence, the practice obviously not . being able to survive public scrutiny and still pass as a form of . Justice.) To have some oversight the Law Court Judges can observe . trials, both casually or extensively, to preserve the trust in . Justice. The doors can't be closed just because a defendant might . be thought of as guilty, because that would mean all cases could be . closed. To reconcile the innocence of an accused person and the . potentially erroneous ideas of a public, on the one hand the public . should learn, and on the other the defendant could prosecute for . damages through wrongful conviction. The right to observe a trial . does not imply the right to distribute that which has been observed. . This allows more common law around the issue of publication. . . When it comes to doors closing, I'm thinking about cases where . witnesses are heavily threatened by organized crime, or certain . scandalous acts against victims which they do not bear to reveal . unless the court is closed tight. Judging Law Court Judges without . such privilege means they have to be discharged first. _2.2.a-5 Trial not Punishment The proceedings of the trial may not themselves become a form of punishment, beyond a reasonable duty to work with the Judiciary as an innocent person, in the common interest. Persons who have previously been convicted and been to prison for a crime of greed, may be held in less comfortable environment during trial. A valid trial only occurs once with the same evidence. . . Reasoning. The rule that someone charged can only be accused . once is also a long established rule (of common sense), technical . law that judges can use to deny over-zealous prosecutors. The . "working with judiciary" may include being locked in when . suspected of a serious crime, such being locked in is "in the . common interest," since it is understood sometimes innocent people . will end up being locked in, later to be released, in order to . make catching and holding actual criminals possible. . . This locking in is then not to be a form of punishment, which . implies a (reasonable) extend of comfort, "as if innocent." That . comfort again "in the common interest" not extreme (since it costs . public money), yet close enough to reasonable living conditions . enjoyed by most people outside of prison, however excluding . possible luxuries like meeting people, if that presents a direct . threat to either the case of other criminal enterprises (in the . common interest). In practice this probably means: comfortable . bedding, chairs, media access, food, ability to buy things, a . certain amount of space and for instance a small kitchen area, . enclosed bath-room, sunlight. The kind of things an innocent . person would not find punishing, more or less the norm . (today). People who have prior convictions should be excluded . from these comforts, because the abuse of the comforts by a . criminal could degenerate these undeserved comforts themselves, . make them less then what they should be. In general that probably . means previous criminals will be locked up as during punishment, . or close enough (with some additional cell comforts) to such . conditions, that it does not cost too much money. This will make . sure people aren't committing crimes to get into the more luxurious . presumed-innocent holding areas. In theory the holding areas (not . the punishment cells, that would be unfair unequal punishment) . could reflect less well to do conditions for less well to do . people. If people are committing crimes just to get these benefits, . then the crime could be classified as "greed crime," denying further . access. Previously convicted and not cleared people can hardly be . really presumed as innocent, so why waste the money. The part of . the "greed" crime, means this rule does not apply to such things . as breaking things, writing on walls. This is to protect political . action. The usual hard crime is all greed crime (for profit), these . people will be affected. . . Other things are also implied by this article: the trial has to . be reasonably quick, because too long (without reasonable cause or . (perhaps) additional comforts) would become punishment. The state . of the accused person, whether it says it is being punished, . should be of concern to the process, including the Judge (to . prevent premature punishment), wrong doings in this department . can then lead to claims of (reasonable) damages. It will be . interesting to record how the people who actually were innocent . have experienced being locked in, so as to provide the term . "reasonable" with reasonable content. Testing the facilities is . the "work" the innocent are performing, for which they are then . payed in services/goods during their stay. _2.2.b Fair punishment People being punished to have their freedom of movement removed, have the right to ask for segregation from other such convicted people for the duration of the punishment. . . Reasoning. If someone innocent is convicted, such a person may want . to avoid all possible contact with actual criminals, so as not to . become a victim again. _2.2.b-1 Fair punishment, reading People convicted are never denied the right to read commonly available materials. . . Reasoning. Reading can prevent people from going crazy in prison, . and it can be a great help for innocent people. People can also . use reading for study, so as to become better. Commonly available . means they may be denied the right to receive letters and . doctored books, which may contain criminal communications. Articles 2.3: Additional rights for Children _2.3.a Right to be cared for A child which does no longer wish to live with its parents, is cared for by the Government. A child which wants to live with its parents, is released to the parents. A child has the right to know who its parents are and where they are. The government can not keep parents away from a child if that child does not want its parents to be kept away. The child in Government care does not pay, at any time, for the care it receives, but has the right to hold Government responsible to the same extend parents are responsible for their children, at any time. . . Reasoning. It seems difficult to make laws that protect children. . Laws that make sure only people get children that know each other and . that can get along sufficiently - behave like adults for most of the . time - how do you do that. How do you demand from people who are . behaving like spoiled little children with a bad attitude, that . they behave like adults for the sake of their children. How do you . force incompetent people to become competent. When you force people . to stay together, will they not vent their aggression on the children . even more. If marriage is demanded to get children, there is no way . to enforce it, and it does not solve the problem of extra marital . children. The only person in all this chaos with a clear interest . in seeing the children being brought up adequately, is the child . itself. When the child can leave its parents, the parents may have . an interest to behave at least somewhat within acceptable levels. . If they don't even want the child, it is better that it leaves also. . This set up reduces the risk that children get in even worse . conditions in government care - whatever that `government care' means, . it can be anything - because the children can get back. They have . a choice, and can therefore select the best option, that seems to be . in the interest of the children. The right to know who and where the . parents are, and disallowing the government to keep parents away . unless demanded by children, reduces the risk that governments . officials erect a barrier between child and parents, which could . prevent return of children to their real home. Parents could still . change their behavior. The government democracy should see to it that . the government provides adequate care. . . Some children may want to leave their parents not because their parents . are abusive, but for other reasons such as poverty or substance . abuse, chaos. In such cases an early investment in proper care for these . children could well prevent much larger costs for the People later . in life, so it is also economic sound policy to take good care of children. . With bad parents but proper care elsewhere, a child could change from . being setup to become a destroyed wreck to being a productive and happy . member of society.
Chapter 3: Structure of Government Articles 3.1: Structure of Government _3.1.a Government Intention The Government decisions are the accurate representation of the present will of the People. The task of the elected Government is to find out and carry out the will of the People. The elected delegates together attempt to steer the Government Majority into accordance with the will of the People, and avoid going against the present will of the People. . . Reasoning. A Government which acts against the wishes of the . people, is apparently a limited club of no real significance, that . infringes on the right to self determination of the People. . But if all delegates attempt to speak for the majority, new . opinions are lost. The delegates have a level of authority . granted to them by being elected, this should stimulate debate. . Such debates can function as part of augmenting public opinion . (see Article 3.1.a-1, Declare opinion), after which the opinion . of the People is consulted (see Article 3.1.e, Public Consultancy), . after which a decision is reached by Government Majority. This . decision can then be contested in Referendum by the People (see . Article 3.1.b, Referendum). . . See here for schematics of the proposed form of representative . Government: figures. _3.1.a-1 Declare opinion The elected delegates express their personal opinions of the moment regarding issues the Government is concerning itself with, or the area they concern themselves with in particular. . . Reasoning. Elected delegates are in a position to know a large . number of details, if for no other reason than that they create . these details, and work with them. The elected delegates follow the . will of the People, but the People need information and new ideas . from any and all sources, including present Government. When the . elected delegates communicate in this way with the People, give . opinion and then find out opinions to later make a decision, both . the will of the Government and the will of the People is absorbed . in the process. The People have the right and need to know what their . elected delegates are thinking, about any subject. _3.1.a-2 Task Accountability If a delegate or a representative elected to Government by the delegates, does not perform a clear and specific task it claimed to carry out after being elected, then the court of Justice will appoint someone most willing and sufficiently able to carry out the task in its place, using the same authority as the replaced representative. . . Reasoning. Representatives have a grand history of broken promises . to the public. That is undermining the essence of democracy. To . make honesty pay, dishonesty has to be punished immediately. If . someone says it will carry out a certain task, then this task is . to be carried out to the degree the representative has the power . to carry it out, whether that representative later changes its . mind or not. The representative can not be allowed to change its . mind on its promises because of the time and effort invested in . the election process. However, the carrying out of the promised . task should not become an procedural obligation under the law, . because at times situations might really have changed. Therefore . the task is to be taken over by someone else, which presumes . there is a someone else willing and able. The court will have to . decide when a representative has broken a promise, which presumes . there is a will to make something into a court case. It might . be more beautiful to go back to the people, but constantly going . back to the people is too much work. The people have already . spoken, so now its mandate is to be carried out to the degree . possible. . . When the task was merely to vote a certain way, a vote could . have happened before a court decision can replace a representative. . The vote result can be recomputed with the changed representative. . Any court cases should result in more detailed common laws about when . something is a `clear promise', etc. _3.1.b Referendum The People make direct decisions by way of referendum, voting of all willing people individually and directly. The number of abstentions is divided by the number of representatives in the body concerned with the referendum, each representative is allowed to add that number of votes to the option of its choice. The abstentions-adjusted result determines fractions with which options won votes in the total of votes. Decisions are made by majority of the votes that want at least a certain minimum decision, the greatest common denominator. Representatives can continuously change how their abstentions have voted. New representatives take over the power of representatives that have left the governing body when determining what abstentions have voted. Exception: see Article 3.1.c-1.1.1, Electoral Committee, mandate eject. Exception: see Article 1.2.a-1, New Territory. . . Reasoning. The majority of people is the moral and actual force . of a country, to formalize the rule of the majority prevents . unneeded armed conflict. . . The `abstention adding' trick diffuses the power of referendums for . which few people show to vote, then power reverts proportionally . to the representatives. This means that referendums are a way of . inter-mixing representative and direct democracy, proportionally . to the degree of abstentions. This process does not have the . potential group proxy-voting of the consultation-process, it is . more direct and has therefore more power. See also Article . 3.1.e-2, Public Consultancy, abstentions. The "at least a certain . minimum decision" means that for instance 30% of people want `A', 30% . wants `more A', and 40% wants B, that the decision should be `A', since . "60% wants at least A" (protection against divide-and-conquer). Such . things require some fair interpretation of results, this may eventually . need help from the Court of Justice. . . For power of referendum into the future, see Article 3.1.b-7.1, . Vote Decay. _3.1.b-1 Initiative Referendum The People can take the initiative to have a referendum, by showing signatures on a Petition for a percentage of the People. A percentage of local people for a local Referendum if the issue is local, a National percentage is the issue is National. The minimum percentage on a Petition to have a Referendum: ..[10%]. . . Reasoning. If the People can't take the initiative, a referendum . is a useless instrument when it is most useful: when Government . tries to go against the will of the People. _3.1.b-2 Scope Referendum, particular When a referendum on a particular issue breaks laws, the scope of the result of the referendum is limited to the decision made. . . Reasoning. When the People decide on a particular issue that . is not a law, no such law should be extrapolated from the . People's decision and be assumed to have been enacted by the . referendum. The People can make a particular exception to laws. _3.1.b-3 Scope Referendum, law When a referendum explicitly sets a new law, the new law can not be curtailed by any other non-Constitutional law or Government decisions. . . Reasoning. The People in the present are the ultimate source . of Power. Artificially limiting their power can only lead to . confusion and breakdown/distrust of Government. _3.1.b-4 Transparency All referendums are to be announced clearly in the same location, in generally understandable and sufficiently short language. . . Reasoning. When a referendum is to be held, all people must be . able to know about it. _3.1.b-5 Decision Repealed All decisions of Government can be repealed by the People at any and all times, about any and all decisions. . . Reasoning. If Government can make decisions that the People can . not undo, the People are not in power. In fact, the People always . have the power to undo decisions, this just formalizes their . inherent capability and moral right. _3.1.b-6 Representatives Repealed All members of Government, elected delegates and employees, can be ejected from their post any moment by the People using a Referendum. The People or in their absence the majority of elected delegates appoint a replacement. When it concerns a delegate, a replacement remains in its position at the pleasure of the People or in their absence the Government, until the next elections for the Government body it concerns. Voters thus deprived of representation remain deprived until the next elections. . . Reasoning. Government delegates and representatives have a tendency . to have a will of their own, contrary to either the will of the . People, and their earlier statements. This causes an interesting . situation: individuals which win the minimum number of votes to . become a delegate, can then be ejected nevertheless by the majority. . This way the People can rid themselves of certain influences, . without having to continuously watch every move certain delegates . make. With freedom of speech, the opinions of the removed delegates . are still available, debate is not stifled. The vote-block can not . rotate the replacement out of its position, this rule makes an . exception to such rules. _3.1.b-7 Authority The outcome of a referendum containing two thirds (2/3) of the People's - not abstention adjusted (see Article 3.1.b, Referendum) - vote for a particular choice, has the highest Authority, but it does not circumvent Constitutional duties required to change the Constitution (see Article 1.1.a, Power.) . . Reasoning. With two thirds, any war can be won. Prior decisions, . laws and otherwise, must be able to have a practical repealing . procedure. If a majority of 99% has been reached once, this should . not lock the future in place. This seems to present a conflict with . how the Constitution is to be changed, which requires a government . mandate length waiting period to protect the People from Government . manipulations on the Constitution. Solution would be that the . Referendum that wants to change the constitution can not even be . held within 4 years of it being announced, so that it would neither . be able to achieve a 2/3 majority. On the one hand this curtails . immediate power of the people, even if 2/3. This would leave the . people only a vague recourse through article Article 1.1.a, Power, . which would involve suspension of the entire Constitution by . overwhelming (2/3?) majority revolutionary direct action. After such . action the entire constitution plus change could be re-enacted. It . is highly doubtful such activity would be merited if one only has . to wait a mandate period for referendum. The waiting period ensures . that people can rest assured that the Constitution can't be suddenly . changed during a holiday, not even by 2/3 majority referendum. . . It can happen in theory that a referendum being held on whatever . issue, unexpectedly yields an explicit change of Constitutional law . with a 2/3 majority, while it was not such advertised and had no . waiting period, hence being invalid for Constitutional change. In . such case it is probably smart to try to explain within reason the . Constitution in such a way as to come closer to the referendum . result, and to alter policy and execution of the law to come closer . to the referendum result to the extend there is no conflict with the . Constitution. Then the formalities for proper Constitutional change . can be set in motion. _3.1.b-7.1 Vote Decay Referendums follow a rule of decay in time, so that their power eventually becomes nothing, but has a clearly defined power in the near future. . . Reasoning. When a referendum takes place and a decision is . reached, what if a smaller referendum shortly after results . in the opposite, and what is the relation of power between . referendum and representatives. This appears to be a formal . problem: how to count multiple mandates of power. Does a shortly . later referendum always count, or does a (much?) larger count. . How long do representatives have to wait until a referendum . decision can be changed: never, immediately ? Because . representatives can continuously change how the abstentions have . voted and the vote is continuously decaying, power over the . concerning subject will slowly revert back in time to the . representative body completely, unless a larger referendum is . again held. See Article 3.1.b, Referendum. . This way the formality of where power is, is clear, it can . (in theory) be computed, at least gives a principle for how . to decide. The rule-of-decay is specified in article Article . 3.1.b-7.1.1, Vote Decay, speed. _3.1.b-7.1.1 Vote Decay, speed Referendums lose present-day power with the same speed that people on average die. . . Reasoning. When people die, their power is gone. . Decisions made in referendum will not have infinite . power into the future, although they would have a precisely . defined power in the near future, always becoming less. _3.1.b-7.1.2 Vote Decay, addition Referendums on the same issue but different in time have their numbers not added together, but the largest decay adjusted count of people in favor of a certain choice, retains the monopoly of the present-day count, the lesser absolute count majority being ignored, unless the condition of article Article 3.1.b-7, Authority has been met. . . Reasoning. If a large referendum has a certain outcome, . many small new referendums in obscurity are not to eventually . degrade it. If a referendum at some point reaches a 70% . majority vote on something, while shortly previous there was . a 100% majority vote on a related issue, then the 70% takes . precedence as if it were a referendum on a new subject, because . it has reached the 2/3rd majority. This makes sure that it is . still possible to make necessary changes/adjustments, even . if extremely large majorities have been reached. Such violent . changes in public opinion may be due to dramatically changed . circumstances, or because the subject and/or decision was not . contradictory with the previous decision, or on the same . subject, it might only appear that it was. Once a 2/3 . majority for a certain option (not total turn-out, but total . for one minimum choice) has been reached, numerical comparison . with other referendums is not necessary anymore. _3.1.c Electing Government Delegates are elected every ..[5]. years. . . Reasoning. If the Government can be repealed by the People, directly, . indirectly, or if it crosses the consultancy process too often, . individually or in whole, it may not be too problematic to have a . Government in power for some years. They will have a hard time to . go against the People already, every step of the way. . See also Article 3.1.c-5.1, Delegate Compensation. _3.1.c-1 Electoral Committee Elections are ordered to occur at a date set by the Electoral Committee. . . Reasoning. The Government may not wish to go, it would be better . if a group can order elections who are outside the Government . hierarchy, and can act independently. The Government can be a . group with a strong entrenched interests when it comes to . re-elections. To give the Electoral Committee a little muscle . flexing which it may need in time of crisis, it orders every . Election, whether the People or the Government ask for it. . The Electoral Committee is not involved in the proceedings, in . order to keep its task as clean and limited as possible. . Anyone should be able to be in the Electoral Committee. _3.1.c-1.1 Electoral Committee, mandate The Electoral Committee is always elected in whole, unless a two third majority Referendum as defined in Article 3.1.b-7, Authority overrides this rule to replace selected members. Each voter votes for one person. Each person who gathers votes, but is not in the top 10, has the opportunity to award all its votes to one person in the top 10; these votes can not be sold or bought. The person who then has most votes in the Electoral Committee is allowed to award the votes that it has in excess of a majority over the person who has second most votes, to anyone, whether already standing in the Electoral Committee elections, or not; these votes can not be sold or bought. After this, the 10 persons with most votes comprise the Electoral Committee. The number of members is minimum 6 and normally 10. The Electoral Committee reaches its normal strength at least once every 30 years, through elections. When it has less then 6 members, there are- immediate Electoral Committee elections. See Article 3.1.c-1.1.1, Electoral Committee, mandate eject, for re-election before the mandate period is over. . . Reasoning. In order for the Electoral Committee to order new . elections, potentially in defiance of the elected Government, . it needs its own direct mandate from the People. To relief the . burden of electing this routine body, it is only elected when . needed. Officials can always be ejected through Referendum, . 2/3rd in this case though, or re-election of the whole EC. . The body can have a normal strength of 10. If however someone . resigns, the body would suddenly become inoperable if it . has to have 10 members. This can be a problem in itself, . or require quick new elections. If the strength of the body . can fall, electing new Committee members can take place at a . later convenient time, such as during other elections . (more efficient). By electing the Electoral Committee as . one group, there is less chance of electing someone who . is "entertaining" in stead of voting for someone who is . "capable" in the position of King Elect, see Article . 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. . . The reason to only have elections to replenish the EC only after . 30 years after its number drops from 10, is not to shake the . EC unnecessarily. There really is no good reason to have EC . elections, until the principle of the EC is starting to degrade . itself. . . If an older then the King person is number 8 in the EC elections, . and the King has 30% votes in excess above number 2, while the . persons number 8, 9 and 10 combined have total 5%, the King is in . a position to choose (more then) 3 other people in the EC with its . 30% excess. This also means that if there is a neck to neck race . for first place, the winner may only have 1% leverage left, and is . unable to change the outcome much. When 2 struggle head to head, . a third may win. That is a good mechanism, reducing resentment . between large sections. In the end they could be together again, . in their mutual loss, good for stability. The excess-vote power . of the winner is to not make a campaign needlessly complicated, . with math to determine how many younger applicants you need to . support without losing your top position, in order to maximize . your chance of becoming King. Another interesting point with this . election system is that if someone young wins the election and has . more excess votes over number 2 then the person with least votes . in the EC, the winner can appoint a King by awarding its excess . votes to someone who would become oldest in the EC. . . This complicated elect system should make the EC elections and . therefore King elections an interesting business. It does reflect . popularity, but it also reflects seniority. It potentially . punishes a close rivalry for most popular position, reducing . leverage to push out senior candidates for King, while you . can also get into the EC by winning a 2/3rd referendum. But . even then you still need seniority in the EC before you can be . King. Since it is so subtle and dependent, it is more likely . that people will say "alas, he/she won, he/she is King!, those . are the rules of the game," and stop bickering over popularity . contests and what might and who deceived who, etc. It could be . exciting to see the election of the EC and therefore Kingship. . Even the tiniest minority stands a chance with its candidate: . if it has seniority, many votes are tied up in other candidates, . and if numbers one and two are close. Then in theory a . person could be King based on one vote and seniority (theoretical . possibility). It can also be King by being appointed in the . EC by the election winner, and having seniority. In any case, . changes can still be made through 2/3rd ejection referendum . later. Because the EC election may tip any way, it is hard to . predict. It seems likely there will be old persons in the EC, . because they would like to get seniority and be King, or be . second in line and such. . . Rules for electing the EC and King are probably the most complicated . rules in this Constitution. If it is too complicated or does not . work well, you could switch to the most popular in the EC . elections, or `the most popular aged over 30, 40, 50, ...' etc. . Another interesting one is a lottery between the 10 EC members, . however there may always be doubts as to whether such a lottery . was done honestly, or if it was rigged; that would be hard to . determine for almost everyone. _3.1.c-1.1.1 Electoral Committee, mandate eject To eject one or more members of the Electoral Committee, a Referendum to eject, replace, or re-elect has to have more votes for change which are not compensated by votes against ejection, replacement or re-election, then the time adjusted - time adjusted as defined in Article 3.1.b-7.1, Vote Decay - value of the total of votes for all currently elected members of the Electoral Committee. It also has to have more votes then a previous such Referendum (time ajdusted.) When this condition is met, the entire Electoral Committee is re-elected, unless the condition of Article 3.1.b-7, Authority has also been met, in which case the outcome of the Referendum is to be carried out. The Government has no vote in the Electoral Committee re-election Referendum, it does not fill the abstentions, an exception to Article 3.1.b, Referendum. See also Article 3.1.c-1.1, Electoral Committee, mandate. . . Reasoning. These rules are starting to get a little . complicated. The idea is that the Electoral Committee (EC) is . usually elected in whole. When there are 60% of `A' people, . 20% `B', 10% `C' and 5% `D', electing/replacing each member . individually means that the entire EC will only have `A' . people, since they always have the majority. When electing . them all together, you have a high chance that there will be . `B', `C' and `D' (etc) people as well, which means the EC is . has more connections to different parts of society. The `A' . people, if they play it smart, can still get 3 members . elected if they spread their numbers, but sooner or later . their leverage runs out, giving someone else a chance to be . represented in the EC. Since there is no time-table for EC . elections, they are either spontaneous through Referendum, . or when someone steps down or drops out for some reason. . The election threshold is for similar reasons as the normal . Referendum threshold: to prevent small groups from making . trouble, prevent them the capability of forcing the majority . to mobilize again. . . Since re-election is always an immediate possibility, the . King has an interest to maintain some kind of popularity . all the time, and one EC member can step down to force . re-election of the King as well; see Article 3.1.c-1.8, King . Elect. The 2/3rd majority can force election of a . King, by replacing someone in the EC with someone who . would be oldest (who is removed?). The EC members are not . necessarily called "delegate," articles about "delegates" . do not necessarily hold for them, such as that "delegates" . can be replaced by their "voter block." _3.1.c-1.2 Electoral Committee, vote The Electoral Committee decides by majority vote, always a majority of 10. At least 6 members must support the decision. When no majority can be reached, new elections are assumed to have been ordered. The vote is public. . . Reasoning. A 10 headed body should be enough. It is little use . to elect people if you don't know what they are voting. _3.1.c-1.3 Electoral Committee, sovereign The Electoral Committee does not order new elections if neither the Government nor the People seem to want it. Its decision to order new elections can not be repealed however, neither by the Government or the People, and not by removing the Electoral Committee members from their position. When in doubt on the wishes of the People, the Electoral Committee calls for new Elections. . . Reasoning. If the Government is breaking into the means with . which the People express their opinion, it may become impossible . to rely on Referendum or other means to get the opinion of . the People. Therefore the Electoral Committee has the right to . ignore all input, and order new elections. The worst that can . happen is some wasted energy and a new mandated Government, . perhaps along with a new Electoral Committee. If, however, the . People want a new Government but can't get one because of . procedures not in their control (meaning it would need a full . scale revolution), such a Government can do a lot of damage, . far greater then the cost of a premature election. Premature . election can't do much real damage. _3.1.c-1.4 Electoral Committee, free Electoral Committee members have no other obligations to the Government, are not employed by the Government. Exception: Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. . . Reasoning. Electoral Committee must operate independently from . Government. Therefore the members can not have jobs with the . Government. _3.1.c-1.5 Electoral Committee, salary Electoral Committee members receive one month salary per year, as defined in Article 3.1.c-5, Salary. Exception: Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. . . Reasoning. In order to be independent from Government (see Article . 3.1.c-1.4, Electoral Committee, free, the salary has to be defined . elsewhere. A salary also means the members have one more reason . to be on the Committee, and hence please voters to not eject them. _3.1.c-1.6 Electoral Committee, immunity The members of the Electoral Committee can not be interfered with in performing their Electoral Committee duty by the Government, the Police, the Justice system, or other Government agencies, etc. . . Reasoning. Protecting the Electoral Committee from rude . Government tactics. Even if Electoral Committee members are . in jail for real or false reasons, they still must be able . to attend meeting of the E.C., and vote freely. _3.1.c-1.7 Police Loyalty Every individual policeman is directly Loyal to the Electoral Committee when it can concern the duties for which the Electoral Committee exists: such as ordering elections, changing Government through elections. . . Reasoning. Saying the government must go is one thing, having it . removed could on occasion be another. No doubt some excuse would . be in play. In case such a problem comes up, it will be good if . the police know where to put their loyalty, if they want to serve . the People. The worst that can happen is a premature election. It . doesn't begin to compare with the damage a Government is able . to inflict. With strong and explicit language in place, Government . is more likely not to even attempt frustrating the Electoral . Committee. _3.1.c-1.8 King Elect The oldest electoral Committee member is crowned after three months the King or Queen, Head of State. The day of a new King is a National Holiday when only emergency workers work. See also Article 1.4.a, King Rule. . . Reasoning. In the interest of practicality, it may just be . too difficult to have a nation that does not have one personal . focal point. Politicians may work together, but are also . each others adversaries. Where does one go if a matter is not . judicial, but one feels it to be of the highest importance ? . Where does the nation look when things are falling apart ? . If politicians are bickering between them, it can be helpful to . have at least one system that all pull on but that can not be . divided because it is one person, a person that has a personal . stake in the functioning of the nation because of its income . (level) is depending on it. If this person is already as rich as . possible, it makes no point for this person to seek more wealth. . It could be interested in seeking a properly functioning society . so that this wealth is maintained into the future. This is how . wealth based kingship works. Therefore the wealth of the King . follows the average-wealth, so that how hard the nation in . total is working is directly reflected in the income of the . King. This means the King has an interest in that everyone . work and is as productive as possible. . . The King / Queen can talk to the People using its wealth, and . can use its wealth to employ. The King is constraint by the . possibility of losing its position to someone else, therefore it . is not necessary to force the King into some kind of function by . law. Since the King is the oldest of ten, there is less chance the . King will be someone who the people see as entertaining rather . then capable. Someone who is older is more likely to have some . capabilities. The King is an emergency system, in principle it does . nothing, but if it has to it does everything that the Government . normally does. It has the power to do certain inspections, but . it is not required to do them at all. A well functioning system . of society would never need Royal Inspection, and the King may . well spend its days in quiet luxury. This is not in the . slightest a problem for a country, because the King is but one . person. Wealth and `the rich' are only a big problem, when there . are so many of them. When 5% of the people is seriously rich, . the other 95% have to support all that, and it is a large burden. . In the past Kings may have gathered to themselves palaces and . the rich, making the total burden also quite high, and unchecked. . This King here has a defined wealth of, taking a Capital maximum . per person of 30 times average, 160 (4 x 30 + 30 + 30 / 3) times . (see Article 8.2.a-8, Capital Monopoly), the wealth of an average . person. Added to that 100 persons for defense, so that would . make at maximum 260 times average. That is practically nothing . when spread out amongst the shoulders of an entire nation. In . a nation of 30 million people, every person supports the . King 260/30*10^6 = 0.00087% of average wealth, and the rich . pay most of that because of progressive taxes Article 8.2.a-2, . Equality of happiness. On a yearly income of 15.000 units, . 0.00087% means 13 cents per year. If 1% of the people had 30 times . average wealth (more then 8 times less then this King), then the . total burden would be 1% = 300.000 persons times 30 times average = . 9 Million times average wealth. Spreading 9 Million times average . over 30 Million people = 30% per person. For 15.000 units, that . means 4500 units, more then 3 month' wages. That is a lot more . expensive then the 13 cents for one much richer King. In the past . the King might have taxed everyone, and supported a rich layer . with that money. This King does not have such powers, at least . not normally when democracy functions (see Article 1.4.a, King . Rule). Conclusion: the wealth of this King is irrelevant on . a National scale, as long as there is only one King, and there . is only one. . . It's actions and what it can do for the Nation may not be . irrelevant, the King may reduce corruption and safe the Nation . from disintegration if that threatens. The profit in that, if . done right, might be the total of the economy, and many lives . saved. Why does the King need wealth at all: to give it a strong . reason to keep the Country in order, when too few other people . are so bothered. To give it some level of independence, to make . it less vulnerable to being corrupted, to make it grateful for . the Nation so that it will be there like the Nation has been . there for the King. . . The King is allowed to own more then any other, and it will control . more immediately, then any rich person in the Country. This is . to humble the rich, and put the King above them all. The oldest . EC member is not immediately King or Queen, the People have a . 3 months period to elect another King or Queen. If they don't, . they accept the situation by default. The day of a new King is a . National Holiday, to make it known there is a King to everyone, . and to rehearse the conditions of `King Rule,' since on the . National Holiday everyone is in a way falling in line for the . King for one time. Making it an obligation by Law to not work, . means everyone can safely stop and not worry the competition . gets ahead in the mean time. It can also be a form of discipline, . this time on the Country and People. Maybe the emergency people . can get a free dinner and an extra free days later, to thank . them. Becoming King is probably work for the King too, and the . King is an emergency worker. . . It might be feasible to have a Nation without a King or head . of state. This could be attempted, it would not undermine the . Constitution in principle. I just don't think it is feasible, . but maybe it is, or maybe one day it would be. One could of . course always add or remove the office of King. _3.1.c-1.8.1 Duty of the King The King or Queen will write with the hand, in the morning, one Law of the Constitution, such as this Law `Duty of the King,' until one full copy of this Constitution is completed. Then, when the evening comes, the King or Queen will write their version of the Law of the Constitution that they wrote in the morning, at least different in words, but optionally different in meaning as well. The King may choose one day in the week for resting. . . Reasoning. I think it is an excellent idea to have the . King copy the essential Law. It makes the King know the . law, it makes sure the Law is every so often closely . inspected - every time a new King is elected. With essential . knowledge of Law, the King or Queen can better fulfill its . inspection if it decides to, without being bothered too . much with common law. This way the King may uphold the . Constitution above the common law, and may alert the nation . about problems within the Constitution, or suggest better . ways of formulation. The copying of the law would certainly . give the King some idea what the country is about, where his . income and power comes from. It may give the new King something . to hold on to, some discipline, when all other duties suddenly . disappear. The people may be pleased to know that their high . payed King is doing something. The King would only need to . copy the Articles themselves, not the commentary. (This . idea originates from the Books of Moses: 5.17:14-20.) The . King or Queen is to write in the morning, before noon when . the mind is fresh and an entire day remains in which the . King may (or may not) think about the article copied. This . also should give the King a sense of satisfaction for the . rest of the day. . . The King will then write near the evening a law, regarding . the similar issue, but their version of it. This version . would be creative, and when someone is creative it can . become quite clear what kind of person he or she is. This . way nobody can hide themselves. At the same time, it gives . a way for the King to suggest changes to the Constitution, . assuming the King has already some thoughts on the subject, . perhaps during the day. The King could also decide certain . laws should be scrapped, or if entire chapters should be . added. All the different copies of the Constitution could be . interesting study material whenever disputes on the . Constitution arise, since when a King Elect writes a rule, . it has some democratic merit, whatever it is, some material . to discuss. The copying preserves meaning against the drift . in word meaning that occurs in most languages over time. _3.1.c-1.8.2 Sovereign Inspector The Elected King or Queen has total and immediate access to all Government and Private Company places and information, from the time the King has completed its hand written copy of the Constitution, to the time a new King or Queen has been Elected. The King receives the Insignia of Sovereign Inspector after completing its Constitution copies, see Article 3.1.c-1.8.1, Duty of the King. The King exalts Emissaries Of The King by allowing to carry the Insignia of Emissary Of The King. The Emissaries of the King exercise the access of the King on its behalf. Any economic damage that might have occurred because of an inspection by the King or its Emissaries is reimbursed by the Government. . . Reasoning. It seems useful to allow both the nation some . time to adjust to a possible inspection by a new person. . During that time the King or Queen can prove it is worthy . of the privilege (whether it is being used or not) by . becoming knowledgeable in the Law, and it can become aware . of what it is to do with the privilege, if anything. The . people can vote a new King or Queen into power when they . lose confidence, before the King or Queen would have gained . significant privilege. The King or Queen can be the eyes of . the People, able to see everything, without significant danger . to damaging privacy or other relevant secrecy. The King or . Queen has no executive power, therefore it poses no threat . itself, in contrast to historical Kings and Queens, who . concentrated many kinds of power within themselves: inspection, . law making, law enforcement, management, etc. This King or . Queen is more of a safeguard against tyranny. The King . can inspect the Government but not private businesses or . individual homes. Rather then inspecting the People, he is the . magical commoner's friend, keeping an eye on Government . (if it wants to, that is, there is absolutely no obligation). . Since the King is one person, the People are in a position . to keep track of the King, so while the Government inspects . the People, and the Government (and economy) are inspected by . the King, the People see what the King or Queen does; the . circle is complete and should function. . . The King should have some kind of `magic access key,' so . that it can open anything and can be identified, even if . just symbolically (see figure). As a security measure, so . that not just anyone can be mistaken for the rightful . King. Certainly anything can be copied, but that has always . been the case, symbols can be updated to stay ahead of the . counterfeits. Bracelets seem less old fashioned then crowns, . and are a nice depiction of access while maintaining both . hands ready for inspection and tossing whatever needed. The . King could also carry its hand-written Constitution, to prove . his identity further, and to be able to check the laws of the . Nation if there is a need for it. Presumably only the present . King has access to the Symbols and that Constitution copy. I . think it is a nice thing for a King to wear these bracelets . when on inspection or otherwise in function, because it . signals that it is not just some person who got its hand on . some privileges. It means it is a person in function as part . of the system of the Constitution and society. Problems in . behavior or the rules themselves aren't to be directed to this . person, but to its function. The bracelets are there to protect . the King as a person, to absorb the discontent and possible . jealousy or other such issues. It is the King (on inspection), . accept it with grace, all other issues are subordinate and . you can take it up with the Constitution or the People later, . not with the King itself. This issue is related to the dress . of the Judges. No dress code exists for delegates, as they . are subjective and personally popular, they are personally . responsible. I suggest to make the Symbols beautiful, with . lots of detail: harder to forge and nicer to wear. Not some . sawn of pipe of aluminum with the name of the country scratched . into it. It got to have a little beauty and work to it, so as . not to reflect badly on the office of King. Whether the King . wants to wear a Crown or sit on an actual throne instead of . wearing bracelets or a necklace etc, or all at once, this can . be decided per Country or per King. The King is obviously free . not to wear Symbols, it is the King so it does what it wants. . . The Emissaries are a necessary component to the power of . the King, because it would be impossible to single . handedly inspect an entire nation even if one wanted to . and had swift and complete access to everything; because . it is safer for the King to be able to send others, which . means the inspections may be carried out with less regard . for personal safety; because multiplying the King means . criminals can not track and evade the King as effectively. . It says that "the King exalts," which states a possible . procedure. The King may use its Emissary power, for instance, . in a case where corruption has come to light, or where someone . is alerting the authorities or the King of corruption. The . King could exalt this person as Emissary, giving it total . and immediate access to obtain any and all information. . Whether this turns out right in a particular case, ultimately . reflects on the King. The King may also send another . Emissary, and invite a whistle blower as an adviser, or do . it itself. . . It is relevant not to reward the King or Queen too much or . at all for becoming Sovereign Inspector, because if one . rewards significantly, this would be a distraction when . writing the Law. It will be impossible to think clearly . and freely about the law, when you know that afterwards . you are rewarded with wealth or luxury privilege. The . 3 month delay for becoming King is there to make sure the . right person becomes King, but once the King is King, it . better have all the privileges that can count as luxury. . The privilege of `Sovereign Inspector' is not a luxury . privilege, using it means working and doing good. This . would therefore not be a negative distraction when writing . the Law, but a positive distraction. _3.1.c-1.8.3 Speaking to the King No person speaks to the King bearing Insignia, without the permission of the King. No person denies the King bearing insignia, its rightful immediate access. Whomsoever insults the King in either of these two ways, has attacked the Nation. Such as who get in the way of the pleasure of the King, are thrown in jail on tasteless food and water for one month. . . Reasoning. The King is one person, the King is to be . protected with all possible might. There is no reasonable way . how a single person can inspect an entire nation, without . there being strong laws that protect behavior toward the . King. What should happen otherwise, when the King wants to . inspect something for reasons only known to the King perhaps, . and people dare start dragging their feet, even threatening . the inspector ? It is better to have people tremble in fear . of jail if they utter one wrong word, since the King has an . entire nation to inspect and no time to play games. There is . only one King, and hence behaving well for once should not . be too hard or too much of a burden. The only reason that . the punishment is not crushing the scoundrel on the spot is . that this crosses other principles, and the only reason the . punishment is not eternal banishment from the Country, is . that such severe punishment could come back to threaten the . King again. One month on bread and water is enough to make . a person regret its act and be out of the way of inspection . for long enough, but should not be enough to build up a . lasting grudge or be seen as some kind of extreme punishment. . . What should the punishment be if someone burns the files . of all delegates of the Country Council ? A slap on the . wrist ? No. What is the punishment for preventing the Police . to catch a criminal ? Making the work of the King more . difficult then it should be is similar, it prevents the . King from inspecting as much, and therefore finding what . it is designed to find. Whatever it then misses, that is . the extend of the crime in principle. Making the King feel . threatened, makes the King potentially miss even more. The . point is not that the King would always find something, . the point is that it on occasion might and always could, . its effectiveness is also to scare would be criminals, . who are otherwise quite hard to control, as they are the . control element in society themselves. This effectiveness . also depends on its speed. To re-iterate though: the King . has no duty to inspect. But it could have been part of the . platform on which it is elected. If the King puts down its . insignia, it can get back to normal life, giving it more . freedom. Remember that the King is the only person in the . system, who represents as one person, one entire branch of . the system. It is like all Judges or all delegates. . . Presumably the Emissaries are similarly protected, although . perhaps a little less harsh and more explicitly when `access' . is being denied or hampered more significantly. _3.1.c-1.8.4 Protect the Throne The present King may buy out a person standing for Electoral Committee membership election. Once that person has accepted the sale, this person will not stand in that election. . . Reasoning. People who can be bought may not be good . anyway, so why bother. It seems useful to make the rule . explicit, since it otherwise is too much like a bribe, . and would probably be interpreted as corruption. _3.1.c-1.8.5 Protect the King The King or Queen may choose up to 100 persons, either willing or from the army, that will protect the King, wherever it is or needs to be. . . Reasoning. It is all well and good to have laws that . say the King may do this and that. But when it comes to . it, and the King knocks on the door, it will be more . efficient if there are 100 persons heavily armed and . trained, to effectuate whatever rules there are, immediately. . This may protect people who think they can defy the King, . since while trembling with fear they will think twice . before making themselves guilty of a crime. Let them . tremble in fear for their King, let them know that they . can not defy their King as far as its lawful activities . are concerned, that is more efficient. The inspection . activities of the King are particularly targeted to that . which can not (apparently) inspect itself, such as . malfunctioning government or internal-police corruption. . When the King is up against state corruption itself, it is . useful that it has at least some fire power at its disposal. . Protection of the King extends to the emissaries, since . the protection is meant especially for inspecting, and the . Emissaries are there to make that job safer for the King. . These 100 persons are additional to the wealth awarded to . the King. _3.1.c-1.8.6 End of Reign The King's office can be removed by a Two Third Referendum majority. If in 130 years, the King has not needed to come into action to save the Nation, the last King will complete its reign and then the office of King will become dormant. . . Reasoning. When it is not needed, why keep it. What . exactly `dormant' means is unspecified, perhaps it just . means removal of privileges and duties, but would still . technically be head of state, or perhaps not even that. . One reason to have the country without a King, is that . if it works, it would give a greater sense of freedom. . When the King is removed, the democracy would become . fully bottom-up with nothing to hold on to, no stationary . light to coordinate and navigate by. The Nation would . be held up only by a network of powers invested in varies . people. If in 130 years the King has not needed to do . something significant, there is a good chance it works. . The People/Government could certainly invest the inspection . power of the King somewhere else, or re-invest it in the . oldest EC member, through common law. _3.1.c-1.8.7 Start of Reign A Referendum majority can start up the King's office. . . Reasoning. When it is needed, start it. Now the . Constitution can be set in either without King or with . King mode when it is first being used. Referendum as in . how it is run normally, so with abstentions filled in, . see Article 3.1.b, Referendum. _3.1.c-1.8.8 King Income The Head of State, King or Queen, receives a monthly income an equal amount of times the average monthly income as the amount of times for maximum wealth in Article 8.2.a-8, Capital Monopoly. It is also awarded the use of wealth no less then four (4) times the Constitutional maximum, payed for by the Government, which is not counted as personal wealth. The King or Queen may privately own one third more then allowed for non Royalty, until its death and regardless of Royal status. . . Reasoning. See Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. _3.1.c-1.8.9 King Election, fraud From the start of the day of a new King, any procedural errors or fraud in electing the Electoral Committee are only punishable to the perpetrators, and do no longer influence in any way the authority of the result. Persons who intentionally claim to have a significantly different age then their true age are retired from the Electoral Committee. . . Reasoning. Is meant to undermine attempts by (cunning) . people, who intentionally commit fraud and then let this be . known, in an effort to undermine the authority of the King. . I suggest such people be punished severely, for instance . putting them on tasteless food for one year, and taking from . them all their possessions except the legal minimum everyone . has, potentially banishing them from the Nation. This show of . outrage would help the authority of the King despite a . questionable procedure. In this case: there is no way of . knowing for absolutely certain what other voters would have . done, had there been no fraud; things may well have gone . different, with the same end result. The law here says: we . should assume that things would have gone differently with . the same result, because if not, we're undermining the . King stability, which is bad because the King is meant . to provide it. It has to be taken out on the perpetrators, . assuming that's not the King or EC members themselves, to . compensate that it can't be taken out on the idea that another . person might have been King or EC members. Severe punishment . would in turn deter potential fraud. This fraud classifies . as an attack on the King, and therefore on the Nation, which . makes banishment a fitting kind of punishment (after the year . on water and dry bread - health permitting). If the King itself . or EC members themselves have committed fraud, it will be a . problematic case for the supreme law court. In such a case, . if proven beyond doubt, there can be no question that the . King and EC members have to be removed from office, so as not . to tarnish the office of King. A guilty King is even worse then . a tarnished King, the office of King being above the King: . because the Law creates the office, and the Constitutional Law . is above the King. However, given a grand demand for King rule . of that particular King, the will of the People may even go . above the Law, because that is the Law per the first article: . see Article 1.1.a, Power. This is to protect the People . from a detached judiciary, conspiring against the particular . King. It is this kind of potentially problematic decisions that . means the supreme Law Court (see Article 3.2.a-3.5, Supreme Law . Court) will probably assume jurisdiction in the case. Above . that jurisdiction stands, predictably, the actions of the . Majority of the People, which are conditions beyond any . law, though legalized under this Constitution, even if it . is not capable of making it illegal. ``Punishable to the . perpetrators'' gives room to demote a EC member or King, as . that would be a punishment. This would also conform to the . rule that liars are retired from Government: see Article . 3.1.c-3, Public Government. _3.1.c-2 Decisions The elected Government comprises delegates who decide by majority, unless the condition of Article 1.4.a, King Rule has been met. . . Reasoning. The Government can have all kinds of forms, but it . should not be `winner takes all' because this has proved to be . a system that breeds a closed government controlled by only . one centrist party, preventing new groups from entering. _3.1.c-3 Public Government All proceedings of Government are public. Elected officials who keep secrets from the Public are guilty of treason and are retired from Government. . . Reasoning. If they are not public, the Government is not democratic, . but acts as a club of privileged people pretending to form a . government. Secret Government is hard to defeat, it should therefore . carry heavy penalties. _3.1.c-3.1 Public Government, finance All movements of money and the reasoning for that movement by financial service groups (see Article 8.2.a-5, Investment service group) are published and readily accessible to the public, including the amount, the recipient and the origin. . . Reasoning. The public needs casual and continual updated information . about all financial acts of the government, unless the amount of . money is not significant and would therefore needlessly harm a . person's privacy. Seeing these financial acts and their reasoning . provides the public with a way to verify what the government is . doing. The information needs to be published continuously, so that . interested researchers can look into the acts of government without . the government knowing whether someone is investigating. The . "movements of money" regarding housekeeping of the service group . itself (coffee/tea, etc) does not need to be published. These . payments can be routed through the Government housekeeping system, . and therefore not be regarded as by the finance service group. . This also establishes a wall between these types of payments. _3.1.c-4 Structure The elected delegates elect a smaller Council from between them, if their number is impractically large. That smaller Council does not again elect a yet smaller group of leaders. . . Reasoning. To elect many delegates means the delegates can have . close ties with their constituency, but means that the size of . the Government can become impractically large. For practical reasons . it will have to be trimmed. However once a group of practical size . has been reached, they can make decisions through debate and voting, . overseen by their housekeeper who maintains discipline. That is . enough, it should work. The person who chairs the meeting fulfills . the role of the single focus already, there is no need to contract . government into yet fewer persons for discipline and coherency. . The danger is that a few people may try to pull in all the power in . the council, by suggesting they are to become the official leaders. . Instead the best suggestions are to be the leaders, and if someone . is capable, then its proposals would simply make it more often . then those of others. If delegates choose not to show up at meetings, . the council would become smaller. That is not the same thing as . electing leaders in the council, if delegates are not interested . then let them stay away. This way the Council would react dynamically . to the degree it is needed to make decisions. When there is little . need, though the Council may have 50 members, perhaps only 5 do the . day to day work when nobody else shows up. When there is a lot of . work and interest, most could show up. Presumably the people who . do not show up are ignored during votes, they could still show up . later and in case of disagreement with previous decisions undo them. _3.1.c-4.1 New Government The elected delegates can elect a new Government at any moment. . . Reasoning. The Government has to remain in line with the . elected delegates. If it isn't and the time for re-election . hasn't come, the problem can be solved by electing a new . Government. _3.1.c-4.2 New Government, limit The elected delegates can only elect a new Government .[3].. times, if they want to elect yet another Government after said number of times, a general election electing new delegates is called for. . . Reasoning. Since the Government can fall so easily, it is more . efficient if the elected delegates can re-elect a new Government . quickly. The Government can fall quickly, re-electing by the . delegates alone for a fixed maximum amount of times means that . the Government is punished, without causing too much cost to . society by forcing complete re-election. It is like a two stage . break, Government can be slowed or halted. See Article 3.1.e-3, . Public Consultancy, Government limit. _3.1.c-4.3 New Government, delegates Delegates that have been elected by a limited group can be replaced at any moment by this limited group through valid voting procedure. . . Reasoning. When a voting procedure is set up so that defined . groups such as territories, companies, trades or self organized . groups elect their delegate, such a procedure awards close . contact between delegate and actual individual people. To make . best use of this in enhancing democracy, the delegate is to be . subjected to the pressure of casual replacement at any . moment. When a delegate can only be replaced every so many . years, past mistakes tend not to be punished and a delegate tends . to "play nice" shortly before election. This stimulates the wrong . kind of people to hold on to power. When delegates get elected . into `further' bodies, they are both elected by their voters . block, and a voters block of delegates. Both groups can replace . their delegate at will, which means dual liability for further . body representatives. More power, more liability. Should be . noted that high profile politicians will tend to find a new . block of voters or delegates that want to elect them, which . reflects their popularity and therefore is justified. When . multiple people want to be delegates, they can propose they . are on a rotation list with their voters block, so that the . voters elect every so many time the next on the list. This may . just be done because it is fun to do, so why not, it makes the . link between People and Government closer, and a solution for . competition for delegate position in a voter block: time sharing. _3.1.c-4.4 New Government, deputies A Voter Group (see Article 3.1.d, People Government) may have one Deputy Delegate, who may participate in Councils on behalf of and under direction by the Delegate. Only that Deputy Delegate can be additionally elected as a Deputy Delegate to a further Council by the same voters whom elected that Delegate to that Council. . . Reasoning. See: Amendment 26: Deputy Delegate, "The loss of . local representation by further council election" in . 240+ Constitution. The deputies seem important to the stability . of the system, also during the starting phases. Therefore this . amendment has been pulled into the "239 Constitution," for earlier . use in the Ratification process. _3.1.c-5 Delegate Compensation Once elected Delegates do their work voluntarily. Further Councils may receive money for personal compensation to their elected Delegates, if described in law (see 3.1.d-3 Further Government Body). . . Reasoning. (Mon Dec 5 09:49:21 UTC 2016) . When people enter as volunteers in the direct Delegate Councils, . and not unlikely before that as a Deputy Delegate, this may attract . a higher percentage of people who really care rather then broadly . take in everyone who is looking for some easy money. There exist . middle American native tribes who also use a system of proofing, . where those who eventually end up with a Government power will . first go through various stages of doing volunteer work. This way . trust can be earned. In cases it may happen that the direct Council . is mostly or entirely dormant, so that the once elected Delegates . in practice somewhat degenerate into electors only for the further . Council. That is not necessarily a problem because the potential . for power remains when necessary, and such a situation is also . better handled by voluntary once elected direct Council Delegates. . If they where payed by the hour they would make sure they have . a lot of work to do, while achieving little to nothing in practice. . Paying this massive amount of Delegates that is the first elected . tier, is a bureaucratic nightmare as well. People are not unlikely . to form voter groups, merely to send someone in and split the . money later. The once elected tier of Delegates is also not expected . to not have enough of a workload to warrant payment because the . work is typically close by the house and it should be possible . generally to have a normal working life next to it. Note that it . is always possible to give a Delegate or your own Delegate some . help if that is necessary to do the Representative work. . . The Delegates functioning at the twice elected tier - the further . Councils - are elected by most likely an overwhelming amount of . once elected direct Council delegates who work voluntarily. This . creates an interesting balance of power between those without pay, . and those whose pay may be regulated in law. Since the overwhelming . amount of Delegates are of the once elected voluntary type, they . have the overwhelming power relative to the twice elected further . Council type of Delegate to ratify or reject a law describing the . Compensation for the twice elected Delegates, see 3.1.d-2.2 . Council Law Making . . Dangers do however persist: once elected Delegates may anticipate . becoming twice elected Delegates, and thereby try to create a too . generous law for payement, and they could attempt to create an . excessive amount of further Councils so that they all can get payed. . As usual the eventual authority that needs to keep things in check . is the People in general, who can do so by keeping their Delegates . under close watch and excercize their election powers. They are . probably somewhat motivated to do that, because it is their money . that may end up being squandered. . . See amendment 13 _3.1.c-5.1 Delegate Compensation, Council All Councils may receive money to spend on the cost of maintaining the Council itself in similar comfort as generally enjoyed, as described in law. . . Reasoning. Generally enjoyed refers to the people as a . whole, something like what the bulk (median if you prefer) of . the people are enjoying in terms of creature comforts. This . refers to things such as: proper buildings and seating . arrangements, a drink on the table, but can under current (2016) . conditions easily extend to a lunch and/or dinner in case a . lot of hours of work have been put in by the Delegates. The . reason to describe it in law is because corruption is always . around the corner, and there is a sliding scale between would . could be adequate, more then adequate, and unacceptable, which . is difficult to guess when one is in the situation to award . oneself luxuries out of the public moneys. Is a repaired . bike fair, if the tire ran flat while doing Council work . ? Perhaps so, but how about a new bike ? How about a new car, . or a private helicopter at the ready ? It seems wise to have . a public discussion and mince an agreement somewhere. Then . those who are overly stringent with themselves can also enjoy . things that they have a right to. . . Note that the law describes a flow of money to the Council by . name, more or less implying that this money is named and . earmarked for the purpose. It suggests a Council cannot . take money out of its budget for public spending for its . own personal pleasure. It does not seem excessive to roughly . define these things in a Constitution, because a Constitution . is a law that the People in General levy against the Government, . and it cannot be expected that when an authority may favor itself . with its own authority that they will freely refrain from doing so. . Indeed the history on this topic speaks for itself. The Delegates . already have perhaps too much of a say under these laws about . their own incomes and comforts, however this topic is overall . complicated and susceptable to regional and era differences. . To describe everything in the necessary detail is unfit for a . Constitution. . . See amendment 13 _3.1.d People Government One group of adults assemble out of their own initiative. Once they have chosen from between them a vote block housekeeper that is responsible for correct voter registration and verification, they are allowed to have one representative, which can be anyone in or out of that block, except their vote block housekeeper. The People or in their absence the Country Council decide on the minimum size of a voter group. The minimum size for a voter group is: ..50 persons. . . Reasoning. This system of Government is meant to put Government and . the People so close together that they become indistinguishable. . When voters vote per quite small block, everyone, however humble . of nature, has a real chance to be selected for representative. . This would be completely out of the question in case of a national . ballot and career politicians. The main problem with government . is corruption and it becoming a separate class, the problem is not . that making decisions is in any way difficult or unattainable with . sufficient advice. Making decisions is a prerequisite for learning, . therefore making decisions should be given to the people, particularly . the ones having a tendency to make mistakes. Such mistakes will not . happen easily anyway, because of the systems that glue popular . opinion to what the Government can do. A mistake will be carried by . the majority. . . This set-up may seem difficult at first, where as a simple human . being does one gather up another 99 to vote someone in power ? In . practice there are already numerous kinds of organizations in society, . if for no other reason then that we'd all starve to dead if we didn't . cooperate. These organizations easily assemble several tens of people . with similar interests, who can then join up with other such people . to elect someone to look out for their interests and stability of . society in general. From the political side, a political will is not . expressed only as a political party, but it can also be expressed as . joining together as many groups of 100 people as possible, so as to . improve political power for that group. When things go wrong, people . start being interested in solving a problem, they start organizing . voter groups. Also, when an individual wants power, he may lobby . people to form a group, and others to follow its lead to form yet . more groups to vote for representatives that agree with this person. . Political power would depend on the ability to bring people together . (for good or bad, though), which does sound rather nice doesn't . it. Since bringing together people would be based on affinity since . these would vote for a certain representative or common interest, it . is likely the political system would bring the same kind of people, . who might then share between them more then just voting. . . During an enactment of the Constitution: when it is enacted by a . formed Country Council, it can be said that the People are at first . absent, or that their support is not specific yet to every detail. . This should leave some room to play with the group size until it . works during the beginning time. Later, and if support remains, . or if there is a formal ratification vote from the People, then . the number here probably represents the People. Alternatively: if . it is felt better to have this or any other variables under the . power of the Government, the Constitution can be enacted without . these numbers. These numbers can then be filled back in by Government . decision, and changed at any moment. The number could then say: . `to be determined, see there/there for current value.' . .. Updated (ammended) wo jan 25 12:09:54 UTC 2012: . Housekeeper and delegate of a voter-group: same person or not . . It is probably in general better that the housekeeper of a . voter-block, and its delegate are not the same person. That way . power in the voter-block is spread around more, the housekeeper acts . as an anker inside the voter-block away from the political issues, . as a bulwark against the possible rethoric (demagoguery) from the . delegate when in debate with its own voter-block. Another problem is . that a delegate who is also the housekeeper of its voter-block can . become intoxicated with its own power, and therefore may develop a . tendency to behave less decently in the councils, causing unneccesary . frictions. The voters in that block may on the other hand cower from . the delegate, turning the power relations between the voter block . and delegate upside down (the voter-block should rule the delegate.) . The proposed law however says: (see above). . . They can elect "anyone in or out of that block," hence this also . includes the housekeeper. This problem is probably an oversight, I . did mean it as two different persons. On the other hand one may ask: . what right does any law have to minutely detail what a relatively . small group of only 50 persons do, how they want to organize . themselves ? Perhaps this should stay a recommendation in that case. . . Propose to add to this law 3.1.d: "The housekeeper and the delegate . of the voter-block are not the same person." To prevent people first . selecting a house-keeper and then electing that houskeeper also as . delegate, arguing that from that point on it has lost its housekeeper . role - which seems a reasonable interpretation of the law in that case, . it is changed by adding: ", except their vote block housekeeper." . That should add a neutrality to the housekeeper during the voting . procedure, it secures it more firmly into its role as servicing the . voter block, and in its role as a contra-balance to the chosen delegate. .. End ammendment. _3.1.d-1 Government Body, minimum size The minimum size for a Government body is 50 delegates. 49 Delegates or more, and 1 delegate elected council housekeeper by the council. . . Reasoning. It is important that representative bodies maintain . an element of mass, so to ensure a reasonable copy of the make . up of the people and their will. Larger size makes it more . difficult to make secret policy. _3.1.d-2 Closest Government Body The delegates assemble into groups determined by their own majority. They are to mutually accept a joining with delegates who are unable to form a legal council because of lack of delegates, see Article 3.1.d-1, Government Body, minimum size. They choose from between them a council housekeeper that is chairing meetings, is responsible for information distribution, overseeing the vote block housekeepers that elect delegates, but has no vote right in the council. They then takes a vote on whether the Council is with too many, and if so how to deal with it. After the size problem - if any - is resolved, and the Council has determined a name for itself by agreeing that a majority has been reached for a certain name, it can make decisions in that name, by majority, within the context of the Constitution. Then the agenda is set, conforming to Article 3.1.d-2.1, Council Agenda. . . Reasoning. The housekeeper is necessary to maintain stability, . and it must not itself become all powerful therefore it loses . its vote right. The geographical nature is practical, otherwise . chaos would result quickly from impossibility to determine . jurisdiction, and cooperation tends to be simpler when people are . close enough to see each other regularly. The `context of the . Constitution' part, is to point at certain rules that limit the . power of Government and that places certain demands on Government. . Such as that it can not change the Constitution by vote, that it . must consult the People, respect referendums, comply with certain . war/peace protocols, etc. . . In case interest in partaking in Government is low, the Government . would be sparse in its number of delegates, with few and far between . councils. In principle this is not a problem. The minimum of 50 . council members would make every council stretch its influence over . a larger and larger area. It is not the case that the councils are . based on clumps of houses such as villages or cities, they're based . primarily on assembling 50 delegates or more. If in a city there . are only 30 delegates because only 3000 people united for voting, . they'd not have a 30 delegate Government body, but would need to . join up with neighboring towns until reaching 50 delegates, and rule . over the combined geographic area. If a rural area feels oppressed by . cities, they could form groups until reaching 50 delegates, and have . their completely rural councils. In case this isolates a group with . too few voters to form a council, the council would be forced into . other councils, where it presumably could form a minority, hence the . accepting councils should not be bothered extremely. This will make it . not unlikely that the existence of councils and Government would change . in time dynamically, as it is depending on how many people partake . in voting, and also on how the delegates assemble themselves in . groups. This certainly ensures there is always some Government, . unless in the entire country there are less then 5000 voters, in which . case there is no legal Government under this Constitution. Presumably . by the time there are that few voters, there is no clear need for . a Government, and having none is what the people want. At any moment . a working Government could come into being, though, to determine an . issue, since voting and support for the Constitution are different . issues. . . The reasons for demanding a name for the Council itself is besides . practical, to give the Council a sense of responsibility for keeping . this name in good standing. The council determined its own name, . hence the existence of this council is their mutual work, for which . performance (in the public eye) they become personally responsible. . Making a name for themselves is also the first test of procedure . in the Council. Since the first issue is more or less procedural, . any delegate partaking would lose its natural right to step out of . the Council during subsequent debates/votes and blame it on the . organization of the Council itself. The naming issue establishes . the housekeeper as in control, giving it precedent and experience . to handle more sensitive problems. The fact that there must be . agreement that a majority had been reached, and not just to declare . a name after the first majority ignoring the minority, means that . everyone is ending the naming procedure positively, minorities may . lose a game but are not ignored in the mutual effort that is the body. . People who disagree with the establishment of the majority itself, are . in contradiction with the obvious procedures of the council itself. . There would be a vote on the name, and perhaps 60% votes for a name . and 40% for another name. When the 40% acknowledges the 60% majority, . the name is accepted by accepting majority rule procedure rules over . the minority, setting precedent for proper procedure. If they do not . want to acknowledge the 60% majority, perhaps they have a valid reason . to doubt the count and have a right to demand a better procedure . for voting. If not, they may want to consider stepping out of the . Council before they implicate themselves in it, because it would be . their last opportunity not to assume responsibility for it. If they . do not step out after disagreeing with the majority rule procedure, . they have apparently accepted it. . . After these things are done, the council is operable: it has an . experienced housekeeper, majority rule has precedence and acceptance, . it can sign its decisions with its name and be referred to by the . public, it has a place where it has convened. It became a council . when the delegates were capable of electing a housekeeper without . breaking up, this council past its exam to make decisions by making . a name for itself. When multiple councils pass their exam in one area, . all of which claim to speak over that same area, the councils either . merge, or retract themselves to different areas. That means there . needs to be no holding back when making councils, there is no . central coordination needed. Just make the councils and when someone . else also does so, there really is no conflict, but an opportunity . to work together. It is great if people take the responsibility to . create councils through proper procedure, standing fully in their . Constitutional rights. Councils can also be created when there is . already another Council known in the area, because once there is . valid voting procedure and enough delegates, they automatically have . the right to establish themselves over their area. The whole . council governance is dynamic, the governing bodies can really . change from hour to hour, and it would all be legal as long as . the votes were valid. To the degree this produces problems, the . courts settle legal disputes, and the country council settles . inter council problems, which by definition are not local problems . since they involve multiple local councils. They would then have . a certain right to say something about it, which can be enforced . through the courts who must uphold the Constitution, in which it . says the country council decides in country-wide problems. . . See also: Article 3.4.a, Local Space, Article 3.4.b, National . Space and Article 3.1.d-6, Ministries. . . Dealing with over-crowding: split up into multiple area Councils, . the closest body elects a further body, a further body (see Article . 3.1.d-3, Further Government Body), requests larger vote blocks of . delegates in the closest body on which it is based. _3.1.d-2.1 Council Agenda Unless emergency, issues are set on the agenda at least 7 days prior. . . Reasoning. For this bottom-up democracy to work, transparency . and predictability are essential. Some delegates may only be . part-time delegates, having a week's notice means they don't . need to be in the council every day to keep an eye on things, . so that not suddenly something is discussed they would want to . be part of. The same is true for the public. With ample warning, . the quality of discussion could also improve, and people who . feel a need have time to give advice and prepare. If the . councils are run from moment to moment, pretty soon nobody . except a few professionals know what is really going on. That . would erode the standing of Government, and its mandate. Making . it Constitutional Law means people can rest assured that if . they look once a week on the Agenda, they know what is going . on, and can undo decisions that do not conform. Brings air and . relaxation. _3.1.d-2.2 Council Law Making Debates and decisions on new Law are set on the agenda at least two months prior. A new Law comes into force not sooner then two months after it has been both voted into the Law, and the result has been published widely. Every law made by a further council, including the Country Council, must be explicitly approved by a majority of the delegates which are represented in that council by a public vote. . . Reasoning. Changing the Law is an extremely serious . business, it is as if one were to make an infinite decisions . all with one decision. Secondly, changing the Law changes . everything, so everyone will have to know what laws are . going to be discussed and have a realistic chance to find . out in time, and everyone will need to have plenty of warning . before a new law becomes effective. There must also be a time . frame large enough to nullify the decision, through one of . the control powers of the People. With adequate delay, there . is also time for court cases prior to something becoming . Law, and there is time for people to flee. The issue of . whether to discuss an issue of Law, new law, how the agenda . itself should be set, can obviously not be part of the . obligation, since that would mean no Law could ever be . discussed and voted upon. The issue of setting the agenda . will potentially involve some rudimentary discussion on . the subject, to establish whether there is use for a debate. . This would have to be tolerated only to the degree it does . not deprive the people of their warning-time, to be present, . and only to the degree necessary to prove there is a need . for a point on the agenda. . .. Updated (ammended) Mon Oct 8 12:19:03 UTC 2012 . . Separation of power: law maker . . In this system as proposed the Country Council can make . laws under the Constitution, but can not change the . Constitution without having a public Referendum. There . is a longer waiting period for a law to come into effect, . which is hoped to mean that the system will have time to . block bad laws. . . It is easy however to separate the law making power from . the budgetting and ministerial powers of the Government . ('executive power') by simply adding a Constitutional . law saying: . . Every law made by a further council, including the Country . Council, must be explicitly approved by a majority of the . delegates which are represented in that council by a public vote. . . The benefit of this is that it becomes harder for . the councils to push through laws while 'the people' . in general are lazy or not interested. It forces . the directly elected delegates to lend their name . to the law, to come out of any sleep they are in and . vote. Historically it has seemed to be a good idea to . separate the law maker from the executive branch, which . is something that is usually not contested. Because of the . proximity to the people of the directly elected delegates . in this system, and the seperation they therefore have . from the Country Council, such a Constitutional law . which demands the directly elected delegates to vote on . each proposal of law by the further councils (Country, . Provincial and other twice elected councils) would . probably mean that the law making power and the executive . power are more separated then they have usually been under . the parliamentary systems which have so far attempted to . separate the executive and law making powers. If there . is any good to expect from this separation of powers, . which there probably is despite earlier arguments here . to the contrary (claiming that a law is merely a more . powerful general decision and hence law making and general . budget and ministerial directives could be made by the . same group to be more in harmony that way), then they . may come out better under this model of Government then . those of previous decades & centuries. . . Since caution is the greatest concern in relation to . Constitutions and their job of enslaving the Government . and constraining their members from abusing their power, I . would personally think (on second thought) that separating . these powers this way is probably a safer way to do it. . (It seems reasonable to simply add these new lines to the . above law.) The nation and supreme Judges will have to watch . out for games by a corrupting Government to the effect of . re-labeling what effectively is 'law' to avoid this duty. _3.1.d-3 Further Government Body The delegates can assemble out of their own initiative into at least 50 blocks, each block allowed to send a representative that is already in their block. The Further Government Body, a policy decision council, is organized in the same way as the Closest Government Body, see Article 3.1.d-2, Closest Government Body. . . Reasoning. Closest bodies based on 1% of the people can get large . quickly, therefore it is practical that they elect a further body . and leave day-to-day matters to that body. The closest delegates . can then go back to other activities and only use their power in . a verification function, incidentally when things are going wrong. . The closest body has the true power, it gives it by proxy to a . group of more practical size. Council is an other word for Government . decision making body. . . The set up proposed here only has a local Government and a national . Government, no explicit intermediate layers. The delegates can . however decide to assemble over an area of any size larger then . minimum amount of delegates, they would simply elect a Further Body . if the size of the delegates group becomes too large. Hence the . local Government may rule local power over an area of a large . size. Then as a power of the local Government, it can establish . Ministries Article 3.1.d-6, Ministries, which can for instance . be given the task of local Government in some smaller area. These . Ministries can have a locally elected Management again, turning them . into a local representative Government which does not have to conform . to the rules of Councils. This would be a top-down approach to . area Government. . . A bottom-up approach is for delegates not to join other delegates, . but to elect together with neighboring delegates an area advice . council. This area advice council would then give all the actual . Governments advice from the perspective of the larger area, without . it having any power of its own. . . These two forms can be mixed in the same area and dynamically . adapted. Delegates are certainly always free to leave and start . their own council, provided they are from a consecutive area, . have at least 50 delegates and don't go against the will of the . local people. If other delegates in the area don't do this, . the area that does maintain a local Government could still take . the decisions of the neighboring larger local Government as . an interesting point of study, as if it were an advice council . for them. . . The reason not to demand mid-level management is because it . seems to get too confusing for bottom-up democracy. If there are . all kinds of layers, it gets confusing quickly. Now there . are only two layers: local an national, but it is flexible enough . to create varies kinds of mid-level management dynamically, so . that when there is an actually good reason it can be created . dynamically. . . Further body delegates can be ejected by their vote-block, but . can stand in another vote-block, which can then swap their . representative. When the again elected delegate finds a vote . block of closest council delegates that wishes to put that delegate . in the further body from which it was just removed, it would . again become a delegate in that further body. This means widely . popular delegates will have a significant chance to maintain . their position, independent of their original voter block. They . could boot-strap themselves to the same position, using a different . ladder. A delegate may decide it is under inappropriate pressure . from its vote-block, which is the good part of this. A delegate . may also be able to fool the general public but not its vote own . block for long, which can be the problem part. _3.1.d-4 Advice Council Council delegates can elect Advice Councils given specified issues to advice on. The Advice Council issues the same advice to Government and the People. Anyone can be elected into an Advice Council. . . Reasoning. This is a way to get expert advice into Government, . without giving these experts any executive power. They can only . advice and hope for the best. They are forced to give Government . the same information and the People. When Government is overrun . by people with best intentions but lack of understanding, the . advice council is a great way to get some rationality into . government decisions without that threatening the balance of . power. In theory an advice council could become powerful . if all its advice is followed, yet the moment it goes wrong it . only hangs on the string of good will and belief of the People's . Government. This precarious position would stimulate the advice . council to stay on course, and it would not be much of an . attractive place for corrupt people - there is no real power in it. . This set up can make it easier for the real experts to have the . influence (platform, funding) they deserve. _3.1.d-5 Country Council All closest representative bodies divide into 50 geographic blocks of equal numbers of voters, each block sends one delegate to form the Country Council. The Country Council is organized in the same way as the Closest Government Body, see Article 3.1.d-2, Closest Government Body. . . Reasoning. An efficient way. But one geography can not vote, . as it would give the housekeeper, without which there is no . country council. This should inspire the country council to . look beyond the needs of their region and to the needs of . the whole country. That is why they are there, to provide for . an overall view, not only to lobby just for their region. The . housekeeper position can be made to rotate if that seems useful. . It will be a good idea that one region is responsible for the . integrity of the country council itself, in a way the hand that . lifts the country council high enough so it can do its work. . A well functioning country council then reflects positively on . the area giving the housekeeper, the interest of that area . becoming the well functioning of the council itself. An . interesting twist is to let the country council meet by . rotation in the different regions. It could for instance go . to the next region every year or 4 years, lottery deciding where . to go next, thus giving more informed and equitable coverage to . the whole country. . . The Country Council is the body which oversees the entire country, . territorially it is oversees the largest area. When the Country . Council wants a mid-level government layer, it can create . Ministries that focus on a specific area, just as the local . Government can also do. That would provide for a mid-level . Government flowing from the Country Council, applied where . needed. Such mid-level Government would have its authority . flowing from the Country Council, and hence have a legal . status accordingly, see Article 3.1.d-2, Closest Government Body, . Article 3.1.d-6, Ministries, Article 3.4.a, Local Space and . Article 3.4.b, National Space. _3.1.d-5.1 Country Council, Constitution The Country council maintains and repairs the Constitution. . . Reasoning. The coherency of a country relies on its law. If . local Governments wish to implement novel contra-Constitution . laws, they may wish to consider breaking away and forming . their own sovereignty. When local Governments want to go their . own way, then do it for real and not create some kind of . chaotic and diffuse law situation; do it, or don't. This way . the People know what they have. _3.1.d-5.2 Country Council, Currency The Country Council maintains the currency of the country. . . Reasoning. The currency is a constant throughout the area . assembled in the Country Council. The maintenance of the . currency is a major power point in a country, its potential . influence internal in the country is great. Making currency . policy is what gives the Country Council a source of real power, . lifting it above a mere area advice council. In practical terms . a currency defines a country. The article leaves open the . possibility of currency union with other nations, but fixes . the responsibility of such a union and the continuation of . it in the Country Council. The Country Council can at any . time step out of such a union. . .. Updated (ammended) wo jan 25 11:54:05 UTC 2012: . The above commentary on this law is incorrect: the article . does not allow a currency union because in a currency . union the Country Council is no longer maintaining the . currency. An international currency union also breaks other . laws of national Sovereignty in this system. Currency union . was never envisioned in this system, but the idea left . open to make this Constitution less defined and appealing . to people who want currency unions (in particular between . extremely small nations.) See also the sheet 1 "A better . Future ?" quote ''(not global) currency,'' which was . inspired on this thought also. No currency unions are . envisioned to work or exist in this system. . . To future Imperialists: . Where greater union is desired: unite the nations outright . - but why; Imperial lusts getting the better of the people again ? . Give up the lust for domination and menacing other nations, . so that you won't be pressed with your face in the dirt. . Empires (+- 60 million persons and more ?) seem doomed; perhaps . even nations, but to a lesser extend. When a Kingdom (+- 5 to 27 . million persons?) falls, it falls with less dire concequences . then an Empire, getting to their legs again easier. Trade over . the border fairly, and give up the domination obsession, which . is an obsession that leads to nothing. Isn't that why nations . unite: to menace, destroy and loot a third, and then a fourth ? .. End ammendment. _3.1.d-5.3 Country Council, Core The Country Council is the core Government of a country. It does not submit itself to the rule of other bodies, neither internal in the country, neither external from other countries, and neither external rising from a coalition of some or all other countries. The Country Council denies its own resources to come under direction of management bodies in whole or partially external to the Country. It retains direct executive control over its own resources, which do not include independent companies, within the context of the Constitution. . . Reasoning. This is already implicit in that the assembly . can not exceed a set number of people, see Article 1.2.a, . Territory, and in that the country is and remains sovereign. . However it seems useful to spell it out in bold detail, so as . to deny international scheming, plotting by politicians seeking . to attain new levels of power. The government can neither submit . itself, nor parts of the country, to international management . bodies. If there are international cooperative efforts, the . Government has to maintain a direct line of command to its own . resources. Independent companies are excluded from the rule, the . point is not to put everything under Government direction, but to . maintain the Government as sovereign in its territory. _3.1.d-5.4 Country Council, Local Law The Country Council determines by Law the bounds for creating Local Law by Local Authorities. . . Reasoning. The Country Council is responsible for the . coherency of the Country. If it can decide by executive order . which law is or is not - at its pleasure - permissible locally, . it would practically take over local Governments. If it has . to create Laws, which afford some additional time constraints, . there exist a pressure to be (more) equitable about these bounds. . If the Country Council does not set any bounds at all, then . the Local Government may explore how far it can go, which is . presumably up to the limits of the Constitutional obligations. . This may produce high differences in Law between regions. That . is in itself not necessarily a problem, however it could make . the country incoherent and unworkable. The Country Council is . responsible for the nation-level problems, however local law . is in principle a local issue. This article gives the CC the . leverage to maintain a coherent Country. It could say that Local . Governments have zero room to make Local Law, or that it could . make any Law compatible with the Constitution. _3.1.d-6 Ministries Policy decision Councils form Ministries - subordinate organizations that handle Government tasks - when needed. The ministries can be organized along the lines of a Monopoly Sector Service Group, see subarticles under Article 5.1.c, Service Group. . . Reasoning. Point being the Council makes the ministries and . administers them, the Council does not first elect a yet further . and minute top body or top Leader, who then appoints ministers . to oversee ministries subordinate first to the Leader and then . controlled by the Council. In such a set up the executive power . would be concentrated yet one step further, above the Council. . The set up here proposed keeps the Council in the highest position . above the ministries, it handles executive power directly. The . control function that a Council that first elects a leader has, . is in this proposal fulfilled by the closest Government body and/or . the People. The Council is the executive. When there is disagreement . between Council members, majority rules, if there are continued . disagreement that somehow can't be solved: go to Justice. Ministries . do not only exist on the National level, local Governments would . create local Ministries to handle their tasks. _3.1.d-6.1 Ministries, Distributed Ministries are distributed throughout the area of Governance. . . Reasoning. The Government concentrates income from taxes . from the entire are of Governance, it is only fair that the . additional employment this brings is distributed back into all . communities. Distribution of Ministries would also mean . distribution of Power to different areas, so they can all get . hold of a part of Government. The distance between councils . and Ministries should make Government a more formal business, . more transparent for the Public, more structured by rules and . less `smoky back room' policy making. When there is a . distance between varies important Ministries, Communications . should be more formal, this could reduce corruption. _3.1.d-7 Immediate representation Whenever a representation becomes legal at the moment of assembly of voters in a new block electing a delegate, or whenever a representation becomes illegal at the disintegration of an assembly of voters, the legal status of affected body and representative is changed before the next day. When a delegate is not informed by its voter block or someone else of changes about the legal status of the delegate, the delegate retains voting rights in the council(s) it is in, provided it does not actively evade such information. When a voter block housekeeper steps down, the voter block retains all rights to representation for the duration of one month, after which it disintegrates if it does not elect a new housekeeper. . . Reasoning. When a lot of people don't care about government because . all is going fine, but suddenly the Government acts up strangely, . the People must be able to immediately group into otherwise redundant . voter blocks, send their delegates in, and have them vote for changes . that will make Government conform to the will of the People. There . can not be any doubt that delegates can be moved in or out in one . day notice or sooner, so that Government can not claim a imaginary . loophole that says it remains static up to the next elections, claim . bureaucratic time delays, or some other flight of fancy to retain . power as before and force its decisions. Since the Government is in a . position to force its opinion using arms and police, it is important . to leave no room for doubt. The reason for the change to be effective . before the next day and not at the instance of change, is so . that delegates can at least be sure of their power until the next . day or until they actually hear about a status change, and their . work is not retroactively powerless. Having to constantly wonder . whether one still has had power the last few hours and whether one . actually was allowed to work does not produce good work on the part . of the delegates. If they are not evasive to their voter block, their . work is legal regardless of what happens with the voter block. Because . the voter blocks are a loose and low intensity kind of organization, . the vote blocks have a lapse of one month to refill their housekeeper . obligation, assuming that the work of the house keeper remains valid . throughout the coming month which is probably reasonable, even on the . short side. There is no such delay for council housekeepers: if they . are gone the council stops existing and re-emerges when it re-elects . a new housekeeper. Since the work of the vote block housekeepers is . overseen by the council housekeepers, the vote blocks are usually never . without some housekeeping oversight. _3.1.d-8 Discipline Day Every year the delegates present themselves in total to the general public in the area they are elected to govern. . . Reasoning. A common problem with bottom-up Democracy is a certain . amount of confusion of who is who, the discipline day is to take . away such confusion. It is to show the delegates who really is . boss, and who really needs to be disciplined. By making this a . constitutional obligation, it is not a toy for the Governments, . the obligation goes over their heads, just as the power of the . people goes over their heads. Whether the King or electoral Committee . count as delegates is undefined here, it may be useful to have . the King or Queen and the electoral committee present themselves . at least once a year as well, to prevent any possible confusion, . and to confirm them in their role. _3.1.d-9 No Bribes Government delegates are prohibited from accepting gifts of a value greater then one day work against average salary. Delegates keep a public record of the gifts which have a value larger then the average income for one hour of work. . . Reasoning. Obviously rich people must always be prevented to simply . buy up the Government, or parts. At the same time the rule shouldn't . be so strict as to prohibit delegates to accept a bouquet of flowers, . a book. Since the delegates keep a public list, they can wash their . hands clean when accepting gifts, even if such gifts seem questionable . at the moment of them being received. The issue can later be dealt . with. Since it is arbitrary to set a boundary for gifts, the . constitution sets an arbitrary boundary for the sake of clarity. . if the delegate receives a cookie or a flower, the delegate shouldn't . have to take out a notebook in order to conform with the Constitution. . such extreme demands would only erode the law, since nobody would . keep them. _3.1.e Public Consultancy The Government routinely consults on all decisions all people who wish to be consulted. . . Reasoning. the government must have a formal way to know what the . People want, even though not all people may want to be bothered about . everything and/or all the time. In the absence of complete involvement . of all people, routinely involving all interested people is the next . best solution. The People can explicitly take the initiative, because . Government should not pretend a limited or non existent consultation . to have fulfilled its obligations. People and/or organizations of . people can register themselves for the Consultation process, and . start voting on issues they want to vote on. The Government is in . the position to verify the validity of subscriptions of people to . the Consultation process, since a group claiming to speak for many . people or an individual claiming not to have registered already, can . be asked to surrender proof of their assertions before being taken . serious. Hence the Government would only need to verify what is already . present, which is primarily that there are no false voters paraded . into the process. Since consultation is a Government obligation, . the infrastructure and bureaucracy to count votes and verify claims . would fall to the Government, but the Government does not need to . do everything, such as go by people's doors to ask whether they want . to participate. The public initiates, the Government facilitates and . verifies, this should keep cost down on the Government, and make sure . the process isn't overused by people not that interested anyway. . . One interesting aspect of Consultation is that it brings a level of . formality to every Government decision, since even if it is just a . formality - which it not necessarily is, since there are potential . consequences - it is still something that needs to be done. The . decision has to be presented, it has to be voted on by outside parties, . so the reading material has to be prepared with some quality and . understandability in mind. The publication means transparency as well, . since people can not vote if they do not know. On the other hand, . the Public assumes responsibility for the decision, and delegates with . ulterior motives could win a case by citing different arguments that . the public agrees with anyway, more or less clearing such a delegate . of possible guilt of deception. . . A reasonable set-up is to debate an issue in delegate council . until it has a majority, and then present a more abstract decision . for ratification procedure, involving the Consultancy. During the . Consultancy some ideas might come up, which can be added without . altering the Consultancy success vote, if that success vote did not . involve a decision with too much detail. Doing it this way would . really involve the Consulting public, but not bog down Government . too extremely in procedures. It will always be the case that there . are main issues and detail issues, you can not ask every single . detail issue. One can ask if somewhere a building should be build, . one should not ask what the color of the coffee cups is going to be . in that building. The public will be able to steer the process in . great detail by electing certain delegates and ultimately use the . Referendum. Because the public has other means to force a decision, . policy making routines should assume a level of breathing room when . dealing with details, which is warranted. If walking a dog without . a leash, one might need to grab it in the neck. But when it is on a . leash, it can and should decide where it wants to walk, both dog and . walker would feel fine as the leash is there to set the boundary when . necessary. The word `decision' hence does not involve every minute . detail, which is how the word is usually used as well. . . Example: some talk about a building and how and what in the council, . a plan results; the Consultancy is asked `do you want a building, . for instance such as this plan suggests'; then the Consultancy comes . up with some votes and comments, which either move against the whole . plan, or result that it shouldn't be a building but a bridge meaning . a new plan and new Consultancy are needed, or it results in minor . modifications such as 3 stories instead of 4, which means the plan . could be modified if delegates wish to go along, without having . to again issue a Consultation, or the delegates go forward with 4 . stories anyway without having another Consultation, since the question . ``building yes/no'' was confirmed, in this 3 or 4 stories are not . significant. If the Consultancy results ``no building if it is 4 . stories,'' then going forward with 4 stories is going against the . Consultancy. Hence it matters a lot what exactly is asked and what . exactly comes out of the Consultancy, which presumably is not just a . multiple-choice procedure rigged by delegates. Being confused about the . limits is not a problem, the public has its means to get its way, and . a major issue has been achieved: the Government has taken in the will . of the interested public. That is relevant, since the Government has . the obligation to do the will of the Public - it is just a matter of . determining it which can be a point of contention (is it the delegates, . is it the Consultation, is it the referendum, ...). _3.1.e-1 Public Consultancy, Practicality The Government condenses and formulates decisions in such a way that the practical application of Article 3.1.e, Public Consultancy, is helped as much as possible, from the perspective of Government but especially from the perspective of the People. . . Reasoning. The Government could discourage the involvement . of the People by issuing consultation about masses of details, . obtuse wording and other tactics. This must be made illegal . in order to prevent the Government the ability to practically . severe communications with the People. _3.1.e-2 Public Consultancy, abstentions The number of abstentions is divided by the number of representatives in the body concerned with the consultancy, each representative is allowed to add that number of votes to the option of its choice. The abstentions-adjusted result determines fractions with which options won votes in the total of votes. . . Reasoning. This provides a convenient way to deal with the meaning . of high and low numbers of voters. The fewer voters means more . conceding power to any mandate already in force, more voters . means more wish to force a decision despite what representatives . want. People who do not vote are diverting power to representatives. . The votes/abstentions fraction in the people is not to be changed . by this procedure. This abstention-adjusting means that the . consultation process can be turned into an empty shell by the . people if they in majority don't register (or register explicitly . as abstentions). Such abstentions give up some potential . influence and detract from the power of what they could have . influence with, which is fair. See also Article 3.1.b, Referendum. _3.1.e-3 Public Consultancy, Government Limit The People or in their absence the Government set a maximum number of times that the elected Government can move ahead with their own decision and disregard the Consultation result, as defined in Article 3.1.e-2, Public Consultancy, abstentions. If the number is exceeded, new elections are held for that Government body by the persons that directly elected it: A Further Government body is to be re-elected by the elected delegates who elect it (see Article 3.1.d-3, Further Government Body), a Closest Government body is to be re-elected by its voters (see Article 3.1.d-2, Closest Government Body.) Maximum number of times different Consultation result can be ignored without forced re-election: .[12].. . . Reasoning. `Consultation' isn't a continues form of referendum . Government, because this could become distracting, people . having to watch Government's every move, while there is always . the referendum to force it to adhere. Allowing Government not . to contradict endlessly the consultancy process means it does . not become a futile process. See also Article 3.1.c-4.2, New . Government, limit. The idea is that the Consultation would . sometimes result in an answer after abstention-adjustment that . is different from what the delegates voting alone results in, . that this should have some defined impact. It already has a vaguely . defined impact, see Article 3.1.a, Government Intention, which . leaves doubt as to whether the People's opinion is reflected . in either the choosing of the present delegates, or through the . consultation. The delegates are pushed a little by this article, . not to ignore the consultation discrepancy outright, not too . often. The People can proceed with a Referendum: as long as enough . people show up to vote, the Referendum abstention votes amount to an . insignificant force for the delegates, and therefore would override . the Government. The People can also choose to elect different . delegates. . . The re-election is by the people directly electing the body, is to . not have everyone bothered by people who are highly interested in . politics and with the Consultation process. _3.1.e-4 Public Consultancy, Registration People can forward their personal act of consultant to someone else, who will service their consultations for them. . . Reasoning. To prevent the consultation process to become . monopolized by obscure groups or professionals, people who . have no time to continuously watch government must be able . to forward their voice to a proxy. _3.1.e-5 Public Consultancy, Public Proxy People who are proxies for more then one other person, vote publicly, by hand-raising or similar. . . Reasoning. The danger exists that consultancy becomes a . strange bureaucratic process, where large block votes . from mysterious sources decide everything. _3.1.e-6 Public Consultancy, Demonstration People who demonstrate (march while carrying clear messages) have their number counted to the consultation process, as long as their number is above a minimum limit. Minimum for demonstration to be a factor: .[1%].. or: .[10.000].. (whichever is less). . . Reasoning. People who demonstrate show strong will toward . a certain goal, which suggests a larger force. If they . participate in both consultation and demonstration, this . force is reflected. A clear and non bureaucratic alternative . to a consultation process, open and free for all. Articles 3.2: Law enforcement _3.2.a System of Justice The people or in its absence the Government set up a system of Justice, which only adheres to the abstract laws set for it, to uphold the law of the nation. The system of Justice decides based on argument, in fairness and transparency. The Judges behave honorably and exemplary under the law at all time. . . Reasoning. The laws set by the People or their proxy Government . have to be enforced, or there would be no structure at all in . society. When there is no structure at all and too many individuals . act too much in their short-term self interest, the resulting . chaos can be worse to bear for most, then a structure of laws. . judges must behave exemplary, or else they neither have the moral . authority, nor the belief in the law, nor the apparent fortitude . to speak Justice. This means that Judges risk losing their job over . the smallest of infractions of Law, which in turn would give Judges . an intimate idea about the severity of the total Law pressure in . the country, which could have a positive effect on how they judge . others. _3.2.a-1 Courts of Justice The Country establishes courts to the amount necessary, which handle legal disputes. . . Reasoning. It is useful to have legal disputes be solved, . solving the problem of merit in practical cases. If there is . no such body, disputes would presumably have to be settled . through violence. The legal disputes can be between individuals, . companies and individuals, companies and companies, the government . and non-government parties, parts of government and other parts . of government, even governments and other governments, etc. _3.2.a-1.1 Courts of Justice, Judges The People or in their absence the majority of delegates in the area install Judges for the local Court of Justice. . . Reasoning. It seems useful to derive the power of . a judge from the delegates (since the People would probably . be absent most of the time), as a judge can have a strong . influence. Basing it more closely on democratic power, means . its judgements are likely supported by a great many people . in the area. This should give the judge more authority. _3.2.a-2 Judge Court The Country establishes local appeal courts to the amount necessary, which handle complaints about cases held in the courts of Justice in their area. . . Reasoning. It could happen that justice is not done in the . normal courts, an appeal Court reduces some of the power of the . normal courts. _3.2.a-2.1 Judge Court, Judges The People or in their absence the majority of delegates in the area of Jurisdiction of the Judge Court install the Judges for the Judge Court in that area. Judge Court Judges are older then 40 years, each has served as a Judge in other courts a minimum of 15 years. . . Reasoning. The election system is the same as for the . normal courts, but these judges must have significant . experience. _3.2.a-3 Law Court The Country has one Court deciding over disputes of law itself. . . Reasoning. There can be contradictions or seeming contradictions . in law, it can not be the task of the Government to hear such cases . and determine what should be done, since that would be too much of . a burden for a Government body. _3.2.a-3.1 Law Court, Judges Law Court Judges are approved by the People or in their absence the Country Council, see Article 3.1.d-5, Country Council. Law Court Judges are older then 40 years, each has served as a Judge in other courts a minimum of 20 years. The by the Country Council once approved Law Court Judge(s) only become Law Court Judges when there has been one general election of delegates in the nation, and the approval is upheld by that new Country Council. . . Reasoning. Naturally the people have the right to select their . Law Court Judges, but nevertheless they need to be older then 40 . years with 20 years experience. Since the people don't need to . be involved with details like this, it will typically be the . country council that accepts judges into the Law Court. With . `The People' is meant the People's referendum, adjusted for . abstentions by the country council in this case, see Article . 3.1.b, Referendum. . .. Updated (ammended) wo jan 25 11:30:25 UTC 2012: . . The problem with this is that the Country Council might . want to install judges to the law court, and that way . influence cases that are between the law court and the CC, . which is what many cases may be about because they involve . legislation from the councils. . . It may be better to add a qualification that a judge its . approval only becomes effective after the next general . election of delegates. The court is then shielded from . the influence of the current delegates, who may be the . ones in court contesting a case. . . One could say "but the People are not absent" when there . is already judges, but that is too vague, especially . because the judges are likely already routinely installed . by the CC. Added: The by the Country (...) is upheld by . that new Country Council. . . This ratifies the addition to the Law Court through . the general elections back to the People, causing it . to have a better mandate. The demand to have it twice . approved by the CC is then only in case when 'the People . in their absence' do not do it. How do the People install . a Judge: for example by Referendum. Since Referendum . is not mentioned, and the People is contrasted with the . CC here, and the CC can be an indicted party, it seems . that the more reasonable mechanism would be that it is . a Referendum without the CC filling in the abstentions, . but where a large majority of the people wants to install . the new judge. However now we get into the usual problems . with Referendums again: 'what is a functional majority' and . 'what about is an amount of voters that is enough' ? Then . we would be back with the 3.1.b Referendum, which the . People can also use. One could say: the 3.1.b Referendum is . still good as a way of representing the will of the people, . because in the time when the Referendum is coming about . the People have the chance to change their delegates. . . The above addition at least prevents a CC to add new . judges to the law court. I'd say this is a mistake in the . Constitution as presented before, this way the problem . might be corrected. . . Another solution for a 3.1.b nation wide Referendum where . the People want to install a law court judge, is that not . the CC fills the abstentions, but all the delegates in . the nation. .. End ammendment. _3.2.a-3.2 Law Court, Discipline The Law Court Judges will wear the same dress, selected by the majority of all Law Court Judges. All Judges under the Constitution follow the dress of the Law Court of the Nation. . . Reasoning. I think it is important that the Law Judges . present themselves in an objective way since they are not . a political/subjective body. This deflects the idea of . personality and personal political ideas. It shows a level . of self discipline and order which should count as credit for . a body which is to enforce discipline under the law from others. . Having a bunch of different looking people may quickly give . rise to the idea: why is anyone listening to these people, . how are they like as individuals, whom does claimants like . most and who decided what, to whom should claimants feel . a personal grudge (friend/foe), etc. By removing subjective . appearance, the Court would be an objective unity, shoulder . to shoulder against chaos. What it is does not matter, and . neither would matter things like earrings or bracelets, . within reason. Since they have to wear it, they can choose . and update it. Their choice will propagate to all other . judges, which reflects that their choice of Law interpretation . propagates to all other judges as well. The Law Court Judges . may also feel responsible (which they are to some degree) for . those that they allow to wear their dress, which is a good thing. . In order to keep the standing of all Judges high, all Judges need . to be OK since they can't be distinguished easily. Judges can't . work that easily for their own individual credibility if they . are not easily distinguishable in dress in the public eye. If . they can't work individually, presumably they must act for the . collective credibility harder, and bring misbehaving Judges to . trial to clean their collective image. Such a trial against . another Judge would then again reflect on all Judges as positive, . while if one Judge acted against another and the trial failed . to produce for that Judge, it would be negative for that individual . Judge. If it fails for an anonymous Judge, it would still count . as credit for all Judges, because they apparently zealously attack . their own to maintain obedience to the Law. The dress is probably . nowhere as important as for the Judiciary. The Judiciary may want . to select their dress wisely, so as not to reflect a bias toward . whatever group in society, since dress often portrays social . allegiance. The public on the other hand could gain some insight . in the Judiciary from its dress, and complain/applaud accordingly, . so the responsibility lies ultimately with the People in reaction . to all Judges. . . Talking so much about the dress of Judges may seem over the . top, however without Judges all Law is useless, there would be . no recognizable society and probably total chaos and famine. The . authority and qualities of Judges is essential, even details can . matter a lot. If there is no reason to regulate the Judiciary in . detail, then presumably there is no reason for Law in the first . place. These things have always remained important, while dress . for other groups has faded in relevance, for good reason. As . a matter of fact this system is quite liberal, allowing Judges . to change their dress code. Different dresses in different . nations may be useful, it denotes the legal system the Judge is . working under, establishes the Judicial territory of the Nation. _3.2.a-3.3 Law Court, strength A regular Law Court case is heard by 7 Judges, who decide by majority. . . Reasoning. A reasonable size, not extremely large or small. . Decision could have far reaching consequences and lead to new . law making, so it is useful to have it not depend on a couple . of people. At the same time making the Court as large as 12 . for example, might give it an independent group dynamic with . leaders and followers, leading to a loss of individual opinion. . 7 Judges means every single Judge will be heard, even if it . is silent. It is in theory conceivable that different Law Court . chambers rule seemingly contradictory on the same issue, there . is no solution for such cases and it should not even be a problem. . If it is a problem according to the other courts, new cases . would filter through to the law court, or the law court judges . may feel compelled to suggest the Government repairs the law . to make it less ambiguous. _3.2.a-3.4 Law Court, removal Only the People through a Two Third majority Referendum in the area of Jurisdiction, or a Law Court Decision, can relieve a Judge from the Court of Justice, the Judge Court or the Law Court. A Law court Decision to remove another Law Court Judge requires the case to be brought before the Supreme Law Court, see Article 3.2.a-3.5, Supreme Law Court. . . Reasoning. Once the judges are installed by the People or . Delegates, which is not a difficult procedure, they will speak . Justice and may in this cross the will of the present Government . or large parts of the People. Therefore their position has to . be independent enough, which is achieved by making removal hard. . Because Judges can only be relieved by the central Law Court - . there is only one Law Court but with any number of judges to the . degree necessary - the Court of Law will be able to maintain a . certain objectivity and similarity throughout the Country, and . Judges know what they are dealing with wherever they speak . Justice in the Country. This set up will reduce the differences . between Justice in different areas. The Two Third majority of . Referendum will always have to be supported though, since that . is the executive power of the People. Having it in would mean . the local majority, while leaving it out might give room to . the interpretation it has to be national or is not a valid . procedure. By making removal hard, people may think harder about . who to appoint, to get it right the first time. There is some . credit to the idea that deciding over Law and Judges is the same . level of issue, therefore belonging to the same Court. The . `behave honorably and exemplary' in 3.2.a, is also to . give the Law Court the leverage needed in this matter. . . The removal of the Law Court Judge involves all Law Court . Judges, because: this way all Law Court Judges will gain . intimate knowledge about what they should not do in case . there is a relieving of duty. This is necessary to maintain . the credibility of the Law Court. The proceeding itself is . high profile, which means the Law Court Judges will not risk . lightly to be indicted, and hence behave themselves more . admirably. Because there is always the Referendum option for . the People, which does not require any additional legal . justification for removal, the Law Court is not fixed in . its power, which might lead to corruption. Corruption in the . Law Court seems unlikely though, it is all rather abstract . and high profile, while bribery is more likely to happen in . the Court of Justice, because cases involve weighing truth . as well as Justice which makes them more complicated giving . room for Judge freedom, there is a higher volume of cases . meaning less scrutiny per case, and it is the natural first . contact between people who would bribe Judges and the Judicial . system. The Law Court is unlikely to become a problem. _3.2.a-3.5 Supreme Law Court The Supreme Law Court is the assembly of all Law Court Judges, who rule by their own majority. It has jurisdiction over sensitive cases concerning Constitutional Law, such as - but not limited to - cases involving the Electoral Committee, the King, and the Country Council. . . Reasoning. When the Court has to decide on issues that are . of far reaching consequence, such as whether or not to annul the . declaration of a state of chaos by the Electoral Committee, it . is important that such decisions are widely supported by all . judges, and that the decision is not in fact decided by the . mechanism that appoints certain judges to certain cases. This . chamber gives Law Court judges a way out if they feel the issue . is over their heads. The Supreme Law Court may refer cases back . to the normal sized chambers of the Law Court, giving the Law . court judges the necessary confidence, if they were in doubt as . to their jurisdiction. There is no obligation in the Constitution . for the Law Court to follow its own previous interpretations, . although all other courts are required to follow them, and the . Law Court could dismiss a case if it had already ruled on the . issue and feels it will not change its position. _3.2.b System of Police The People or in its absence the Government set up a Police force subservient only to the Law, which investigates crimes already committed, verifies that the Laws of the Country are being followed, and brings people who have broken the law before the Court of Justice, while providing all gathered evidence to the Court of Justice. The Police is present in all areas requiring Law Enforcement. . . Reasoning. See 3.2.a. The law is nothing without Judges, but . criminals won't normally go freely to the Judge to ask permission . to be punished. It usually takes someone to force them. The police . handles the entire task of Law enforcement, which means there is no . dependency on for instance the King and its privilege to knowledge . see Article 3.1.c-1.8, King Elect. If the Police is present in every area . of Law Enforcement, they will be primarily responsible for every . area and can not assume someone is taking over some area, even though . others may be working there as well. The Police could quickly adapt to . shifting crime, it gives the Police a better idea of the total of crime . they are up against, it gives the Police more knowledge and resources . to fight complex forms of crime. It also means people can demand the . Police to look into any breach of the Law, whether it is accounting, . violent crime or littering the streets, if that is against a law. The . Police could never say `we do not do that type of crime,' if they . did they'd be liable for trial, and/or the delegates responsible. . . The decisions of Councils are enforced or not like this: the Police . is obliged to uphold the Law. It is the Law that gives Councils a . defined Authority. When someone crosses the will of a Council, and . the Council stands in its right according the Law, the Police will . have to see this as crossing the Law. The Police will have to . oblige by the Law which ultimately means obliging to the requests of . Justice (Judges), defined in the Law, and the Law directly - the . Police can also read the Law, as anyone can. It will then have to work . to repair this breach of crossing the Council for the sake of the . Law. This is different from a Law enforced because the Council/Leaders . order it, even though it is in practice usually the Councils that . make the Laws. The Law forms everything, even itself. That is what a . Law state is, law is not a toy of the executive, but the executive is . a toy created and operated by the Law, who through it updates itself. . It is the subtle difference between absolute dictatorship and the rule . of Law. The Police would therefore always have to think when getting . requests from the Councils - can not call them orders - whether . the requests flow from the Law through the Council to the Police, . or whether they just originate in the Council. The Councils would . hence always have to have a legal argument accompanying their . request, or supply one when asked on what Authority their request . is based. Ultimately a Judge would make a decision on the basis of . existing Law. The Police is neither a toy of the Council, it is a toy . created and operated by the Law, which ultimately answers to and is . created/supported by the People, and itself (coherency). . . This means that a Council could order the Police to do its bidding . when there are Laws that make it so, though. On the other hand, the . Laws are designed to invalidate certain laws that go toward tyranny. . When there is a Council that passes a law that says the Police must . do anything for the Council, this Law or actions under it should not . hold up in Court because of (many) conflicting laws, that prohibit . all kinds of behavior. However eventually these safeguarding laws . could be eroded, since the Law can be changed. It is therefore . important to maintain the Constitution in a self-coherent state, . maintain it as the supreme Law (as if that is not self-evident). . It should be noted that the Constitution does not allow for a state . of emergency suspension of the Constitution. Even so it would be . important to make sure what exactly the Laws are concerning the Police . and the Power of the Councils, so as not to get unpleasant surprises. . An attempt at tyranny will likely cross the border of making the . Police a toy of some (pretense) executive force, by passing a rule . that makes it so, or by claiming some kind of suspension condition . war, calamity, or ... "public majority support". Since this . constitution is based on the support of the Majority, the Majority . would need to be careful in what it is exactly supporting in Majority, . as it may invalidate and put out of power the entire Constitution ! . On the other hand, Majority power also validates the Constitution, . and invalidates changes that are not supported by the Majority. . This could be useful when prosecuting people afterwards. _3.2.b-1 Demonstration The Police may not prevent peaceful mass demonstration. . . Reasoning. A mass demonstration is a way for the People to express . their opinion, no crime has been committed. If a Demonstration . comprises a majority, it also comprises a valid Referendum and . is therefore a sovereign force, able to lawfully depose government . and assume its authority. `Prevent' is a word wide enough so that . a demonstration could be steered so as not to be needlessly . disruptive. _3.2.b-1.1 Demonstration, Government limit Governments may not order the Police to prevent mass demonstration. . . Reasoning. Making it illegal for Government to give out certain . orders, making it easier to win legal cases since Police could . usually claim it had to follow its orders, no such obligation for . Government. _3.2.b-1.2 Demonstration, size limit The People or in its absence Government set a numerical limit to when a demonstration is a "mass" demonstration (see Article 3.2.b-1, Demonstration). Size Limit: ..[50.000]. or ..[10%]., whichever is less. . . Reasoning. Not every group of 2 or 3 people should be able . to disrupt society and claim to be a "mass demonstration". . A percentage is also needed, because in small communities a . large number makes no sense. _3.2.b-1.3 Demonstration, frequency limit The People or in its absence Government set a numerical limit to how often a demonstration by the same people is allowed to march under "mass" demonstration protection (see Article 3.2.b-1, Demonstration). Time Limit: .[1 year].. . . Reasoning. It will be tiring to watch the exact same group . marching again and again, just trying to disrupt life in general. _3.2.b-2 Company occupation Governments may not order the Police to repel or prevent occupation of companies by a two thirds majority of its working people. . . Reasoning. When the majority of workers move against . a minority of the company, the group dynamic of the . company is acting. It is not for the Police to use . external weapons to force the will of a minority on . a majority, because moral and physical power lies . inherently with any majority. All involved can be . presumed to have an interest in keeping the output of . the company adequate, therefore this is not inherently . a state matter, much less a Police matter. _3.2.b-2.1 Company occupation, limit The People or in its absence the Government set a numerical limit above which a company is large enough be protected under Article 3.2.b-2, Company Occupation. Limit: ..[30]. . . Reasoning. Some companies are small, tiny groups of . 2 or 3 employees do not appear to be able to form a viable . democratic company, against an entrepreneur who also has merit. _3.2.b-3 Anti Pirate force The Police protects transportation and travel through international territories. . . Reasoning. The army shouldn't, because it is too aggressive and . essentially aimed at other Nations. _3.2.b-3.1 Weapons Authorization When the Police maintains public, accurate and timely records, also for other Nations of the World, of how its weapons are being used, then the Police is exempted from being restricted to bring weapons across the border, but only to the extend of: international territories, territories of other Nations that are explicitly agreeing to allow it. When entering the territory of another Nation, the Police will submit to the law and Government of that Nation, and be liable under its law. . . Reasoning. It may erode the Law or the flag protocol, if the . Government has to declare a state of War if it is going to sink . a pirate boat with heavy weapons. Then, when that happens often, . the People will stop seeing the war flag as being associated . with war, and secret Government may attempt to sneak in illicit . activity when the People assume a pirate is being attacked. . On the other hand, if the Police is allowed to without flying the . war flag, then the law is being eroded. Eroding the law may also . end with secret illicit actions, grouping them under the actions . supposedly allowed without the war flag. . . The Police must obey the law of the other Nation, to respect that . Nation its sovereignty, such as this nation would like it as well. . Then things will be simply a matter of where you are, then that . law holds. Don't like the foreign law, then don't go there. . This does imply that if police enters a foreign territory, and . that Government orders our police to surrender its craft, then . the Police must obey: it would be our law to obey that. If the . Police rejects the foreign order, the foreign power could sue . in our courts. If it wins the case, foreign law and foreign . Government would hold over the Police officers and the vessel. . Presumably all would be extradited, to correct the situation. . This could be useful for international peaceful relations. _3.2.b-4 Police and Privacy The police is allowed to suspend temporarily and in individual cases the right to Privacy, see Article 2.1.e, Privacy, if doing so is vital to solving a crime. . . Reasoning. The right to privacy conflicts with the necessity . to solve crimes, to deny criminals the ability to make their home . into a legal fortress against the Police. Both interests have to . be weighed. _3.2.b-4.1 Police Privacy, oversight The right of the Police to search evidence and criminals by invading Privacy, is overseen case by case by Judges. For persons not having committed a crime of greed in the last 10 years, two Judges will have to agree to the search. During the search a witness of the Court of Justice will be present, from start to end. For persons having had committed a crime of greed not more then 10 years ago, one Judge will have to agree to the search. For persons having been convicted to prison for a crime of greed more then 3 times in the last 10 years, no Judges will have to agree to the search. . . Reasoning. This progressive system for people having had . more contact with Justice and been convicted, is to make . criminals carry more of the burden they create. The 10 year . limitation, which is presumably a long time for many criminals . not to carry out any crimes, is to prevent wrongful convictions . having legal consequences for an entire lifespan, and to make . sure that at some point the negative legal consequences end . (end of punishment). People who have changed their behavior, . will have a chance to be as good as new. . . The witness of the Court, is to provide the potentially innocent . person with someone who can look out for its interest, re-assure . that person that the search is not happening in a legal vacuum. . Incidentally, the witness may be useful during a trial as a . witness, either for the defendant against overzealous prosecutors . and police-men (who did the search, and build the case), or . against the defendant who could otherwise perhaps argue his . record as upstanding citizen and attack the credibility of the . searching Police more successfully but still deceptively. By . doing a well done search, the damage from the crime is not . made more worse then need be for finding the criminal. _3.2.b-4.2 Police Privacy, Compensation The duration of Privacy invading activity, even if it - the subject - is not hindered in any way, is reimbursed at the average wage for one person, plus unreasonable damages. . . Reasoning. This acts like a punishment on the Government, . the more persons privacy is being invaded, the more it costs, . the less money remains for other policy making, likely to . upset more Government politicians (who want money for their . activities). The `unreasonable damages' should be good enough . to pay for common breakages, but should exclude extreme damages . from unusual situations, or if the owner is standing by without . trying to prevent damage knowing it will occur and be unexpected . for the Police. It will be a good idea to recover the funds if . the party is actually guilty. It may be interesting to recover . all search money from the guilty party, if it is eventually found, . as this law-enforcement cost is additional damage flowing from the . original crime. This would make hiding for longer potentially more . costly for the criminal, it will make police less unwilling to give . the money if it can be recovered in total, and perhaps more . motivated to find a guilty party, and to weigh the cost of . searching against its use and chance of eventual recovery. Articles 3.3: Equality of Government _3.3.a Inclusive The law strives to establish equality of power. . . Reasoning. The government and society are not to be the rule of . a limited club, because this breeds injustice and corruption. . "Equality of initial chance" can deteriorate into the "freedom to . deny freedom", where "chance" is often neither a fair game of . productivity, and neither proportional to the extend it is a . game of productivity. The end result being inequality in practice . both with respect to the law, and elsewhere, particularly economic. Articles 3.4: Space _3.4.a Local Space The local democratic Government concerns itself with local problems. . . Reasoning. Obviously a government dealing with larger spaces has no . time to handle sufficiently small scale problems, and similarly a . government dealing with small spaces does not necessarily have the . need to handle large scale problems objectively. _3.4.a-1 Space protection The local democratic government is not evicted with force by a democratic government having authority over a larger area that includes the concerned local democratic government. . . Reasoning. When there is a conflict between smaller and larger . space government, the local government is to have some level of . protection, or else it really is just an office of the larger . government. If a place decides it is going to go against a larger . area government, then this will have to be solved diplomatically. . Ultimately the larger government might eject a place from its . authority and work around the (for them) problem area. Even though . the National Government can't eject a local Government, the Courts . still could if the local Government violated the Law and the . National Government won a case in Court. Difference is that it . wouldn't be an executive Government decision. In other words, . the local Government could fight eviction in Court, and win that . case. The National Government could not proceed, or risk being . prosecuted and even thrown in jail by the Courts and Police for . behaving criminally. _3.4.b National Space The National democratic Government concerns itself with National problems and inter local Government problems. When an inter local Government problem can not be reduced to two problems solved differently, the National democratic Government will decide how the issue will be decided. . . Reasoning. When there are disputes between local Governments, . both have equal authority, so the issue can presumably not be . resolved. There might be a taxation problem for instance, where people . in one area decide to have fewer taxes, yet they go to a hospital . in another area funded by local taxes. The Council in the area with . hospital do not like to pay an unequal share, and the people in the . other area claim that they should then also reduce their taxes and . reduce service at the hospital. They continue to claim access into . the hospital for paying some, and the hospital refuses to refuse . people from a neighboring area. Hence the problem just sits there, . so now what. This would be a good issue to either try to resolve . through the courts if there are national laws about this, but if . there are no laws it could be referred to the country council to . make an executive decision. Since it is inter-council and not local, . the national Government certainly has executive jurisdiction. It can . then determine the issue, and the decision can be enforced through the . courts under the rule that the National Government had precedence. Then . the police could force the issue if it isn't complied with. If the . decision was that the low-tax area has to pay its full sum, the police . could seize the necessary funds and procedure the offending delegates. . . On the other hand: if there is a area of nature apparently both in the . area of two local councils, and they disagree on its management, it may . well be possible to have different management in both areas, assuming . the nature area is compatible with that. If it isn't, it would again . be a National Government problem to determine. The Article says `how . it is solved,' which suggests the National Government could decide . the matter by for instance setting up a poll over the entire region. . If that seems to be `the will of the People,' there is some legal . pressure to go with that, see Article 3.1.a, Government Intention. . But the National Government could also determine the issue on its . own terms, determining that will be the method. Articles 3.5: Money oversight _3.5.a Money oversight The elected delegates elect a body of oversight and/or management with complete authority to know everything pertaining to the money system. The elected Money oversight committee handles the task in the area of authority of the electing delegates. . . Reasoning. Only the majority has a common interest at odds with . money manipulations behind the scenes. The fiat (non-commodity) money . system seems to be completely open-ended from the side of the banks, . what is stopping a bank or government employee from adding money or . taking money away from the "back" side of accounts: rules and oversight . flowing from the people. Changing to a commodity money such as gold . is another option, but a fiat system could work provided it is run . honestly. Money would be more of a "right to have a number of credit . points", instead of "owning a commodity which is widely used in swap . trade." If a commodity money such as gold is in practice also reduced . to abstract money (valueless coins, notes and bank-accounts), the practical . difference between a gold standard and a "judicial" standard could be . small. Whether a fiat-judicial standard works may depend on the honesty . of the people, since making gold from lead is more difficult then punching . numbers in a keyboard. In a system where money is controlled by . wealthy people, the system could be kept in check because the richest . people can only be rich if others are poor, and hence they'd attempt to . stop the making of money by employees if it is not for themselves. How . much money can be extracted from the back-end-open banking system, may . just depend on the social struggle for better living conditions by the . People at large. Whether or not this is the situation in a not . democratically controlled fiat money, something has to replace that will . to reduce corrupt money creation by employees. Naturally the people . again, through voting procedure. . . A fiat money works because: . 1. The government forces you to pay taxes in money, so that somewhere . in the economic chain people (even a lot of people) have a need for . money to pay taxes to stay out of jail. Once something has value . for someone in the economy, it can be used as a medium for exchange . (money), because even if it has no value for someone, it can be . exchanged for goods/services with someone who is `looking to stay out . of jail with that money.' Once you know that `Jimmy' wants `a bag . of leaves', you can use `a bag of leaves' as a medium of exchange . with everyone who knows Jimmy, and knows that Jimmy will do something . for that bag. Transition of value, almost a form of speculation. . 2. Shops are forced by law to accept money, and if shops are forced to . accept it, money automatically has value. On force of prison. . . You would need a complete government system to back a pure fiat . money up, and maintain it into the economy. But how do you justify . asking taxes, it can't just be the stick, that's not "nice" ... The . taxes pay for that government system, and in return the government . has to do useful things, that can not be done by the free markets . themselves, completing the circle. Such as provide Justice, Police, . and maintain money, work for the common good. If you want a pure fiat . money, you apparently need a government. . . If you want to have money without government, you are stuck with . commodity money, such as gold, rice or "promise for an hour of work" . (which is too uncertain and would probably not work in larger groups . either). A fiat money is flexible for policy-making, but equally . flexible for the corrupt. . . When needed, money-oversight committees on the local level are . elected to deal with local corruption, elected locally to prevent . top level corruption. The local committees will be a useful stomping . ground for potential future national oversight committee members.
Chapter 4: Structure of Disaster Relief Articles 4.1: Purpose _4.1.a Purpose The purpose of the disaster relief organization under Government control is to to relief the People in times of disaster. This organization trains for disasters according their likelihood of occurring. Foreign invasion is only one type of such disaster, which is trained for according to its likelihood by people also trained for other disaster relief roles. . . Reasoning. War has no future because if it has, humanity has none. . The purpose of the armed forces is to retire. In the past combat may . have had a purpose, but that time is gone and will only come back . if the army destroys humanity first, which with todays and especially . future technology is more then a theoretical possibility. In effect, . the armed forces and potential for all out conflict are the only true . enemy of humanity. _4.1.a-1 Separation of Task The disaster relief organization strictly separates all tasks involving weapons from all other disaster relief tasks which do not involve weapons. Separated at least in conduct, in dress, in tools, in finance. . . Reasoning. For the army, the tasks that involve weapons should be . a specialist task, so that there is potential that this task . eventually becomes obsolete and forgotten throughout the world. . An army that has other means of making a living and doing work, . will not have to make a war out of necessity to keep alive. . Armies that train exclusively for war would eventually become . bored with peace: why train people for war when there never comes . a war. Exclusive war training means a political pressure to . eventually either make war, or fire people. When the army is . wearing a different outfit during non-weapons tasks, such as . help during earth-quakes, floods, famines, storms, disease . outbreaks etc, the people in the army will come to realize that . these task stand on their own and do in no way flow from their . weapons capability, suggesting that they could do away with their . weapons capability without losing the real work. _4.1.b What war The disaster relief organization fights invading armies. . . Reasoning. There has not been all out war since the second world . war by any country which has the highest technological capabilities. . In that sense war has already ended, even though the limited actions . that did take place were often more destructive then the all out wars . that preceded it. This has apparently made many people unaware of . the destructive capabilities of todays armies. A Government which . is faced with an invasion force may attempt to use the armed forces . to protect itself, rather then act in the best interest of the People, . even if that means losing power. _4.1.b-1 local Battle The only battle the disaster relief organization is to fight, is the war against local dictatorship, either foisted by a local minority, or foreign aggressors. The disaster relief organization does not attack other nations. . . Reasoning. There is no more tribe warfare, therefore other . countries can never be a military enemy. In case of an invasion, . it is not the other country, but the institution of local . dictatorship by the invasion army which is the enemy. The enemy . is therefore limited to occupation forces, who act as local . criminals against the local law and the local People. Fighting . this occupation force has the potential to kill occupation . soldiers. Invasion has little use without subsequent occupation, . during occupation the invading criminals are most vulnerable. _4.1.b-2 No Police Tasks The disaster relief organization does never engage in policing the local population majority. . . Reasoning. Long established army exclusion. The army is trained . to kill people, in this they perpetrate the death penalty, without . trial. They are therefore never to engage the local population. . Armies tend to be the force with which local dictatorships are . established. _4.1.b-3 Inside the Land The disaster relief organization is only permitted to bring weapons and fighters - people in a fighting role - beyond the border of the country during war, war as defined in Article 1.1.c-1, Flag of war. No on duty war personnel or any of its weapons under direction by the army or the Government will appear beyond the border of the country, when no war has been declared. Exception: see Article 3.2.b-3.1, Weapons Authorization. . . Reasoning. Though it in general seems a mistake to ever allow . fighters beyond the border even during war, there could be a . justified use during defense. A law against it might be exploited . by a hostile enemy as a tactical advantage. The army is neither . allowed to carry weapons into international territory, no surface . ships with weapons or submarines with weapons. The task of destroying . pirates on the open seas falls to the Police, the pirate is a robber . and a criminal, not the army of a foreign nation. The police is . well suited for this task, because the police has the necessary . skills to fight crime, and to form friendly relationships with . all other police forces out on the open seas to destroy pirates. . There need be no tension between varies police forces of varies . countries, therefore international cooperation in this area should . be easy and natural. No such ease exists between armies of different . nations, as they view each other as potential criminals and hostile . invaders, which reduces the effectiveness of the police work. . Pirate activity can be used as an excuse by politicians to keep . an aggressive army on foot. . . Using the words `fighters' and `war personnel' leaves some room . for interpretation regarding people also trained to handle other . disasters, for them to go toward another nation in a non-military . aid capacity (volcano eruption, earthquake, etc), obviously . without arms or battle dress. The phrase `under direction of army . or Government' leaves yet more room, to send out personnel under . direction of independent groups or foreign Governments, etc. The . article says the same thing twice, to remove all doubt. To get . around the prohibition: raise the war flag. _4.1.b-3.1 Training The disaster relief organization to the degree it trains for use of weapons and fighting, occupies itself with learning the terrain of the home country. How to inflict maximum casualties on any invading army. How to defeat a hostile army long term, once it has changed its role from offensive to oppression and occupation, and how to deny an invading army economic gains for itself and for its home country. Training with other nation's disaster relief organizations is only permitted for non-violent disaster relief roles. . . Reasoning. The purpose of the army is to defend the sovereignty . of its Government, to the degree that sovereignty is democratic . and not itself an oppressive occupation. To effect this, it is . useful to kill as many invaders as possible, and to deny economic . gains from entering the country, since that would prevent an . invader from reaching its invasion goals, which are either . strategic power, ideological goals or economic benefit. Such . invader benefits are only reached once a country is safely under . control under a newly fomented Government. To deny an invader . from reaching these goals, even if the sovereignty and order in . the country can not be protected for some time because a hostile . army is expressing its power in the country, means that an invasion . will be less likely, and that there is hope it is being expelled. . Most countries do not like drawn out battles over territory that . gives them no profit, because war is expensive, it cuts into the . luxury of the people in the invading country and can destabilize . it over time. An invading army can be confronted head on, but . when the clash fails the country lies open. This is a short term . gamble some politicians might be willing to make. When an invading . army faces an endless professional insurgency aimed at killing . the invaders personally and denying economic benefit, the cost . is always going to be quite high, the duration potentially long, . and the backlash / profit balance on the invading country would . seem more difficult to estimate. Training for an insurgency could . therefore prevent the war from happening. The aim of killing the . invading soldiers personally in the greatest possible number, . might be scary for invading soldiers, since they would be walking . into a prepared trap. . . The army can also engage in terrorist activities within the . attacking nation, so as to reduce the economic gain that country . is reaping from the invasion - in so doing the army should take . care not to attack (dissenting), people and to focus on economic . destruction of all kinds, not necessarily linked to the invasion. . An invading country is to pay deeply for its crime, whatever . else happens. _4.1.b-4 Not for Profit When the disaster relief organization wages a war - which can only be a defensive war - and comes to occupy new territory, the resources of the occupied territory are not taken home as spoils of war. The resources can be used only for waging the war itself. . . Reasoning. Many wars would be waged out of profit lust, the army . should not risk its blood for greedy people. Just as the army . would deny an invading country to take spoils, so it should resist . taking such spoils. However using resources can be important . for an ongoing (defensive) battle, the army should therefore not . be disallowed to use such tactical advantages. A reasonable way . to delineate either is when people get richer because of the use . of such resources. That is crossing the line. _4.1.c Unity of Humanity The times of tribal battle and domination Empire are gone. . . Reasoning. There can be no place for territorial divisions between . parts of humanity to the extend this produces armed struggle, much . less war. This article is to set the disaster relief organization with . a certain mind-set, so that this group does not assume itself to be . part of some kind imaginary tribal defense unit, becoming a policy . making force rather then just an executive force. Articles 4.2: Dispatch _4.2.a Army Dispatch Armed forces - disaster relief organization bearing arms - are not allowed to engage any enemy without explicit Two Thirds approval from the People. . . Reasoning. The lives of soldiers have often been the toys of confused . or megalomaniac politicians, either incapable or unwilling to find . alternative solutions, which often tend to be in the area of alternative . politics rather then destructive armed struggle. To murder people in . other parts of the world, or in the local part of the world, and to . cause catastrophic damage, is a decision which if it is to ever be . taken at all, it should be taken directly by the highest authority . possible: the Two Third majority of the People, directly in Referendum, . not by proxy. This is to protect the world from turning its high . technological power unto itself, to protect the soldiers, and protect . the People from being guilty in the unspeakable crimes of war. _4.2.b Army Loyalty Soldiers, officers and other disaster relief organization personnel in a war time role individually and in groups, are without fail Loyal to the People and their Referendum above the Government or army officers. . . Reasoning. The power of the army tends to be directed at killing . people. This devastating weapon must never be a toy in the hands of . a group as small as a Government, regardless of how it was elected. _4.2.c Individual Right to Reject Dispatch Every soldier has the right to declare himself as no longer a part of the disaster relief organization, and face no penalties for this action. . . Reasoning. Soldiers may end up killing people when engaged. Many . causes, if not all causes, do not warrant this killing. This . understanding may come to a particular soldier at any time, and . may be the result of fighting a war which should never have been . ordered, and serves no common purpose. _4.2.d Collective Right to Reject Dispatch Soldiers and officers have the right to initiate or participate in a referendum regarding the question whether they will reject an order to fight. . . Reasoning. It is the soldiers who are going to do the fighting, . killing and dying. Nobody has the right to ask such from anyone, . not even the People, without asking for consent and agreement. . Under conditions, the People may be confused and/or in hysteria, . when the soldiers are not. In most cases it is better not to . fight. _4.2.d-1 Collective Right to Reject Dispatch, majority If a Two Thirds majority is against fighting, the order to fight is nullified as if it had never existed. Soldiers who retired because of the order (see Article 4.2.c, Individual Right to Reject Dispatch) are counted in the said Referendum. . . Reasoning. If there is true cause for war, people who wanted to . be in the army are probably going to fight it. But if the cause . is speculative or wrong, the army as a whole has to have the legal . power to say no. Articles 4.3: Limitations _4.3.a No Child Soldiers People with lowered capacity to understand the world and its complexities are excluded from serving in the armed forces. The disaster relief organization does not train or have working in any type of work whatsoever people below the age of 25 years. . . Reasoning. It is important that soldiers are able to understand what . they are doing, and when they are being used as toys. Small children . have been used time and again by dangerous regimes, because small . children have no psychological defense. Small children won't know . when an army is being used to destroy a country and oppress its . people, and when it is being used to help a country. When the army . can only hire people from the age of 25, they will tend to have had . a few years of economic independence and probably have had another . job. This should broaden their horizon if they later came to work . in the army. Since training can only begin at 25, battle ready . forces would still be older then that. The last thing anyone should . want is a group of children aged around 18-20, in control of absolute . fire power and naturally unable to have the slightest clue for what . ends they are really being used if these ends were not justifiable. . In any battle there are two major legs of power: direct force and . strategy/tactic. The strategy/tactic involves deception, and therefore . the army leaders are well versed in how to deceive people (ideally . the enemy). Psychological warfare has been around since billions of . years. It should come natural to them, to deceive their fellow soldiers, . were they inclined to do so. Handing the army child-soldiers is asking . for such problems, because child-soldiers don't expect to be so abused . by the adults of their own country. Children tend to believe more . easily that the world could be a primitive war of tribe against . tribe, and children have a natural tendency to copy behavior from . adults and believe what they say good/bad true/false.
Chapter 5: Structure of Monopoly Sectors Articles 5.1: Monopoly Sector _5.1.a Definition Monopoly Sector A Monopoly Sector is a sector of industry where having a multitude of offerings to costumers results in a multitude of concurrent infrastructures, each or most of which could carry with comparatively marginal extra cost the entire volume of trade, but each of which has to charge a much higher price to costumers then a single all carrying infrastructure would be able to, because of the cost of maintaining their complete infrastructure on the basis of their limited share of trade. . . Reasoning. Having concurrent infrastructures means total volume of . trade divides between the infrastructures. This is not a problem . if the infrastructure size is directly proportional to the volume . of trade going over it. It is possible to have several concurrent . taxi companies, because the "infrastructure" of all taxi businesses . adapts directly and proportional to their share of trade, the . fixed additional cost of the "infrastructure" is low. Concurrent . infrastructures are a problem if the size of the infrastructure is . mostly fixed regardless of the volume of trade going over it. When . there are several concurrent tap water systems, even systems that . have barely any or no trade going over them, need still a complete . functioning system, almost as if all trade was going over them. . The cost of maintaining the infrastructure while only carrying a . (small) share of total possible trade, means the cost of the . infrastructure per consumed amount is high. The needs of meaningful . competition demand there are "many and freely changing" competitors, . which is "many and freely changing" infrastructures. This makes the . price even higher compared to one fixed infrastructure. _5.1.b Service rendered The People, or in their absence a Two Third majority of Government, decide whether a Monopoly Sector service will be rendered for any particular sector. . . Reasoning. It is possible to create and remove monopoly sectors, . depending on how a service is to be rendered. By dismantling . the tap water system infrastructure as a way water is delivered, . water trade can fall exclusively to business competition that . sells bottled water, since such sales have no fixed costly . infrastructure. By building an automated system where food is . delivered to each home daily, a new type of infrastructure is . created where meaningful competition could be impractical . (depending on the technical details). _5.1.c Service Group The People or in their absence the Government decide who governs every monopoly sector service group. Changes to the setup are made by the People or a Two Third majority of Government. . . Reasoning. There are many possible models for organization, some . may work better for this, others for that. But can't have the setup . change all the time, so need Two Third majority. _5.1.c-1 Service Group, Appointed Dictator The People or in their absence the Government can decide to appoint a dictator over a monopoly service group. The dictator is a subordinate employee of the Government. . . Reasoning. This method has a high level of discipline, work don't . talk. _5.1.c-2 Service Group, Representative Democracy The People or in their absence the Government can decide to declare a monopoly service group a representative democracy of employees. . . Reasoning. This method is nicer to employees, who will have to have . discipline in themselves to make it work. _5.1.c-2.1 Service Group, Representative Democracy semi limited The People or in their absence the Government can decide to declare a monopoly service group a representative democracy of employees, where the Two Third majority of Government has the right to force or change any decision. . . Reasoning. In a way this is already implied because the Government . could change the form of Governance. The article makes it possible . for Government to change decisions without having to change the . governance system. Perhaps this article is a bit superfluous. _5.1.c-2.2 Service Group, Representative Democracy limited The People or in their absence the Government can decide to declare a monopoly service group a representative democracy of employees, where the Government has the right to force or change any decision. . . Reasoning. This method gives Government easy access to change . decisions more extensive then implied in the Government's mandate . to change the form of governance. _5.1.c-3 Service Group, Public Democracy The People or in their absence the Government can decide to declare a monopoly service group a representative democracy directly elected by the general public. . . Reasoning. Stand alone democracy. _5.1.c-4 Service Group, Costumer Democracy The People or in their absence the Government can decide to declare a monopoly service group a representative democracy, elected by the costumers and employees. Costumers and employees are both represented in management. . . Reasoning. Stand alone democracy, which gives workers more power. _5.1.c-5 Service Group, Other The People or in their absence the Government, with or without collaboration with employees, can establish forms of organization not listed here. . . Reasoning. Should not make the impression this is an exclusive list. . All kinds of possibilities and permutations are potentially useful. _5.1.c-5.1 Service Group, not immune The People or in their absence the Government always reserve the right to terminate or alter the form of such organizations as established under Article 5.1.c-5, Service Group, other. . . Reasoning. No "cut forever loose from Government" forms, which may . lead to private dictatorships over monopoly sectors, and the . price/quality problems associated with private monopolies, and . dictatorships in general. _5.1.c-6 Service Group, privatization A Service Group or parts of it can be privatized by the Two Third majority of Government. . . Reasoning. Sometimes technical situations may change, or a service . group might have developed activities which are not really part of the . a natural monopoly, and which are in practice better left to competitive . markets (political choice). Service Group organization is also . mentioned in Article 7.1.b, Special Markets Service Group.
Chapter 6: Structure of Free Markets Articles 6.1: Free Markets _6.1.a Free Market Everyone has the freedom to trade - negotiate an exchange until agreed by both sides; the freedom to start and stop a business at their leisure, and to engage in contracts that do not violate the law. Trade across the national border can be subject to special laws, policies and duties by the Government. . . Reasoning. Free market activities can overlap with activities also . serviced by the monopoly sector or other sectors, where they can . temporarily or permanently fill voids in availability, diversity. . . The idea of this system centers around a freely negotiated trade society, . because that causes power to be dispersed throughout the society, and if . it can be guaranteed that there is no (or little) theft and power abuses, . then in the main the producers negotiate mutually. They can shut out power . abusers and criminals, as well as give to those who work with bad quality . only as much as their work is worth in their eyes. Because the markets are . wide and varied, and people may choose to buy and sell for many reasons . - they could choose the price/quality relationship, but they do not have . to - if something is worth something eventually one might find a buyer. . The market also prevents the Government to know everything, and therefore . to adopt its non-totalitarian role. With this great power of trade, which . is also a natural given, the people can both heal and destroy their nation. . . The trade across the border is restricted, because foreign trading . partners may not meet our standards of Justice and other standards. Trading . openly with them can destroy the domestic markets. Foreign entities can . use trade as a means to wage a nefarious campaigns against our nation. . The domestic market is something that the people through their Government . must be able to protect if that is necessary. Articles 6.2: Initiate Businesses _6.2.a Establish business Every person and groups of persons has the right to quickly establish a business recognized by the law, if the activities of said business do not conflict with the law. . . Reasoning. Creating a new business should be a trivial administrative . procedure, open to everyone. Larger businesses can start with only . one employee/owner. _6.2.a-1 Establish business, dictatorship A business can be established as a dictatorship, lawful decisions being made by the person or persons having established the business (see Article 6.2.a, Establish business). . . Reasoning. Very small businesses usually are dictatorships, and . can only be dictatorships for practical reasons. The employees . of the dictatorship often just include the dictator himself, . sometimes with a few helpers. Such business can be unstable, it . could break under the stresses of complicated democratic rules, . where the dictator knows what is to happen anyway. The leadership . can also be a limited club. _6.2.a-2 Establish business, rule book A business can be established under a rule book, lawful decisions being made by the mechanism of the rule book. . . Reasoning. Businesses can be established by groups or individuals . on the basis of a personal set of rules rather then a dictator. _6.2.a-2.1 Rule book, limit The rule book in Article 6.2.a-2, Establish business, rule book, loses its power when the conditions of Article 6.3.a, Reaching Democracy have been met. . . Reasoning. The rule book can not prevent the law which makes a . business a democracy. Articles 6.3: Hand over Business _6.3.a Reaching Democracy When the person or persons which has originally started a business (see Article 6.2.a, Establish business) ends regularly working for the business, and the business has more employees then a number to be determined by the People or in their absence the Two Third majority of Government, control and ownership of the business is transferred to the employees, in good faith, fairness, transparency and equality. The starter is compensated fairly out of the value of the company, and/or the private value of employees, and/or the value of future profits generated by the company. When there are: ..[10]. or more employees, the employees gain control as described. . . Reasoning. The owner/director has done his work, other have had . to obey his orders, good and bad. The employees have earned the . moral right to own be business, and are the only group with a . vested interest in the continued success of business. Giving the . business to someone else means creating a top-class of people, . who wield power they have not build up themselves, and who will . continue dictatorial relations between management and employees . with all the problems that brings, such as income differences . based upon power differences, rather then on productivity. This . eventually produces a class of rich parasites, without much . ability, but with inherited power (much like a monarchy, but . then in dictatorial business instead of dictatorial country rule). . Putting the employees in charge, is like a democratic revolution . after the King (Queen) is out. . . It should be noted that if a number is given in this Constitution, . then "the people" are not absent. So the two/third of Government can . not change it, the constitution must be changed instead. Removing . the number means it becomes common law, which the Government can . alter in this case only with a two/third majority. _6.3.a-1 Reaching Democracy, employee protection When a business has more or equal number of employees then a number to be determined by the People or in their absence the Two Third majority of Government, the employees have the right to veto the sale of parts of the business, the right to veto buying new parts for the business, the right to veto the firing of employees in an effort to get below this limit, and in general the right to veto self destructive business practice. The minimum number of employees for this protection is .[7].. . . Reasoning. In order for the employees to have a realistic . chance of running the business later, the employees have to . be able to resist last minute destructive selling and last . minute destructive buying. For this to be meaningful, the . employer must not be able to use back doors like firing . away employees. _6.3.a-2 Reaching Democracy, employer protection When a business owner loses control of a business as described in Article 6.3.a, Reaching Democracy, the employer negotiates a pension out of future profits from this business with the employees. The People or in their absence the Government decides a minimum duration of this pension, and a minimum height of this pension. . . Reasoning. The employer has build the business, and has . moral right to a share of future profits. The employer knows . much about the business, if it is payed out of future . profits it has one more interest in seeing the business do well. _6.3.a-3 Reaching Democracy, employer debt protection A business newly owned by employees assumes responsibility for necessary debts made by the previous employer in the clear interest of the business. . . Reasoning. The employer should not be left with (large) personal . debts made in the interest of the business, while the employees . live it up in the newly won business. The amount of profit the . employer has taken out of the business can be weighed against . the amount of personal debts. If much profit was sucked out, . leaving (some) debts is fairer then if this was not the case. . This might be a reflection of the character of the employer, and . therefore give an indication of the necessity of the debts. . An employer which has poured personal money into a business . can be seen as a business which has a lend money from an employer. . Such things would have to be negotiated. One mid way solution . is to factor these things into the pension from future profits, . rather then new possibly crushing debt on a business going . through a difficult transition. _6.3.a-4 Majority Business The Majority of employees become recognized as legal owners when they have surrendered to the Court of Justice a description of the decision making rules for their company, which enacts these rules the Law of the Country. Decision making rules is one of either: B company: Boss elect. The boss elect decides all, but can be replaced at any moment by new elections in the company. C company: Cooperation management-worker. The management and workers have regular meetings, the management will surrender all information, the management can be replaced at any moment by new elections in the company. D1 company: Dialogue meetings 1. The people working in the company will discuss the proceedings of the company regularly, and decide per majority vote, one vote one person. D2 company: Dialogue meetings 2. The people working in the company will discuss the proceedings of the company regularly, and decide per majority vote, one vote per worked hour counting from one year ago to the present. E company: Erupting majorities. The people working in the company meet when a problem arises, and there decide by majority vote of those present, one person one vote. O company: Other, to be described. . . Reasoning. Self evident. The employees do not become per person . owner of a part of the company, which they then might take out and . sell. They are owners as a group, if they want to disintegrate and . sell, they would first need to agree to that in majority. If there . is no such majority, individuals who want out while taking a share . will have to get approval of the majority. . . The description of the rules for the company can be a simple ``We . are a B company,'' or ``We are a D2 Company,'' once surrendered to . the Court and the transfer having gone according to other legal . requirements which are probably going to be described in common law, . it is obvious to anyone what the status of the company is. When . a company wants to change some rules they should register under O, . and describe it in detail, and await a Court approval, which can . then be appealed. The descriptions of B, C, D1, D2, and E company . types is primarily meant to give new employees-owners some structure . to work with, and to make sure order is maintained within these . companies with the force of the Court and Police behind it. When . a company has registered as a certain type, it becomes law for that . company, the law of the Country and not just the private rules of . a group of people, left to enforce these themselves. That is probably . necessary because debates about money and work are important to . people, which could cause emotions to flare up. With this being the . law of the Country, it becomes possible to make court cases about . company-internal decision-making and related details. Such court . cases carry the risk of being convicted to pay for the court case . out of the company profit, reducing pressure on the Courts from this . kind of cases. . . An `A' company is an entrepreneurial company. _6.3.a-4.1 Continuity of Democracy If the majority mentioned in Article 6.3.a-4, Majority Business decides on a rule book for future decisions, the authority resulting from the rule book and the rule book itself remain subordinate to the Two Third majority of the employees of the moment. . . Reasoning. The employees can not lock themselves out of their . own democracy, as this is likely to result in regrets, and would . likely be a decision forced on them, while it serves no useful . purpose. However, a Two Third majority is needed to change a . rule book if any is explicitly established to prevent constant . instability in the business organization when something hangs . around 50% votes. _6.3.a-5 Unity of business All persons who in practice do more or less the work of employees, but are administratively registered as businesses owners or otherwise put into a different category, have all the rights of employees. . . Reasoning. Businesses may attempt to evade rules by attempting . to plug their employees differently into the law. A business . could pretend to accept the services of a lot of independent . service providers, evading the rights these "service providing . businesses owners/employees" would have if they were known as . employees. When the "service providing businesses" want to exercise . a certain right, they need to be able to be re-registered as . employees. This may result in the business having to deal with . employees having a certain amount of power (see Article 6.3.a-1, . Reaching Democracy, employee protection, or becoming owners (see . Article 6.3.a, Reaching Democracy, etc. _6.3.a-5.1 Number of Companies per person One person can in total own not more then a number of Companies. The limit is: ..[4]. companies per person at a time. . . Reasoning. In entrepreneurial business, it is only useful to ever . own one company, and do that well. When it comes to combining . effort of different companies, these companies can work together . cooperatively, rather then submit to one point of power. . Grouping multiple businesses under one person seems only important . for people who want to evade laws, such as the maximum on . ownership for (pretense) businesses without employees, and . preventing companies becoming democracies for companies above . the numerical employee limits, etc. Legitimate and productive . businesses tend to be owned by one deeply involved entrepreneur, . there seems no reason why that single company could not become . bigger to envelop the tasks the owner wishes it to perform when . the efforts lie on the same terrain. . . When the wealth of a company is counted to its owners, companies . can not be used to store personal value. But when that is done, . fractional ownership results in each employee holding a percentage . of ownership for democratic companies. When the limit is one . company, then if someone only holds a part in another company, for . example one tenth because it is a democracy or some related . scheme, that would mean that person can not start a business next . to its other job, even though it is hardly "owning a company." That . other business could be a hobby or something to the side, maybe . a car driving around selling ice-creams on sunny summer days. It . seems unjust and unfair to reduce the chances of such a person, . who is not dedicated to one company, just to prevent certain legal . loopholes. That company to the side could one day become a bigger . company. In this case it is fine if one person has 1.1 companies. . Then there may be people who have multiple talents or maybe they . want not to bet all on one horse, or start multiple things to see . what works. If someone has a lot of part time jobs, the limit of . two could be overstepped if these businesses are small, but . this problem would probably be rare enough. It would take more then . 8 jobs in 8 companies of on average 4 people total (8 x .25% = . 200%). To set a limit to the number of companies keeps the system . from being flooded by empty companies, and it forces entrepreneurs . to cut what is useless. Empty company shells are a way often used . to commit financial crimes. Every company would result is some . bureaucracy at the state level, the state has an interest not . to see the amount of companies approach infinity. Who can . seriously manage 10 companies concurrently ? Does that no reduce . the freedom of other people to start their businesses ? At what . point does an owner become a rarely seen adviser, in which case . one might as well (from a common-interest productivity standpoint . at least, the view of society) set up one management advice bureau. _6.3.b No International Businesses Productive activities which help to create the marketable product of a business, taking place on the territory of the country, are organized in a business incorporated within the Nation. The business acts independently in its own best interest with respect to businesses in other countries, with which it can interface at its own pleasure through free trade, within the context of the Law. . . Reasoning. What this does, effectively, is cut all businesses . organizations off at the border, parts - if any - are independent . businesses in their own right. This does not have to hamper business . operations at all, as the relation with the rest of the company . shifts from a potentially dictatorial management relation to a trade . relation which should distribute profit accordingly. It is important . to deny infusion with other businesses, so as to avoid the losing . of profit from work done within the country (international . financial/managerial parasitism). Work done here but profits moving . to elsewhere is not in the interest of the country, and it reduces . the exposure of the management reducing its democratic and natural . responsibility. It is important to make sure workers have all the . rights to which they are entitled, such as becoming a democracy, . which could be confusing for businesses straddling borders. Allowing . multinational businesses breeds all kinds legal confusions. . . This set up demands a trade interface, which is a soft concept . that it can mean a lot of things. You could "buy/rent" a business . concept from another country, thus making it possible for a . franchise to span countries, as long as the interface is trade . and not managerial force. This means for a franchise that a . franchise chain owner in another country has no management power . within this country. When the law of this country disallows for . instance the use of names or franchise concepts from other countries . to be used without a direct contract from a foreign franchise giver, . the foreign franchise holder may sue in local Court and for the . sake of local law. . . The transportation business seems to be an obvious problem: its . product/service is created on the territory of `this' country, . yet its management and organization often would not be here, while . it is impractical and costly to change everything at the border just . for the sake of protecting local law coherency. Transportation . businesses do not tend to suck profits out of a country: there . is enough room for competition, transportation businesses go . both ways, etc. A view which could work, is to regard each person . or groups of persons, who enters over the border while transporting . as an employee to another country, comes to comprise an individual . consumer, private person, or person in the capacity of an implicit . independent local business. Then they are subject to all rules . that hold for businesses and private persons transporting things . locally. . . The term `marketable products' would exclude advertisements or . coming in to discuss business proposals, which would be a secondary . activity not directly producing the products / services. Though it . are activities of a business, they do not require local incorporation, . unless marketing is (among) the core product(s) marketed. The `context . of the Law' is added so the article can not be read as to nullify . common law in favor of `free foreign trade.' The purpose of the . article is not to deny the Government the power to make law and . regulate trade, international or otherwise. . .. Updated (ammended) wo jan 25 11:16:11 UTC 2012: . Tue Sep 8 19:29:29 UTC 2009 foreign transportation instead chapter 7 . Significant: relatively irrelevant detail . Certainty: reasonable . . Special rules can then be made, whatever they need to be for the . crossborder transportation business, if it can not be solved within the . confines of the rules in chapter 6. This is hardly a serious issue. . But if it is going to be solved in a way that bends and oddly interprets . laws or makes laws that are hard to follow so that the situation will be . resolved - even if properly - outside of the law, then the respect for . the law will deteriorate. That could be the beginning of the collapse of . the lawful order, which is a more serious problem. .. End ammendment. Articles 6.4: Minimum Working Conditions _6.4.a Minimum conditions The Government establishes minimum working conditions. . . Reasoning. Working against bad conditions can make prices . low, and therefore a business successful. On the one hand this . can be resisted by a consumer boycott, but not all consumers have an . interest in good working conditions, especially business owners. . Secondly, not everything can always be known by consumers, or . consumers may have no practical choice. Businesses with bad working . conditions cause society hidden (future) costs. Workers on a low . wage have to seek cheap products, spreading the disease of bad conditions . when they have to buy with and therefore stimulate businesses with . low prices and therefore also likely to have bad working conditions. _6.4.a-1 [[Scratched, see Amendment 23]] _6.4.a-2 Worker safety The People or in their absence the Government establish minimum safety conditions to work in. . . Reasoning. See Article 6.4.a, Minimum conditions. _6.4.a-3 Environmental safety The People or in their absence the Government establish rules to protect the natural environment. . . Reasoning. Self evident, but probably deserves to be mentioned . explicitly. _6.4.a-4 Public safety The People or in their absence the Government establish rules to protect the Public from safety risks. . . Reasoning. Self evident, but probably deserves to be mentioned . explicitly. Articles 6.5: Anti Monopoly _6.5.a Anti monopoly The Government ensures large businesses do not acquire a market share so great that any or all individual costumers are losing the ability to choose between many different suppliers and producers. . . Reasoning. The whole point of markets is choice for consumers, and . also choice for employees. When there is no choice, the market is . stagnated and effectively a monopoly service group under private . dictatorial control without Government oversight. This breeds bad . quality and profiteering. _6.5.a-1 Nationalization The Government has the right to declare any company which has become large enough to fall under Article 6.5.a, Anti monopoly exclusion from free markets, to become a monopoly sector service group (see Article 5.1.c Service Group). . . Reasoning. Some businesses may have created or become active in an . area where competition is not possible or costly, it would be . no solution to break them up or create more businesses. _6.5.a-2 Break up The Government passes laws which determine when a company is to be broken up in order to re-establish a condition of choice and competition. . . Reasoning. When a business is to be broken up or not is better not . left to the whims of Governments, because this may produce corruption, . unequal justice, and additional insecurity for businesses. Articles 6.6: Open markets _6.6.a Open markets Trading partners, whether businesses or individual costumers, have the right to know with whom and what they are trading. . . Reasoning. Market preferences of consumers based on the social-economic . make-up of companies is a major element to keep the economy in . line with social expectations of the people. For this to work, it . is essential that consumers get accurate information, and for this . information to be provided accurately on penalty of legal punishment. . The information needs to be published, probably at the point of . selling, so that there is no additional business expenses/work involved . and people may casually observe the status of a company. The important . information is primarily working conditions, which includes where the . money is going and probably what the organization type of a company . is. In the interest of privacy individual wages/conditions do not . need to be specified, unless they concern some special circumstance . (high/low). . . Publishing of conditions may develop automatically in an economy, . especially in businesses that expect to benefit from consumer . favoritism. However, other businesses are likely to come up with . schemes of deceit. For every honest "seal of approval", there could . be invented false seals, marginally different. To prevent such an . arms-race, all companies are expected to yield the information in . the same format. To this information can always be attached creative . seals/labels. The government may also device seals/labels to indicate . the social conditions. Businesses who cheat would obviously be fined . (or worse), providing additional business set-back for such badly . behaving companies. _6.6.a-1 Open markets, money Information as specified in Article 6.6.a, Open markets includes a telling indication, in a form explicitly defined by the People or in their absence the Government, of how the total business revenue from whatever sources is distributed among all that are productive for a company, be they individuals or other businesses. . . Reasoning. Consumers must know how money is distributed in the . companies that they promote the existence off because they buy its . services/products. These businesses are their and their children's . future employers. An obvious choice here is providing highest and . lowest salary, and/or a wage distribution index. The information . would have to include parties who lend money to a business, because . otherwise a high income might be hidden as payments on a loan. Some . people might come to support businesses with high wage disparities, but . this would hopefully be a minority. More likely people who don't care . for social conditions of workers will not care, not change their buying . behavior either way. If almost nobody cares or if conditions are fine . everywhere, the system would be a useless economic burden. Therefore . the cost of the system should probably be low from the start, and the . method of computing/publishing simple and obvious, so as not to hurt . the economy more then it is worth.
Chapter 7: Structure of Special Markets Articles 7.1: Special Markets _7.1.a Definition Special Markets A special market is a market in which free competition for consumers and/or labor can have advantages, but needs a specialized solution to be adequate. Special or partially special markets are defined by the Two Thirds majority of Government. . . Reasoning. Special markets may need to be special for a wide . variety including unforeseeable reasons, it is therefore impractical . and impossible to define them beforehand. It is therefore also . impossible to define what kind of rules may need to govern any such . a special market, what would be the best way to oversee them, . to lead them, etc. Rules may need to change when either conditions . or people change. The Two Third rule is to ensure that complete . sectors don't change erratically with flickering 50% majorities. . A example is health-care: certainly patient-preference can help . a hospital to seek improvement to make patients happy, basic . market operations have advantages. But a patient can not be bartered . with for highest price while nearly dying, a hospital is a high . cost facility and therefore there might only be one in a wide . area, therefore a completely free market has disadvantages that . need as tailored solution for this kind of activity. Consumer . pressure is beneficial, but seeking maximum profit from helpless . costumers probably is not. _7.1.a-1 Special Markets, no limit For Special Markets defined in Article 7.1.a, Definition Special Markets, the Articles in Chapter 5, Structure of Monopoly Sectors and the Articles in Chapter 6, Structure of Free Markets can be relieved. . . Reasoning. Making a market special is a concept which can conflict . with mentioned chapters. _7.1.b Special Markets Service Group The Two Third Government can establish a Special Markets Service Group, organized similarly to a Monopoly Sector Service Group (see Article 5.1.c, Service Group. . . Reasoning. It can happen that an area of activity does not fall under . the Monopoly Sector (see Chapter 5, Structure of Monopoly Sectors), . but for some reason a Government controlled or established business . is needed. This can be to force a standard on an industry, by engaging . a market in competition with the business delivering the desired qualities. . A certain (sub) market would then be declared a partially special market, . because of sub-standard production. The special thing about it being, . for instance, that a service group would be created for it. The service . group would automatically be restricted to only that market. Other . reasons can be poor quality of treatment of workers, or some kind of . economic emergency requiring (temporary) direct commandeering of . businesses, to provide a certain service to the public.
Chapter 8: Structure of Finance Articles 8.1: Emergency Power _8.1.a Emergency Powers When financial and/or managerial power is severely out of balance in the economy, clearly undermining the financial monopoly of the People, the two third majority of Government supported by the People, have the right to seize the minimum amount of money, businesses and property to establish again the Financial monopoly of the Government in High Finance, and to establish power balance in the economy between the various market actors. . . Reasoning. The Democracy of the People is expressed through the financial . monopoly of the Government. The freedom to organize businesses in different . ways in general and in democratic ways in particular, depends on free . political will to direct investment, rather then the need for profit . on capital alone, which will eventually have to seek low wages bad working . conditions and dictatorial relations between work and management, whether . that is what most people support or not. The need for unfettered pressures . of consumer choice on businesses requires an absence of financial inspired . warfare between companies, which often cuts against the will of the . consumer, especially by eliminating business models which are not . profitable for capital investors, company profit sharing schemes in . particular. To establish and guard the financial monopoly of the . Government and therefore the will of the People, private financial . powers need to be disarmed. Not unlike the monopoly on violence needed . by the police, for it to do its work of enforcing the law effectively. _8.1.a-1 Emergency Powers, limit Businesses, property and/or money only seized to protect the stability of the economic correction process itself, is either returned to its previous owners, or returned to owners described in this Constitution. . . Reasoning. The process of correcting imbalance is itself a form . of extreme imbalance. This will likely need a temporary unnatural . overreach of the power of government in some, most or all businesses, . just to make sure the beneficiaries of the imbalance do not cause . additional problems in an effort to protect the imbalanced economy, . frustrate the correction process, or attempt to profiteer personally . to the detriment of others and therefore the progress of the . correction process. Such beneficiaries of the imbalanced economy . may have practical power over some, most or all businesses. When . the process is completed, many such businesses will no longer be . able to pose a threat, and can therefore be cut free again. _8.1.b Rotate Currency For decisive application of Article 8.1.a, Emergency Powers, the Government may decide, suddenly if the situation requires it, to declare all money as being without value. . . Reasoning. Seizing money is just not good enough a measure. Money . is like water, and as long as the currency is expected to have . value in the future, the financial power not under Government . control could be hidden locally or elsewhere, only later to pose . the same problems again. For hidden money to be eliminated, the . only viable solution is to declare the entire currency as to be . void of value. This will affect all money, hidden or not. _8.1.b-1 Rotate Currency, new money The Government establishes a new currency. . . Reasoning. Money is a valuable tool for markets and businesses. _8.1.b-1.1 Taxes in money The Government demands payments in the new currency. . . Reasoning. For money to have a defined value, there has to be . a real reason to have a certain amount of it. Just floating . currency into the economy, what will its value be, and why ? . When money enters the economy through lending and inflationary . spending, and leaves it through taxation and spending toward . the Government, money can exist with a defined and definable . value. Be an instrument of politics and a tool for trade. . Inflation can _8.1.b-2 Rotate Currency, debt The Government maps the debt obligations of each person unto the new currency. . . Reasoning. The economy should be cured, not spoiled. That means . running businesses need their income, consumers have to fulfill . their previous obligations. _8.1.b-2.1 Rotate Currency, debt limit The Government can lift application of Article 8.1.b-2, Rotate Currency, debt, when said debt is a threat to the financial monopoly of the Government. . . Reasoning. There may be schemes, especially involving debt . with the Government because it can pay any debt, to hide . money in the form of debt. The Governments hand should not . be tied in such cases. _8.1.b-3 Rotate Currency, credit The Government maps money owned by persons and companies unto the new currency, to a maximum such as to establish with confidence the financial monopoly of the Government and the People. . . Reasoning. The economy has to be cured, not the people be robbed . of their fair money, savings, etc. The people need money to trade, . pay taxes, rents, etc. _8.1.b-4 Rotate Currency, foreign The Government ensures continuity of foreign trade, in an effort to protect the export and import industry, to the extend the Government financial monopoly is not threatened. . . Reasoning. Foreign traders can be a group which is unfairly set . back by local financial politics. On the other hand, ensuring . continuity of foreign trade can be a loophole for money to attempt . to be converted into the new currency when it would otherwise be . collapsed. It would not be a good thing if foreign product/services . traders lose trust because they lost money unfairly, as this . may hamper future foreign trade. _8.1.b-5 Rotate Currency, foreign capital The Government does not allow large quantities of foreign capital which threaten the Government financial monopoly to persist. . . Reasoning. Protecting the People from Government corruption. People . elsewhere who hang on to large quantities of currency are no . different from local financial threats, and in some cases worse . because details may be harder to uncover. This also limits . Article 8.1.b-4, Rotate Currency, foreign further. _8.1.c Continuity of Existence The Government and the People ensure the existence and availability of emergency services for all people when Article 8.1.a, Emergency Powers, is being applied. . . Reasoning. The emergency Government (People) take over of the economy, . implies the responsibility for at least its minimum services. This can . be done by commandeering resources, or dispensation of money. When . there is an acute economic crisis which requires financial emergency . powers, which may at first cause even more problems, it helps if people . can be sure of their own survival and health. This rule should not be . taken as exclusive, such that if the emergency powers are not invoked, . that the Government should then also not ensure these services. This . is left open here. Articles 8.2: Democratic Finance _8.2.a Democratic Finance The Government maintains a monopoly of high finance, under democratic control by the People or in their absence the Government. . . Reasoning. Private investors (capitalism) have a devastating influence . on the type of businesses that make up the economy, and can even . have this same influence on entire countries. In the main, causing . them to be dictatorships, rather then react fluently to pressures . from the consumer and labor markets, and the unimpeded flow of . fresh initiative and consumer pressure. The basic problem is that . in order to achieve high profitability, and therefore high return on . invested capital, the difference between company profit and total costs . (including wages on all levels), should be as high as possible. This . means wages should be as low as possible, even though capital itself . goes against the trend it forces on the economy, and extracts the . profits for itself, without actually doing productive work (in a . narrow sense of the word). It is not possible to extract profits . from business models which are highly efficient flat organizations, . which share profits equally. Such businesses do not pool their profit, . they can only be invested in through loans. To contrast, dictatorial . businesses are run by people who have no problem ordering other people . and firing them when they don't respond to their whim, they can keep . wages low, while pooling profits. Such businesses are well suited for . investment of the "share of power" type. It can not be a surprise . that business managers in such businesses will award themselves or . will be awarded by the investors huge wages, because these managers . effectively are the center of power the investors need in order to . extract profits. Private capitalism then causes an economy crisis, . as wages are dropping or kept low, employees have to buy their goods . with companies who sell cheap products, firing on the machine driving . wages down, stimulating more abusive business organizations. If this . crisis was not constantly battled by trade unions and the like, the . situation could collapse in a situation of outright slavery. To a . degree this already is the case, although it takes the form of wage . slavery. The situation causes employees to have no or little power . over their work, which is frustrating and drives down the motivation . of workers, causing a less effective economy as a whole. Secondly, . only business leaders with sufficient moral deficit will want to be . guilty of the abuses, which excludes many people from the area of . business planning, organization, product development, etc. . . ``Democratic Finance'' is not another form of "Capitalism": Private . Capitalism can be seen as a seething mass of maggots eating away . at the economic production, while in State Capitalism these maggots . have been transformed into a single dragon doing the same. Common . to both private and state capitalism (as its called), is the lack . of control by those being productive of where the investments are . made and where the profits are going. For this reason the term . `Finance' is probably better then `Capitalism', since `Capital' . to a degree supposes a finite sum, while no such limits exist . for the point of money creation. The term `Democracy' is more . crucial, it reflects the critical point in the whole system which . makes it different from state capitalism. State capitalism is the . same as corrupted `democratic finance' at the Government level, . while private capitalism is the same as as corrupted `democratic . finance' at the population level. What is in many cases called . "corruption" under `democratic finance', is called `capital profit' . under state/private capitalism. Democratic finance does therefore not . hold a mid position between state/private capitalism. The difference . between state and private capitalism is not great comparatively, . they are just different exploitation models, who do things only somewhat . different. Private capitalism seems more toward (criminal) anarchy, . State capitalism seems more toward feudalism. . . The economy is meant to be consumption and trade driven, where democratic . finance provides a means of changing things smoothly. Markets under . both state and private capitalism tend to be finance driven or . bureaucracy driven, both not too different, they prevent a market . pressures driven market. Under democratic finance these things are . also possible, it is up to the People. But even a finance driven . `democratic finance' economy is better then state/private Capitalism, . because at least the finance is used in the interest of the People. . In theory the economy could also operate with zero additional finance. . The amount of finance seems to be a throttle for the speed of economic . change. The more finance, the less correction from consumption and . market pressures; fewer finance can mean things can grow into undesired . directions. One danger might be to misinterpret `democratic finance' to . mean a finance driven economy. Heavy finance also means heavy taxation. . . `Democratic finance' does not mean bureaucratization, because finance . can (even should) be limited in volume, and because the bureaucratization . already exists under private/state Capitalism. When the Government takes . this job over, it is like the Police and Justice are government jobs. . It is a matter of structuring this properly, making workers there have . useful interests/responsibilities, that make it work properly. _8.2.a-1 Creation of money The Government creates money, the Government destroys money. . . Reasoning. In order to maintain the monopoly of finance, the . Government has to have the sovereign right to create money, . causing inflation, and the right to destroy money, causing . deflation. Money for the Government is therefore something entirely . different then it would be for anyone else. Businesses and . individuals have to get a specific amount of money from a source, . and can spend that amount to a recipient. To the Government . this logic does not apply, it is an illusion to pretend . that the government has to spend the money it has won from . taxation. To organize the Government that way means that the . Government is a business or an individual, where someone else . seems to actually do the job of creating and destroying money, . be "the Government" in that area. Under private capitalism the . central banks have that power, they lend money at low interest . rates to investment banks, creating money. These banks lend out or . gamble in the economy with the money, and demand higher interest . rates from costumers, the difference they are allowed to keep. . Money can be created in the economy when loans default with the . Central Bank and are not re-payed, yet the money is already spend . into the economy, or - probably more importantly - when the Government . engages in inflationary spending. The Government lends money . with the Central bank, which of course is nonsense. The Government . then has a phantom loan, but it is really inflationary spending of . which a record has been kept. Unfortunately the setup gives power . to the Central bank, not only to limit lending by Government but . also to lend money at low rates to private investors. It is . effectively, a form of institutionalized Government corruption, . disguised as a "common interest" effort to reduce inflation and . promote "investment, renewal in the economy". Reducing inflation . is however an interest of private capital itself, because the higher . general inflation, the less valuable the private fortunes become. . . "Repaying" this phantom debt can only be part of a policy which . seeks to destroy taxation money in an effort to increase the value . of money. Such a policy does not require the phantom debt to exist, . it is a policy which stands on its own. (Government debt with private . individuals is something else.) By handing out newly created public . money at throw away rates to private investment banks, the money . creation is being used to cover the risks of investors, increase . their financial power and temporary liquidity (which can be used . for short term financial assaults on industries). . . This is an unacceptable situation, especially because the "work" of . investors is hardly if ever productive/necessary, and causes systematic . diseases in the economy (see Article 8.2.a, Democratic Finance), . which directly translate into human suffering. It is however . doubtful how many investors do even realize what they, as a group, . are doing (investors for profit). The fact that the situation does . not cause a public outrage is probably because the system is overly . diffuse and complex (alternatively because this analysis is flawed). . . The central banks make their interest rate higher when they . want banks to be less risk taking in their loans. When the profit . margin for banks goes down because the central bank heightens their . interest rate, they will need to be more secure about the investments . they make. This causes fewer investment and fewer defaults, the . inflation rises less quickly. In short: the creation/destruction . of money is used fully in the interest of private investors, and . Government has to "lend" its own money, might even pay it back with . future taxation income. This will cause deflation, which means the . Central bank can lower the interest rate: there is more room in the . economy for easy money. Easy profit for the private investors . that benefit from the low rate. In effect it is a scheme of private . counter fitting and then white washing and profit enhancing through . investment processes administered by dusty old men, which is hidden . in the unnecessary complexities of financial rules, mostly pretending . to govern a phantom process. Hidden well enough to elude public . outrage, apparently (I must admit it has taken me long enough to . come up with this). The Central bank investor lending, combined . with investor gambling producing more dictatorial companies and low . priced products, is a perfect profiteering machine. This is the true . reason why certain politicians want Government to pay down "public" . (really: phantom) debt. Politics does the hard work of causing . deflation, private investors pick up the slack and get even more . wealthy. . . If Government were spending freshly created money without a way for . money to be destroyed, the amount of money would grow rapidly, and . the value of money would be falling rapidly, which is impractical. The . way to destroy money is through taxation. Nevertheless it can be . computationally practical to keep score on the amount of taxes coming . in and the amount of money spend, because the difference yields . information about how much the total amount of money is changing by . Government taxation/spending alone. For instance, if someone burned . a house full of cash, that money is not lost at all. The money . supply shrunk, and therefore the Government is able to spend more . money before the money supply is growing too rapidly. Burning money . means income for the entity creating more money. It is therefore both . true that the Government can only spend what it has taxed, and that . the Government can spend to any degree it desires, taxes or not. . The success or failure of Government spending/taxation levels, is . measured by inflation/deflation levels and the political goals that . inflation/deflation is supposed to serve. Causing massive inflation . can for instance be a government policy to remove the fortunes of . private investors, to restore its financial monopoly. . . When at the point of money creation and administration for masses . of people, money takes on a different quality. Imagine a Government . bank which has an account for everyone, the Government bank is . allowed to create and destroy money at will - somebody has to have . this power. Now this bank makes a loan to someone, which is not . payed back (defaults). Does the Government lose money ? Does the . Prime Minister has to pay for the difference from his income ? . Of course not, though since the money is now in the hands of other . people it can't be destroyed, therefore inflation has risen and . Government has less room to spend inflationary money. The money . most likely went to other accounts, also held by the same bank. . It does not affect the total of money it has stored, though it . did affect the more direct control over it. These issues exist . in the present economy, it is just a matter of recognizing them. . . The Central Bank acts like this hypothetical Government bank, . but not entirely. The "normal" banks are allowed to lend out . more money then they "have" with the Central bank, about 10 times . as much. That sounds strange, but it is not strange because money . behaves differently near/at the point of creation/administration. . What stops a bank from creating an account with infinite profit ? . Accounting with the Central Bank, it can only create money up to . about 10 times more then it has with the Central Bank (fractional . reserve banking). And another is the inflation this infinite profit . causes, which collapses the value of fortunes, much of which are . naturally owned by bankers themselves. The banks are conservative . with inflation, because it threatens the value of their fortunes. . Fractional Reserve banking works because while a bank may lose . money from one individual, it gains new money from another when . it deposits money on an account. Thus the flow of in and out . balance, and the bank generally can pay for what goes out with . what comes in. The 10% reserve is to deal with imbalances. If . more then 10% of the money in a bank was moved to outside the . bank, the bank is in trouble because when moving money out and . in the accounting is done in the Central Banks reserve money. . What often happens is that a bank closes its doors and attempts . to ride out the panic before going bankrupt. The bank would of course . attempt to get a new loan from the Central Bank, or it could be . helped out by Government intervention. These two things, Government . intervention or Central Bank loan really are effectively the same . thing. The difference is perhaps that politicians may think they . need to take the difference out of their running budget, turning . the cost directly on the People, rather then make it inflationary . spending. . . What a Government should really do, is nationalize a bank once it . is bankrupted. Why bail out a bank without getting something back. . A law could be passed that states the Central Bank is only allowed . to create money unto Government accounts, and when the Government . asks for it. Private banks can get no Central Bank loans anymore, . and their fractional reserve is pushed up to a 100% Central Bank . coverage. If that hasn't bankrupted them yet, their account with . the Central Bank is converted into a regular account with the . Government bank. Then they will be barred from having the right to . demand pay back for loans they make, every loan they make will be a . gift. This either reduces the banks to simple accounting service . providers, who even might have to charge - like a real company - for . their services. Or it bankrupts them. No doubt many will bankrupt, . as management attempts to take money first for themselves. Fortunately, . there are solutions for this ... _8.2.a-2 Equality of happiness ``The value with respect to Government income of a day's wages buying dinner for a poor (wo)man, is more then the value of a years wages just buying luxury for a rich (wo)man.'' . . Reasoning. The value of an amount of money decreases, the more . a person has of it. A small amount N in the hand of a poor person, . may mean living to the end of the week, while the same amount N . above a fortune already in hand, is hardly any impact on the . conditions of life. Yet, the amount N, when spend, require the . same amount of productive capacity from society. Hence, the amount . N can be spend in return for a high change in happiness in the . poor man, or the amount can be spend - with equal effort from . society - to produce marginal change for the rich man. The amount . can be used in return for producing food/water to the tune of, . say, 10 man hours. The amount can be used for producing an . expensive bouquet of flowers to the tune of, say, 10 man hours. . This article states that the happiness of one person is equal . to that of another. The smile on the face of the rich man when . seeing the flowers is far less total happiness then the survival . and health of the poor man. _8.2.a-3 Taxes The Government demands taxes. . . Reasoning. The Government requires a means of destroying money, . in order to be able to create money for spending above what can . be acceptable inflation spending. The Government could alternatively . demand payment for all services it provides. But this is often much . too costly and impractical. For instance how does one demand payment . for general services such as road building or the police, the . justice system, etc. The Government is to a large degree a company . delivering services and products which simply have to be carried . out and benefit almost everyone, whether they pay or not, and which . can not be provided for by free market competition. Just picture . several militia forces competing with each other, demanding payment . from victims to prosecute, judge and sentence a criminal. That is . not likely to result in justice. It is absurd to demand criminals who . "use" the justice system, to pay for it its services, and the cost of . imprisonment criminals will usually be beyond the means of individual . victims, if these victims survive the crime in the first place. . It is also costly and error prone to demand people walking on . the street to pay for the amount of road usage. Taxes are like . giving to charity (the common good), which in turn forces the . obligation unto the government that it behave like a charity, and . that it responds to the requests of the tax payers (public). The . government is effectively a monopoly service group, governed by . an elected management, elected by its costumers and workers. . Because there are few market pressures on government, it can not . be a free floating for profit business: it has to be a non-profit . organization. People who want to get rich honestly can try to do so . in the open markets. _8.2.a-4 Bank service The Government establishes a bank, where people and businesses can have a bank account on which money can be stored, moved to other bank accounts, taken out in cash, and put into the account in cash. . . Reasoning. To reduce private capitalism, great pools of money . should not be under control of private individuals and businesses. . When people/businesses put money in a private bank, this allows . the private bank to start gambling with other people's businesses . and loans using that money. When the money is stored in a Government . bank, no private hands can use it for their own self gain. It is . true that the Government might be able to use "it", even for . profit. However, the money stored with the Government disappears . from regular existence. The Government can spend any amount of . money it wants, it does not need to use the money stored on its . retail bank. Even if the Government were to write down some . administrative statements that make it appear as if the retail . bank money "had been used" (which would really be nonsense . statements), the Government is supposed to have that investment . power. The Government does not need profit (unless it is corrupt), . it therefore directs investment on the basis of democratic . politics, not the forced need for investment profits. . . Several people might pool money in a single account (or in cash), . thus establishing new potential for private investments. However, . having a nationalized retail bank means people can make a political . choice whether they want to support private for profit capital . gambling, or not. _8.2.a-4.1 Consumption credit The Government establishes a mechanism for people to get budget neutral consumption credit. . . Reasoning. People sometimes need to buy a product which can . be produced it high cost relatively quickly, but the . buyer can not pay the needed amount immediately. Such as . a home. If consumers have no ability to get consumption . credit or mortgage, the producers of the product may need . to establish a long lasting administration to get their . monthly payments. This job may then be serviced by specialized . businesses, but where does this business get the investment . fund to start their business. In the end it may be better . to prevent such troubles and potential to build up such . financial loan businesses, which effectively are private . investors, and have a "service group" do it. Budget neutral . means that no money should leak out to bad loans, which can . be a dangerous source of low level corruption. _8.2.a-4.2 Result pay Government employees who decide on loans to be given or not, have a portion of their wage and job security tied to whether loans are being payed back. . . Reasoning. To promote an atmosphere of integrity. _8.2.a-4.3 Corruption Government employees who decide on loans, can not give loans to their family, friends, people they previously worked for or whom worked for them. . . Reasoning. To promote an atmosphere of integrity. It will be . the general level of inflation, that is a tax on the entire . economy, which pays for bad loans and corruption. Practical . experience should provide ways to reduce corruption sufficiently. _8.2.a-5 Investment service group The Two Third majority of Government can define finance service groups, with a specific mandate to invest money in businesses, business initiatives, and other activities. Finance Service Groups are organized like Monopoly Service Groups, see Article 5.1.c, Service Group. . . Reasoning. Just providing low risk consumption credit can be a basis . for a slowly developing economy. However this does not provide . politics with a strong means of expressing political will, either . in the sense of slowly steering the economy into a certain direction, . or to engage in financially high risk project, or to engage in . investments which are never to be payed back. The Two Third is . needed to prevent constant creation/destruction. The Government . would want in general to establish its policies through the finance . groups or directly itself, rather then constantly re-organizing them. _8.2.a-5.1 Investment service group, short The Government can establish an Investment Service Group with the obligation to ask permission for a budget neutral loan or credit with the Government regarding every individual transfer of money into the economy. . . Reasoning. To have a severely restricted investment service . group, it needs to ask for money every time it wants to make . an investment, and then has to pay this money back. This is . then inflation neutral spending. Naturally there can be . shortcomings in payment of debt, which can always be collapsed . as the cost of making investment, or provide fuel for a decision . to dissolve that investment service group as incompetent, . distrusted, etc. _8.2.a-5.2 Investment service group, loan maximum The Government can supply the Investment Service Group(s) it establishes, with a maximum amount of money it is allowed to lend out in the economy. . . Reasoning. This kind of investment service group has more freedom, . but still has to ensure being payed back or risk bankruptcy. . Types of capabilities can of course be mixed in several ways. _8.2.a-5.3 Investment service group, credit The Government can supply the Investment Service Group(s) it establishes, with a certain amount of credit which it is allowed to spend. . . Reasoning. This kind is allowed to make continual losses, it is . spending tax money (inflation money). However the amount of . spending is bound to a maximum, giving Government an easy way . to control their activities. In the most extreme cases it could . make credit unlimited (which is kind of dangerous, because it . can devalue the currency quickly), or zero. _8.2.a-6 Investment permit In the interest of the productive economy, The Two Third of Government can give individuals and businesses by temporary permit the right to lend money - or otherwise invest - while demanding being payed back the full sum plus interest; the permit holder being backed up by Justice and Police against a failing recipient of the investment, notwithstanding a sum being higher then the maximum established for loans - or similar investment mechanisms - for which being payed back can be demanded in this Constitution, as in Article 8.2.a-7, Investment Monopoly, and lifting business organization repercussions for loans to businesses, as in Article 8.2.a-11, No Business Gambling, or establish rules for handing out such permits. . . Reasoning. It can happen that people wish to pool their money, to . make investments in the economy for some political purpose, to . make their money available to someone else while they take a risk . of losing it. These things should not be happening for profit, . because of the negative results for the economy (seeking high . profit margins and setting back opportunities for profit sharing . businesses). But they can happen for political purposes. Under such . circumstances, it would be a good thing if lend out money can be . protected from fraud, meaning if money is lend and then stolen, . the loan can be enforced and re-payment demanded. _8.2.a-7 Investment Monopoly The People or in their absence the Two Third majority of Government establishes a maximum amount of money, expressed as a multiple of the average wealth, above which contracts involving payment of money for receiving money, such as loans, between non Government market actors are void; the received money having the status of a gift. The limit is .[0.25, one quarter].. times the average wealth. . . Reasoning. While small loans are not a great problem because many . people have the power to grant them, large loans are effectively . a monopoly sector business. The reason why large sums of money . have exceptional value/power, is because they are scarce, monopolized . to a degree. Secondly, private abuses of capital have to be prevented . in the economy, because they eventually throw the economy in crisis. . Thirdly making money deals is as such not a productive job, it is . gambling with other people's lives. It is to be done for political . purposes only, where the common interest aspect is present, the . goal is productive. The Government has to protect its financial . monopoly. It would still be possible to raise large sums by pooling . many small sums, which is however less dangerous then large sums . under private control. But larger sums pooled by many people are also . to be cut off by this rule, if it exceeds the limit it is a gift . at the point of reception. _8.2.a-7.1 No debt trade A loan or other money trade, granted between two actors, can only be legal between these two actors. . . Reasoning. It is important for the transparency of . the system, that the money trade is cut back wherever . possible. When trade in debt is possible, this can grow . into a black shadow "industry", which does nothing . productive whatsoever, is not trading in products of . effort. The money involved far outstrips the value of . effort being put in. This trade also has the potential of . creating pools of private capital, with people who specialize . in taking over loans. . . Furthermore it is an important violation of the right . of knowing with whom one has a loan, which can lead to . criminal and unfair activity on unsuspecting people. . . When the Government wants to take out additional money . through loans from private people (essentially borrowing . money from future Governments bringing them in trouble), . when people who invested in those loans die, the loan . defaults. This is good for the whole economy, because . it produces deflation, which the Government can then . spend. It is also good on the people who take part in such . Government loans, because if they live at pay back date, . they get a profit; if they are dead already then they . probably won't care. It would be far worse if the debt would . remain in circulation between different people until it . was payed back. When loans default because of death, for . instance a mortgage not yet payed back, the loan can default . but ownership of the home would compensate for the loss. . Debt trade does not affect such problems, and can therefore . safely be removed. . . Reason to have this rule in the Constitution rather then have . it depend on whatever Government is in power, is stronger . protection of individuals and protecting transparency. Protecting . the Government finance monopoly is a Constitutional problem. _8.2.a-8 Capital Monopoly The People or in their absence the Two Third majority of Government establishes a maximum amount of wealth, expressed as a multiple of the average wealth, above which no person is allowed to own. The limit is .[30].. times average wealth. . . Reasoning. The Government needs to protect both its financial monopoly, . and a reasonable minimum distribution of wealth between all people. . This is a hard limit, it will therefore affect everyone, including . artists who sell millions of records, and gambling games. Because . the larger businesses will tend to become democratic (businesses . tend to take time to grow), and because there are no private investors . anymore, the danger of extreme wealth has already been significantly . reduced. Top managers of democratic businesses will need to please . their employees, be elected (depending), controlling their income. . This hard limit is therefore not a stop all dike, but more like a . last resort, cutting off the few that make it through all other . more natural barriers. It is therefore not necessary to set this . barrier low, or to imagine that all wealthy people will in . mass pool behind the maximum. Some people near the maximum will . attempt to start hiding their wealth, therefore the maximum should . be high enough to reduce their number to make enforcement effective. . There are still more measures which can be taken, for instance . progressive income taxes, etc. If things get out of control, the . financial emergency powers can be invoked to restore balance (see . Article 8.1.a, Emergency Powers). _8.2.a-8.1 Capital Monopoly, limit The wealth of persons below a certain age is added to the total wealth of their parents. This age is: ..[18]. . . Reasoning. Preventing hoarding schemes through child birth. _8.2.a-8.2 Capital Monopoly, exclusion The wealth owned by businesses or entities having an investment permit, can exceed the limit in Article 8.2.a-8, Capital Monopoly, only for wealth reserved for the purpose of investment in the common interest, as detailed by the investment permit, see Article 8.2.a-6, Investment Service Group, permit. . . Reasoning. In order to by proxy execute the Government's financial . monopoly, one would naturally need to share in some of the . exceptional power of the Government in financial matters, such . as owning dangerous amounts of wealth and enforcing loans. . The wealth needs to be owned in the common interest, the permit . can not permit building (excessive) personal palaces. _8.2.a-9 Insurance permit The Two Third of Government can give individuals and businesses by permit the right to pool money for the purpose of distributing between members the unexpected or exceptional costs of the few, or establish rules for handing out such permits. The pooled money can not be used for other purposes except the direct business operations. . . Reasoning. Insurance business is useful. However, it also . pools large amounts of money, which could in turn be used as . investment capital. Seeking profit on Capital investments is a . poison to the economy, but not all insurance businesses may even . realize this and act out in good faith for the interest of their . clients. It is therefore necessary that it is allowed to pool . large amounts of reserve value, while it has to be prevented from . becoming a toy. Insurance business can simply demand to be payed . for their services, and compete with each other on the productive . side of their business. They should not be able to compete with . each other in a game of investor capitalism. The bank-account . involved will therefore have practical limits, money can not be . spend for any and all purposes. If it is, Government ought to take . corrective action to prevent Capital abuses. Naturally the Government . can itself establish an insurance group(s) if it (that is, the . People) wants to, in case of excessive and continuing malpractice. . This can give individual clients a choice between different kinds . of setups they might want to support. _8.2.a-10 Company Capital Limit The Two Third majority of Government establishes a maximum amount of wealth, expressed as a multiple of the average wealth times the number of employees in the company, above which no company is allowed to own. Value is based on realistic production cost for goods, the fair price rather then the actual price - ignored is unusual or speculative value in the actual markets significantly above total production costs, such as may result from works of art. Company can own ..[5]. times average wealth per full time employee. . . Reasoning. Companies create profit, this they can use the way they . want, either for private consumption or investment in their own . company. Companies may however also hoard money for however how . long. This may in the end pose risks. It is not unlike the Government . monopoly on violence, with the understanding that the Government . only uses violence to correct crime. When certain groups are . allowed to hoard significant stocks of dangerous weapons, this . threatens the Government violence monopoly, and what is the purpose . anyway (unless for overthrow of dictatorial government, in which . case the Government won't like it for different reasons regardless . of any Constitution). Hence, this article is to establish at least . some maximum, lest people be tempted unnecessarily. Money is for . trading and a little security, but not hoarding without end. . The way the maximum is expressed, means that companies that want . to have more money, also need to hire more people. There is a . danger that a company will invest in capital goods, in order to . evade the capital limit. Therefore all capital goods are included . within the count, the limit should therefore not be too low . (increase when needed), companies will come to own potentially . significant amounts of total value. _8.2.a-10.1 Company Capital Limit, other The Two Third majority of Government can define sectors of the economy that work with their unique maximum on maximum Company ownership, different from the default maximum set in Article 8.2.a-10, Company Capital Limit. . . Reasoning. It is certain that different economic sectors will . end up having vastly different amounts of wealth stored in the . company assets, even when turning out the same profits per employee. . One sort of company might not have assets above a good chair and . a coffee machine, another might possess ocean cargo ships, yet . the hourly return for working on either could be similar. The . Capital limit could for the `good chair' company be low, . and for the cargo-ships business high, while achieving the . goal of preventing excessive build-up of wealth inside companies. . This maximum is also to have a tool to prevent money laundering . and storage in fake companies. _8.2.a-11 No Business Gambling A business, the physical and economic substance thereof, becomes immediately a democracy of workers without compensation for the leader/owner, if this owner/leader has used speculative money lending (investing), not received directly and explicitly from the Government finance monopoly. . . Reasoning. One of the major problems with money gambling in the . economy, is that it stimulates abusive companies. Turning companies . into democracies reduces this problem directly, but leaves democratic . companies free to borrow minor sums of money against rent, since they . are already democratic and therefore presumably less internally abusive. . This set-up means the economy will be less speculative, businesses go . bankrupt quicker because they can not postpone it without government . loans, and when they go bankrupt they will likely collapse with less . financial drama since there will be fewer of defaulting loans with . private parties, fewer attachments a failing business will get. _8.2.a-11.1 No Gambling, self reported If someone reports to the government authorities a business or person has engaged in an an illegal money trade as described in Article 8.2.a-11, No Business Gambling, or other illegal money trade, a percentage of the money becomes a gift to the reporting party. The percentage the reporting party can keep is: [50%, half].. . . . Reasoning. This means that democratic businesses can legally . extort money gamblers, as long as they report the illegal . activity. Dictatorial companies can do the same, but if they . are found out they run the risk of becoming democracies. The . goal is to hurt those that cause most trouble, and that are . the money gamblers. The Constitution takes the side of the . businesses against the gambler, this reporting reward . makes lending a highly dangerous practice, it makes enforcing . the anti-capitalist rules easier. _8.2.a-12 No Speculation No person is allowed to make a living income entering a risk-taking state by lending or otherwise investing not directly physically useful instruments of economic value - such as money - in businesses. All income in one month above a certain limit made from such not itself as an activity productive speculation is to be surrendered to the Government immediately. The limit is .[5%, one twentieth].. of average monthly income. . . Reasoning. A fast and hard rule against money speculation, but . trying to exclude businesses that rent out things such as vehicles. . Vehicles are "physically useful", and therefore are excluded from . the rule. They should be because it is a productive business which . repairs/maintains the vehicles. The "only a risk-taking state" is . meant to further divide productive rent-businesses from the money . gamblers. Money-gamblers tend to only enter a risk-taking state, . and are not otherwise productive. It is true that vehicle-lenders . enter a risk-taking state also, but they are assumed to be payed . for the availability and maintenance on the vehicles, for the . repair of the vehicles if the vehicle is damaged (an insurance . would probably pay for stolen vehicles, so the insurance is taking . the risk part). The money-gamblers are however only payed for . risk-taking, they repair and do nothing, at best offer some advice. . This "advice" could be charged for directly, a fee for an advice, . then it would not be speculation because then they would not first . put money in to hope to take more out later. . . The Government monopoly on finance has to be protected. The rule . could also be "no income at all", but how is one going to enforce . something like that. It would mean preventing even the smallest . of lending. If the rule is 5% of monthly income, that means almost . nobody would be bothered by the rule because almost nobody tends . to make serious money from lending, except the professional money . gamblers (who can make billions). It is more practical to exclude . the extremely small gambles, so as to enforce against larger . gambling with more authority. Articles 8.3: General Lending Limits _8.3.a Loan Default, no collateral All loans - or outstanding parts thereof - within the Country, for which there is no immediately available collateral, are terminated after a maximum number of years after they were agreed. The maximum number of years running for a non-collateral loan is: ..[7]. years. . . Reasoning. It is a sad thing to be under the burden of a loan. . When there is no collateral, there is potentially no way to get out . from under the loan. If the lending party practices the trick of . suspending payment whenever the loan taker can't pay, the loan is an . eternal drain. But where is the responsibility for the loan giver . for making a loan that can be payed back within a reasonable time, . and where is the need for this loan giver to even get back the money . when it can apparently be loaned out and therefore being lost for . immediate consumption ? When in a state of crisis, someone may be . forced to take a loan, people with excess money should not prey on . such helpless victims. Instead, with some leverage for loan giving . removed, solutions will have to be found somewhere else, such as . a Government intervention of some kind. Compare: student loans for . study or Government payed common interest education. Both systems . cost money, the first may produce speculative loans, the second won't. . [This law is inspired on an anti-capitalist law of Moses.]
Chapter 9: Structure of Resources Articles 9.1: Structure of Resources _9.1.a Structure of Resources Every person has the natural and practical right to use its equal share of the available natural resources. . . Reasoning. Makes sense. Resources tends to go askew over time, creating . ever worsening imbalances. When everyone has a right to use a share of . resources, everyone has something to bargain with. How else to distribute . economic wealth. Distributing resources challenges the user to use them, . distributing money does the reverse. When awarded resources, a person . can never "lose everything", can always start again, always has a . `fighting chance.' People who wish to live differently from the . domination of general society, face fewer obstacles. People who for . some reason are less able or unable to work, have something to trade . with. Distribution of use is a basis for maintaining distribution . of power, founding democracy in a firm basis in the economy. Distributed . resource suggests cooperative type business, rather then dictatorial. . Note that this is not distribution of ownership, which includes right . to do whatever within lawful minimums, and the right to sell. It is . the right to use. When sale is allowed, a person becomes a lame duck . after sale, and imbalances enter the system again. . . One of the purposes of resources is to check them out, either in . specified or unspecified amount form, and then rent the right to . use the land to someone else, or even the Government. This money . can be a basic income, or whatever. The logic not being that a . basic income would be a natural right, but that use of resource is a . right, which happens to be convertible into money. Indirectly: the . resource can be rented to a company which specializes in renting out . resources to other businesses/individuals. . . Detail laws such as how to exactly organize awarding of resource, . how to do justice, when a use right can be revoked and when not, . is to be defined by the Government, or by whomever adjusts the . constitution to local circumstance, which can of course be . different between regions. Wouldn't want to make it too convoluted . with (even more?) arbitrary details. _9.1.a-1 Resources, limits The Government establishes an accurate record of the total of natural resources. . . Reasoning. Have to know what to distribute before you can distribute. _9.1.a-2 Resources, nature The Government establishes a percentage and/or specific parts for nature. . . Reasoning. Need nature. _9.1.a-3 Resources, public The Government establishes a percentage and/or specific parts as public area. . . Reasoning. Need public area, roads, public buildings, etc. _9.1.a-4 Resources, usage The Government can establish a percentage and/or specific parts as resource which can only be handled, or left untouched, in a way determined by the government. . . Reasoning. When lands are effective to be used for farming, it can . cause long lasting problems when someone suddenly decides to build . a home on it. Equally, if someone has secured the right to fish . somewhere, that doesn't necessarily give this person the right to . bomb the lake for easy fishing, etc etc. Someone living on a dike, . does not have the right to make a hole in it (!). _9.1.a-5 Resources, resource bank The Government establishes an accounting system in which is recorded who uses what natural resource parts. . . Reasoning. Need to know what is happening. _9.1.a-6 Resources, rent Natural resources up to the total a person has a natural right to, is awarded for free. Whatever the persons wants to have that is still available in the resource bank, is awarded. . . Reasoning. Choice. _9.1.a-6.1 Continuity usage When a resource amount becomes available for handing out by the resource bank, the continuing user of the resource has an amount of time to propose someone to the resource bank that is to be awarded the right to the resource. The waiting period is: ...[one month]. If the continuing user is trying to obstruct the resource allocation process as opposed to finding an enduring and suitable resource right holder, the Government or the resource bank can award the resource right without this protection for the continuing user. . . Reasoning. It matters in principle nothing to the resource-bank . who checks out which resources, however it may matter everything . to the current user. One of the problems that may occur is . hostile politically or privately motivated checkouts. For . instance someone has an estate, for which amounts of land are . rented to this person, say this person is owner of a successful . business. The land is for instance classified as "managed nature" . by the Government. Now someone renting their right to the . estate dies, the land reappears in the bank for hand-out. Someone . spots the opportunity, checks their land back in and quickly . checks the portion of the estate. Now all kinds of problems that . are not productive may occur, ranging from trying to be a pain . for the estate owner to extorting the estate owner for an . extremely high rent price, just because the right-holder knows . the estate-owner will suffer a lot by not renting some portion. . Because of this rule the estate owner has a chance to play . several would-be renters against one another, so as to attain . a fair(er) price. This rule can also keep land within the same . family. If a family uses a portion of land, that means the land . can be awarded to someone proposed by the current user. . . Protecting a continuing renting party against abuses from . a right holder, opens a hole that can be abused by the renting . party: the resource users can collectively hire someone who has . no resources checked out. This person takes the contract, then . voids it after one minute and checks its rights back in, then . the waiting period starts again. This way many resources can be . kept in a state of waiting without there having to be rent-payments. . This method can also be used as a protocol obstruction. _9.1.a-6.2 Continuity terms When the terms for renting a resource right are proposed to be changed by the resource right holder, the renting entity has the right, after giving the resource right holder notice that it is not accepting the proposal and after the resource right holder has given notice it is not accepting that rejection, to propose a new willing resource right holder to the resource bank within a certain time limit, which is to be accepted by the resource bank. If no new right holder is found, the new terms apply. The time limit is: ...[one month]. . . Reasoning. This protects, the renting party against the right . holding party, so that the right-holding party can not abuse . its leverage and demand unusually high rent. If someone starts . asking a higher rent because it knows the renting user can not . do without some resource, that is destructive leverage: `if . the user does not comply, he will suffer dis-proportionally.' . This rule also means that if someone has a lucky year in . crops, rent-prices can not suddenly skyrocket without the resource . right holder running the chance of losing the particular resource . to someone else. The resource user can hold this power also as . a punishment, even if it can't find another cheaper rent. _9.1.a-6.3 Continuity produce When a resource is used to create a product which can not be separated from the resource without significant economic damage and this condition could reasonably be assumed to have been known to the resource right holder, the renting entity retains the ownership of the produce and access to the resource as before, until the produce can be collected as it would normally be collected, regardless of legal disputes concerning the resource. If the legal dispute allows finding a new resource right holder, see Article 9.1.a-6.1, Continuity usage, and Article 9.1.a-6.2, Continuity terms, the period for finding a new resource holder is extended for as long as the produce is attached to the resource, up to a certain maximum. This maximum is: ...[one year and three month's]. . . Reasoning. This is to protect farmers, who are not to be . disturbed with legalistic tricks while the crops are growing, . they are to be certain that the crops are theirs whatever else . happens. The produce growing from multi-year trees can be a . problem, because it can be unclear whether the produce is attached . to the land is the trees or the fruit. The rent-contract may . indicate this: one could either rent a fully grown set of trees . or a barren piece of land unto which the renting party plants . trees. The right to the trees would naturally fall to the entity . having planted or bought them. However this would mean one only . had to plant trees to use a resource forever under unchanging . conditions, since "the produce is attached." For such problems . the maximum time is 15 month, which should leave enough time . for the natural cycle toward fruit, and then the possibility of . either moving the trees or finding a new right holder. . . The article says "dispute", once a Judge has determined what . the status is there is no longer a "dispute," hence if the . Judge says the produce is to be destroyed (for instance) then that . is to be done. As long as there is uncertainty (or appeals . possible), the produce should be protected if it is impossible . to restore to normal once "moved." If a legal dispute ends . with the determination that "the produce is in the wrong location, . not rented by producer to begin with", then that should obviously . mean the produce is lost to the producer, since it wasn't . properly owned by producer to begin with. This article meant to . protect the produce during legal status changes, where it is . first rented properly by producer, but this status is claimed . to have been changed later by resource right holder. _9.1.a-6.4 Continuity government When the Government wants to change the status of a resource, it has to compensate the current user at least for economic losses, plus the reasonable costs of resettling into an equally economic profitable position, plus a reasonable average wage payment for the additional work done because of the Government request, plus the value of one day average wage, plus a percentage of this sum in damages. The percentage is: ..10%.. . . Reasoning. The Government is expected to behave well, but it . may be useful to set a rule so that everyone knows what "well . behaving" means for the Government. If the Government wants to . change something, for instance a crop land should become an . harbor, the farmer has to be compensated. It makes sense that . the cost is simply the cost of setting up somewhere else, or . setting up something equal. It makes sense that there will be . additional work involved for the resettling party, so that has . to be payed for even if it is private work, because it is . involuntarily. And then some damages because it was involuntarily. . These things should also prevent the Government (system) . becoming less popular when it behaves rudely to people with less . power on the one hand, and it prevents individuals demanding . extortion prices from the Government. The "one day average wage" . is the only fixed quantity (times 1.1), all others might be zero, . therefore it is there as a payment-minimum, so that the right . holder always gets something regardless of all else. _9.1.a-7 Structure of Resources, home Every person can claim and is awarded the natural resources it uses for a home it lives in, removing prior claims on the same resource, up to the maximum it has a natural right to use. . . Reasoning. Prevent parasitic land-claim rent schemes by private . individuals. _9.1.b Price Maximum The People or in their absence the Government set a price maximum on resource rent. . . Reasoning. The dynamic of trying to get highest resource rent from . companies leads to the same pressure on social working conditions . as private investing. The companies that abuse workers most, are . able to make best profits to pay highest recourse rents. The companies . that focus power and money are more easily persuaded, promoting . business dictatorships over democracies. But it is not as bad as . private investments with money, because the resource-rent is distributing . money to many people, and most will not have an interest in the . worsening business conditions. This may persuade not to seek highest . rent. Those not interested in the common good or long term personal . good, could be stopped by a rent maximum. One solution would be . to make the resource rent maximum zero, making renting out resources . a useless exercise. Companies could then "check resources out of . the resources bank" without any economic burden. Playing with the . height of the rent may be a useful political tool to influence the . economy. If rent is zero one might want to do away with the rent . bureaucracy. However if many people suddenly wanted to use their own . resources personally, it would be easier if it was known where their . resources are if the supply of "not explicitly checked out of the . resources bank" resources has been depleted, and resources have to be . taken away from active companies. Removing a personalized rent . bureaucracy means the government becomes the lending agency, and . the rent income would count as government income for the common . good. This gives the government more power over to individuals, . how and where they are awarded their resources. Individuals may not be . able in practice, to use their resources the way they want because . of government obstruction (corruption). If individuals own resources, . it is more likely that a body of fair law is created to solve . differences. If the government can pick and choose who gets which . what and why, this is more likely to breed abuse of that power. . When there is a rent price maximum, people who have reached the . maximum stop being interested (legally) in bargaining for more.



© Written and (C)opyright by Jos Boersema. This constitution text is released into the `public domain', do what you want with it.

Latest change (Hebrew):
27 Tevet 5767, 8.2.a-7.1, 8.2.a-4.3, 8.2.a-9, 8.2.a, 8.2.a-10
28 Tevet 5767, 3.2.b-1.3, variables, 8.2.a-7
1 Sh'vat 5767, 3.2.b-1.3
2 Nisan 5767, 9.1.b
9 Iyyar 5767, 3.1.c-3.1 8.2.a-5.1
23 Iyyar 5767, 3.1.c-4.3
24 Iyyar 5767, 3.1.a-2, 3.1.b-4.2, 3.1.b
25 Iyyar 5767, 3.3.a, 2.2.a, 2.2.a-1, 2.2.a-2, 2.2.b, 2.2.b-1, 3.4.a, 3.4.a-1, 3.3.a-1.1
6 Sivan 5767, [moved (2.1)], 2.1.b-1
11 Sivan 5767, 3.5.a
15 Sivan 5767, 6.6
16 Sivan 5767, 3.1.b, 3.1.b-7, 3.1.b-7.1, 3.1.b-7.1.2, 1.1.a-1.2
17 Sivan 5767, 4.3.a
18 Sivan 5767, 8.2.a-7, 8.2.a-11, 8.2.a-11.1, 8.2.a-12
22 Sivan 5767, 9.1.a-4, 9.1.a-6.1, 9.1.a-6.2, 9.1.a-6.3, 9.1.a-6.4
25 Sivan 5767, 1.1.c, 1.1.c-1, 1.1.c-1.1
18 Tamuz 5767, 8.2.a-10.1
20 Tamuz 5767, 8.1.a
21 Tamuz 5767, 8.1.b-3.1, 8.2.a-4.2, 8.2.a-4.3, 8.2.a-6, 8.2.a-9 8.2.a-10, 8.2.a-11.1, 8.2.a-12
22 Tamuz 5767, 3.1.c-5, 3.1.c-5.1
24 Tamuz 5767, 3.1.c-5.1
25 Tamuz 5767, 6.3.a-5.1
27 Tamuz 5767, 6.3.a-5.1, 6.3.a
28 Tamuz 5767, 7.1.a, 7.3.a-1, 7.3.a-1 [moved], 3.1.c-1.8, 8.2.a-8
3 Av 5767, 3.1.d, 3.1.d-1, 3.1.d-2, 3.1.d-3, 3.1.d-3.1, 3.1.d-3.2
5 Av 5767, 6.3.a-5.1
6 Av 5767, 2.1.c
8 Av 5767, 2.3.a,
15 Av 5767, 3.1.d-4
16 Av 5767, 3.1.d-3.2.1, 3.1.d-3.2.2, 3.1.d-3.2.3, 3.1.d-3.2.4, 3.5.a, 3.1.d-5, 3.1.d-6
17 Av 5767, 4.1.a, 4.1.b-1, 4.1.b-3, 4.1.b-3.1, 4.1.b-4, 4.1.c, 4.1.b-2, 4.1.b, 6.3.b
18 Av 5767, 3.1.c-1.8, 3.1.c-1.8.1, 3.1.c-1.8.2
19 Av 5767, 3.1.c-1.1, 3.1.c-1.1.1, 3.1.c-1.4, 3.1.c-1.5, 3.1.c-1.7 3.1.b-6
20 Av 5767, 3.1.c-5 3.1.c-5.1
21 Av 5767, 4.1.a, 4.1.a-1, 4.1.b, 4.1.b-1, 4.1.b-2, 4.1.b-3, 4.1.b-3.1, 4.1.b-4, 4.1.c, 4.2.a, 4.2.b, 4.2.c, 4.2.d, 4.2.d-1, 4.3.a, 3.2.a, 3.2.a-1, 3.2.a-1.1, 3.2.a-2, 3.2.a-2.1, 3.2.a-3, 3.2.a-3.1, 3.2.a-3.2, 3.2.a-3.3, 3.1.d-3.2.4, 3.1.d-1,
22 Av 5767, 3.2.a-3.4, 3.1.c-1.8.3
23 Av 5767, 3.1.d-6, 3.1.d-6.1, [moved 3.1.d-*], 1.2.a, 1.2.a-1, 1.2.a-1.1, 1.2.a-2, 3.2.b-1, 3.2.b-1.2
24 Av 5767, 3.1.c-1.8.2, 3.1.c-1.8.3, 3.2.b
25 Av 5767, 3.1.c-4, 3.1.d-2, 3.4.a, 3.4.b, 3.2.b, 1.3.a, 8.3.a, 2.1.d, 3.1.d-2.1
27 Av 5767, 3.1.d-2.2, 1.1.b-2, 3.1.d-5.4
28 Av 5767, 3.1.e-6
29 Av 5767, 1.4.a, 1.4.a-1, 1.1.c-1.1, 3.1.c-1, 1.1.c
2 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.8, 3.1.c-1.8.2, 3.1.c-1.8.4
4 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.1
6 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.8, 1.2.a-3, 1.2.a-4
8 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.8.5
9 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.8, 1.4.a, 1.4.a-2, 3.2.a-3.4, 3.2.a-3.5, 3.1.c-2, 3.1.c-1.1, 3.1.c-1.8
10 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.1, 3.1.c-1.1.1, 4.2.d-1, 3.1.c-1.8.2
12 Elul 5767, 3.1.c-1.8.6, 3.1.c-1.8.7
14 Elul 5767, 3.2.b-3, 3.2.b-3.1, 1.1.c-1, 4.1.b-3
20 Tishrei 5768, 3.2.b-2
22 Tishrei 5768, 2.2.a, 1.1.a-1.2, 3.1.d-2.2, 3.1.c-4.3, 3.1.b-5.1 + 3.1.b-6.1 (solved in 3.1.b), 3.1.b-6
2 Cheshvan, 5768, 3.1.c-1.8.1
3 Cheshvan, 5768, 2.2.a, 2.2.a-3, 2.2.a-4
5 Cheshvan, 5768, 7.2.a, 7.3.a, 7.3.a-1, 7.3.a-2
9 Cheshvan, 5768, 6.3.a, 6.3.a-1, 6.3.a-4, 1.2.a-1
10 Cheshvan, 5768, 1.2.a-1.2, 1.2.a-1.3
11 Cheshvan, 5768, 1.2.a-1.2
12 Cheshvan, 5768, 3.1.c-1.8.8, 3.1.c-1.8.9
16 Cheshvan, 5768, 3.3.a-1, 3.3.a-1.1, 3.3.a-1.2 [counter productive]
19 Cheshvan, 5768, 3.1.e-3, 2.2.a-5, 2.2.a
22 Cheshvan, 5768, 1.3.a-1, 2.1.e, 3.2.b, 3.2.b-4, 3.2.b-4.1, 3.2.b-4.2
28 Cheshvan, 5768, 3.1.d
10 Kislev 5768, 3.1.b-1
16 Kislev 5768, 3.1.d-9
feb 2009, 3.1.d 100 changed to 50, delegates can work part-time as delegate and the rest of the time be like everyone else, naturally being accessible for the people. 100 is also possible, but 50 seems like a tighter and faster control. It makes the 1st delegates layer bigger and thus harder, but it is a specialist layer that is more efficient and organized, hence should be capable of bearing more social load. It is harder for a voter-group to be involved.
1 Sh'vat 5772 / jan 25 2012, 3.1.d, 3.1.d-5.2, 3.2.a-3.1, 6.3.b (updated from earlier changes.)







Printable Text material:

1-English (html)



* We can not build without a political/economic solution: analysis, solutions, laws. A system of society/law must be invented, and then a way to get it (overcoming distortion of democracy by Capital). This sheet proposes a certain solution, worked out in detail elsewhere.

* Trading of products and services is (should be) a protection for the people that produce them. To be fair this demands equal power between all people.

* The things that go wrong without justification, are the result of the greedy and unaccountable management invested in by the gambling private financiers for their own sake (Capitalist distortion of the free markets).


* All investment money becomes a democratic tool, no more private gambling with people's lives by the unproductive financial investment sector.

* Companies become democracies when the business starter leaves. Starter gets compensation and a share of future profits.

* Land for nature and public utility is subtracted from the total of the Nation first, what remains is divided equally. What you can do with it is limited by democratic government to prevent chaos. You can not sell/lose this right, but you can rent it out.

* Sectors of productivity where competition for consumer favor does not work because there can't be enough competitors or the cost of bankruptcy is too high that it can't be allowed anyway, are directed by democracy/negotiation.

* Money is transferred to a new (not global) currency to flush out private Capital. The money and debt of people is transplanted to the new money, but a maximum (30 times average?) is set for everyone, what is more is not transplanted to the new money (it stops existing).

* The maximum size of a Nation will be 100 million voters, each Nation will be fully sovereign.


* First thinking about (this and/or other) solutions, improving them where needed. See for theory, Constitution proposal, technology:

2-English (html)


A PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT ? * Make sure the conditions are favorable: no international war threat because of these changes, National majority which has declared itself openly in favor.

* People group per 100 or (a little?) more, elect one voter block housekeeper. This housekeeper is responsible for proper voting procedure. Elect a delegate / representative. Any delegate can be replaced at any moment if the voters of its block elect someone else.

* Delegates group geographically per 50 or more to form Local Government. Delegates elect from between themselves a chair person; it has no vote, it is responsible for the associated voter block housekeepers. This Local Government Council first decides on a Council name by agreeing a majority vote has been reached on a name, handles emergency situations, sets and publishes its agenda points for the next meeting. Unless there are emergencies, agenda points can only be handled if they have been 7 days on the public agenda. Proposals for new law require more time: 2 month' on the agenda. Taking this delay serious prevents chaos and is more democratic. If there are a lot of delegates in a local Government body, they can group again together to form 50 groups of local delegates. Each delegate group sends one delegate for Local Government.

* Proposed/default meeting places: Monday 1st and 3rd of the Month in the city-center or first suitable location to its North, if none there first suitable location to the east of the line city center / North by rotating that line around the city like the arm of a clock. Tuesday every week the same in neighborhoods (according to name or geography). Wednesday on 4 O'Clock in the neighborhoods in the street which sorts lowest in the alphabet. Thursday the delegates which have been elected by other delegates in the city center or neighborhood center.

* When you get things right, look at other cities and make sure they get it right.

* Entire Nation: Divide the Nation in blocks not larger then 100 million potential voters (adults or all persons). Divide this Nation in 50 blocks with (about) equal numbers of delegates. Each 50th of the Nation's delegates, elects one delegate for National Government. This "Country Council" works like the Local Government Councils: agenda points, delegate replacement. Elect the Electoral Committee (EC), that is 10 persons on a National ballot directly by the People, see Constitution for the rules. Decide whether you want a King Elect, if so the oldest in the EC will become King Elect. The EC can be elected and next to it a Referendum on whether the People want to start with a King Elect in place. This King only has power if the delegates create chaos and the courts agree this is the case. The EC can call new elections, also for themselves by stepping down. This King has to be re-elected after having had real power for one year (see Constitution for the exact rules).

* It is a system of Law, not a system of unlimited representative power, Referendum results are binding. The Local Government deals with local problems and can make law to the degree the Country Council allows it. The Country Council handles National issues, maintains the Constitution and Currency, solves problems between Local Governments. The Courts maintain the system: Courts of Justice solve legal disputes, Judge Courts judge potential mistakes there, the National Law Court interprets the Law if there are legal disputes on the meaning of the Law. There is no rules higher then the Constitution, the Police enforces the Law. The Courts will have to accept the new Laws, but all law that does not conflict with the Constitution, remains as is, until it is explicitly changed by the proper legal procedure.

* Take responsibility for the Nation, and be accountable. Uphold the law, fight crime. The Country is not embedded in an International nanny system, but fully sovereign to do what it wants. You will get the kind of country according to the effort put in.

1-Nederlands (html)

Help: Translate

All kind of choices, as long as it is the same thing.
Copy/distribute this sheet at will. Please do ! If you like this, distribute especially along peace demonstrations. That's where thinking about society is most serious. 1% coverage or less should be more then enough. With a nice graphic on the back, it may appear more friendly and less theoretical/amateurish.

This flag symbolizes a reversed bull head that becomes a scale in the shape of an Ω Omega. It therefore represents peace, a bull down on its back, and it also represents democracy, scales that count the votes.

Having it upright represents therefore peace, and having it upside down represents war. When a nation (or group) goes to war that uses this flag (somewhere), it should reverse this flag. That signals to everyone that the nation/group is at war, and would involve more people in the decision making about war and peace. This more intense scrutiny can both ratify a war locally, and the flag in the hands of individuals supports a convenient method of democratic voting about what the war/peace status should be according to the person having that flag. People that turn their flag upside down favor war, others favor peace. One flag for war and peace: cost effective!

When a nation wages war under a banner of peace (upright flag), they are signaling that their war does apparently not bear public scrutiny either of the world or the population, since they tried not to incite such public scrutiny by pretending to be at peace. Obviously the concerning leaders will have some excuse about this, but if they hide their actual status, this could be used against them in a future court where they may face charges for war crimes, such as waging secret and therefore not ratified war in breach with their social contract and the expectations of the local and world People. Lying and "secret government" would be one of the worst type of offenses possible for leaders, an act of war against the local people and the people of the world, probably the worst crime against democracy possible.

Sign Petition: DAVID has no central command, party rigor or leadership class, it is strictly an idea only. Feel free to use and abuse or change the symbol, the changes reflect your opinion (these drawings are released as `public domain').


A purple triangle pointed down, tip inverted and sunk in black. Tools displayed in the left-right center of the triangle, in the top half, red and white. In bottom half centered left-right in the triangle, two white triangles across each other, one pointing up the other down, the center hexagonal divided in 3 horizontal parts. Top part blue shows a drop coming from a cloud in darker blue; bottom part green shows twelve equally sized blocks in darker green; middle part red shows many triangles with tips pointing down in darker red, a few have the tip pointing up; the upper triangles row is not red but yellow, and stands on a light blue background, some of the red triangles below these yellow triangles are also on a blue background; the lowest triangles row stands on a light green background. On top of triangle a yellow Omega symbol, stretched to fit, with (rounded) triangle shaped gap and rounded top. Above the words "democratic government, democratic companies, democratic finance, democratic resources," leafs left and right to triangle, bottom field of background shades to black, top field shades to a thin light blue.


What is the imagined meaning of all this nonsense.

A triangle inverted stands for representative democracy, the base is on top, the leaders on bottom. The inverted tip of the triangle signifies corruption in the leadership, aiming to attack the democratic people. The inverted triangle sunk below without touching and colored black, means defeat of this corruption. Another reading would be that a leadership class which was lifted above the pyramid, has missed the inversion of the lower part of the pyramid, and is consequently pushed from above top to below bottom. The triangle color purple stands for wisdom, the flattened tip pointing down stands for plural government, no singular focus. The three fields inside the two white triangles and the triangles stand for the 4 main points of the program: democratic finance (blue), democratic businesses (red), distribution of resources (green), and surrounding it the democratic government (white triangles). The white triangle (2D pyramid) with point down represents focusing a decision by the many, the white triangle with point up represents following this decision by the many. The red triangles are democratic businesses interacting while the yellow row stands for monopoly sector service groups (limited nationalized industry) and the few red triangles on blue background represent special sectors of industry neither fully monopolized and neither fully free floating in the markets, the blue drop from cloud is public capital investment, the green squares are distributed resources. While the businesses are fluid and unlimited, the resources are fixed and measured, and capital is coming from an infinite source but carefully applied. The few tip pointing up red triangles are businesses just started, allowed to not be democratic. `Keyboard and broomstick' is a variation on `hammer and sickle.' The keyboard and broomstick mean this is a working class world (everyone works, no gambling / ruling class), the nobility, or what's left of it - essentially crime - is sunk in black below. They kill each other, have nothing to offer anymore. The cresting Omega signals democracy, the omega has the shape of a scales: counting votes. The pyramid shape of the Omega's gap means the importance of reason, not personal allegiance to leaders, as a leading principle, taking over the role of the lost tip. The tip of this pyramid balances the Omega, meaning that the most important idea is democracy. The Omega stands victorious above the defeated Alpha: Omega stands for the downtrodden, while the `A' stands for power hierarchy. This configuration suggests the defeat and scatter of the Alpha (Capital letter), and the assumption of power of those that were below. The purple triangle is held in the air by the handle of the Omega, transferring power from the base to the tip. This signals self reliance, as well as technological progress (flying). The bottom black triangle stands on the Earth, meaning it is void of technology, pressed into darkness between the naked animals. The greenery on the sides signal victory and sovereign power. The size of the purple triangle and the black triangle, reflect the moment when the `Alpha' (pro war) people are outnumbered by the `Omega' (pro peace) people sufficiently, to create this situation of inverse hierarchy for the first time.


Why another party.

It isn't a party, it is just an idea. I'm kind of tired with parliamentary parties, and however much they may mean well, it is difficult to get anywhere. Therefore this is an abstract non-party. Everyone can display its symbolism freely, signalling their aims. When they don't deliver on the aims, it is they personally who lose credibility, not the abstract idea(s) itself, ideas are harder to corrupt. There are 4 main points in the program, therefore it is important to have this in the symbol. It is so easy to fiddle a little with a party program, it won't be so easy to fiddle with a symbol. Naturally meaning can be eroded, but not as easily completely rewritten as a party program or party practice.

Do I think this is a good idea ?

I don't know. I just enjoy doing it. There are so many shades of opinions, therefore it might be useful to narrow this down, make it more explicit. It does, for instance, have a market economy, which may be quite different from other models. I suppose that just subtle changes to the hammer and sickle symbols may work, but that will be a little too easily lost. A little symbolism isn't wrong, it can be a convenient way to communicate, a sort of visual language.

Will the meaning of this symbol change if you change this site ?

The 4 main points remain and are named. They can be implemented in many different ways. It is possible that the proposed Constitution will change in detail, but if it changes dramatically, it should no longer fit the symbol. Don't count on the proposed Constitution changing in major ways, though.

Why `DAVID.'

It was `DGCFR' before: Democratic Government, Companies, Finance, Resources, resulting in sentences like ``the dgcfr star-seal ...'', it isn't easy to say and remember the letters. Since the two triangles are also known as a David-star, I searched for matching terms, and they unexpectedly matched well, even better (except possibly for `venture', which means `business', `company' here; the `high risk' connotation isn't a bad thing). Government = Authority, Companies = Ventures, Finance = Investments, Resources = Demarcations. `Venture' also has something of `adventure,' and adventure is life. Asked Neturei Karta for objections to use this name/symbol, received none, so it should be OK ...



                     Table of contents
                 Revolution: system change 
                   General Strike 
                   Power in the beginning of the Revolution 
                   Local Government in large cities 
                   Power in the end of the Revolution
                   Stability during revolution
                   Time & Space
                   From regime to system change
                 Revolution Lite
                 Global system


Revolution: system change

To make a revolution a success, and a successful experience, the process has to be theorized to some extend. It is great to have a plan to build a building, but then you need a plan to build it. Both plans will be different, because they deal with different problems.


The first point of order is to win on the ideological / scientific front. That means winning the argument first in a logical basis, and then on a numerical basis. The logical argument against a revolution is easily disproved: parliament itself is based upon past revolution, it is therefore nonsensical to demand that a new popular (majority) revolution needs the OK from the remnants of a past revolution, especially because the new revolution is a pro democratic government revolution. It aims to give democratic government more, not less power, and can therefore claim to be a continuation of the pro-democratic government revolutions (strikes and other methods of pressure from below), upon which the present Parliaments are based. To support Parliament, is to support pro-democratic revolution. 3 points in that argument: 1. parliament is based on majority direct action of the past, 2. the planned revolution is pro-parliament in principle, 3. the revolution is supposed to be a majority process of the productive people.

The counter argument can be: "vote the revolution into power, that proves you have a majority and the legitimacy, and this can make the process more easy." There is certainly a lot of truth in that. But Capitalist Parliament isn't without its fundamental problems. First of all the practicalities of political power in competition with Capitalist power. This means that the Capitalist can always sink left wing political projects, even have to in order to protect their wealth, and the society that supports it. This can and does throw the economy into chaos. If left wing political projects less then revolution - which would deny the Capitalists and rich this power henceforth - are always (ultimately) sunk, a left wing party in politics can really do nothing until it declares the government is going to be the only government, expropriating the Capitalists of their power, wealth, ownership. Such a left wing political party will officially have the power of state when it declares revolution, but will this prevent a rebellion by the rich and Capitalists, effectively resulting in a revolutionary situation nevertheless. How will this party resist in taking part in half powered government - refusing to become complicit in this self defeating system -, and why should people believe that these party members will be able to resist the temptation. If people have little faith in the credibility of the revolutionary party in politics, especially over the time it needs to grow which might be decades, then that means the revolutionary party won't grow. Elegant as the technical way through parliament may seem, reality is a little more confusing. And what about the people who stopped voting at all. Do they count as revolutionary votes ? Do they count as votes in favor of the status quo ? In what percentages ? What amount of people vote for non-revolutionary parties because of failing options ?

Although the technical way through parliament argument has a lot of appeal, and parliament can at least be used to spread theories about what is happening and how it can be different, revolution itself is not without its own elegance: a general strike of productive people is nothing less then an active majority vote. A revolution following a general strike, is even more credible then majority vote into parliament, because general strike and then a revolutionary process is a greater activity, proving more will (need) then just casting a ballot.

This solves the black / white challenge of the "technical way through parliament" argument. Voting is great, but Capitalist parliament is not the only way of voting, and has significant stifling effects, curbing in practice the actual will of the people, upon which it is based.

General Strike

It seems best to base a revolution on a general strike. When it is impossible to generate a general strike of at least the poorer majority, then most likely the will is failing to be sufficient, either to make revolution itself, or make the end result stable. The general strike has to extend into the military and police forces significantly, because they have been used to drive people back to work like slaves. If that happens and a mass strike is defeated by such violence, the level of violence needs to be extreme. This may cause many death's, including death's of the best people, and that is a major drawback. It is probably far better to wait another ten or twenty years (or more) in that case, then choose a violent confrontation that might kill significant amounts of the best people (accidents always happen with or without revolution, asking for zero accidents is impossible, and keeps going the violence of the Capitalist system).

Because of the threat of successful countering violence, a general strike should not assume it will automatically progress into revolution, even if the political ideas to that end are getting more numbers. To assume revolution means the opposing forces will assume revolution as well, giving them no option but to strike (as in attack). There could then come a level of acceptance for this violence, because the rulers had "no choice." The general strike can also be used to secure fundamental but limited changes, such as just `democratic finance', or `maximum on wealth.' All these things are far too tactical to foresee. In some cases it might be far better to immediately progress into complete revolution even though chances might not be that good, to prevent the rulers from massing forces for violent revenge. Being unpredictable can be a tactical advantage.

When and if the situation becomes tense, and if there are strikes or the possibility of striking, then if there is no good reason to strike everyone should consider doing their normal jobs, even if there is nobody paying wages, or even if the money system has broken down for some reason. It is not difficult to go through the motions of working for a short period of time, and if enough people do it, that will prevent a collapse of society if there is a risk to that end. It may be possible to pay debts and get lost income later, and otherwise the work would be in the common interest for stability and a functioning country. Some company owners may want to sell off their company, or wreck it somehow. In such cases, it may be useful for workers to take over the business, not only for their sake, but also for the sake of a coherent economy. When a business is established, many people may have come to depend on it. Losing one business is not a good thing, especially if things are coming apart. The task of keeping at work holds especially for farming, food (selling, transportation, production), transportation (public transport, vehicle repair and road/rail maintenance), emergency services (fire, police and medical), and basic infrastructure repair (drinking water, sewage, electricity). In general, it may be better that the people in these sectors do not strike at all, but use some other means of applying pressure if they want to. It can be useful that if people working in these areas ask for help, that they receive it, so that they can keep their systems working. If society breaks down at its fundamental service level, the ensuing panic is not in the interest of progressive changes, rather the panic (of death) would likely result in a will to return to previous conditions. Hence, the revolutionary enemy has every reason to try to provoke such a panic, and attempt to shut down the wrong systems (quite possibly pretending to be in favor of the changes, so that the problems can be blamed on the revolution, and power retained where it is now - such are the usual tactics of the enemy.)

Hopefully it will never come to this, but: of all issues, food and water are most pressing. It has been held that hoarding food is a bad thing, but that is too simple. If all people had food in their homes, this would reduce the pressure on any food distribution system, at least in the beginning. Then if people who had food in their homes first eat that, for instance only go to the food distribution to get one days worth of food a week instead of 7 days worth, just to know what was going on and eat something different which is good for health, then that is useful for everybody. Throwing good food away is always a bad thing obviously, therefore it is best to hoard food that will be eaten later anyway if there are no problems. Having food stored also reduces crowding during last minute buying panic, and leaves more room for people who have nothing in their home. Another option with food hoards is to distribute it yourself, especially useful if the distributed food is bland and the same every day. Then the hoard would be empty quickly, but more people had a part of it. If food becomes scarce for some reason (it should not, but if), then everyone who has food has an interest in keeping everyone fed through public distribution, because if people go hungry they will start breaking into homes to get food. Therefore, hoarding food that will be eaten later anyway, is a good strategy to make everyone more flexible and less dependent on whomever controls society at any given moment. It is not at all true that all food-hoarding is bad. It is only wrong if the food would later be thrown away, or if it is actually withheld from starving people who are in a situation that they couldn't help. Wrong also if the hoarding itself denies others food, but that happens more with last minute panic buying then maintaining a food buffer during times when food is otherwise plentiful enough.

Some kinds of food can last for a long time, such as rice or grain. If one can spend money on new clothes, then for the same economic burden to society it can be spend on such long lasting foods, even if one does not expect to eat it later, but have it just as an insurance. This seems perfectly natural, to safe during time of plenty for a time of expected trouble. One may then end up with a food buffer of canned vegetables and some other such stuff, which can be eaten together with the long lasting food such as rice, beans, wheat. This should be healthy enough and could keep a person alive for some month's, maybe even a year. To eat rice for one year at about 200 grams a day you need 100 kg. If one is willing to eat canned food once every month, you could sustain a food buffer for canned food that expires after one year for a total of 12 cans. If you eat it once every two weeks: 24 cans, obviously. Eating only rice or grain plus a can every 2 weeks for a year is probably not healthy, but most people would survive it with some supplements from nature. Having the ability to survive separate from the economy for a whole year, is a major strategic power for the People. The buying of food hoards becomes a pain for society when food has already becoming scarce. From that moment on you probably shouldn't try to make new food storage; you're too late. Store food if you expect trouble, when nobody cares that you do, when any gap you make in the food supply is easily absorbed by the plenty. Then nobody should complain about food storage, later. Some people bought food for a troubled day, others bought vacation tickets to a sunny country, that's just freedom of choice in a plentiful economy.

Just to coin an idea: if a person having food stored gives one third to the community when it needs it, it has done its job and can keep the rest for itself. People who don't care for the day after tomorrow have primarily themselves to blame, though undoubtedly they'll scream murder if that can help them to get food. The selfish usually start preaching the gospel of love and sharing, once they have nothing to share, trying to work on people's conscience. That only has merit if someone is in a position to suggest food storage for others, but while doing it itself, isn't suggesting it to others. If starvation sets in, give two thirds of what's left, leaving at least one month worth, keep the rest until it is out (then die together if it comes to that). These rules could help to increase the total food supply beforehand. If the demand is `give all up to the community,' then a) who will actually control that food and b) nobody is able to store enough food for itself, so perhaps nobody will. Good behavior needs to be rewarded, or else who would care to. The rules don't apply to food stored after the date that things became problematic, such food might have to be given up in whole to public food distribution. Leave one month worth with the owner to prevent unnecessary anger.

I'd recommend women handling the food distribution entirely, because women are less threatening because they are less physically powerful, and because of that they may comparatively find more security in doing it right. Women should realize that men need more food per day, though, maybe about half more, and that physically working requires a significant increase in food, easily doubling needs.

Power in the beginning of the Revolution

The past has shown (I think) that such decisions need to be made by mass gatherings, because they are the only ones that have an interest in good results. Any minority putting itself at the head, could be a brilliant strategist producing the results against all odds, or it could be a disastrous infiltrator destroying a sure victory. If a minority leadership is elected, history has shown that electing professional Union leaders and professional left wing political party leaders, will probably produce a revolution defeating council. The best choices seem to have been in the past: elements which work normally side by side with everyone, but are involved into some political or union activities. This means they both have a strong interest in good results, and they have a political and technical awareness, better then most, yet they are not tied to the old power hierarchy, as are union professionals. But the makeup of unions is not the same today as it was in the past. Unions are increasingly attempting to divert themselves from organizing workers for a more fair world and better working conditions for everyone, to an individualized pro-capitalist career advisory and entertainment business (even advising workers on which shares to buy), and a tool for Capital to ideologically and practically mold the workers into the Capitalist scheme. It should be noted that the majority of workers themselves can be quite reactionary on certain details. They for instance might support a war against a foreign country, where the left wing politically more conscious workers (was a minority) are against it. In this case, the minority has had the better opinion (first world war). Perhaps the majority has now learned from direct experience that war is not useful. According to that argument, the majority is always ultimately right, even when it is wrong, because it does what it needs, learning from its mistakes in the greatest number, even if that involves several decades of war.

I side with this setup: elected leadership for actions, if needed at all, must consist of regular workers, they should never be union leaders or left wing political party leaders. These people have networked within the old hierarchy too much, have too much to loose, are too easily blackmailed, etc. Activists of all manner and stripe are probably a good choice, because they can have unexpected ideas and have a proven positive record. The election system could be blocked representation [1], as was done with great success in the past. It is easy to set up and affords control in real time. Workers elect one representative from between them per 100 workers [2] that have work from which they can strike and that own wealth less then about 5 times the country average. 100 is a low limit resulting in a lot of delegates, but larger block size is likely to alter the access to power by voters inside the block and give the block an internal power struggle, shutting the humble out and bringing populists and power brokers to power. The mass of delegates will have to manage itself, this can be through (the following) rules. It should not be a great disaster if some workers elect fewer delegates, for instance send one delegate per 1000 workers, this could later be corrected and they only reduce their own power. Such delegates don't get more voting power, as this would be too tricky and result in delegates being unequal. People that are not in the 100 block form a block per 500 people [3], it elects one delegate, that delegate has one vote in the council. These non-strike able people include not only unemployed such as people who already worked themselves to pieces and fired activist workers, it also includes professional criminals, investment bank owners, people living from an inheritance and people owning more then 5 times wealth, some of which in principle workers. Once councils are formed, they can solve disputes on the precise definition of 100 and 500 blocks. Strike able voters losing their strike ability retain voting right as before for one year [4]. A voter can only be in one block at a time [5]. Each delegate representative represents its block, and can be immediately changed by that block [6]. If a representative gets fired from the productive job, the block can decide to retain it in its position even though it has no strike capability: the workers block can in principle decide to elect someone from the outside [7].

When the resulting body becomes too large, that body can again elect another body of practical size from between them [8]. A representative can only be in a further (more election steps removed from the people) body, if it is already in the closest body (one block election removed from the people) [9]. The original voters block voting for someone who made it into the furthest representative body, can get someone out of that body even if that person is to the liking of the majority in the lower and/or higher representative bodies, or to the liking of the majority of the people [10]. If the furthest body representatives don't have their block vote behind them, they return to work / strike and become non-elected members as everyone else, looking from the outside in from then on. There they can continue to inform the people, and get back to experience normal existence, informing itself. This is a (continuing) washing action on the councils, keeps them clean and in connection with the people. The closer bodies can at any time replace the delegates to the further bodies [11]. Then such replaced delegates fall back to the closer body. This is to maintain a tight bond between delegates and people, to diffuse the potential for the representations to degenerate into a leadership class which scratches each others backs using inside information at the cost of workers that they represent, and to reduce the amount of populism, people who attempt to overstep the bounds of the rules and get a direct personality-based mandate (become King Elect). For this to work there must be transparency between representative and its block, so that the block knows exactly what its representative does and wants, giving it the chance for change [12]. Each delegate is known also by its block name in the representative body, who it is representing.

The nature of the delegation bodies is one of rules and protocol. It may be a good idea to routinely swap the delegates in and out for some others, to obtain information and exert control, to give the bodies and the people information. It is a good idea for the delegates to remain workers by losing their mandate, and that when they are delegates they know they can lose their mandate any moment without reason. It gives more people a chance to be a delegate, which should make a big difference in how well the people are informed. It makes corrupting the delegates by bourgeois near impossible, they never know who they are dealing with the next day. It makes corruption by delegates hard, they don't know whether they're back on the normal job or not one hour to the next. It can also reduce rivalry in the block for the position if positions rotate between the willing people.

When closest councils are formed from delegates, the councils are (loosely) formed per geography (adjacency) [13]. Villages may need to group to even reach the 100 people for a block vote, and group further to reach 50 block votes for a minimum council [14]. Large cities end up with large closest councils, and may need to elect a further body from within for practicality [8].

The further body can be elected per block vote in the closest council, block size determined according to the size needed for the council (at least dividing the closest council in 50 blocks). The delegates make up blocks between themselves that seem natural and useful to them [15]. This set up reduces populism again, and improves routine access to power by all. One would only have to lobby its block, not everyone. Blocks in closest body can be formed per geography or industry or political opinions, etc. For a country-wide council, all closest bodies [16] are divided geographically so that there are 50 blocks of equal population size [17], then each block sends a representative and that is the country council. The country council needs to be based on the closest councils, because otherwise the representation would not be equal. Basing it on closest councils and not people directly means elections are easier to do. A national ballot and political parties remove the country powerful about five steps from the people: establish and be member of political party, be elected in political party locally, be elected in political party nationally, be elected into parliament, be elected into government. The block vote system here suggested removes the country powerful two steps: be elected into the closest body, be elected by it into the country council. If there are issues that involve a certain larger area spanning city and rural councils, the closest councils in the area can elect area advice councils with a specific set of issues that are important in that area that would benefit from an area oversight. The area advice council(s) advises the local councils in its area, who make the decisions. The advice councils can be elected per block of equal size of closest council delegates, which may sometimes involve a block coming from multiple councils. The advice council has no power, therefore anyone can be elected, including people with relevant training on the issues at hand who are not elected delegates [18].

This "coordination" then tries to find out what the people want [19], and give an advice / coordination when needed. It could make a list of all manner of arguments that exist about all manner of details, day to day tactics, year to year strategies and goals achievable within a few decades. It might be useful to elect a new council every first of the month, because the council tends to degrade over time, especially if it is negotiating with old powers. The election period can be lengthened if the situation becomes stable. It might be smart to have a quite large top body, some 50 people, negotiate with old powers publicly in a way that resembles writing letters, rather then putting a few heads together at a bar [20]. When things get too friendly between the varies top bodies (worker and bourgeois), it can become hard for the strike committee to assume sovereign power without unneeded concessions if it wanted to. When there are fewer then 5.000 people striking or organizing, the delegates can be elected by smaller groups, keeping the top body at 50 persons or more.

The councils and voter blocks first elect a housekeeper from between them [21]. The council housekeeper dedicates itself to making sure the council operates in a structured way: chairing meetings to make sure all voices are heard, meetings are held regularly or when needed, all members are informed of everything, the public is informed of everything, decisions are made by voting orderly and on time [22]. The housekeeper sacrifices its opinionated speak right and voting right during meetings, though it can voice opinion outside of meetings like a non-elected person [23]. The voting block housekeeper maintains a register of voters and is responsible for its accuracy. The voter block housekeepers do routine and regular checks with other vote block housekeepers [24], and report to their council housekeepers [25]. Council housekeepers are responsible for accurate voter records of their voter blocks and report to their council about problems [26].

Voter records can be password based or non-existent if there is any threat to voters. The reduction in accuracy will have to be accepted, which could be better then that voter registers end up with a reactionary criminal enemy. When the situation is polarized threat level tends to be higher, but voters tend to want the same obvious things, making accurate voting less relevant. The problem cancels itself. The threat to council leaders can be reduced by swapping them constantly, so that there is no clear leader person to target (secret balloting in secret locations, quickly rotating council members, direct democracy, ... .) When physical threat is high it is of course better not to elect councils at all, but base everything on mass communications between masses of workers [27]. Once basic human rights are ensured then there might come a time to do it more accurately. Anything to keep the activist workers alive. Better live and move on with the ideological struggle (if any).

Though central coordination can degenerate into central command, it is can be useful to have some singular advice whatever it is. If there are hundreds of equally valid schemes to strike in the next month, it can be useful that at some point one scheme is chosen. Whether a strike begins on Monday or Tuesday may matter little, but it can matter that everyone strikes on the same day, and that it is not a chaos of different strike plans, with nobody really knowing what to do. That void might give old powers room to promote their policy, and point to the disorganized chaos to erode credibility. Sometimes the knot has to be cut somewhere, where is not that important [28]. If a council can be kept under control, that suggests a potential for a new government. The coordination (if needed) ought to be an open, inclusive process, of course, though some short term secrets may be tactically useful [29]. For the purpose of effectiveness, the coordination should have extensive and public plans ready about all major strategic decisions, because if the tactical aspect becomes all important, it is too late to make well thought out strategic or principled decisions. Overplaying ones hand can result in having to break a principle, but if that had been foreseen the hand might not have been overplayed to begin with. A coordination that is only tactical but not strategic, with fixed leaders and little protocol, could easily degenerate into either nothing (defeated from the outside) or dictatorship (defeated from the inside out) [30]. Strategic decisions are for instance what the end goal is going to be, what new system if any. (This book is an example of a strategic plan.) Don't forget that the life of the enemy, its expertise and instinct is tactical battle; it is all they do, all they want and all they understand. Don't fight them on their battle field where they will win. Don't fight them at all: go around over and besides them and ideologically through them, until they end up ignored (or in jail as criminals for committing acts of violence if they did so). First win our war, the war of debate and argument. Then it should be a matter of mopping up the pieces of the enemy, or ignore them wholesale. Achieving ideological majority (country, continent, world) is principle #1.

Prior to a revolutionary tendency there could be an interest in forming organization to push for Constitutional reform. The reactionary enemy will be looking to form such organizations as well, in order to lead the people astray and control the process from above (defeat it from the inside out). It would be a good idea to form organizations therefore, to prevent a monopoly on organization by the wrong people [31]. The diversity of organizations pushing for Constitutional reform, which would extend into existing organizations with other goals that are served by the Constitution, will create a market pressure between them and give people choices. Such organizations could cooperate horizontally, but should not form a single power point, because such a union is vulnerable to infiltration and take-over, it reduces choices, the bad are hard to desert if they're the only ones. A single power point can be manipulated easier, also from outside pressures such as media and a manufactured public perception. The end goals are clear enough, it is not necessary to have one captain at the helm [32]. Experience has shown that masses of workers going to talk to other masses of workers is a great way to communicate. Councils are not to take over such coordinations and meetings, but to respect them and where asked assist them [33]. The councils don't fight or confuse mass to mass communications, but can naturally offer their friendly advice.

Summary of rules:
[1] Electing representative per block of people.
[2] 100 or more strike-able (or) in productive jobs voters per block, who own less then about 5 times the country average wealth.
[3] Adult people not voting in a 100 block, vote per 500 persons.
[4] Strike able voter losing that ability, retains rights for one year.
[5] A voter can only be in one block.
[6] Immediate and routine replacement representative allowed.
[7] A block can elect anyone.
[8] Delegates can elect further body if desired.
[9] Further body consists of members of the closer body.
[10] Original voters block can replace their delegate, whatever body they are in.
[11] Closer bodies can change the further representatives at any time.
[12] Delegates inform their block about their activities.
[13] Closest councils are formed per adjacent geography.
[14] The smallest size for a council is 50 delegates.
[15] Blocks in closest body free formed.
[16] Country council chosen by closest councils.
[17] Country council chosen by 50 geographically divided blocks of equal population size.
[18] Area advice and issue advice councils can be elected by closest councils, anyone can be elected in them.
[19] Council job is to find out and execute the people's will.
[20] Negotiation per statement, no secret back-scratch/hug sessions.
[21] Voter blocks and councils first elect a housekeeper, without it it is not a voter block or a council.
[22] Council housekeeper chairs and maintains the council.
[23] Council housekeeper has no speak or vote rights in the council.
[24] Voter block housekeeper maintains an accurate register of its voters.
[25] Voter block housekeeper reports to its council housekeeper.
[26] Council housekeeper reports on voter block register problems to its council.
[27] Voter register and council set up reflect threat level in its design or absence.
[28] Councils do not steer or lead - they are service oriented - but they can give the people advice which if well received can become policy.
[29] Councils are open and have no meaningful secrets; only one short term tactical issue that is shortly made public including the reason for secrecy.
[30] Councils study options for the long and short term.
[31] Plurality of organizations.
[32] Organizations with the same goal cooperate horizontally, do not unite their management.
[33] Mass to mass / face to face communications are great.

Local Government in large cities

It may take some days or weeks to set this up to satisfaction, because of the large number of delegates. Therefore it is probably a good idea to elect first some older, more relaxed people, who are more likely to do this without getting into a power struggle, or submit to populism. If you can't make it happen, elect the Country Council (CC) first, so they can be burdened with solving the problems: (provisionally) by instituting a local CC (Country Council) level ministry, and/or making the necessary organizational decisions to arrive at local Government(s), and/or making new law. The larger the population of a city, the more difficult local Government set up, but also the more CC representatives come from the densely populated area. This automatically places problems of large cities higher on the CC agenda of interest. In large cities with therefore large amounts of delegates, the delegates may want to organize themselves locally in 50 equally sized groups, before assembling as a body, then submit their representative. Parts of the large city do not have to partake in this, which depends on the majorities in these areas, they can build and sustain their own local Government on equal footing with that further Government body elected by other parts of the city. It falls to the CC to resolve problems between them. If there are multiple local Governments in a large city, they may want to elect at least one advice council for the coherency of the city, or work closely together in some other way.

To coin some meeting places and times: first and third Monday of the month on the city center square, Tuesday in neighborhoods or city areas in their center square, and Wednesday on 4 O'clock in the neighborhoods in the street with the name that sorts lowest in the (local) alphabet. If there is no good center square, then the first open area going North from the city center, if none there either then go with the arms of the clock over the map until the first suitable open area. This may result in several possible locations, but several is manageable, people can always be redirected. Then in the large cities that produce extreme amounts of delegates, which could become apparent on Monday, the delegates may want to assume by default this decision: everyone goes home; the map of the city is divided into 50 areas, from the most northern point mark a square area of 1/50th of all residents to the east and south, continue in a circle around the outer edge this way, then the inner circles in the same way; within each area a meeting place can be found both on Tuesday and Wednesday, when there each area picks one representative, and sends that representative to the city center square or equivalent on the Thursday. Since voters can group per 100 or more of their choosing, a vote group may not connect with any particular area. However a default system is needed, especially in large cities, or it would be diffuse and chaotic. Therefore, when booting up local Government in a large city, move forward with the geographic divisions as a default system and group delegates together according to the place where the delegate happens to live. In reality this may result in some geographic areas producing twice or more delegates then others, yet they both elect one delegate. If the situation is calm, the delegates should be able to form 50 equal groups by adjusting the given situation, for instance by re-arranging the boundaries, or something else. If the situation is not calm, I suggest to elect the local Government with uneven blocks as soon as possible, and work out this uneven problem later (or even much later), after local Government has gained control and established the necessary calm. Later, for instance if there is a cotton industry and its people want to have their own delegates and group in voter groups there, then they can go ahead, and the other delegates will have to adapt. These things can be done later, the geographic grouping is not fixated because it is done once.

Then there may be the city areas which want their own local Government, these local Governments go ahead and establish themselves. Once the city has a local Government per the division in 50 rule, that becomes the default local Government, so that there is always a local Government in all areas. When there are several local Governments, they can set right where things didn't go exactly right in this procedure, the local Government would have the authority needed to solve the problems. If that is not done properly, then a court case could be made, which is the way things should normally go, the Government is running. The division of the Country into 50 areas could be done in the same way: starting at the top with creating groups of equal population sizes, until there are 50. Then the delegates in these areas can elect someone into the Country Council.

When there is disagreement about following these or other rules, vote on them. When there is disagreement on how a procedure was carried out, the delegates or elected representatives have no power. The representatives make decisions thanks to the procedures, but they do not decide on the essential procedures, except the irrelevant details like whether they drink coffee or tea during a meeting. In case of a dispute on procedure, one has to go to a Judge, both sides will have to plea the case and the Judge has to make the decision. If there are no official courts yet (that speak Justice on these procedures), a competent judge and sufficient plea persons need to be agreed upon. It is probably smart to use someone with a good set of brains to be the Judge. It is always important to separate the power of decision making, and the power of Justice according to the law, because if both fall into the hands of the same people, then there is no break on the power of these people, and they can become absolutely powerful. That must not be allowed to happen. Everyone is under the Law and in a real sense, the highest authority is Justice according to the Law, and not the representatives/delegates.

Large city problems:

The problems of large cities are likely to be paramount, even now they already are, so how much more during a revolution or somewhat extensive changes of the economy and Government. In a rural area, because of the fewer people, things will be easier. In a small city, things will also be easier, but in a big city, things are worrisome. You can walk around with a megaphone and propose a good idea, and reach most inhabitants in a village of 10.000 within hours. A city of 100.000, in days you could do something. But in a city of 30.000.000 million, the problems take on a new meaning. By the time you are where you started, it is years later. With large cities, you need dedicated planning by people who live there and who work together, with the capacity to get things right (enough). I imagine this will not be easy.

When one has problems, one usually needs help, especially of people who have something to offer and are not themselves having problems. As a rule of thumb maybe this is useful to coordinate help to larger cities: divide the number of residents by ten-thousand, 10,000, if you live closer then that many kilometers from a city, wonder whether they are getting things right and about what you can do for them to prevent them from sinking into chaos and misery, to get things in order. Maybe what they need is people to help them, maybe they need people to stay away. Maybe they need food, maybe they don't. Maybe they need more law enforcement, maybe they need less, impossible to say, but being on the lookout to help them, that can never be wrong. In any case, if things go wrong, it will affect other areas as well, you are also doing yourself a favor if it goes well in a big nearby city. For 10,000 inhabitants: 10,000 : 10,000 = 1 kilometers all around (nothing); for 100,000 it is 10 kilometers beyond the edge (almost nothing), 1 million = 100 kilometers around, a circle 200 kilometers in diameter; and 30 million is 3,000 kilometers around, 6,000 circle diameter. With this rule, every large city should be getting some kind of assistance from surrounding areas, proportional to its size. Having all this attention focused on cities may help reduce the risk of violent dictatorial take-overs there. They know they would be in the spot-light more then otherwise. It is impossible to say what any particular large city will need at any moment, all we can do is focus on them proportionally, and try to get it right somehow. Maybe what they need is cheap housing to get slums in order, maybe that is exactly what they don't need because maybe they need 10 million slippers to prevent people getting a foot disease. We need to be ready to solve any problem with these super sized cities in the short term. Maybe they need 5 million soldiers bunkering down, or maybe they need 5 million soldiers to be thrown out. But in any case, in the middle long term they need what every town needs, which is more or less predictable. Housing, infrastructure, sewers, water, hospitals, food, garbage disposal, heat/electricity in colder regions, clothing, law & order, and schools. In the long term everyone needs a productive job that pays fairly and enough, and they need to be independent in their trade relations with the wider economy. We should be worried about these large cities before any serious changes, so that things can be prepared. If nothing is prepared, serious problems may start to happen, which could cause a lot of hurt. In those cities but also in the wider areas and country. This may all be obvious, but during a revolutionary condition, if that happens, it may not be obvious to think about it.

The above mentioned ratio of 10,000 can also be increased or decreased, until one other location results. Increased if currently in several and not having the interest to do that all, or decreased if not in any but looking for something to do. It is probably a good idea in general to look at some other areas with care and hope they do OK, it is good for overall integration, it prevents disintegration. Which in the end would benefit nobody. These help ratios and locations can be computed years before anybody needs help.

Power in the end of the Revolution

The problem of institutionalizing the improvements. One of the first problems is where and who will be a transition Government. I think it is best to put a new government in another town as the old, to get rid of the old networks, family ties, myopic world view, etc. This also means the old government can simply be ignored, and no battle for city hall needed. Once the transition government is stable, it can always decide to clear the old buildings. Government is what people listen to, not who "holds a certain position in space."

The transition Government can simply declare it is loyal to the new constitution. The constitution is basically ready, or should have been perfected in the run up to the revolution, being popularly ratified. Having a ready constitution and framework means the new system kicks in immediately. This gives the people the chance to directly demand certain changes to the setup and present Government in line with the Constitution, now that they are in an activated state. `Forge the metal when its hot.' The transitional Government does not immediately need to issue elections according to the Constitutional rules, because the revolution was its election process, and can continue to be its election process. But from the moment the transitional Government declares itself Government, the meter is ticking on its re-election. Depending on how exactly the new Constitution is worded, the Government is being replaced in whole - without exceptions or special clauses or whatever - by Constitutional elections. The method of election should be clear by then.

The revolution is not over by then. It is over after a successful election, and when the new government does not reverse the changes. Very nice would be if the new government works to perfect the system further, this is what a Government should be doing. If the new Government turns out to be reactionary, a renewed full scale revolution may be needed. This new revolution requires first analysis of what is wrong and whether it can be fixed, and how it should be fixed. This would effectively mean another `system change' revolution. It is possible that a Government came to power on the basis of lies, not doing as it promised during election. The new system should probably anticipate such issues, and provide ways to solve it without new revolution.

Stability during revolution

To make the process as painless as possible (failing a quick capitulation of Capital), it is extremely important that all people (with the possible exception of violent reaction criminals) are well fed, housed, have minimum health care. This system of care is basically the core of the new government. Taking this responsibility means becoming the government: being seen as government, and proving able to be government. It makes sure support stays strong (is well fed!). Simply the pervasive influence of this means the area (world) falls (well deserved) into the hands of the revolution. All that's left to do, is get used to the thrill of being free. This is a Constitutional revolution, there should be no danger of recreating a dictatorial power concentration (the enemy within). The forces of reaction undoubtedly realize (not in the least because it already happened), that the harder they attack the revolution, the more the revolution must become a fighting machine, end up being like them in many practical ways. This danger should be defeated. If having a clear Constitution is not enough, immediately after defeating a violent reaction that required extensive central planning, the provisional Government must be forced to step down. The last act of defeating the reaction would be defeating the potential enemy within. A completely different government be empowered immediately, even if the threat has not completely past, for danger that the provisional government would like to drag the conflict on just to stay in power. Defeating an enemy through central planning is a different kind of work then building a new institutionalized system that distributes power. It requires different people. Perhaps it would be useful to change the location of Government again.

It is probably useful to divide the major components of government, and spread them throughout the country. The ministry of finance in this city, the ministry of justice in another, etc. This will subject government to a `divide and conquer' strategy from below, make government a more formal and objective process, giving more people a more secure and real sense of sovereign power and a government level platform. This is good for spreading money, since otherwise there is an awful lot of tax money pumped into the central government city: all government in one place prevents the government (and its city) from experiencing reality, and hence it would be more prone to fantasy politics based upon what it can do itself, which is an exclusive position, supported by the rest of the country. Foreign embassy building locations could be assigned a city or region for itself, since such buildings (if many) provide an additional source of economic prosperity. One would not want all that prosperity (based on the economies of other countries) to collide with (all of) central government, which would add to the negative economic effects on government (power and money concentration).

Fighting is never to the advantage of the revolution, because it may kill the best people. Fighting has the meaning of fighting against criminal gangs and dictators, not fighting for dominance between several tribal teams. Fighting between tribal teams is reactionary and backwards. Defense against criminals and dictators is not choice, unfortunately in reality it might be necessary. Some of it probably remains necessary after winning the revolution, in that sense it is already the new system.

The law of the country or area will have to be obeyed and enforced throughout the revolutionary process, at least to the degree it does not (clearly) conflict with the new Constitution. The police and justice system should go on working as they did before. If some policemen and judges disagree with the revolutionary process or Constitution does not matter, they can go on with their work as before or at least the laws that remain the same. Laws that are conflicting with the new Constitution have to be rejected both by police and Judges from the moment a credible new Government is formed. When there is doubt about which laws to enforce, it may be best to study the different systems, so that any decision is at least an informed one. Policemen and judges that agree with the Constitution should better not run ahead of the music too far, but wait until a credible new Government is found before enforcing the new Constitution. When the old Capitalist or other Government passes laws that would cause severe problems for the democratic revolutionary process, such new politically motivated laws should probably be ignored as dying gasps. A revolutionary process tends to be less orderly then normal living with strikes, demonstrations, some potential for fake and some real violence. Parts of government would likely commit acts of terrorism and try to frame the revolution for it, while frustrated groups might sense a lack in law enforcement and exploit it to commit acts of vandalism to express their general omni-directional anger. Criminals might sense a lack of law enforcement, exploit it to commit more crimes. Therefore it seems a good idea to strengthen the police during the revolution, rather then weaken it, so that applicable and democratically agreed law is enforced. People in good condition who have never committed any crime whatsoever and who have a good set of brains could assist the police with patrol in the street or assist otherwise. If police normally patrols with two persons, the police could double its coverage if each policemen is backed up by one or two competent helpers. The helpers should take advantage to learn the task of policing, and study the necessary law to enforce, and do what the policemen says. They are not a folk militia with their own mandate, competence is important and an amateur is not competent at first. These helpers have the lowest rank. Of particular interest for real policemen could be investigating acts of terrorism, since it is important to capture all terrorists. All acts of terrorism threaten the revolution.

In case the police becomes overrun by reactionary feelings, it is best that the revolution give the police clear guidelines of what it is allowed and what it is not allowed, and to reassure it of its job security under the revolution. In this case the revolution might consider whether it has overplayed its hand, if it should give up some territory for the sake of law and order.

If police and the people, or just the workers, come to face each other in a hostile situation, it is best to sit down and study the options and demands, so as to avoid all violence and come to a mutual agreement about what to do. In any case it should become crystal clear to all policemen what exactly is going on, what the demands are and what the long term goals are. I have known police to guide and walk along a demonstration that they thought was against an international meeting that was in town, so they came out in considerable force. Three meters walking besides them were people carrying torches, they said it was their yearly march to commemorate and protest the expulsion of Jews, just coincidentally at the same time as the international meeting took place. Such an amount of confusion will not be helpful. The police will also have to be won for the changes in law, at least most of them. The reactionary enemy and its Government will attempt to shield the police from knowing what it is doing, so that it remains a blind tool for its aggression. Such insulation has to be broken down, the police must know what they are doing. The same is true for the army. It may be useful to get the truth out to the police and army when they are not on duty. It is important not to turn one part of police or army against another, unless one has to defend itself against a reactionary (illegal) minority bearing arms. Twisting and scheming will only be self-defeating, let the process run its slow course and the police should come to our side in majority if not in whole. But if significant resistance remains, it may well be that this resistance has a point. The system may be too advanced for the country. In that case the system proposed could be weakened until it satisfies most or all people. Then some progressive change could be made, there is always time later to do more. Less in a short period would often be more in the long run. When small positive changes are made, these can become the fuel for more changes.

Once a new Government is in force, local or national, it can change the laws. Police and judiciary have to enforce the new rules. Once the Constitution is enacted, laws that conflict with it are by definition voided. Enacting the Constitution implies one is capable of enforcing its regulations. Because that may not be feasible immediately, see for instance Chapter 9, resource distribution, it is best to leave those parts out of enacted Law until they can be enforced. It is no use enacting laws that are then not enforced, that only erodes the standing of the law. Once the Constitution is enacted, you may not be able to change it outside Constitutional protocol without breaking the Law (see Chapter 1, Article 1). If that protocol is seen as superfluous or strenuous, you could take out that protocol, and only add it in when the change protocol becomes useful. You could enact the Constitution with build in delays, such that "Constitution ... Chapter 9 will be enacted on Date." It will be a bad idea to enact the Constitution and then immediately break its laws, because that sets a negative precedent. Delays have the advantage of giving the policies a deadline. If there is not sufficient respect for the Law, the law will not work as well. Judges must always be competent and well studied, never place incompetent or amateur judges in a court. If there is a shortage of judges, train more competent judges (increase the salary.)


The ideas here are meant to reduce the amount of violence, chaos and bad government in the world, to improve the system (beyond recognition if you will). Its power comes from building, not from destroying. It stands against the powers of violence and lies. Reactionary forces might attempt to tempt the revolution into violence, defeating it on several levels. In most cases avoiding such violence may be far better, physically avoiding it. Certainly in the beginning of a revolution, all violence however limited can be used as a public relations tool. If there is no actual violence, it could be created and blamed on the revolution. In general all fighting is self defeating. Should a large group of police wish to storm an occupied factory, it may in many cases be better to let them have it. This is not a war between rival tribes, however much the ruling elite might want to cast it into that familiar territory. Giving up one factory can equally be a public relations success, and the workers can join other factories to hold them with more numbers. When it gets to this, it should be rather obvious that the majority of the working People supports the revolution, and that it can be won and produce a stable alternative system. It should not become a war of tribes.

If you are not interested in `peace on Earth', you probably should not be reading this, and certainly not use it. This is for the best most productive, honest and peaceful people. Not for the people who look everywhere to get ahead, cause some violence for fun. The general strike is a peaceful method, and let's hope it will remain peaceful. If it is possible to reach results through Capitalist Parliament, so much the better. If not, then hopefully with as little as possible chaos. Being well prepared and planned works in favor, and can boost a change through Capitalist Parliament (non Capitalist Parliament might be a better description, since it lacks the monopoly power of Capital). If the Capitalist realize they cannot defeat a revolution on argument or tactical battle, so much more likely the change will be efficient and peaceful, so much fewer people may join the Capitalists. There is a place for management workers in the new system, there are so many places to have an honest and fair life, whatever your current position. But it is just a design, and may be flawed or simply unworkable. If the disproof is not in the argument, the proof must be in the eating. Consider yourself warned against premature revolution ! I am not suggesting revolution be started now, just arguing the basic points of a possible revolution whenever. I'm not asking for revolution, just asking for consideration of the basic ideas, especially the organization of the new system. Threat of revolution can also produce mild reforms quicker, if the rulers fear spread of such ideas. It isn't an either / or, all improvements are good.

Time & Space

It is probably wise to consider military counter strategy, on a regional and global scale. Massing 10 million activist workers in one country, is that smart in the age of rocket technology ? The workers of Paris took control of Paris for a short while - despite Marx' warning against it - eventually this localized effort was defeated and tens of thousands of the best workers were murdered. The Spanish bourgeois played a nice trick on the workers' Olympics: conveniently in a time when the most politically conscious and activist workers gather there, a fascist coupe breaks out. The defense of the Spanish state by these best workers (!) destroyed again a great many. Today we don't have that workers Olympics anymore, but Spain and the world are still Capitalist, and in Europe, many of the most active workers didn't return home. The story is also repeated in Russia, since the revolution failed to carry the day in Europe the Russian revolution was isolated and had to defend itself against Imperial aggression, resulting in millions of the best people dead. This sad score doesn't mean the fighting was for nothing, how many people die each day of poverty anyway ? But it holds precedent as to what our problems could become given a certain kind of action. Liberating some continent without hope of liberating other continents, and what then to do with their military might and monopoly on internal information ? Going on like this, and eventually the activist workers could become extinct, only leaving the living dead.

It seems far better to just gain gradual improvements in ideological (scientific) awareness, and not be sucked into a regionally separated situation, which will probably end up having tribal consequences. One tribe against the other, a situation that promotes dictatorship on both sides. Holding back on full sovereign change, gives the liberation the time to gain more and more passive support everywhere. When effort is directed toward ideological and scientific understanding worldwide rather then channeled to localized progress, worldwide understanding is likely to increase more rapid. Then, once the world is sufficiently made to understand, the time becomes right for making changes that are local. `A rushing flood means gushing blood, slowly fried and nowhere to hide.' A national strike committee that would like to become sovereign faces a series of choices: will the revolution end up isolated and attacked [A] or not [B], do we want to rebuild the country from scratch [1], transform it more slowly in place [2], or demand partial improvements without becoming sovereign [3]. (A23) In case isolation needs to be avoided, a level of progress can be chosen that would avoid international problems. The effort would then be on to enlighten other regions and countries, so that they stop having threatening leaderships that hold back change elsewhere. (B1) In case of rebuilding a country from scratch the prime concern becomes day to day survival of the people, to provide the breathing room to build from nothing. (B2) In case slow transformation under a sovereign strike committee is chosen, the diminishing power of bourgeois elements looking to cause corruption and damage when they still can could be something to look out for. The bourgeois at all times will attempt to infiltrate government, a problem that will always remain. The corrupt are irresistibly attracted to where the money or power is. (B3) In case partial improvements are sought, it is important that the bourgeois power is not allowed to hit back at workers that became active. A situation can rapidly change from asking partial changes to needing complete transformation and then to building from scratch. It is therefore a good idea to be ready to execute the most difficult of plans, should that suddenly become necessary because of a situation resulting from someone else's actions - such as the bourgeois attempting to launch a civil war or attempting to institute a military dictatorship and state of siege to destroy the activist workers.

A novelty today are automated self navigating weapons (armed drones), biological weapons, which are likely to become battle ready in the coming decades. Therefore large concentrations of people are dangerous, they should never include the force of the people, much less the most understanding of them, lest we lose the best. Is it worth to demonstrate adherence to a couple of slogans for a few hours, if there is a risk of violent counter action ? If the risk is low it might be worthwhile on occasion, but when things get antagonistic, it seems much better to affix some kind of symbol to your clothing, and demonstrate your opinion all day, every day. That is more time spend demonstrating at fewer cost and lower risk, it can fuel more meaningful one on one debate between people - compare walking in a demonstration of like minded people - and there is hardly a violent attack against the group possible. Certainly there can be discriminations and even death squads, but distributed demonstration (wearing small symbols/slogans) is in principle safer then concentrations of people. When the overwhelming majority already supports a certain political change, affixing symbols to clothing is not likely to result in death squads and discrimination, as these things also need a popular basis. Unlike that single rocket or biological attack, for which there is always a handy fall guy at the ready if it came to that, the political cost will be manageable by the opposition. The goal is system change, system change is something that goes slow and needs strong popular support. Talking achieves more then marching, because the truth lasts longest. Eventually all counter arguments are worn down and end up forgotten.

It may in practice be difficult to liberate 100% of the world quickly, but a strong military counter strategy needs to be prevented. This requires a majority liberation. The amount of military might possible against liberated areas / countries / continents will depend in large part on how these areas are perceived in other areas. If they are positively perceived, which may take time to develop, they can prevent regions who pursue a militarist domination strategy from acting against the liberated areas for fear of local problems. It is therefore vital to consider what counter strategies might be dreamed up by reactionary and violent people, what are their powers and weaknesses. Reactionary: ``wouldn't it be great if we could just give up, say, Iceland, have all people we don't trust transported there on request of a "revolutionary council", and then bomb the country, claiming a volcano erupted ? We could send in help, and be seen as giving aide to our worst enemies.'' It is hard to tell what people will go to what extend; planning for the worst is a good idea because it is about human lives, the most progressive people in particular. The ideological struggle is the more important one, once it is won regional changes can develop in its save global embrace.

From regime to system change

When it is clear there is a willing government, perhaps this could be an anti-climactic event without any strikes, only `regime change' has succeeded. The building site has been bought, but nothing has happened yet. This is the moment when the revolution can get stuck, doesn't know what to do, and ends up with stop gap measures. This is the moment to keep on moving fast. That only works if there is a well worked out plan, everyone knows what they should do, what the goals are and why.

The larger non-monopoly sector companies elect their worker council management, and start behaving like regular companies in a market economy. At least for the moment inter company trouble like unfair competition and legal disputes, should be kept to a minimum: there is barely a system yet, so it can not take any pressure. The monopoly sectors of industry (like public transport, tap water, etc) can also elect worker council management, but they don't start behaving like companies in a market sector. They start behaving like nationalized industries. They try to work out how the flow of money should work: do they require payments from costumers, or via taxes from government. This needs coordination with the Government. The important thing isn't to get it perfect, but to get it working: changes can be made later when there is more time. The small companies revert to their former state. In general, all companies that were no longer controlled by their original entrepreneur become democracies of employees, unless they are small. All companies controlled by an excessively greedy entrepreneur can also become democracies. Companies of reactionary people, if they exist, may have to be put under direct government control, to limit the damage they might otherwise do.

The Government meanwhile concentrates on the monopoly sectors and especially finance. At first the banks can simply be nationalized, but by the time that happens the rich have likely pulled out all stops on their panic and counter revolutionary financial strategies. Basically they have tried to do as much damage as possible to the economy. If so, the Government should not hesitate to declare a state of economic emergency, and rotate the currency in order to collapse the financial power of the rich. This rotation should be done sooner or later anyway, because the rich have stashed money that can become a threat later. A government that refuses to rotate the currency might have to be pushed out of government for lack of will. The Government should immediately progress into converting all money from regular people to the new currency. The new currency will likely need a new form of cash, because the rich have stashed cash (especially if they believe it to be a safe storage of value), which they might use to finance whatever.

currency rotation

Just cutting off all value at a certain limit might not be practical or justified. It may be useful to divide people into 5 categories of wealthy people: workers, bosses, financiers, inheritance, other. Workers are for instance pop stars, football players, surgeons, people who do the hard work for which the money has moved even if it was excessive. For the worker category their money can be transferred up to just below the maximum limit: if 30 times average is the new limit, transferring up to 27 times for instance. For the bosses the same rule can apply if they founded the business, if they haven't it can be transferred only up to 10 times provided the business was run with a sense of equity. If the business was known to scrape every last penny from its workers, the transfer should be up to 1 time average, the workers of the concerning company know what kind of leader they had. If a person is a financier, stock holder, investment-banker (not retail-banking manager), for practical reasons it is probably best to reduce it to 1 times average, although 0 is more justified. People in the category inheritance for instance up to 5 times average, and people who have won a gambling game: 5 or 1 times average. Although it would be fun to allow them 27 times also, there will be too much fraud with this leading up to the changes. The diverse way of moving the money means that the new limit can be held by justice easier, it means that people who are the greatest threat have least (financier) while people useful to the economy have most (worker-type). The worker-type wealthy people are often popular and visible, if they can show or if the public demands that they deserve more money, it will only have to go to the "worker" category, which will be cheaper for society (since it excludes bosses, financiers etc). Although the law is to be followed, justice has limited resources which can be applied first to the financiers, then the bosses and only then the worker-type. The worker-types tend to work for the money rather then invent get-rich-without-working schemes, and they tend to buy a lot of luxury, which is what money is for (swap-trade), these things have no problematic quality (unlike crime and investing). People who do multiple things: if they have invested money or profit from investment, that can be taken away from them: gambled and lost. This individualized transfer can be a lot of difficult work, therefore: there should only be a few categories, and a person is either in or out. It is either 10 for a good boss or 1 for a not-so-good boss, nothing in between. For practical reasons it may be useful to transfer all money up to a set amount just above a comfortable level for an average person (say 2 times average?), so that the majority of the economy can go on as usual. Needless to say money will leak away there, someone with 100 loyal relatives has the potential to carry 200 times average to the new currency. But it is still better then doing nothing. All bank account values have to be known (printed on paper and backed up a few times!) before the top values are zeroed out. The known "celebrities", entrepreneurs, bosses, etc, can immediately be awarded their obvious category, and have the conforming money transferred. People not so well known can apply for having status in some category, if awarded they get the conforming money transferred. But by this time significant value will be have been transfered into commodities and is hidden somewhere. While the bank accounts are zeroed, warehouses will be packed with items that are expected to yield money after the transfer. It will be difficult to know whether these are legitimate business stocks. Then there is the problem of company accounts, another obvious place to hide personal wealth. The rule for a maximum on company money can be applied across the board as long as the company is physical (and not just a paper pretense).

Needless to say a lot of money will leak out here again. Despite all the unearned value being criminally transferred into the new currency, what other way is there to obtain a government monopoly on finance ? Once the monopoly on finance is obtained, the leaked value will tend to be spend on products/services, not nefarious finance schemes. The "worker" type wealthy will continue to make their money, but the financiers won't; the bosses will be faced with a more powerful workers (democracy). If the money is not transferred, the total amount of damage could be more, because private capital can and is being used to cause economic damage. If it is expected that a government financial monopoly can be obtained without rotating the currency, then that is obviously the preferred way. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any limit on the value stored in private capital presently. If there is value stored many times the world's economy, should the economy come to pay for the products services that buys for the coming centuries, and for the manipulations that money is going to buy ? Private capital will attempt to discredit a transfer process by causing it to be as painful as possible, which it is uniquely well positioned for. Not unlikely the entire financial infrastructure will be crashed by them any way they can, so that they can offer their help in fixing it, and blame the problem on someone else (typical Mafia technique). If the finance system is crashed beyond reasonable repair, everyone in the economy is simply offered a reasonable amount of carry money to survive in the short term and the private financiers can start seeking a real job in some other sector. If private capital trashes the system, nobody gets anything (except the poor).

To make the process itself less painful the transfer limits should be higher: some optimum where `the change is minimal' but `the government monopoly can eventually still be obtained'. One of the great dangers to currency rotation is probably an overzealous (vindictive) reduction of value, which will cause more problems in the process itself then the speed with which the government finance monopoly can be achieved - the good it can do within that obtained time frame - is worth, which will discredit the government. The goal is not to `get even with greed' in the short term, but to obtain the government finance monopoly for the people in the long term and protect the people in the future from investment/managerial greed. All else should only be geared for stability, continuity, smoothness, that is worth a lot of short-term money, even if it is being payed to `greed.' No doubt this financial part is going to be the most difficult and most complex part of any changes, the rest is much more obvious and straightforward. If one isn't sure of the currency rotation process itself, it is probably better to postpone it, study it more, and/or implement it with less vigor (a higher limit, more people retain more money). Doing it less extreme means credibility room to do it better later, although that might again cost the making of a new cash currency ... It isn't easy. Once the money is transferred, strong security is needed on the money accounting system. No doubt some money will get stolen, but it was stolen before the changes with more ease, the point is making some positive impact on money theft.

Because of the trouble of all of this, it may be needed to make some kind of temporary coupon system before real money can be printed in enough supply. The people will probably not like this much, proceeding to real general purpose money as soon as possible is important. Electronic money should make this easier, it should continue to work in principle. If things don't work immediately, hopefully people will resolve to write debt-cards to each other enumerating the sold items, and fairly pay them later against the future price.

police / justice

Police and justice systems are also (special) monopoly sectors, former police have to be hired again, excluding perhaps some policemen who have committed crimes against their fellow workers. Soldiers are also all hired, and they can be immediately put to the task of temporarily filling in gaps in the economy. The officers have to declare they are now loyal to the new situation, officers who refuse are immediately sacked and officers about which is some doubt can get an advisory status or some such. The lower ranks will most likely be loyal, while the highest ranks may be plotting a counter coup. If the situation seems doubtful, all higher ranks are best given a vacation, or some simple job to do. Will they want to do simple work or not, can give a clue of what they are, and therefore what to do with them. All military stationed elsewhere has to come back to port.

There should probably be a commission dealing only with foreign trade and foreign politics. This type of activity can come under pressure from foreign entities, who might attempt 1. to sucker the new Government into a vulnerable position, 2. attempt to pull the new Government into their elitist orbit, hold before it the carrot to become part of a global elitist network of Governments and power, 3. attempt to corrupt the Government in all manner of ways, attempt to turn it against the people (again). To defeat these things it is probably best for continuous and real time publicity of all proceedings, including those not yet responded to. It is likely that the people engaged in this activity will lose track of reality quickly because there are so many unknowns, complexities and illusions. The openness about everything means the public can keep them straight, and help them out where they seem to lose it. It may be easy to be sucked into the idea that you should be `responsible' to keep `the idiotic and irresponsible public' safe etc, and that therefore the public should remain in the dark (be idiotic, notice the vicious circle). The real idiot is the person being sucked into this false sense of "secret responsibility," which will no doubt be played to its full potential by whomever has gained some leverage. Only the majority (worker) public is responsible, only their mistakes are actually not mistakes at all, and they hold the key to decide whenever something is a mistake or not.

For some time this situation can progress. The `democratic finance' and `democratic companies' parts should be well under way. That leaves `democratic government' and `democratic resources.' The Government may want to postpone these two parts until later, and only force stop gap measures to deal with immediate problems or advance these agendas where they pose no threat to the stability of the economy, or otherwise advance the position of the revolution. Eventually the willing government comes up for election. After the election, the new government should be an expression of a `democratic government' scheme, essentially reaching that goal.

The new government has a formal plan about `democratic resources.' Because an election preceded it, the people might have voted for different setups, or even nothing at all. It is perfectly possible that the previous government is elected again in whole, and it is also possible that a reactionary government takes power. That new government can not change the constitution easily though, since that requires certain formalities that they are unable to do (depending on the constitution used of course).

After all major issues have been solved, it might be time to solve all kinds of minor and personal issues. Some people might find themselves working somewhere, but they are not being payed, or they are filling some kind of gap somewhere, some lose end. Perhaps someone is cleaning the garbage of a nearby hospital because "it is the good thing to do." Maybe someone is driving a bus, but the bus company hasn't employed him. Once all these people are out of their "emergency" positions, and the companies have solved their internal democratic procedures, things should be institutionalized sufficiently to call it `system change.' It is important that everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing and why.

Once this is achieved, power becomes quite distributed. But there certainly is a central authority in Government, with the power of police and justice. The new government is a fully powered Government, no longer competing with Capitalist mayhem. At the same time, the people gave gained more power through democratic company setup. The economy is more predictable and stable because of the calming effect of the monopoly sectors. Individual people eventually have more power because they have personal resources to use or rent out, free health care and free education (payed for by general taxes, so it is not really free but you can't individually fall through the gaps and get lost on those issues). I suppose it is important to realize that this is not a state of anarchy at all. Murderers and criminals are hunted down and thrown in jail. People who refuse to work while they can may find themselves stranded on their own resources. On the one hand that is a far better position, on the other hand it can be a tremendous challenge to make that work for you. But all the economic power wasted on luxury for the rich, all that production capacity, becomes available for the entire democratized economy. The `tide that lifts all boats' is let out of the floodgates, and can spread itself more fairly and evenly. The economy is not forced into equal wages by law at all (though there is a high maximum and low minimum). Power becomes more distributed, under the assumption that unfair wage differences come from power imbalances. Solving the power imbalances should solve the unfair wage differences. In many ways `wage' kind of disappears, because in democratized companies it isn't a wage, but a share of the profits.

Revolution Lite

It may be useful at times to implement only parts, and not the whole system at once. That may be because of an unfavorable power balance. When partial changes are implemented locally that leave Capitalist power in place locally or outside the changing region, this Capitalist power will likely attempt to "prove" that the changes don't work by subjecting such areas to financial manipulations. That would compound the already existing natural financial panic situation. When looking for limited changes, the immediate future needs to be analyzed for the eventuality that Capital's struggle forces either a retreat of the changes, or an all out change of the system to deny Capitalists from then on all manipulative power. Will a retreat harm confidence, or underscore the manipulative and degenerating influence of private Capital on local democracy. Will an all out change be met with international Capitalist pressure, including war. Should such pressure be met with surrender to avoid needless violence, and the events be proof of the anti-democratic nature of Capital. Or is it possible to push that pressure back into Capital and deny it its power worldwide. The argument is on our side, therefore time is on our side. Capitalism is already a disproved system which can not withstand scrutiny. If they win a minor struggle, that means little in the long run.

Relatively easy small scale changes:

+ Deny all private banks lending money from the Central bank.
Private people gambling on in principle the worst companies with their own money is bad enough, but gambling by first borrowing value from the infinite Government account is one step worse. When (investment) banks go bankrupt, they can be nationalized and turned into an infrastructure element of democratic political investment. The less leverage private Capital has in the economy, the more democratic Capital has to take over that role.

Perhaps an interesting way is to leave the old currency in place, but just no longer accept it in taxes. Then set up the Government banking system parallel for a new Currency, and people can open an account in it. The money they put in will not be used in economic speculation by the bank owner. There could be some rules for converting money per person up to a maximum into the new currency, with special accounts with special maximums for businesses, according to the Constitution. Then the Government could declare, instead of voiding the old Currency or its tokens, that old Currency remains operating as it did before. It would just no longer be used by the Government, not in spending and not as tax or other income or sales. Prices would have to be marked both in old and new Currencies, because the old currency is probably going to see hyper inflation and then disappear. There is nothing holding it up anymore (no taxes). This system would certainly give an extend of morality to the operation, as it is the Government natural privilege to ask taxes in this or that currency, and to spend this or that Currency, whatever it likes. The Government wouldn't go out and destroy money then, it would simply become apparent that what money existed was the Government's money already by virtue of it accepting it as taxation. You could simply say ``sure, you can have your private money, but to make it work don't come to us [Government].'' Few people could complain about that. The money speculators and banks would be looking at their system as it would be without Government support: a large bag of useless paper.

+ Remove all judicial protections for invested Capital.
This should reduce the amount of private gambling money invested into the economy, the hole left behind is to be filled up by democratic political investment.

+ Change the laws concerning ownership of new companies, so that when the original entrepreneur leaves a company of more then N people, the company ownership is transferred to the employees. The entrepreneur is compensated, and gets a share of future profits.
This should probably not be done before private gambling Capital is mostly defeated, because otherwise democratic businesses may be faced with unnecessary and harmful financial warfare. What is to be done with current companies, at this time already no longer owned by share-holders. Suddenly changing the management of all companies can cause a shock reaction in the economy (handsomely worsened by reactionaries, as usual), because the new management may not be fully ready immediately to take care of everything. On the other hand, waiting can mean that the present-day management has a chance to liquidate the company and extract wealth, before they are disowned without right to compensation (not being its original starters). Another problem can be that owners fire everyone until they are below the number of employees for which democratization holds, so they can remain in power even if the business suffers. The hard way is to eject a hostile management as soon as possible, the perfect way would be if management made itself so popular it would simply be elected as its present democratic leadership. A soft way is to make the current senior director the owner as if it was the original starter. Selecting the oldest executive person as stand-in entrepreneur means democracy is closer in the future. This person would have gotten lucky indeed, having no natural right to rule a company, but it may help the democratization process (that as far as the system is concerned should already have happened in these companies) if such managers view the process as profitable (this depends on whether they are hardened reactionaries, or a little more progressive or perhaps even opportunists). When there are laws in the country that force a measure of democracy in companies, then naturally these laws are to remain in force or be expanded, whether that concerns entrepreneurial businesses or any other type. It is bad to roll back a level of democracy that was already achieved.

A reasonable solution can be to establish courts that will decide the fate of companies in the short term, so that these companies find their status in the new system without shocking the economy. All companies below a certain size can be asked to plead for a certain status and in principle be given it, the pleading party being the executive. A reasonable size can be 30 people. Most of these companies are likely to plead and get an entrepreneurial status. The court enacts the rule book for said company and retains a record of that company rule book. If the company fell under general rules that force all such companies to have a certain worker representation present, those rules are not part of a rule book, because they are already in force because of the law. An exception can be made for companies that recently laid off people just to get under the 30 people limit, these would be added to the larger companies unless it can be proven the lay off was natural. It is true that this may put in power people that don't deserve that power. One way to deal with this is to play the economic game.

That only leaves the larger companies. These companies can be called up in order of chance, at random through lottery, to appear for the company transition courts. When a company appears, and it is proven the entrepreneur started the company, the company gets an entrepreneurial status, executive power remains with the starter according to the same rules as for smaller companies (retaining achieved democracy). If the entrepreneur is not leading the company, the workers are asked whether they want to turn the company into a democracy. If they want that, the company becomes a democracy. The workers surrender to the court a plan for how their democracy is going to work. The courts can comment on the plan or suggest help from an advice group. On second reading the plan is enacted as the company rule book by the court, regardless of its qualities or quality. If workers don't want to become democratic, the company gets an entrepreneurial status under the current executive. If the workers in the future unanimously decide that the company should become democratic, they can appeal the decision to the court and have the company turned into a democracy, the stand-in entrepreneur gets a share of future profits as if he were the real entrepreneur. The workers made him that by selecting a non democratic form. The courts purpose is to take care of the company, so that it remains existing and does well for all involved. These courts can remain to handle problems with future roll over of companies when the entrepreneur leaves, see to it that the sale to workers is fair, handle disputes on company rule book: the company status court.

Rule book examples of ascending power:
B. `Boss Elect': we elect a new all powerful boss any time we want, no scheduled elections; the boss can do what he/she wants, unless a majority of workers stops the boss to elect another. But Boss is not allowed to make destructive business decisions before workers have had a chance to elect another, therefore Boss is forced to inform about the major business decisions before they become fact.
C. `Cooperation Management-Worker': we elect a new management every 3 years or when majority of workers petition for new elections; the management holds an open meeting with workers every week; workers are always allowed to know everything about the company and its financial situation; nobody is fired unless it is discussed in the meeting.
D. `Dialogue meetings': an open meeting of workers and potential guests is held every week, if one item is discussed for one hour a vote is taken to postpone the matter to the next meeting or to settle the matter immediately through majority rule; the person(s) who came up with an idea is (are) to see to it that it is done; decisions are posted on the decision board near the entrance; all business matters are always open and readily accessible to all workers. The company maintains a message board with space for each employee, employees can make their opinions known there, get their points across and/or lobbied for. Employees are allowed to lobby their co-workers with reading material or discussion, but these discussions are not part of working hours and should not detract from work (talk/read on the coffee break!). Workers are expected to help each other reach equal productivity as in equal expending of effort for the company, by advice or alerting the meeting about people that work too much or too little in their opinion. Workers who are working less or more then they should, are assumed to test this vigilance in their co-workers, and will make up for the lost or gained time.
E. `Erupting majority': Decisions are made by majority.
F. `For all but one': Decisions are made unanimously minus one. You would want the power to fire someone? Note: Unanimous decisions seem problematic, since you may not be able to decide for a change, but neither to continue on without change. What does that mean, continue on as before by default, even though that can not be decided either ?
G. `Good luck': Decisions are made unanimously.

+ Place a maximum on what a person can own.
This can set things in motion that will eventually lead to the rotation of all money so as to destroy instantly financial power imbalances. Some investors will of course divert to commodities, even may try to hide them (in the countryside).

+ Make proper the industries that should be nationalized because they do not work properly with market pressures for varies reasons.
It will undoubtedly be a great help to have solved the specific problems for the concerned industries, which may all need unique solutions, before any "greater" revolution/changes.

+ Awarding the inalienable-ownership-right of the soil everyone is living on to the people living there, and make illegal the sale of all other (commercially significant) resources.
Whenever someone dies, who had ownership-titles beyond its equal share of living space, the resources are added to the government resources bank for lawful distribution (including the constraints on usage). The oldest people are first in line to be granted their resource right. The maximum rent-price is set, and an administrative group (commercial and/or government) is ready to service the problems of the new right-owner (such as renting-out, use, etc), for a fee. This method makes sure that the transition to the new system is in principle slow, so that bugs can be worked out of the system when pressure on it is low, and users learn to deal with it while attention for them is high because of the low volume. It makes sure that new owners, even if incapable of dealing with the practical problems, are awarded a return for renting out their right. That means that in cases someone suddenly gets money, hardly knowing where it even came from. This method also means that a level of ownership-monopoly abuses is retained in the economy, for a maximum period of about 100 years (if this transition proposal is left to run its natural course). Companies that hold ownership-rights, will need to have their right attributed to either the business-leader or distributed between workers, so that this right collapses in time. When people move to a new home, they would get the ownership-titles of the land they are going to live on, up to their share. What is more goes to the resource distribution system. When a business holding resources defaults, or when a person accredited resources to that were formerly held by a company leaves that company or dies, the resources go to the Government pool. Eventually this should lead to all land in the Government pool and checked out or ready to be checked out, and land on which people live as checked out by them. If the system doesn't work, transition can be stopped and ownership-titles restored, having done minimal damage compared to a sudden and complete imposing of a resource distribution system.


With these things worked into the current system, it is already most of the way into the improved trading system. The Capitalists are or will be aware of the plans if they may becoming reality, and might try to sabotage and/or discredit them. It is therefore useful to depend on rational analysis for trust in the system, rather then "wait and see what works in practice", because practice may not actually be the system it is claimed or believed to be. For trust by rational analysis to take hold, people need to think about these things quite a bit. This should have happened before any changes are attempted. Understanding and agreement makes local correcting of problems possible/easier.

Global system

The constitution and economic model suggested for within a country is based on trade, the essence of which is two equally powered partners who in total freedom decide to make a swap to their mutual interest. For the global model there are two extreme choices: a one world government, or a multitude of sovereign countries completely free to do as they please. The one world government would be a governing body, located somewhere and presumably populated by people almost nobody knows, deciding everything. It would decide the direction of culture and science for the entire world, by investing funds somewhere or not, and it would decide the regulations on tooth-brushes and how wide a pavement should be. As a general rule the larger a group becomes, the less the actuality of democracy for any individual. In a group of 10, every person represents 10% of power. In a country of 30 million, the sovereign power is probably located from you within a few hundred kilometers; and in a world-wide group the percentage of power each individual represents of the sovereignty is almost meaningless. Because of the singular sovereignty, there is no more dynamic between different states, states who decide to do things differently. Diversity means progress, just like doing 50 different long running experiments at the same time yields more information then doing just one. An essential problem with world-wide government is that there is no comparison possible anymore, whatever the one-world government does therefore takes on an absolute quality. Even if it were democratic in procedure, the size and singularity, remove most of what democracy should be for the people.

The opposite model is state of anarchy between nations, with the obvious problem of war and diffuse organizational chaos.

The best model seems to be one that is a pure short term and specific cooperation and talk model between completely sovereign entities. This way the internal democracy of a country remains to be real, secondly the top level of government is expected not just to rule and show authority, but to talk and where needed cooperate with other top level governments as equals. This means there would be meetings between two or more countries, who only have the power to suggest something back to the proper procedures in each individual country about a "simple" issue. They are talking to each other as a consequence of the freedom of speech, but nothing more then that. It is then dependent on the internal procedure of a country. If for instance certain entities in a continent desire certain laws to become the same across a continent, then these laws are not to be imposed by a new to form super government, but people in each country can try to make the desired legal changes according to the proper internal procedure. Then this would achieve the apparently needed homogeneity, without damaging the democracy in the area at all.

This model in much the same as the trade model between two people implemented in the constitution. Two people who trade remain "sovereign" or else they can not trade fairly. It is a cooperation model that rejects the fusion of the partners. That does not mean countries should never fuse or never break up. For countries to fuse or break up, the question should be put to the people in referendum. For countries to fuse within this model, they would probably have become virtually the same over time already, by implementing the same things. If that hasn't happened, there doesn't seem enough reason to belief a fusion has merit.

The obvious problem of war has an analogy with trade: one person robs the other, first of its power and then valuables. Usually a third party steps in, suddenly appears in the trade system: the police. The police attempts to make sure that the power between the people in a society is within minimum parameters, especially by attacking people that have already violated these parameters. The police is not a third party in any (usual) trade. It is there to protect a minimum of trading freedom by removing abuses, it is not meant to dominate the process itself. Secondly the police does not care what a person does to him/her-self, even if the police attempts to protect that person from other persons by hunting violent other persons. The focus of the police is always (or should always be) on the "bad guy/girl", where the freedom of others is damaged. The police is recruited from within the people, and follows the rules set by the majority of the people.

Transporting this to an international field: when two countries go to war with each other, a third party representing the world majority can act to stop the excessive power use, and prosecute. Just as the usual punishment for crimes can be a fine or prison, where prison can for instance mean the destruction of a country's army, and being subjected to rule by international committee for a certain amount of years (etc). The problem of prosecuting country-leaders themselves can be restricted to only prosecuting them to the extend they lied to deceive to their people on policy matters. When someone is a leader of a country, elected or otherwise "elected", that makes it impossible to prosecute just that leader for decisions, because the decisions were carried by an entire nation. However the decisions were only carried by an entire nation, if that nation is at least being told the truth. If the people are not told the truth, the people only make a hypothetical choice "if the world were as suggested", this hypothetical world is not the real world. This demotes the country leader from being protected by being just an instrument of public will, to a simple criminal (liar, thief, robber, murderer). Do the people want to be lied to ? If taking office means you need to lie, you shouldn't want to take office. The people don't want to be lied to, they want to hear good things because they want these good things to be true. If the people want to be lied to, the politician should state before every lie: ``now I'm going to lie to you.'' That will not work, proving the point that the people don't want lies (politicians and their twisting...).

The third party that will enforce a minimum of protection by hurting those that hurt others, how will it need to be organized. Clearly to have the needed mandate, it needs to be democratic, a democracy of sovereign nations that decides by majority. It can decide on a minimum set rules that prevents "international robbery/crimes", just like a regular government protects people from violent crime. But because the world does not contain many countries (a few hundred) like one country contains many people (many millions), the system is different. It is more like a small village of a few hundred people, which means there are no objective judges because everyone knows everyone. On the other hand that can be used as an advantage, given enough goodwill, and the practical ability to solve a problem before it becomes a crime. If most things are commonly known, the leading up to a possible crime is probably also apparent.

The "third party" body will probably need to take a vote on every international criminal case, it should not be left to some bureaucracy given a number of rules. A bureaucracy does not have a mandate to make decisions with such serious consequences. This brings the question of how the votes are to be tallied, one per country, or proportional to the population within the country. I would think it has to be proportional to the population, one vote for every person. This elegant solution leaves certain countries free to put the matter to their population directly, and then offer the different percentages as different to the tally. It also deals in an obvious way with splitting and merging countries, and reflects the different power of mandate of different countries perfectly. This "third body" is an international forum, sporting a few protocols like this that are commonly agreed to. To make best use of preventing international crimes, it may be useful to make one exception to the rule that countries can do as they please: the "third body" could demand certain military maneuvers not to take place. Much like the police may ask someone not to walk through town with a machine gun to its shoulder even if the person hasn't done any wrong, yet. Since this international "third body" is an "international forum", it can also be a platform for discussing all other problems and cooperation initiatives.

Then there is the problem of internal violence. Internal matters, such as a people being murdered by their government. It may be better to start a completely separate/different cooperation forum that deals with this, so as not to contaminate the spirit of free cooperation in the other. The taking charge of internal matters of a country can slide into becoming a one world government: when is something an abuse of power ? Ultimately it is the people in the local area who are responsible for the problem and the solution. If helping that solution means supporting some kind of resistance, it may be better to keep such activity far removed from the inclusive "third party". That way, the "officially highest" ("highest" if it is most inclusive and therefore with the largest mandate) international meeting will remain open to even the government accused elsewhere of hurting their people, and no country will need to withdraw from it. This suggests that an activity to stop internal violence is not working or initiated under the usual international meeting, and the international meeting is also free to prosecute the activities. If such activities deserve prosecution depends on whether (significant) crimes have been committed while interfering on behalf of a group internal to another country, and weighing a country's internal problem against the interference problem. Interference in another country should always be an economic cost factor for the interfering party. When there are "spoils/loot", the assumption will be that it was a crime. Just like one can enter a burning house to rescue some people, and if someone exits a burning home with valuables that person is expected to hand them to the original owner. Not take them home as loot, since if that were allowed it is an invitation to start burning down buildings in order to pretend to "rescue people."

country sizes

A reasonable upper limit to a country would be 100 million people, making individual power already quite small, but preventing the super large country from dominating international relations and power balance. A 100 million upper limit means there are many sovereign nations in the world, who can do things quite differently; adapt to local circumstances, push through experimental policies with reasonable speed (impossible in an empire or one-world-nation). Experimental politics becomes near impossible in super large countries: dissenters have no escape, the damage of mistake can be incalculable, it might never be possible to find a majority, even worse the daunting task of global experimental change, which is practically an absurdity. Super large countries also need to force their people to become the same, so that they become predictable and manageable, this is a threat to human rights, individual freedom.

A reasonable lower limit seems to be 1 million, unless there is a geography or history which suggests a smaller sovereignty, such as an island or a historical native tribe outside of modern technical culture. This lower limit ensures that not everyone knows everyone, which means there is a potential for objective judges, police, and some authentic economic activity, so that a "country" is not merely a save haven for robbers of other countries.


The international problem of pollution can be solved by market pressure. When there is no significant global capitalism anymore, ownership of companies will be local. When one country exceeds (excessively) the limits of pollution agreed to, an easy way to apply pressure is consumer boycott. This works in the regular market with individual companies. When a country is faced with a refusal of enough people to buy, the local production there will go down and they'll be able to buy less. That will directly impact on their pollution, until it is within accepted limits. A buying boycott is not a blockade. Its effects depends on the level of popular agreement and the will of the people of the Earth in general to use their power this way. But Governments can close their borders for certain products, threats to this end may convince a polluting country to change policy, a more efficient method then a popular boycott. Countries are sovereign (in this model), so they have every right to do that, since it pertains only to their territory. They have the moral right to ask for policy changes in other regions with respect to pollution, because global pollution will eventually tend to affect all territories. Global pollution can be normative per person, boycotting would be a free decision made by every country and consumer individually (free cooperation is the foundation of the system).


Commercial on TV ... ``for 5 euro a month, we can protect ... part of the rain forest''.

With 5 billion euro a month, how big a part can you protect. A big part of the problem is: who has the money to make the decision. In the capitalist system there is no stable solution for this. All capital wants to grow as quickly as possible, to stay ahead of the eternal competition, never reaching a safe harbor. The system has no direction, it is by definition an out of control growth phenomenon. Those that lag behind are eaten up by others, the morally bad defeat the morally good (who may spend money on social/environmental issues). This in contrast to markets, especially when sporting democratic companies, where companies can become stable entities driven by a stable demand. The forced growth phenomenon of Capitalism is extended into the markets, because Capitalism has major and detailed control over the markets. Capital groups seek to make any company they own bigger. Where a timber company might otherwise provide a stable living for a few lumberman catering to the local housing market, Capital will seek to make it as big as possible as quick as possible, since that will yield more money for it. But as the company grows to 10.000 lumbermen now transporting around the world, each lumberman may still be making the same amount of income. It may matter little to a Capitalist that the forest is being decimated, the Capitalist might hope to sell the company before it collapses so that someone else holds the bag. The capitalist probably doesn't even live in the area either, but in some city, maybe even in another country. (Proto) Capitalists with a soft heart will simply not survive for long as Capitalists. Even if dictatorial companies also have a tendency to become bigger because the exploiter can then skim more money from more laboring backs, at least the local company dictator tends to live in the same area and is therefore subject to varies social and environmental pressures.

Once "the real products/services markets" are liberated to be themselves by removing the plague of private capitalism, all production capacity/money otherwise held up with buying decadence is free for political aims. With the private capitalists no longer controlling media through ownership and advertising, politics may tend to become more socially and environmentally inclined, since that's where the interests of the majority are. That's what they want to hear about, that's the kind of papers they'll buy more. Media controls politics.

These arguments suggest that "much could be better" once Capitalism is gone. If the outlook is that better system, then it matters that we can safe as much destruction of nature in the mean-time, until we can embed nature and the markets in a more stable way. Therefore we ought to work that much harder at preserving nature, knowing that this labor against the Capitalist scourge will not have to last forever. What is hurting nature is economics, and therefore the simplest solution is stopping the problem. Like a sinking boat, you can add additional floaters (good causes, tourism, etc), and/or patch the hole. In large extend that hole would probably be private capitalism, `the hole that sucks money.' Money is production, money is power. Adding one monopoly power to the 3 traditional parts of `separation of powers' (legislative, executive, judicial): finance. Not only for the sake of economics, also in the interest of nature.


principle Avoid all violence.
Productivity, competence and honesty.
strategy Global, and everyone.
Dialogue. A wedge between investorism and industry.
Democratizing business (which can take the form of electing an all powerful manager).
(Don't forget weapon carrying people such as police / army.)
tactic Reject routine (daily/hourly) brain-washing by Capitalist media, don't live in their dream.
Prefer distributed conversation and symbol-wearing over mass demonstrations
Reactionary enemy #1: alcohol. Time spend drinking is time lost thinking.
emergency power Strike.
Re-organizing society from the ground up.

figure: wedge: [illustration:wedge]

figure: patience: [illustration:patience]


There is no greater and more impossible problem to people who want to make significant improvements in the world, then the problem of idolatry: the potential for worship of a person in the future, which has happened and is happening, often for the simplest of reasons. Idolatry, the worship of something, is a death grip to progress. Idolatry renders democracy meaningless, and substitutes it with superstition. How can you make major improvements without being held in high regard, but how can you prevent idolatry if you are held in high regard ? This makes solving the problems of humanity, the game humanity is offering, virtually impossible to solve. If it can not be solved, it is because of the idolatry of people. Idolatry prevents the solution of problems.

Idolatry seems to be a remnant of total subjugation-to-leader, which has been part of life in the distant (animal) past. It is an instinct to subjugate. But in subjugating, to master, government, idol, animal, drawing, bowl of spit, thereby fulfilling the need of the subjugation instinct, it renders the subjugator a hollow shell without intellectual and will capacity, only a soup of emotions remains. Without intellectual and will capacity, an independent existence, idolators do not solve any problems, and they are certainly unfit to live in a democratic environment. Therefore idolatry, though an understandable trait of the past, makes improvements into democracy particularly impossible. Democracy is to solve the power abuses that come from the instincts of domination (from the same past), the instincts that inspire subjugation and idolatry. Idolatry and power abuse are two complementary parts of the same problem, power abuse is the problem at the top, idolatry the problem in the rest.

Disclaimer: though these plans have been made up with the best intentions, you implement them or not at your own risk.

Disclaimer: though these plans have been made up with the best intentions, you implement them or not at your own risk.

Good work by Moses

Good work by Moses

This work discussed the mistakes of two social engineers, Adam Smith and Karl Marx, and found them wanting. Both did not recognize the difference between money gambling in the economy and the economy itself. Smith accepted this whole package, Marx rejected it, both made the same essential mistake, they did not differentiate.

Moses, the Moses of the Torah, proposed a system which is essentially the same as the one proposed here. The four pillars of the system proposed here are: Democratic Authorities, Democratic Ventures, Democratic Investments and Democratic Demarcations. A democratic government overseeing an economy with resource distribution and laws against private finance (Capitalism). In the Torah it says if a King is what the people want, to elect a King from between the people and to make sure it does not become a despot. In Judaism disputes on the Torah itself are to be resolved by majority, and ``G.d judges the world by majority.'' It says to keep Kings in control. The G.d of Moses is a G.d that can be argued with, and it may change its method on occasion, G.d is not itself a despot. These are clear references to the democratic nature of the Torah and Moses. The system proposed here has many laws concerned with making a Government democratic, different then the laws in the Torah, but the goal of democratic principle is the same. Ultimately it is the principle that inspires, the way it is done depends on circumstance and taste.

The Democratic Ventures part is not as clearly recognizable in Moses' system as the other points. Workers are to be emancipated enough to demand to be payed rather then grovel in the dust for their master. There are numerous references to the use of slaves, however given the time of Moses the extraordinary thing is no doubt not that there are slaves, but the laws that grant them freedom. Some slaves in the world would wish they were governed by ancient Jewish law. Slaves have converted to Judaism taking advantage of Jewish law to get free. The Torah does not seem to like the idea of slavery, it limits slavery extensively for people that subscribe to the Torah. When it comes to company development in a society that is not under Capitalist pressure and that has resource distribution, the playing field is equal between dictatorial and democratic businesses. Therefore the system may not require laws that force companies to become democratic, especially if there are hardly any companies and when those that exist are tiny. The laws proposed here only force a company to become a democracy when it has 10 persons or more when the starter quits. This handles the problem of today's large and complicated companies, which were probably not as common in the distant past, in a rural and technological relatively primitive economy. There would have been craftsmen, there would have been farms and sheppards, armies and courts. Today larger companies are the norm, then this was not the case. Even so, the system as proposed here could work without a force for democratization because the economic game has been made fair between democracies and dictatorships, though I think it would be detrimental and useless to remove it.

Democratic Investments. The system Moses proposed followed the opinion that lending for profit should be removed. This conforms to what the laws here attempt to do. However, the laws here do not make all lending for usury illegal, it only tries to make the larger lending illegal, erects a number of barriers that make larger lending unattractive. Lending for usury is allowed for small sums, sums that normal people might lend to each other, sums that most people would be capable of lending. The system proposed here relies primarily not on eliminating lending, but to replace it with a not harmful form of lending: non-profit lending by the democratic Government. The idea is that private finance would find its place occupied. Such as where a weed grows, you can cut it out with root and all, or you can cut it away and plant a new tree in its place, depriving the weed a place to exist. This will play a soft game against lending, not putting the economy and society into a straight-jacket, while at the same time rooting out private finance to a greater extend in a positive way.

Democratic Demarcations. Moses had the ancient land divided between the tribes and men, if I understand correctly each received a portion through lottery. This was an inalienable land ownership right, which could not be sold in perpetuity. In each 50th year, the land would return to its original owner if it had been sold. The sale of land would therefore take the form of a temporary land lease. This is quite precisely the system proposed here as well, though managed differently. Moses had land assigned to persons, who could then rent it out up to the 50th year, or perhaps rent it out for shorter periods also, while the ultimate ownership remains with the original owner. The system proposed here is the same, and people can swap natural resources back into the pool and swap a new resource right out. This swapping may have been possible in Moses' system, there seems to be no reason for why it shouldn't be possible, between consenting people. In this system there are some provisions to protect the user who rents the land from the resource right holder (`owner'), which are in spirit no different from the demands in the Torah that say the user and owner should strive to behave equitable toward each other. This is the goal of the laws here as well, to protect a user from unfair behavior by an owner, and vice versa.

Because both systems are so extensively similar, I'm confident in saying that those who believe in Moses system, would at least subscribe to the basic elements of the system proposed here, since they appear to be exactly the same: for profit private finance does not belong to the market economy, resources are not normal products to be traded but they are to be distributed and can be rented out, government - which can in principle extend to company government - is to be democratic. If you believe in Moses, you would likely more or less subscribe to the system proposed here; if you subscribe to the essentials of the system proposed here, you would likely give credit to Moses for proposing the essentials of it millennia ago. It is a rational system, it makes sense and can be logically defended, it seems only natural to come up with it and rediscover it. To reject elements will lead to bad things, history submits proof enough. The surprising issue is not the similarity, but that it is not in operation already, that it is not proposed more often.

To implement these essentials in a simple rural setting, one can come up with many different designs. The 50th year land return rule is one method of resetting ownership to its equally distributed state. Another method would be to prohibit permanent sale and only allow rent contracts up to 5 years. Or to prohibit anyone using someone else's patch, which would be detrimental to labor specialization though, not the best idea. Each method may have its advantages and disadvantages. The 50th year rule neatly resets the entire resource ownership issue at one moment, on the other hand it may produce a level of economic discontinuity in that 50th year. Benefits and costs. In a way it is like a sport, making up rules that make a sport interesting. Sports rules strife for a balance of power: the goal not too large and not too small. The economy is like a sport, if one group or tactic always wins, it gets boring an unfair: time to change the rules.

Non-profit finance fund set up prototype

Non-profit finance fund set up

Investment in an economy, especially in businesses, has to be non-profit, otherwise the investor will seek abusive bosses to suck money from workers on his behalf. Eventually the entire leadership strata of a country comes to consist of people abusers, resulting in corruption, war and dictatorship. If it is not feasible to avoid this by implementing sound laws, it may be possible to do set up the correct investment system on a smaller and private scale. In the end that will not be enough, and this fund is likely to be seen as the deadly enemy of all for-profit investors, but it is a start to one day press all for profit finance out of an economy, ending its dangers for the productive economy. Because of this nature and promise, the fund may see rough handling by certain authorities and powerful groups manipulating money and credit, worse if the success becomes better. It is important to realize this when confronted with a fund failure of some kind. In a badly set up economy that allows for profit finance, this kind of fund is an activist kind of enterprise. It is more or less: the People versus the banks, in real life and people can die. At the same rate, people who are indifferent to the issue will probably come over to non-profit finance sooner or later, even if that can take centuries and many set backs. On the other hand, this kind of finance can offer immediate benefits to its participants (as fair loans and/or labor conditions).

The total cost of the system is: cost of maintenance and wages of fund managers + cost of the investment capital and loan defaults + potential overhead from legal or illegal manipulations by Capitalist authorities, the for profit finance establishment and for profit investors. The first two costs are unavoidable, the second probably ends when the law of a Nation is set right.


Participants send two monthly payments, one payment to build up and maintain the investment sum (capital account), and the second to pay the investment fund managers for their expenses and wages (service account). The managers should never be payed out of the capital and/or profit on loans, but only through direct taxes on the participants and the service account. The payments to the capital account would first need to be higher to build up the fund, later these payments would only be necessary to maintain the size if there are losses. If the fund asks rent on loans these capital account payments could even become zero or profit. If there is profit, it is important it is returned to the participants and not to the managers, keeping both kinds of money separate at all times, thus preventing a profit motive from occurring. It may be necessary to verify the fund accounting independently, to maintain the separation of the accounts and therefore the integrity of the non-profit nature of the service.

From this one can see this is a real productive business, where one pays for a service, unlike giving money to a bank or for profit investment fund, where one would "miraculously" get payed on top of getting a service. There is no miracle with for profit finance though: the money is taken from the productive people, from their wages, from your wage; you pay through bad labor conditions and low wages (unless you are in the boss/investor category yourself).

The fund can deliver two kinds of loans: consumption credit to individuals including mortgages (if the fund size allows it), and business upstart or business expansion project credit. The business upstart credit should be given to people who are unlikely or who promise not to abuse their workers with unfair wages compared to company profit, that is not a major difference in income between owner/boss and workers. In this the fund would act in an opposite way to for profit finance, which is the goal.

It does not matter in principle whether loans are given with or without interest. If they are with interest, the additional income goes to the capital fund, putting the cost on maintenance of the fund on the lenders and not the participants. Since the profit does not go to the managers, no profit motive occurs. An indirect profit motive may occur from the side of the participants though, with the negative effects of stimulating abusive bosses. This may however be off set by the knowledge that lower costs on the credit system through high interest loans comes back to haunt the participants in their professional lives as low wages and bad labor conditions. When loans are without interest, or only inflation correction interest, the capital account will need to be replenished more often with funds from the participants. In general it may be a easiest to decide one interest rate a for all loans, and never deviate from that rate: keeps it simple.

Loans could be made to the participants in the fund only, or to everyone. If made to everyone, the persons who take the loan should take the cost of the maintenance of the system proportional to their loan: they would then pay for the service and the general cost of loan defaults (default means loan is not payed back) proportional to the risk (size of the loan compared to generally associated default cost) and effort involved. Participants would already be meeting these costs when taking a loan from the fund.

For people who never take out a credit loan, the system can still be of use, because they may come to work in businesses that were funded with non-profit service cost finance, which protects the living standard and working conditions of just about everyone who is not in the financial for profit establishment, or the boss structures it maintains in the economy. In an economy that has sound laws, disallowing for profit finance, the cost of this non-profit finance would come back as taxation. It is therefore a to be expected cost of life in a technical society. Someone has to pay for minimally needed services, just as someone has to pay for roads and water lines. However once for profit finance is gone from a Nation, the total cost of the credit system is likely to drop because it will not be fought against in all manner of ways by for profit finance.

For additional positive economic effect, it could be agreed that a business invested in by non-profit finance goes into the hands of the workers once the original owner/boss goes away. The original boss/owner will receive compensation from future profit, for instance as if still an employee without actually working at all. Since this is not feasible with small businesses, the cut off point could for instance be: if there are 1 owner plus 9 or more employees, it goes to the employees, if less the owner can do what it wants.

To keep the integrity of the fund high, it may be a good idea not even to accept people as participants or lenders who own shares and stock or who are associated with money gambling in the productive economy, who have banking capital and the like, because these can be mechanisms to infiltrate and take over the fund. That kind of money is contrary to the way it is supposed to work, it brings in people with wrong ideas who may only be looking to take the fund over and make it a failure somehow. One would also need to be careful if such a fund is set up, that it is legitimate, and not a scam set up by for profit investment interests, who are looking to discredit the idea by setting it up and then mismanaging it. A form of democratic control by participants over the managers is therefore needed: to defeat infiltration and mismanagement.


* The service and capital accounts remain separate at all times.
* Participants pay 2 sums, one to a service cost account, one to the capital sum account.
* The fund managers make sure to award funds to businesses who are unlikely to abuse their workers with a high income disparity between owner/boss and workers.
* Gaining the highest possible interest on a loan is a goal to be avoided, especially for business upstart/expansion credit, because it is low wages and bad labor conditions for workers that is likely to end up paying that price. For workers: the participation fee is a cost (A), the lesser disparity between boss and worker is profit (B), and the expectation clearly is: B is greater then A, hence profit for workers, while bosses are not getting less then their employees either.
* This kind of system is not enough and may not even have any measurable real results. But it is a start to setting the law of a Nation right, which is the ultimate goal, at which point the difference in the economy over time should become great and overwhelming, more or less transforming the economy from injustice to justice, especially when combined with some other sound laws such as for land-distribution, no for profit monopolies (such as infrastructure), and seriously democratic Government ...
* It may take centuries and a lot of struggle and cost to get the law of a Nation right, but every time a Nation disintegrates under pressure of its own bad law and hence bad leaders, there is a great opportunity presented.

"Money selling"

Isn't the above scheme "money selling" ? In a wide sense of the word: yes, it is money selling, and can even be lending on interest. The difference with simple money selling, where the profit comes from the interest on the loan and hence the need to seek a high return on the interest and seek parties able and willing to provide a high return, is that the profit does not come from the sale of the money, but rather from the regular contributions of the participants, which are (supposed to be) impervious to the interest or other return on the lending activity itself. Technically it can be called money selling, because that's more or less what happens: money changes hands for a price. On the other hand, the system is meant to cut out the profit motive, replacing it with a "motive to please the participants, who are supposed to be pleased with a well managed credit system that does not promote abusive business bosses." For profit and non-profit investment lie close to each other, and the system that's non-profit as an investor system, can (and should) still be profitable for the fund managers, who can make a livelihood out of it.

Since it's all so close, a little sophistry may be useful: "this isn't selling `money,' but selling a `service that sells money.'" Technically that is correct, since the fee to the service account is for a general service being provided to anyone, the contributions to the capital account are to provide the system with the tools it needs. This results in a "service that can be delivered," not unlike insurance. If there's interest on loans then that is not "profit" (as in price difference resulting in profit in a sale), but rather repair for incurred damages on the size of the capital account from loan defaults, like paying ahead of time for damages to a rental car business.

This line would be crossed when a loan is given and somehow its proceeds or excess ends up as profit for a fund manager. This type of fraud could happen if a fund manager (in breach of the system) demands an excessive payment to the service account to make a loan, or if the system is directly broken by moving funds from the capital fund directly to the fund manager's income (service account), or deceptive schemes making loans to friends that then default, and the like (a "for profit" activity at least, though more like a common crime). Such practices would put a profit motive on the fund managers on where to place the money, breaking the system (turning it into a form of fraud, probably hidden from sight for the participants).

To prevent problems like this requires adequate oversight. It could help if there are objective rules for when a person can get how high a loan, and to make loan agreements public knowledge. It may also help to separate the consumption credit and business start/expansion credit loans: to make the system for business loans more difficult, have more of a say from the participants in whether to agree to such loans, since it can be difficult to predict the risk, the risk is likely high, and there can be long term consequences (positive and negative) from such an investment (growing up a good or bad business).

Undermining the profit motive when dealing with money itself can be or is complicated, because naturally/usually everyone likes to have money.

Excess currency

An interesting way to invest excess currency, is to buy land. The land can then be rented to a company and the income used to repay the cost, risk and labor involved. When the land has re-payed itself, the right to use or rent it out could be awarded to the participant(s) who have been longest in the fund. A percentage of the potential income for the new land-user/lender could be returned to a new account, to build up more funds to buy more land, an so on. The legal ownership (if that exists) can be retained by the fund, so that proper and fair use/rent policies can be enforced. The land could be awarded per National part, so that in theory if everyone was in such a fund, and all land became owned by such funds, the whole system would be in operation: [DA] The fund is overseen, steered and funded by the participants: Democratic Authorities, [DV]: it grows up companies that when viable end up owned by the workers: Democratic Ventures, [DI]: it invests money with a social-political motive, Democratic Investments, [DD]: it distributes land to people fairly, Democratic Demarcations. The whole system in operation, run, organized and funded by a club of people, who do not have to get in anyone else's way to do what they want to do. No revolution required.


Name: People's Investment Fund - D.A.V.I.D.
Location: Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
Number of participants: 128.653
Currency: Vietnam
Interest-rate business loans: 10% (binding democratization contract)
Interest-rate consumption credit: 5% (payable as participation dues)
Interest-rate for long time participants: 0% (or inflation correction)

Assets: +- 5.000 acres farmland, 2.320 acres woodland, 2 offices
Staff: 15
Monthly participation due: 1% of income + 1/60th average income
Capital participation due: variable (percentage of income) *)
Power structure: direct, participatory and representative democracy

*) Usually not more then monthly participation, never more then 1/30th median income; low incomes do not have to pay the capital due.
Date: Approved: Recipient: Sum/Cost: Comments: Risk: +++/--- Member Since
22-Jan-2008 Kim A. Chiang C. (AgriDo) 50.000 / 5.000 + particip. Rice farm [start] {naddi > 90%} +++ 21-jan-2008
22-Jan-2008 Kim A. Doh Y. [loan < contr.] 500 + infl.corr. Cons.Cr. (baby) -- 07-jul-2006



Below some actual discussion between me and other people (see Usenet on alt.politics.communism, sci.econ; Usenet is known for its combative talking style, to put it mildly; the other people are paraphrased here.):

June 2007

Mic and Jos

Mic: You have no right to take the land of farmers away, these people work the land and therefore they deserve to own it. Why should someone who has not bought land to work on it be given it for nothing ? That is stealing, giving land to people who didn't bother with land before.

Jos: Do you know why we have laws against killing people ? We could have laws that say you can't become 40 without having killed someone. Why don't we. We don't, because we want laws that provide for a certain living environment which is most pleasurable to all, laws that are good for survival too. Take note of the technology around you. Done ? This can not survive next to violence, war and crime, it will destroy humanity. But do you like your TV, your computer and your Usenet ? If so, you have an interest in a certain kind of society above another. From there on it is a matter of designing it.

In order to have a peaceful, productive and surviving society/humanity, you need certain rules that may not always appear obvious at first glance (?). Why can you not burn down the house of your neighbor when he's insulted you ? A deep philosophical question. But here's an answer: it is just too ******* tiring to put all the fires out all the time, and it isn't good for our productivity, therefore trade and luxury.

So, what is your design for society. My design is based on *trade*: you do something, I do something, and we swap it, through the intermediary money if it is available. The reason is that we can exclude freeloaders, that is the biggest reason. Without freeloaders, we wouldn't need trade. Why do we want to exclude freeloaders you ask ? Why shouldn't we give money to people who don't work, such as private investors (perhaps you?) ? It is bad for productivity, and luxury. It makes you feel bad and angry if you work all day, and someone else doesn't but takes the fruits of your work for granted, for nothing. Such a set up does not work, literally, it is bad for all productivity.

However there is a solution: people who like great income differences and freeloading - such private investors - can be allowed by the people who don't like this. The investors/rich that like income differences and investor-free-loading, though, are to pay the price for their unfair/unequal society, it is after all they that want this `product,' buyer pays. So: private investors and people who like income differences will work for next to nothing, while the rest lives in fairness. That way everyone has what they want, income differences for the free-loaders-investors and rich, and desired equality for the rest. The people on a fair wage will then probably be so friendly to exploit the self-professed investor free-loaders and "people who like income differences", so as to grant them their wish.

Trade goes wrong when the power of both trading partners is different. For instance I make a cake and you make a bread. We take both equally long to do that work, say 1 hour of equally hard work. We meet and start trading. I say: ``I own all water holes within 3 days walking, if you give me half that bread for one slice cake, I'll allow you to get water tomorrow.'' Then we trade, and I get 30 minutes work from you (on the bread), and you get 5 minutes work from me (on the cake). Because I do this with everyone, I'm always getting roughly 8 times in effort from others then they get from me. There are about 8 working hours in a day (currently), if I work 4 and the rest work 8, I'm still 4 times as rich as everyone else. But I could work more. For that to happen you would need to take my control over the water holes away. Then I'd be forced to cut the `I'll allow you to get water' out of my trading routine, and substitute ``look at this nice cake, isn't it lovely?.''

For maximum productivity and equality-of-effort in a society based on trade, the POWER that people have needs to be EQUALIZED. If it is not equal, it is payed for in proportionally different prices (extortion prices). When there are no power differences, it is the amount of *work* (standardized, calculating difficulty, dangers etc) that is swapped equally. This is because people will try to do the most profitable work, making price for its fruits come down again. Hence a "perfect" economy has us exchange cake/bread one half for one half, assuming the work (including getting the ingredients) was equal. If cakes are more profitable, the next day there'll be 10 more people baking cakes: price comes down until it equalizes. Then people start doing just what they like most. There can be some deviations because of danger and difficulty, but these should be readily obvious. To steal meat from a lion, even if it takes a few minutes, will have a premium for danger. That is something entirely different from me holding the well-control over your head. Meat stealing is a difficulty/severity issue of the work itself which is not a "power position," the second is a "power position," no danger/difficulty involved (except perhaps criminal violence, which is neither good for society).

So, what is `owning land.' ? It is a power position. It needs to be distributed in a society based on trade, to make power as equal as possible, so that trade is equal and productivity (and psychological justice) highest. This promotes greatest luxury and peace, which equate to survival and maximum pleasure (absolutely, and for all).

Note by the way, that soil is often owned by speculators and not the actual farmers. In my proposal at least, the farmers remain farming, they just rent the land from someone else then the bank, namely individuals. This system should promote the start of small businesses, and it is a convenient way to deal - in principle - with unemployment; although in practice probably not enough, it is a start and an improvement over the present situation -- it also diffuses soil speculation, which is a lasting favorite of organized crime and speculator parasites.


Jos: In capitalism with extreme income differences, you can only be a victim or a perpetrator, or you can try to be some of both at the same time. If you are a cleaner and you work hard, and if you are an honest person, you will never be rewarded to the extend of your effort.

Mic: Then maybe you should try to find a job that pays better, or if you provide good work ask to be payed more. That is how it works: you work well, you get to demand improvements.

Jos: There is nothing inherently dangerous or extraordinarily difficult about managing companies or making financial investments. Cleaning is probably much more dangerous (for back and health). Why are the differences in income so great between low wage productivity jobs, and power jobs ? Because of the "power position," therefore the cleaner - and so many others - is being extorted out of their "actual value", and the buyer - managers, owners - get work-value for nothing except "political favors", such as "allowing" you to keep your wage slavery job, and/or "not speaking badly of you with other company owners." I agree that cleaning will probably never be one of the high paying jobs, unless people start to get more of a dislike for it to do it (and if the rich stop importing aliens to do it cheaper). But while some difference can be explained as difficulty and labor market availability, the extreme differences can only be explained by power position, people are being forced. Make the power position bad enough, and you get everything for subsistence wages (slavery).

Cleaning is intrinsically a high value product, if it isn't done nothing is done. If workers combined and employers were forced to not import aliens, the wage would become fair. This organization makes the power of cleaners better, closer to that of the bosses. I guess you're then primarily trading power, rather then trading work, which is kind of sad.

Mic: Investors deserve their income, why should they not get what workers get ?

Jos: Why is it good that people who work get money and people that don't - even cause damage and are only gambling for themselves - get no money ? Because exploitation of other people degenerates society into chaos, it makes people who do good unhappy and a minority that does bad happy. People lose motivation to work for the investors parasites/clowns, lose their fun in work and being productive. The country goes to hell. That is not in your interest if you happen to be in that country. ;-)


Jos: Bad still should be punished, and for capitalism as a whole that means bankruptcy through revolution. The individual/group reward/punishment cycle has to be applied to private capitalism, and punishment has to mean its removal, because it is intrinsically bad (`investing for private profit').

Mic: Investors give workers the money they need to work, why should that be wrong ? Why should investors not get their reward for their effort ?

Jos: `Providing investment that workers need', is investment that is being done to serve their needs. Investing is a political tool, you can either invest in me or you, for instance. If there are two sugar producing farms, you can either invest in the slave factory, where slaves are payed "not 10 whip lashes, a bowl of Greece and a bucket of water". Or you can invest in another business, where everyone gets a fair living wage; say an equal share of profit. If you provide `investment that workers need', you invest in the egalitarian business, drive the slave-owners out of work, even if that makes the price of sugar go up some. But private investors (with a brain) won't do that, because they know that the slave-factory has way higher profit margins, and is therefore more stable. Stupid investors will invest in the egalitarian business, and will soon be broke and looking for work; you can't make money reliably by being a `good investor,' and you'll always be losing big time from those that invest in companies with cheap labor. The slave-factory can deal with much lower prices then the other, it can always whip the slaves some more for little cost. Hence it will survive an economic downturn in the sugar market easier, still turning profit. Invest money in the slave-factory, make it have low prices for 2 years until the other business is bankrupted, take over the market share and double profit, then demand your investor kick-back. Private `investment that workers need' ? Investment that is at war with workers as a matter of inescapable principle, even if investors don't want it to be that way (but there is always someone else, waiting in the wings, or will be, one day ...).


Jos: When capitalism reaches its ultimate end-state, the war of all against all would be won by some people, and you end up with corrupt communism: all practical power into one hand, flowing down of course through a pyramid of other people. Under capitalism that pyramid consists of a financial control structure over the markets, and within companies from bosses to managers to workers. The financial layer constantly plays companies against each other, to find the most abusive companies to stimulate; the small businesses on the edges serve to give the impression that the system is fair.

Mic: The financial markets do not focus on abusing companies, they focus on where they can make money, they focus on where profits are high.

Jos: Exactly, and that usually are abusive and dictator style companies. A company with a dictator at the head can be negotiated with from an investor standpoint: one guy, the exploiter, offer it a deal to improve its income over the backs of whomever, especially the workers. Workers just won't agree to that sort of thing as quickly as a company dictator would.

Mic: Consumer pressure on companies, labor pressure on companies and investor pressure on companies, all are consumption pressures on companies. Why else are people investing, what good would it otherwise do ?

Jos: Consumer pressure seeks the best products, unfortunately often for lowest price. That is a great problem on the part of the consumers, and one they pay for in abusive companies, because such companies can make things for lowest prices (lowest worker costs). The system is at least fair, since consumers tend to be workers, and they'll get what they deserve. Labor pressure seeks to avoid dangerous companies and seeks high wages, normally high profit should mean high wages, and high profit comes from good products for a good price.

Investment "pressure" is in principle neutral. If it is "non-profit", it is a purely political instrument that can be applied whatever way, for a slave or egalitarian economy, depending will. If it is "for profit", it will always seek to stimulate businesses with high profit and low costs (on average). Good working conditions and good wages are cost factors from the investor perspective. Both need to be as low as possible, and that implies worker abuses. We have seen worker abuses throughout the history of Capitalism, and we've seen the demise of democratic and enlightened initiatives. For-profit investment explains that: the economy goes to hell with private for profit finance.

There is no reason to support for-profit investment in the economy, and every reason to replace it (in whole) with political non-profit investment. There is also no reason to support theft in the retail economy, that's why society tries to get rid of it. It just doesn't work well, and so it is with private investing for profit. Investing is gambling, it is not working: also from an individualist perspective it is wrong. Go to the casino if you can't get away from gambling. Maybe they can invent a game that is similar to the economy, my guess is investors would like horse-races and dog-fighting.


Jos: It is much more `democratic' then capitalism (because of resource-distribution and the freedom for democratic businesses from private finance war).

Mic: Your "freedom from private finance war" is an anti-democratic proposal. It means money goes to the wrong companies, companies the people do not want.

Jos: Freedom from finance war is democratic, because it subjects finance to the democratic will of the People. Besides, in my proposal I'm not even eliminating all private investment, just replacing it in the major league of money. Much is done just by removing the judicial support, turning investments into gifts above a certain amount, and confiscating investor income above a low amount. You can still `provide the capital workers need', as long as you don't do it for for yourself. If you want to do it, do it right, and in the interest of society. In that case, if you're serious (in my system): get an investor permit and make your case that you'll use your power for good. Maybe you'll get your permit, and can have some judicial protection for your investment money. See how friendly the system is, if you really mean well. You can make no money that way, but you might persuade the government to pay you an income for providing political investment services to the community, or do it as a hobby. It would be a job, investing would be work. Just like everything else, from cleaning to being a politician. Removing private investorism really just normalizes the economy, takes out the insanity (IMHO) and boosts the power of democracy.


Government is not evil, but `evil' can control Government. Then set up the government in such a way that its self-interest lines up with the interest of society, IOW democracy. That excludes a for-profit finance sector, which is a sector of Government become private ( = corrupt / dictatorial).

Al and Jos

Al: Is there an alternative for Capitalism that can replace it ? Perhaps Communism or socialism ? But what are you going to do about freeloaders, and what to do with communities who like to live in a Capitalist system ?

Jos: When will people start to differentiate Trade from capitalism ? Get your head out of the American-USSR propaganda war. "Socialism" does not imply a plan-economy just because everyone says so.

Al: I know there is a difference between trade and capitalism.

Jos: Good. How do you want to deal with the freeloaders, the private Capitalists who gamble on companies in hopes of getting rich without doing the work, Capitalist Freeloaders ?


Jos: Communities that prefer capitalism are no problem at all, never were. The only problem is that the dictators that they will bring to power must not be allowed to attack other countries, and that they should restrict their financial gambling system that breeds abusive conditions to within their own borders. You want capitalism, then you pay the price. Capitalists that start manipulating other markets have their funds seized, and may face charges if caught in a democratic and anti-capitalist free market country.

Al: You want to FORCE the people in your country to behave like socialists ?

Jos: I am going to remove any and all laws that SUPPORT private Capitalism, and then I am going to REPLACE the finance gap in the economy by *political investment*, which is by definition non-profit (it is not the politician's money), and I want to keep that system under the market-pressures of free elections. Well, actually much more then free elections, more like a mix between a referendum and representative democracy. People can cast block-votes on all government issues, which is an advisory function that the state can only ignore so many times according to the constitution. Then people can organize referendums which are, of course, binding. I want, however, that the votes that are not cast, the abstentions, to be divided among the people in the representative body, and the representatives can cast these abstentions. This perfectly describes the outcome from any referendum, and never makes a referendum useless. Then I describe the power of the referendum to degenerate in time: it loses power with the same rate that people die, makes sense. This gives a legal framework for what the power of an old referendum is in the present, and how to compare it with a new referendum on the same issue.

Al: It does not bother me at all if communists or socialists set up companies or even entire cities in my capitalist nation. If they want to that's fine with me. If it works for them it works for me, fine.

Jos: Because you know that will never work. It won't work or be difficult, because the private finance sector will forever and ever work to seek to stimulate "the dictatorial, the bad" over "the democratic, the good". It takes a lot of effort to make a democratic/good business survive in a hostile finance environment, and it takes no effort to create that hostile finance environment. Therefore eventually the communes, villages and cities will be worn down.

What Capitalists will probably be less happy with, is the removal of law-enforcement of investment contracts. What the Capitalists will also be less happy with is the competition for Capital from political investment. And another is, indeed, to make Capitalism a crime, primarily punishable by loss of funds and fines. Capitalism is not different from littering public areas or causing toxic spills, such things are illegal because they damage nature; Capitalism is to be illegal because it damages the economy. I want to make it illegal to earn more then 5% of an average wage per month from selling money (loans, investments). It isn't a heavy-handed system, but should be more then adequate to diffuse the hand of private Capitalism in practice. It doesn't burn it away everywhere (causing collateral damage). It is just one more crime to the list of crimes, such as running a stop-light or theft. It cuts private finance back and replaces it with an alternative, and that is probably all that it will take.


Jos The problem with capitalist countries is that they will not likely be able not to attack other countries (openly and secretly), because attacking other countries is what the criminals that will come to control capitalist countries do.

Al: Capitalists aren't necessarily criminals, communists aren't necessarily free-loading marihuana addicts.

Jos: True, and you don't have to be a murderous maniac to kill someone. I realize that many people involved in Capitalism really don't know what they are doing. But they can be shown how it works and how what they do is not work, and come to understand and support why we should put laws in place that prevent it as much as possible, while creating an alternative for the gap that leaves in the economy. I fully realize that there is going to be corruption in such a politically run investment sector, but the money then lost as "corruption," is currently lost under the heading of "profit." Against profit you can't do anything, but corruption can at least be enforced laws against, and it be kept to a minimal loss.


Jos: Capitalist countries will perhaps need to be closely monitored as to their weapons build up, and have their excessive weapons seized and destroyed before they are able to launch war. War is the nature and effect of private capitalism, whether one is not paying "the working poor" their fair wage, or whether one is attacking another country to seize control of its oil, it is essentially both war, with the same results. (To reiterate again and again:) Private capital invests in dictatorial and abusive companies, therefore abusers of people will increasingly dominate positions of economic power, financial and industrial (implies media), which will eventually extend into the state/government. At that time, the country will be under a leadership that is so amoral that it is likely to go to war, which is not only a natural extension of the obsolete animal instincts that rule these leaders, it is also political opportunism/strategy. *)

Al: You can not confine the problem to just Capitalism. Other countries such as Socialist or dictatorships have also waged war and oppressed people. It is more likely to blame on lazy voters and the kind of people that are attracted to power within systems that don't work.

Jos: True, and so have "democracies" and Capitalist countries. It doesn't matter what a country calls itself. But capitalism is a root cause, even if it certainly isn't the only cause. Capitalism stimulates that which is already rotten. For the real root cause, check: The animal habit to dominate power hierarchies, inbred in humanity and brought easier to power in a Capitalist environment (investments are done in dictatorial companies with lowest cost and highest profit margins: companies with steep hierarchal organizations, preferably using slave labor, which is low cost).

Al: You want to do exactly the same bad thing: "have their excessive weapons seized and destroyed before they are able to launch war", that is preventive war.

Jos: My mistake. I propose a global model that has fully sovereign nations, these nations can talk but their meeting can not decide or impose. This official meeting is never involved in waging war, preventive or other, because that would expel the attacked nation from the meeting, which is unacceptable for the future of the meeting system. The meeting can discuss, but decisions can only be made by the procedure in each country. When for instance a country masses extreme weapons and gets ready to attack another country in conquest, then the highest official meeting remains neutral, so that it can later sit in justice over the entire process, as a neutral judge (more or less). See One of the things that countries could do is preventive attack on a country that is in possession of extreme weapons and looking to use them, or which has already used them. This is like a murderer walking around with a machine gun, what are we to do: let the maniac walk free to destroy until it gets bored, what if it never does ? But whatever happens, the official highest meeting can never declare a war, and coalitions, even an overwhelming world majority, have to go around the official highest meeting to commit their defensive action. Preventive war is certainly a bad thing in principle, my bad.


Jos: Freeloaders ? There is nothing to load, you have to work in order to have something to trade with. Nobody gets something for free in principle, and that especially extends to the private investors.

Al: The right to own things is important in trade, and it is a vital component of Capitalism. Without ownership rights capitalism is not possible.

Jos: Hence ? You can own a knife, does that mean you are allowed to use it to kill someone. You are allowed to own capital, goods, businesses, resources in my system, but that does not mean you are allowed to significantly private finance other businesses, because it hampers the market operations of the free market.


Jos: Capitalism will be replaced by free trade and democracy. If that sounds like a contradiction, that is because of the pro-capitalist propaganda war who has planted its distortions. It makes that people have a one-switch mind: either it is `private capitalism with companies in a trading context', or it is `planned economy'. Try to add another switch to your options list: `companies in a trading context with distributed resources and non-profit political investment'. Now you have 3 options.

Al: I see no reason that I would want to work for no profit. Who will own the "non profit" organizations I am supposed to be going to work for ?

Jos: You work for profit, company profit. I'm differentiating two types of profit:
 the profit from work is company profit;
 the profit from investment capitalism is nefarious and to be removed. But you can't just remove finance and expect the economy to do well, especially because it invites investorism back in. Therefore I want politics and the people (through strict democratic control) to direct the investments. These will by definition be "non-profit", because the profit goes to the treasury. That's what I meant with "non-profit": a political investment group will invest as "non-profit". But you as a worker/owner of some business work for profit, the company profit.

One trick I'm looking for with these political non-profits, is to allot them a sum of money X. This money they get to invest with, and they can ask rent and profit, which goes to the treasury or back to the sum X. The politicians/people tell them to implement a certain policy, if they do that well they keep their job (they work for income, profit if you like). They can not just steal money from sum X, because if the sum X declines that is a sign they might be corrupt or incompetent. They could lose their job, or worse.


Al: The majority of economies are not purely capitalist or socialist. The USA for instance has fire departments, education, police, justice and transportation in public hands.

Jos: That is good to hear, but it seems to be declining. `They' are trying to sell things off to the finance markets: transportation, health-care. I don't think they really have a clue what they are doing, or they just don't care and are seeking quick money. There should be more order in why something is publicly held and why something isn't, currently this is just rocking back and forth without cause or reason.


Jos For this reason the Communist revolution to be global, because of the imminent threat of violence from Capitalist countries, which of course came out exactly true: Capitalist countries never seize to attack anti-capitalist countries, it is a matter of principle for them.

Al: I am a little unclear about the "free-trade" economy you talk about, it does not seem to mean opening up borders for international free trade. How do you envision it ?

Jos: I've written a lot about it; reasons, law system, implementation (doesn't render OK in Microsoft-Browser, tables are wrong and figures are missing, seems to be mistakes in M$):

How I envision it, well, see: That is the visual model: the double-triangle represents democracy. In the middle is the society-model: the blue above is the "non profit political investment" system. The yellow triangles immediately below it, represent publicly held industries which are publicly held because there is no significant consumer competition feasible (such as public transportation), much of it might be infrastructure-like, power grids, sewage systems, etc. Below that in red is the real "economy": free floating businesses of whatever size that have developed from entrepreneurial effort. One key point about them: once the original starter leaves the business becomes a democracy, unless it is smaller then a size N, in which case it remains in the hand of the entrepreneur. I have proposed some rules to make this transfer to the workers smooth and fair. It won't always be smooth and fair, so there will be more common law build up around this problem, but it is better then that these businesses remain dictatorships, and grow out into an elite class of incompetent and undeserving sons-of-sons-of-sons.

Below that, the lowest triangles can be agricultural businesses, is a resource-distribution system. This means that everyone will own a resource right, which can be rented out. I've attempted to play the interests of the owner and user against each other, so that the system can work as smooth as possible. This gives people a stronger position of power, which is IMHO vital in an economy based on trade. That is the basic "vision."

Thanks for your interest, I appreciate it. It is not a fixed system, it implies/needs improvements and taste changes, and should/could be different in different countries.

-- Udall's Fourth Law: Any change or reform you make is going to have consequences you don't like.

Gish and Jos

Gish: The rules that apply to the economy are:

1. Capitalism provides those that work to be rewarded for their effort.
2. When someone wants to pay a price that a producer wants to produce for, the economy grows.
3. There is education, those who persevere to complete it become producers, they become prosperous.

Jos: Be precise: Trade allows that, Capitalism fights it. The private investors attempt to steel the rewards from the producers. You seem caught up in the plan-economy versus Capitalism dichotomy. Capitalism is not Trade, Capitalism is just a certain disease in a trade system. Trade is much older then capitalism. The capitalists pretend to be part of trade, because it works ideologically. They are hiding themselves is trade rhetoric, but they are not themselves producers.

Trade is good, because equal value is swapped between between producers, rewarding them both and excluding parasites. For this swap to be equal, both parties need an equal amount of power, because power difference translates in unfair price difference (think of robbery, monopoly, etc). A society build around trade, has to be build around the principle of equal power, which implies democracy and resource distribution.

Capitalists do not produce, they `hold a power position', which is their capital. Quite often this translates into resource hoarding and controlling management, which affords more positions of power, which can be turned into extorting value from producers against unfair prices.

Your point on education is true, but don't forget that while some people are unproductive students, others are working and producing, keeping the students alive from day to day. These others have the determination to work, which ought to lead them to prosperity. The large wage differences between people who studied more and people who worked more is probably in large part because private Capital fears the educated people more (who can easily dismantle private capitalism if they wanted to), and therefore offers them a premium on their wage to keep them sweet. This wage problem is also territorial: the workers in the western world could easily dismantle private Capitalism, therefore they get a premium on their wage and more severe exploitation is leveraged against the third world nations with less practical capacity to threaten private Capitalism. This leads to the illusion that private Capitalism is a reasonably good system for the people who receive a threat premium. This premium is also based on a power position, rather then on actual productivity, as it should be in a trade system.

Gish: Capitalism is fighting with trade?

Jos: Yes: in a trade-economy there is to be good produce because of consumer choice. That consumer choice is the pressure that keeps companies "good". But what is "good" ? It is "what consumers want", it is relative to their needs/wants. So what do consumers want ? It can be anything, it can be cheap trousers made by near-slave labor in China. It can be an economy that is more fair in its distribution of profit, so that these consumers have a greater chance to find a fair job when they look for one (the rational long-term consumer, who understands there is no future for war, crime and racketeering). What the consumer wants, the consumer gets. There is also some labor-pressure, like people not willing to do certain work meaning the price goes up or such companies are removed. This is equally good. So far, so good: this is trade.

But what is Capital ?
- it does not work (it is a casino game layered over a true economy)
- it stimulates companies abusing workers (makes for higher profit margin)
- it stimulates companies who evade the law successfully (fewer costs)
- it stimulates dictatorial businesses (easier negotiations for Capital)
- it destroys as collateral democratic businesses (money to competitors)
- it produces an elite class of free-loaders, Capitalist parasites

In short, all bad: this is Capitalism. It fights what trade should be achieving. There are two hands in the economy: labor/consumer choice, and private Capital. The hand of capital fights the hand of consumer choice.

Gish: Investors rob ?

Jos: They are gamblers, do nothing productive. But someone is paying for the bread they eat, the boats they sail; these things don't come from nowhere. They are being build, which takes effort. What do the people, the entire economy, that builds these things get back from the Investor? More market manipulations, more loss of profit.

Gish: Ideological it is working?

Jos: Seems to work on you, works on most Americans. This is probably due to a heavy dose of anarchist sympathy in Americans (wild west cowboy attitude), a certain inability to think in terms of "common interest" and "group processes." When there is no group dimension within the grasp of reason, the conclusion quickly becomes: live and let live, we'll see what happens. But recognize it or not, group processes exist. If you invest money in a group, and not another, if you invest in a slave-driver company and expect a good kick-back (while doing nothing at all in work) later, that has repercussions for the entire civilization in time. It wouldn't be a problem if investments were randomly distributed among initiatives, but they aren't. That's where these things go wrong: masses of investors, all doing more a certain thing then another. The result is mass damage, like it or not. It isn't a matter of willing or not willing to recognize a group dimension, it is there so deal with it.

Gish: What do you want to say ?

Jos: The truth, as I see it :-).

Gish: Do you suggest that capitalism is bad ?

Jos: Y E S

Gish: It is better then socialism or communism were.

Jos: Maybe, if you mean the plan-economy I say: you are right, but both are bad.

Gish: Knowledge is power in capitalism.

Jos: That is always true, especially when it comes to insider trading.

Gish: Everyone (in the USA) can get an education, therefore it is a fair system. I did it, so can everyone else. I found a way for myself, and could pay for bachelors and masters degrees from respected colleges, so now I am looking forward to a cozy old day.

Jos: You incorrectly assume that in my system chances won't be fair, that there is some kind of antagonism between my proposal, and your "equal chance" system. Because "you have claimed equal chance", I can no longer ? Is this some kind of tribal contest, pick a label but once you got one nobody else can pick that anymore, because it would confuse the fight ?

Better, I have much much more equal and continuing chances in my proposal then Capitalism. Capitalism has "the art of making money from money, without doing even management work", which is Capital investment for private Capital; that is not something that belongs in a trade economy (or any other economy). Capitalism is like a bad drug in a trade economy. What is good in Capitalism, was already good because of trade. What is bad, the reduced chances, the dead-end jobs, the power elite and its wars, that is introduced by Capitalism. Capitalism makes trade antagonistic, no longer trade between equal people leading to fair trade and mutual benefit, but a fight for capital and consumers, a fight for the Big Money in the Top Jobs, from where you can comfortably retire as long as you don't give a shit about people in dead-end-jobs, without future and hope. It is disgusting, and will not lead to good things. I note a high crime level in the US, many serial-killers and school shootings for revenge. The morality of the leaders is copied by the flock.

Gish: I did it, I found a good career and am productive.

Jos Screw tightening is productive too, something which is needed, therefore something that is to be rewarded.

Better: when we (as a society-system that tends to reward productive work) reward it, when we make the screw tighteners happy, they can open up to education more, and who knows what they will come to do for society if given a chance. They got no chance in Capitalism, because they're continually exploited to the maximum, and that maximum is simply the edge of revolution. Capitalism brings instability to the economy, always seeking the bleeding edge of profit for the investor sector and power elite.

Gish: My story is proof that it works, there is a chance to be productive and to study.

Jos: You can "personally attest". This is supposed to be representative for an economy of billions of people ? You're just one data speck, insignificant and therefore irrelevant. Use it to illustrate an argument already proved, but not as proof ...

Gish: Why should capitalists fear educated people to be dismantling capitalism?

Jos: What do you think smart people do when they feel oppressed ? They figure a way out of it, and that means removing Capitalism and getting back to a trade economy. Smart people under the yoke of wage-slavery, will work diligently, until they find what is bugging them, and then solve it to make their life better. What do you think I'm doing here ! :) Some people have no problem abusing others, and they are `upwardly mobile' in the Capitalist power hierarchy.

Gish: Capitalists look for educated people, so they can become productive and produce more income for Capitalists, how about that ?

Jos: What about it ? That is because of trade, it happens in a trade economy where profit depends on well made products/services. Capitalism follows trade here, Capitalism is like a cancer in a trade body.

Gish: Why would someone want to dismantle it?

Jos: Because there is something better: a trade economy, and the entire self-serving investment-sector enslaved to the public interest through a democratic process. You cast the word `Capitalism' (as Americans do) wide, to include trade. In your speak I would say: we change something about the Capitalist system: we bring investment capital under democratic guidance, so that it works according to the will of its new master: The People. If that isn't `American'... To do this properly, it basically means a financial revolution. I'm not looking for pretense solutions such as "guidelines for investment funds". I am looking for more then a token gesture.

Gish: Capitalism is not an illusion.

Why don't you offer an alternative, besides saying Capitalism is so wrong ? You are not productive, everyone can whine about what's here.

Jos: Reprehensible. I do nothing else but suggest improvements. Why don't you educate yourself and read my book to be released... Even makes me a few bucks, thanks. :-) You judged me too soon, mistake me for someone else I guess.

Gish: If you feel so bad, why don't you move to a non-capitalist country ?

Jos: Do the capitalist countries promise not to attack it ? Can they even make that promise given history ? What have Capitalist countries done in the past, but trying to attack everything that does not support the Casino Capitalist system ? This is why the communism movement wanted a global solution, to end this international war-making on their socialist revolutions. This is why I also need a global solution, to prevent an international Casino Capitalist coalition from attacking a free-trade public-funded Europe. I don't care what people do elsewhere, but unfortunately Capitalists worldwide do care what happens here. So I have to care what happens with them too, to keep this place safe. A military problem.

Gish: And the USA is not entirely capitalist. It has some laws that stop the system from being purely capitalist.

Jos: I know. If there weren't, the system would bleed over the edge and into chaos, then possible revolution. -- Let's make peace and democracy.


Jos: If you think "the poor" are morons who don't want to work and would starve to death quickly if the rich didn't turn them into (wage) slaves "for their own good", then you'd be thinking like a plutocrat.

Gish: There are poor morons. People who work on themselves to improve themselves, will end up being better. The kind of people that show up for work at the conveyor belt to tighten the same screw all day, for years and years, and then think they deserve wage improvements are living in a dream. That is not how the system is working.

Jos: No, you live in an illusion-world if you think mutual violence and strife between people (on that level as you suggest) can be sustained into the era of high tech. Many rich have just inherited their money, they are the ultimate morons, don't even learn how to tighten a screw.

What you seem to miss is a sense of justice. If that screw doesn't need tightening, there wouldn't be someone doing it. If that screw isn't tightened, the entire business is bankrupt. Everything that happens (in principle) in a business is essential, or it wouldn't be done. If everyone is equally important, that mean from a justice viewpoint, that everyone has an equal share in the continued existence of the business and therefore its proceeds (profit).

But what that screw-tightening person shouldn't do, is not wait for a higher wage. It should go to my website, learn about a better set of rules for society, make it happen, and then look forward to a better (up to equal) share of profits. This depending on business setup. Screw tighteners of all lands, wake up, and demand your law.

Gish: Sense of justice? A representative democracy with a free trade system and an anti-monopoly police results in a "sense of justice."

Jos: Then I suppose you are on board with my system, because you just described it.

Gish: Screw-turners should get what they are worth, why do they demand more ?

Jos: What decides what a screw-turner is worth ? Its power, its availability in the markets, the manner in which businesses divide the profits. Give a screw-turner independent power or a way to escape a wage-slavery job, and price for screw-turning goes up. Reduce the availability, price goes up (trade). If you have businesses who divide profits fairly, for instance because they are representative democracies, wage goes up...

But if you introduce Capitalism: slave-drivers who employ screw-turners get all the money in the world, the people are deprived a right to own their share of Earth: fewer power and fewer options, no choice in different businesses means a low wage. How low depends on the will of the screw-turners and other victims to overthrow the current system and government, because that is of course the constant fear of the Capitalist class. That they are rounded up and put to screw-turning themselves, that's the limit of their power. In the end, this economy is not about trade anymore, it is about power and oppression, only vaguely organized along the lines of a true free-trade economy (such as I want).

Gish: I feel your laws will prevent screw-turners from pursuing their own interests. It will be impossible for them to become a boss and reap the benefits of that achievement, your rules will likely stifle progress.

Jos: You have a feeling, but it isn't like you feel. You probably associate me with the plan-economy. In my system anyone can wake up and say: hey, I have this resource right in my pocket, I can't lose it. So why don't I check out some land on which it is allowed to build something, and then build myself a shed in spare time. Having done that, 3 month later, the screw-turner still hasn't run up a debt (unlike under Capitalism, where you would have to buy land for extreme prices). So, then the screw turner begins for himself, and being a good screw-turner, makes great planks with screws to hang coats on. Pretty soon his colleagues, tired with their bossy boss, join their comrade, who then becomes the boss. At this point the boss-man can own its company for life, and retirement is payed for in a share of future profits in the continuing company and a fair sale of the company to the employees; unless the company only has 5 men, in which case he can make his son boss or sell it to another boss-man/women. If it is sold to the employees, they then elect a boss-men from then on, and can decide on some rules with the exception of turning the business into a dictatorship again. That is a void decision according the constitution proposal, because it has no use. If workers want a dictator, they can appoint one, but retain the right to remove him/her.

Gish: Nobody needs screw-turning, why would anyone need screw turning ?

Jos: Trust me, it has to be done. And if it isn't screw-turning that is the best example, take cleaning, or brick-laying, or canal-dredging, or pipe-laying, or shrink-wrapping material, fixing escalators, etc. There is always some dirty job that simply needs to be done, and in fact on which depends the life of a company, the life of a society.

Gish: People get rewards to the extend of their production, so they produce as much as possible. If more is produced, prices are reduced, if something costs to make then society wants to pay for it then society does not want that product.

What else can do that, what else can produce products for the cheapest prices besides Capitalism ? In Capitalism new workers will learn that turning the same screw all day has no future, it is a dead-end. The ones who learn will try to get better jobs, for the rest I have no sympathy

Jos: But screw tightening still has to be done, or it wouldn't be done.

What are you going to do about the Capitalist free-loaders, the people who just gamble with their money in the economy and do nothing at all useful ? This gambling with money stimulates companies that abuse workers most, because that is where profit margins are highest and costs least. The screw-driving people are the result: a dead-end job. So, what should they do, buy a gun and shoot their bosses ? Screws still need to be tightened, you can't do these people away, you will therefore have people in "dead-end jobs."

What you do, like the typical American, is confusing Capitalism with free trade. What I want is to do away with the Capitalist-free-loaders, why should they be given income for doing nothing but damage ? Why should rich people leave their wealth and business to their children who have never achieved nothing, making them the ultimate free-loaders ?

Are you in favor in principle of democratic organization above dictatorial, if possible ? Wasn't America founded on ideas opposing inherited power, such as land-lordism and nobility ? Free trade: yes! Free money: no! Private Capital gambling and inherited power: no!

Gish: Free trade belongs to Capitalism, I don't confuse the two.

Jos: Free trade is its own thing. Capitalism grew up into trade, came to take advantage of the work of others, and it has been rotting ever since, until it has now basically engulfed society and trade, turning much good in trade on its head. Trade is its own thing, it can exist with or without even money, much more so without Capitalism (private investors). The simplest thing is a swap-trade, does not involve money. Free trade is not "a part of Capitalism", but no doubt that is what the investors like you to believe.

Gish: So you admit, under your "better set of rules," there has to be people in "dead-end jobs?" How do you keep them there?

Jos: You didn't read right (or I was confusing): I meant in your Capitalist+Trade system there will be people in dead-end jobs. Under my system there are no "dead-end" jobs, because all companies become democracies and many will be continuously democracies. Power means a life, whether you turn screws or punch numbers into calculators (typical boss-man activity).

Gish: Talk is just talk, though it might sound good.

Jos: It does, and it should sound even better if you know more details. I figure this kind of stuff should go real easy with people ranging from the left-communists up to the European-liberal-right=American-conservatives, especially "the people", not so much the politicians and bankers and investment funds, since they stand to loose a lot of power. It probably won't go well with organized crime either.

What you are missing by the way: Capitalism is a failure, and no matter how you spin it, no matter how you implement Capitalism, it still is a failure. But trade is not a failure, it is a huge success. It is free trade (free initiative, free price setting) that keeps Capitalism going. Free trade has a long history, unlike Capitalism, which was for a long time but a fringe phenomenon: some lending for interest. But even in the distant past, the Capitalist phenomenon has produced the opposition of the most powerful movements, Islam, Christianity and first Judaism. These religions were opposed to Capitalism, even when it was far more crude and fringe then it is now. So, the history of anti-capitalism is almost older then modern capitalism... maybe something to think about if you're "pro-capitalism". These religions had no point whatsoever with trade, they were probably in favor of it.

Gish: Capitalism has succeeded, it makes my day. Most people in the USA like it.

Jos: The rest of the world isn't happy with the US system, and that is important because the US has its power projected everywhere. The top criminals are also happy with their business, does not mean it is a good business.

Gish: Why don't we get into the real details ? What do you precisely want to do to equalize power "positions" ?

Jos: Precisely ? That is a long story, book length. I'll list the major points, if you find them unclear or false, "feel free to ask" what I mean. It is hard to know where to start...

Democratic Authorities.
The Government is to be tied hand and foot to the will of the people, no more "we are chosen to decide", no they are "chosen to execute our will". The Government is in a constant dialogue with the people. See: The Government ministers (etc) have a wage tied to what occurs mostly in the economy, this makes them loyal to how that wage is made higher, and the only way to do that is make everyone richer, not excluding the poor wage earners. That twill equalize the power of all people unto the Government. The Government is meant for the majority.

Democratic Ventures.
The same applies to businesses, they are also organizations. To equalize power inside a business, they are to be democracies. However that does not work well for small businesses, businesses that are just starting. So the democracy-rule in businesses only becomes active once the original starter leaves and a company is larger then size N (10 people). The starter must sell to employees, but it is not a free trade but to be a fair trade, so that the former employer is not duped. This will prevent the occurrence of inherited power and the growing up of a childish power elite of people who just inherited money that others worked for (their parents, and the employees of their parents). This improves the position of power of the majority of people dramatically. It takes much of the extreme strife out of the economy, the kind of strife that is based on competition between business-bosses, which is another kind of strife then that based on market competition alone. I believe this solution will do something for unemployment, as workers will have power in the larger/older businesses, may take more kindly to themselves and their unemployed colleagues (potential).

Democratic Investments.
Finance becomes a tool of the majority of the people, this directly makes all people more powerful. It removes much of the (IMHO corrupt) power of the banks and major private funds, when this power is removed power of others becomes better of course. The purpose of this is also long term, to remove the influence of private investors (Capitalism) in the economy (trade), which can only lead in the long term to investments going more to abusive/oppressive companies, the kind of companies that make power between employer and employed maximum unequal. It gives democratic government a tool to implement its agenda received from the people (voting), it makes money laundering much more difficult for crime syndicates.

Democratic Demarcations.
Probably the most unusual part: everyone gets a share of the resources of the Earth as an inalienable right. You can rent this out. This will clearly improve the power of everyone, and shatter the power of resource speculators etc. This will do much to equalize power, not in the least because it is a fall-back position in times of stand-off.

Free and Fair trade.
The whole economy revolves around trade, and trade is a free decision between two people. The economy is probably the most important part of society, so the whole society is about something that is cooperative and free, which should promote a free and fair society.

Technical Darwinism.
Bonus: the theory of Technical Darwinism will prove where violence and war come from in humanity, and how this is obsolete because humans have technology. This will prove why "good" people are "good", and this could feed back into a will in the people "to do good", translated in a market economy as buying products from well-behaved companies, completing the circle of worker protection (while maintaining freedom).

Democratic Technology.
Bonus: I've pioneered some democracy technology, with which you can vote and the results can not be corrupted by the person (Government) running the program and generating the results. In the more morally advanced societies this can be used to tighten public control over Government and business democracy. In the more violent/crude societies it is not useful because votes can be sold, but at least there is a goal to reach for.

Sovereign Nations.
The international situation is based on sovereign nations, the `international highest' entity is a no-consequences talk forum, where countries can decide to propose certain changes to the proper procedures in their respective country.

Gish: People would work until they reach 4.9 times the average, and then give up because working is no longer useful to them.

Jos: No they could go happily on unto 30 times average. You can design a government any way you want, as long as it reflect the accurate will of the people enough.

The wealth-maximum of 30 is to deny people access to money that is so massive, that it is important for the entire nation. For instance if it costs 50 billion to set up a health-care system, then 50 billion is money in the "politicians league", of national interest. I therefore say that it concerns amounts that are not to be in private hands.

Someone owning 50 billion and wasting it on luxury should get their ass spanked, because you could build a health-care with that (or provide clean drinking water, or whatever you can do with that). 50 billion to spend on luxury is sick, it is medieval. A couple of million, ok, I suppose we can be a good sport, why not. But there is a limit above which it is not funny anymore, because of what other people are suffering that they wouldn't if the money would be spend in the public interest. The luxury would rest on the unnecessary misery of others, an interesting way to enjoy material pleasure, sick too. People who disrespect the nation/community, their fellow country-men, by wasting billions on luxury, have lost my loyalty and I'd rather kick them out and let them fend for themselves in `Anarchia' (or wherever). I'm not willing to support them, and I wouldn't want to gear major sectors of productivity to the production of the extreme luxury consumers. Their "golden spoons", "swimming pools with diamonds on the side", and like nonsense.

The problem is that the capacity for money to buy happiness reduces as it becomes more. If you own 100 bucks, and that is all that you own, that 100 dollar makes you really happy. It means living for a week. Now give that 100 dollar to someone already owning a 1500, no debts and a place to live. This person could "get their eyebrows done". So this person gets their eye-brows done. "Great." But the amount of happiness increase isn't extreme, such as with the 100 dollar in the poor person, for whom it is life or death, and a sigh of relief to have 100 dollar. The 100 dollar is the same, it buys the same amount of effort in society, but it buys less if it went to a greater heap. Now give the 100 dollar to Monia. She gets her eyebrows done every month (whatever), at 50.000 dollar a piece - she flies in a private jet to NY (saw it on TV). What she does with that 100 dollar, is maybe, I don't know, buy one piece of high end chocolate ? What's the amount of happiness bought, when you are already dressed with gold and diamond, and have eyebrow-peeling the price of a small house ? It is pretty much a waste of money. If she threw that 100 dollar out of her jet and it landed in a poor home, the amount of happiness bought with that 100 dollar skyrockets. And happiness in the economy, and the total happiness on Earth, that is what an economy should be set up for, isn't it.

So I don't want to waste money, I want to put it where it generates happiness. The greatest amount of happiness bought with money, is where happiness is lacking most - especially material happiness. To stop the rich gearing the economy to their sickening toys, they are deprived the more extreme wealth in my EXAMPLE. But it is just an example system based on the 4 points of democratic government, democratic businesses, democratic investment/finance, democratic resources. If you think you can implement these 4 points without a maximum on wealth, then it would still be the basic system. The wealth-maximum is just a little extra. Maybe only for the more morally advanced cultures with a higher sense of community and unity, maybe not for the US, I don't care. It is just a detail, and details will be either this or that when you implement a given design. But what they are isn't the essence of it. The greater goal is democratic government, and a public finance monopoly.

Gish: England did something along these lines. From the point that more work just makes the Government rich, shops simply close for the rest of the day.

Jos: It is true that if people hit the maximum, they will stop working. But in my system most businesses (larger/older ones) are democracies, which means they will distribute wealth more. There aren't many bosses anymore who skim money from thousands of backs to become super rich. So it will be much harder to get the kind of money that pushes you up to the 30 times maximum. Money won't be so cheap for the suckers-up into the Capitalist hierarchy - you have to work for it and make your costumers (or bosses that would often be workers) happy. No more gambling. Go to the casino instead, at least they work for their money (in principle, not counting illegal laundering).

Gish: Then almost all businesses would have FEWER then 9 people ! Almost no successful business executive wants to work just for 5 times the average in the country.

Jos: If there are few businesses above 9 people, so what ? But probably there wouldn't, because business leaders aren't all going to care that above 9 they can't inherit it to their children. If they don't care, the monopoly is the limit. I don't mind entrepreneurs setting up major empires: if the workers can't organize themselves and do it, then they shouldn't complain that some would-be dictator does it.


Gish: Oh sure, next thing you know workers take all cash out of the company until it collapses.

Jos: And then they would have nothing, would they. So ? Point ? You prove my system will work, because workers are going to learn how to do these things well, because they are the primary beneficiaries of when it goes well, and when it goes wrong they get primarily hurt. A sure fire way to be educated quickly. Who pays for the pension ? The turn-over in the company, profit, which is created by workers and entrepreneur and/or business leader. There's really no problem and hardly much of a change here: competent business leaders simply get themselves elected as leaders, the bad ones get fired by the workers. All they have to do is be loyal to the workers and produce. They may even get high wages, it is up to the workers to decide. The good will survive, the bad will be quickly sacked, isn't that what applies to all workers, and which is to be so good about the economy ? You don't have that now with Capitalism, bosses can't be sacked by their employers (the workers). That is a problem, because bad workers need to be sacked.

Investors are not bosses or managers with a stake in a well functioning economy / business, they are parasites and stimulate the abusive and disloyal bosses who try to exploit workers to the maximum, depriving workers of what they produce in value and deserve as a consequence in return. When workers can fire and hire their boss - after the original starter has sold fairly - the boss comes under control, while the boss controls the individual workers (depending on set-up, which depends on will of that particular group of workers). This results in a power balance, call it checks and balances. Workers have a great interest in a well working company, and they tend to be loyal if given the slightest of chances. It's the bosses that are disloyal, not the workers. Workers tend to care, entrepreneurs care too because it is "their baby", other bosses don't care. Graduate side-in-streamers don't care, they only care for themselves. Workers and entrepreneurs care, and workers always care if it is their livelihood.

Gish: What does that mean for 1 square meter in the New Mexico Desert, how does it compare to one square meter of soil in Manhattan ?

Jos: What counts is economic value. Again the main point is: distribute resources. You can probably implement that in a million ways. I've tried to produce one example, which isn't easy given the complex economy of today.

When it comes to living area you are always by definition living on your own soil, you can rent additional but you don't live on other mans soil. If you live in a flat, you only have to have a tiny bit of soil checked out for living, since it is a shared area with others. This promotes reduced usage of Earth for living and hence room for nature, since resource not checked out for living can be rented for profit.

Someone who builds a house in Manhattan could charge a high price, as the markets might be crowded with buyers. But it wouldn't be soil-price, you can't buy or sell that soil because you can't keep it if it is sold for living. In practice this means the soil-price will be a location addition to the house-price, changes in size being taken/added to the recourse-right of the buyer/seller. If you move there to live then it is a given that you will "own" the soil, and if you move you lose it to someone who will live there. The high price would only be in the building, which of course has a location. So in that sense it does not matter much; it would be the same but have different names. If you buy another home that is on a large area, larger then your right, you would be cutting into someone else's resource right, and are going to have a rent-contract with that person from then on, forever, or until you stop using above your share.

Since resources are alloted on the basis of economic value, you could perhaps check out 10x10 meter of Manhattan "suitable for office-building-rent" (not living), or you could check out 1,000x1,000 prairie "suitable for cattle ranching," or you could check out 10,000x10,000 of desert "suitable for survival tours", although it is more likely that the desert is already declared of no economic value and outside the pool you can get; probably some nature reserve. Wouldn't want to cut everything up, because you need nature and public areas, etc.

Cities are highly crowded areas by definition, it seems difficult to allot slots of land there, especially if it would be discontinuous with buildings. But resource-rent is an obvious business opportunity: setting up a business that takes care of the renting-out problem that will clearly be a great burden for individuals, or just people that find this too much work. That is the whole idea: specialized businesses which take care of these problems for a fee, and if none are around the Government could jump in - it is the People who can make demands from Government in my system.

So you own an abstract "resource right", it can be anything, from a part in a fish quota, to a part of the desert, to a part of Manhattan working areas. This abstract right you can proxy to a company, which looks for something which has a user and is not yet claimed but in the pool of things that can be claimed. It then puts out the claim and the user has a month to find another resource-owner. If it can't, then you can charge rent up to the maximum, negotiate a deal. The proxy business can take a percentage or a fee for the activity. The renting business cut a deal for 10x10 in Manhattan with some office building for instance, or cut a deal with a large fishing-boat that uses more resources then it has owners/workers. Or maybe some rich dude has a golf course and uses 50 times a personal land-right, meaning he has to rent land from 49 people to be able to use it as a golf-course. Or maybe some larger part of the dessert (which seems unlikely, since it would probably be in the nature-pool, but what-if): cut a deal with a tour-guide that wants to use it for survival-games. The Manhattan and crowded cities is probably the hardest problem, in reality the office-building owner would negotiate a resource-rent contract. But who is the office-building owner ? It could for instance be a building company that hasn't sold, but has a renting department. So there are employees in this company, all of which have natural resource-rights. They can check these out in the interest of their democratic business, put them under their office buildings. That would take care of the rent issue: no rent, user and owner are the same persons.

I think this is a more fair system, because the fish in the sea if from everyone, and so is the desert, the soil in Manhattan, and the prairies. Sure one can say: it belongs to the person who is productive. So then I can say: ``now I will be productive too, give me that land you farm now, it's my turn, and I will do even better if given a chance.'' What right does a resource-user have to say, `you shouldn't.' I figure the resource-user does not have that right, everyone should have their fair and equal chance. Should the soil be owned by banks and speculators ? Even less fair then when owned by farmers. Giving each person an equal share of Earth in principle solves this problem: farmers can use their part of Earth in land freely, but if they want more then their share, they are cutting into the immediate chance of other people to use their part of Earth (which they could alternatively take by force of arms), they are using the fact that other people have not moved in to take the territory. So they could pay for using that land left alone by people working in the city.

This is not a great economic problem: the price for food simply goes up if price for production goes up by higher land-rent, and consumers have more money in hand from that rent to buy the produce. This rent would then be budget-neutral, price be higher/lower, but more money in hand of the people to match a higher price. Then what is to gain ? It removes the Capitalist anarchy, the soil speculation by banks and organized crime. It gives people a better position of power in the economy. They always have their resource-right, and if they are lucky they have some loose change in their pocket from it. Not too much, that won't work economically, obviously. But something, better then nothing. I think it is better that this money goes to all individuals, then to the bank-speculators and such professionals. Let these professionals work in resource-rent proxy companies, and work for the people instead. They can take their cut from that, but the profit goes to the individuals, the people. The resource-right is an obvious advantage compared to having nothing, to start our own business, become an entrepreneur easier.

I agree that there are some problems to solve with this, but it improves individual power of all people, it should work economically as far as the cycle of money is concerned, and it removes the Capitalist anarchy and power imbalances that induces (making trade non-free and unfair). Many farmers etc, are just slaves of the banks now, who try to squeeze them. This system, with a set-maximum rent price, would put that control in the hands of all individuals, and I think that is at least better then in the hands of banks, professional speculators, and crime-organizations looking to store their excess value in real-estate. Such a resource-distribution system would probably need some experimentation and problem-fixing, but given a will I don't think it is impossible, especially since it would be a business sector (primarily) run by professionals. With the help of computer-accounting systems, it probably could be made to work. What alternative is there, Capitalism with its natural-resource anarchy doesn't work, Communism with its everything-nationalized doesn't work either. So go for the third option: fractional distribution. Why not. It is already fractional now, just not distributed fairly.

Too bad land-distribution isn't a long-standing tradition, it would have been much easier in a simple farming country. To implement it, it is probably useful to start small and with obvious things such as farming. Basically nothing would change much, farmers have rented soil for ages.

Gish: Only trade between two people, so businesses with more then 10 people will be unable to trade ?

Jos: Between two entities, don't be a pain.

Gish: I never said that Capitalism promotes aggressive business venture and elbowing. It's just the case that the guy who produces for the least costs wins the game.

Jos: Yes, but look closer: not only is this done by consumers, companies that produce cheap are also popular with investors. So the cheap producer wins both: the greedy consumer contingent, and the investors (who as a matter of competence have to invest in cheap producers, since that's where best returns are made in principle). I can't do much about the greedy consumer, but I can do something about the investor: nationalize it, so it becomes non-profit. Then investment can work to relieve the pain the greedy consumers cause in certain workers, rather then making it worse.

There is a vicious circle with Capitalism: Capital goes to cheap producers, cheap producers have low-wage workers, low-wage workers have not enough money not to choose for cheapest products. So you end up with a lot of companies that have low wages (and in the past this extended to having little children work themselves to death in factories, which explains Communism/Socialism for you). But there is no need nor is it fair to have so much cheap labor working for private investors: private investors don't do anything useful in the economy. Big money is thrown to the dogs, the private investors. I don't see what is hurt by removing this, it even gives the private investors a chance to search for a decent job and learn something that matters. Like I said: Capitalism is like a bad drug in the economy.

Gish: I guess some strong competition could be the result of this, but if you prevent people from generating their opportunities to produce cheaper and a higher quality product you end up with more struggle.

Jos: In a trade system cheaper is always better, but in a trade system an activity becomes more rare once the wage for a certain activity drops below average. Then people want to be elsewhere. In modern Capitalism things have gone so much out of control that this normal trade effect is barely noticeable anymore. Trade is being crushed by unequal power and the long term effects of money gambling, which promotes unequal power, all kind of vicious circles in Capitalism: wage<->price<->wage, Capital<->wage<->Capital. It keeps the economy in a state of disease.

Gish: It works that way, and it works. First you have nothing, like me. A worker is a machine, a good that can be traded. So you want to be a valuable machine, one that works well. The worker wants to get most income possible, and the employer want to give the worker least possible. If a worker remains stagnant in its abilities, they don't become worth more to employers, they made that choice. There are a million stories of people who made it in the Capitalist world. This is the problem in socialism, socialism is holding people back, prevent them from making themselves worth more and be more. That's what made socialism fail.

Jos: There is story after story of how people became successful in the Mafia. So the Mafia is good ? It is a "fair chance for everyone", so "if you don't make it, blame yourself." And indeed, that is how it is. So why shouldn't we all join in. [[You can not compare my system with old style socialism with a plan-economy, my system has free markets and free initiative - even more then Capitalism. You can and are expected to "make it" in that trade economy. You can get rich, you can end up lazy and poor, just the familiar operations of trade in a trade economy.]]

The economy is different from Mafia infighting, a trade economy is not ideally a race to a top, it is a race to balance. When you do something and I do something, I demand equal value back from you: balance between us two. When something is profitable, people go do that, satisfy the market, price comes down: balance between all is restored. Some people remain doing it, and become real good and efficient. And there is a major problem with your Capitalist-anarchy-sucking-up-to-Capital investors and their entourage system: when people become efficient at, say, cleaning toilets, it is great that they are efficient, they should keep doing it. Makes sense, they do a productive and extremely valuable work (without which countless disease would ravage the country, people would go puking from room to room from the smell, etc). They are well versed and highly experienced, which makes them per toilet faster, cheaper and better then any other startup-cleaner. That is the problem with your game: in your system almost everyone eventually wants to get into certain specialty jobs, which make a lot of money, probably because they involve a lot of power. But such jobs are specialties in their own right, such as management, and what you need in them is the actual specialists. But if they are so high-payed above their fair economic value because Capital loves to promote abuser-bosses for instance, competent or not, all you get is fortune-seekers, not the real natural talents for management. You economy becomes degenerated, the boss just a useful idiot-dictator in an empire in which there is no free-trade seeking its balance. What has gone wrong, is that the boss can not be fired for being a bad boss !

The boss is all-mighty, and the rest must lick its toes. That has nothing to do with what a trade-economy should be doing. If I could force you to buy my produce (being non-removable boss), but I could reject yours (worker hanger-on), needless to say you need to sell me at a fraction of your true fair value (equal effort, quite precisely actually). It's like the king and a subject: subject gives all for the right not to get its head chopped off. Great sale ? Sure. A free market striving for balance ? Not exactly, IMHO.

You should get everyone going for the boss-positions if they are so high priced because there is apparently a scarcity for competent bosses, until they are filled and price comes down. Then eventually only the specialists will remain, who are most efficient and produce high quality. But how do you do that ? Simple: introduce a system that makes being-boss just another job, susceptible to hire and fire. How ? Democracy, democratic inheritance. The workers then hire their boss, and can fire him/her. That puts bosses to the test, as everything, every product and every service, should. Entrepreneurs are also put to the test: they started with nothing and build something up, that was their test. Once they are gone, a new test is required for the boss, and that is best judged by those most involved and most hurt/rewarded by how the business is doing: the workers, the majority.

Gish: You might think that people have just one chance to make it, but ask those that have done it, became rich, the winners: did you win by one lucky shot ? You get the answer that they tried a million times, that is how it is for most winners in society.

Jos: This seems to be a different subject, namely the subject of whether it is allowed to destroy/kill/exploit other people, as long as everyone in the pool had the same chance to become the top dog. Is it OK to be a dog, if everyone has a chance to be a dog ?

My answer: all that belongs to the era of wild-animals, then we needed to fight with each other so to find the best breeding material. If we hadn't even thrown a stone, and you were big and strong and therefore the Top Dog; then you better have all power, food and pups, so that the next generation of dogs better fight with hyena packs, better at taking a bigger deer down. And there is no choice, other animals do the same thing, it is a multi-million year arms race. In dog society, all dogs have equal chance to become Top Dog, and constant infighting makes sure the best is really on top.

Humanity is different now, not only in what it needs which is not bodily violence/strength but getting competent work done, and it is also different in chances, because there barely is a realistic chance for almost all people to become Top Dog even if they were best. So the current fight for Top Dog position (in which fight you say you have advanced some) is both about the wrong subject, and it is extremely unfairly "done." I see it as a degenerating activity, it isn't the force of direction of humanity, but a phenomenon that is dying out and destined to sink away in crime, prison and extinction. Still it is making much of the headlines, but that doesn't mean it has a future.

Gish: Consumers greedy ? Nationalized finance ? Who gets to direct the investments ?

Jos: The democratic enslaved government decides what gets invested in.

Gish: Nobody wants to invest if there is no profit to look forward to, why would anyone ?

Jos: Because doing good in the economy makes voters happy and keeps politicians in their job. Having a job means having an income, politicians therefore want to please voters. The money, profit and loss are all to the Government, an individual profit or loss mean little, inflation and how the economy is doing (how the people are doing), that means everything.

Gish: You don't make sense...

Jos: I'm making sense, though inventing a new constitution isn't always easy. The part about public finance is the easy and obvious part, it is the part about resources that is difficult. So I also want to implement that last, and leave it open until after the other things are done (public-finance, democratic businesses), so that it could be a tender and careful process/attempt.

Gish: Investors produce potential in the economy, they generate jobs.

Jos: Investing would be done in the public interest, job opportunities wouldn't be accidental or exploitive as under private capitalism, job opportunities would be a natural goal of the investments. The investments are non-profit, because profit is not the point of political investment (pleasing voters is, or better: executing their orders). If the people need more jobs, they order the Government and politicians are looking to make that real, using investment for instance, even if that costs some money. Which means there is much more capacity for creating jobs and opportunity for workers, it does not even have to turn a profit for the investor.

Gish: Private investors know what is important.

Jos: ``Themselves, /screw/ everyone else.''

Gish: Communism and socialism forces people to screw screws all day, it is better to give people a way to advance themselves and become rich. All your ideas only work if you pressure people to work for you.

Jos: In my system people have a resource-right, in Capitalism they have nothing. I'm forcing nobody to do anything.

Gish: Do you want removal of inherited wealth?

Jos: Well, not exactly. I want to do away with inherited business power, with executive power in businesses, for businesses larger then 10 people. I don't want to do away with inherited money or property, because 1. it is hard to do, not always fair and mostly irrelevant in my system because 2. property is already limited to a hard maximum of 30 times average wealth for all. You simply are not allowed to own more then an amount N times average, this N is in the constitution and will/can be different in different countries. In my economy, you make money by working for it, rather then gambling in the economy or extorting powerless workers. This should automatically translate in a much more equal distribution of wealth, because I think wealth follows power. Distribute power is distribute wealth, which is more fair.

Gish: Lobby the Government, ask whether they will impose 100% Capital tax, a death-tax on Capital.

Jos: I have no law for inherited wealth in my proposal, because I don't mind it since the money can't be used for gambling anyway, and the money won't be a matter of national health either, since it won't be too extreme.

Gish: These "better set of rules for society", what are these.

Jos: I'm posting this 1 chapter a week in alt.politics.communism.

Gish: jos -> ``How do you propose doing away with "Capitalist-free-loaders?"''

Just ask for a 100% taxation to collapse the capital, win the vote in government.

Jos: I have already lobbied most political parties, to suggest my system, which has a death-tax for wealth above 30 times average (by default, you can change that). But this death-tax is not enough to get rid of private investors. Therefore I also make all investments above 25% average wealth gifts, so that a lender/investor loses all protection from the state for its nefarious gambling game. It is ridiculous, isn't it, that the money of the state and public, is being used to support the damage the Casino Capitalists do to the economy. That is like if you want to rob a bank, the police will smash the door in for you. How does that help anyone, what does this Capitalism have to do with public democracy ? Then, least as important, I want investments to be done by the public for the public, so that the finance hole in the economy is filled up with something that prevents Casino Capitalism back in.


Gish: Be exact in your answers if you can. Then we'll find out where it fails, it fails every time.

Jos: no problem, the more details the better. The only problem is the volume. I hope you find a flaw, though I don't think you will. If you do, I can correct my system and make it better, that would be great. What do you mean with "every time it's tried" ? This system hasn't been tried before that I know, although many points can be found in various systems that exist(ed). A true free economy, with companies becoming democracies after entrepreneur leaves, with distributed resource right and a public funding monopoly. I don't know of any such attempts, although there have been similar systems. Moses did something similar with anti-capitalism and resource distribution (acc. to the ancient texts), Yugoslavia had its self managed companies system, land-distribution has long been a favorite hot item the world over. Every time something is tried (such as Capitalism, which fails every time unless you're in with the exploiters and don't care about anyone else), we learn more.

Gish: So Capitalists are "dogs". Where did I hear that before.

Jos: I'll also happily call criminals dogs, so why not Capitalists. They are only in it for themselves, are unproductive and cause massive damage (and wars). I already said it would be great if they join in for real work, and besides I love dogs.

Gish: ``All are equal, but some are more equal then others ...''

Dude, I'm done with this. Use your freedom of speech to go on if you like.

Jos: I have you in the bag, and you know it. Cya.

Pet, Rinl and Jos

Jos: For centuries now, economists en-masse refuse to acknowledge the simplest of conclusions: the private finance-sector is a hostile factor in a free trade (free price setting) economy.

Pet: Why don't you go on and explain to us here how mutual banking contradicts private ownership of the means of production ?

Jos: Public banking is not opposed to private ownership. Public investing is not opposed to private ownership. Natural resource distribution is not opposed to private ownership. Democratically inherited businesses are not opposed to private ownership. A maximum on wealth is not opposed to private ownership. I am not opposed but in favor of private ownership. But not of everything, only the things that it works for, not the excesses and not the wrong sectors (such as investment finance and resource speculation/hoarding, or inheritance of business empires).

Rinl: Private ownership works where ? How come that it works there ? Why does it not work in the area of investment financing ?

Jos Rinl, private ownership works in a trade economy, where people own what they produce so that they can swap this with someone else, who also owns what he/she has produced. The swap is to be based on agreement, and then benefits both players. This method is important in order to prevent people who do nothing to get access to the products/services of people who work. It is also useful to keep a measure on things. In tight-knit groups it becomes less important, as extensive social familiarity with your trading partner, and an ability to ask someone to work, can render the formal trading ritual superfluous. Trading in such small groups tends to have a more virtual character "I did that yesterday, now you must ...". It is still trade, but less formal.

In a larger scale you get people searching for products to produce that others want, especially those that other people want badly because these are worth more because of the market competition. If there is a shortage in the market, it is filled up quickly. The free trade economy seeks balance in products and services, and it also seeks balance in how wealth resulting from the produce is distributed among workers. It turns out that when you work, the value of the products eventually becomes the amount of effort you put in. This can be shown by the fact that people will seek to make products that are easy to make and expensive when sold. The machines only have a temporary effect, until their use becomes permeated. The use of machines does not alter the seeking of balance in the trade economy, the products/services- and wealth-distribution.

Private finance is a completely different phenomenon, there are many reasons why it has no place in the free trade economy.

When I own 1.000.000 money units, and give them to you, it is as if I give you a machine. I do no work whatsoever when you use it (1). Why can not every one have such a machine, to equalize use and bring prices down ? If everyone had a "big money lending machine", the value of money would collapse. High end finance is by definition a monopoly-business(2). Monopolies subvert the markets, because they do not just trade their own "effort" `if you can do it cheaper you will and price comes down', they have a power position. With monopolies that is one or a few sellers. Therefore monopolies are either broken up, or they need to be run by a democratic committee of consumers/workers, so that the POWER POSITION inherent in monopolies, is not exploited against the natural balance that the free market seeks.

Private finance is not a neutral player in the markets, that makes funds available to the best companies. Because, what are "the best" companies ? In the eyes of investors, the companies that produce most return, profit. That tend to be companies with low wages, so that's where the investment money is going. The private investment money stimulates companies that evade the law successfully (fewer costs), and that are as close as possible to slavery (fewer costs) (3). Private finance stimulates dictatorial companies, and history has shown that only dictatorial companies can survive in a free trade economy with the Capitalist investment game layered over it. Private finance will fear to invest in democratic companies, or profit sharing companies. There are several reasons: if there is no company dictator, there is nobody to leverage against the workers, to extort workers more and turn a profit. Another reason is that democratic businesses stimulate the power of workers who do not share an interest with the private financiers for the maintenance of certain law and capital privileges. Workers who work, rather then investors who gamble, have an interest in public-funding, the removal of private finance, and a return to balance in the economy. Free and democratic businesses are not only a direct financial threat and bad choice for investment, they are also a political threat.

What clearly has to be done is to make certain that finance /is/ directed in a way that suits the people. Private finance can not do this, but finance directed by that will of the people - democracy - can. Then finance can be used in response to the people's needs. Clearly private finance is a threat to public finance, which is the final reason to remove it (4).

1. Private financiers are not productive, they abuse a power position.
2. High Private finance is by definition a monopoly business, which therefore needs nationalized.
3. Stimulation of law-evaders and dictatorial businesses.
4. Threat / subversion to the will of the people.

Capitalists have long proclaimed their allegiance to democracy and the free markets. They should put their money where their mouth is: concede to democratic government, and leave the free markets to be what they are.

Rinl: Can you provide a pointer to a research project that proves investors to invest in `dictatorial businesses' ?

Jos: No, but I haven't looked into studies. If there are studies, you would need a control-group, but in a trade economy with the Capitalism game placed over it, there is no group of companies not under the influence of private finance. Unfortunately the USSR etc, tried the "plan economy", so they don't provide a control either, to see what investors are doing compared to a control.

But if you think a little, you can see without (limited) study data that investors who are to be successful in the long run, will have an appetite for businesses with low costs. A low cost in the company automatically translates in a high profit margin in the business. Every dollar spend in wages can not be spend in profit for investors. I would be curious to know if you have a counter-argument to that investors seek low-cost companies - an argument with logical substance, not a few examples. There are always examples for everything, it is the bigger picture that matters.

If there is an empirical study, it is the history of capitalism itself, which is rife with abuse of workers, continuing to this day. Today many companies move to "low wage countries", China, India. This is often not in the interest of the majority in these companies (workers), who are laid off. So it is in the interest of management and investors, investors who keep management sweet by giving them high hourly wages. (Such wages aren't even high if you look at it from an investor perspective: a manager at least still works 40 hours or more a week, so its income is not infinite per hour. But investors don't work at all, so their hourly income is by definition infinite (income/time).)

Can you show a mechanism that proves/shows why investors will have an interest in promoting profit sharing and democratic business relations in industry (equally convincing/effective as my argument with respect to where the gambling profits are to be made) ? I guess if you're not unwilling to see the problems in Capitalism, you'd have to agree that most investors in time will seek companies with low costs. It is crazy not to.

Rinl: If an investor is not to look forward to the best return on an investment, the best profit to get, then what should he be looking for ?

Jos: They should expect their game not to last forever, because the workers / producers will one day be fed up with paying huge amounts of money to people who do only damage and are exploiting them with their game, subverting the true operation of the free trade economy. They should expect to lose their gambling money (game over), and to be looking for a true productive job that someone needs and pays money for (trade).

Trip and Jos

Jos: Market system overstretch: ``trading companies''

In a market, services and products are to be traded between producers who own and manage themselves.

There is no use for allowing a market that trades companies.

Trip: Why, can you please explain?

Jos: Once you have companies and costumers that trade between themselves, you have achieved job specialization, a method of distribution the products to productive people, renewal in the economy from fresh startups, lazy and incompetent companies get a kick in the butt while hard working businesses are rewarded, you have a level of autonomy and self-management in the economy which is good for power distribution.

You have all these things already, if you remove the market that trades companies themselves you loose nothing there. What ``trading companies'' does is remove the self-management of the company from that company, because only if you own something can you sell/trade it, and if you own it you manage it. Trading companies costs the company their self-management, for no valid reason. If you can not direct yourself, your life will be less worthwhile, you'd be a tool for someone, part of a machine, a component. Selling companies produces a confusion in the markets, who owns who, who owns `us' (the workers), additional economic volatility. Workers are in the end not only deprived of their power, but also of their income, since they are always under the power of the owner. If workers have the power in the company, they will make sure they get their fair share, and are likely to see to it that the Company becomes a democracy. There is nobody else besides the business starter and the workers who has a right to direct the company anyway. The starter for starting, and the workers because they are the company, both of whom have a vested interest in keeping the company going well; it is their livelihood (and presumably pride and joy, especially when they manage it).

Allowing a business starter to sell its company to just anyone is what can result in the superfluous ``trading companies'' layer (over-stretch). However, by removing ``trading companies'' you remove the possibility of the business-starter to sell its company to anyone else but the employees, such a forced sale is likely to be on the cheap at the detriment to the starter. If you want to remove that layer - as I suggest we should do as soon as possible - you have to make laws that weigh both the interest of the business starter and the workers.

My proposal for such a law is the sale to the workers can only happen when there are a certain minimum number of workers, and that the sale is to be fair (not free), involving a cut out of future profits for the business starter of a value above a legal minimum. A sort of `legal minimum wage' for the business starter. With such a law in place, the market over-stretch of selling businesses is removed, and workers are working in their own companies: managing themselves and making sure the profits get divided fairly and evenly. All needed market functions proceed as before, there is only a benefit to democracy and the happiness in the people. Even the business starter may in the end not loose out (much). Because of the interest in future profits, the business starter who sells to workers retains an interest in the proper functioning of the business, and may act as an adviser in its own interest ...

An economy is defined by the law, good law = good economy, bad law = bad economy, little is `natural' about an economy. So let's make good laws, and have a good economy.

Al, Mic, Gish, Pet, Rinl, Trip: thank you for talking.

Self Critique

Self critique

It is often the case that a good idea can be subverted. That by removing the intend while retaining outward formalities the illusion is widely believed that the well-meaning intend is being followed and therefore credibility with the People is deserved, while a usually self-serving intend is operating inside. This is a tension between the formalities, and the people carrying them out. The `law building' tries to build formalities, effects, tricks that are "impossible" to get around if you wanted to, while the corrupt try to infiltrate areas of power and get away with some, much or everything, by whatever means possible. Designing a system is like designing a lock, knowing that criminals will be working to break in, day and night, century after century, likely under diminishing public interest as if the system works well, it can become boring to watch out for the problem. Sooner or later, something could break. Sooner or later, the system could have relied one too many times on the heroic intervention of someone, someone which someday is not there. Then when something breaks, the crack will make other systems vulnerable. Eventually the system can break down entirely, leaving the infiltrator(s) to substitute their own. In the end there is only one force with an interest in fairness: the oppressed. Usually a majority as a struggle for the top tends to make the top more narrow, and the rise of the top demands a broader base.

What weaknesses the proposals here have.

A Government divided from the People, a pretense democracy that is not accountable and not transparent. What this will do is retain the effects as if private Capitalism is still there, just under a different name and some different ways of taking out the profit. A Government with full power of investment finance, as the Constitution proposal demands, can use this finance exactly the way private Capitalism does, and it can extract profit by pumping fresh new money to secret accounts or in cash. There are ways to guard against this: A. Keep watch over the wealth of Government employees and politicians, also when they've left. When there is corruption, the corrupt will be rich without good cause, or they will disappear or pretend to have won the lottery, etc. The system of the maximum on wealth provides a barrier to some of this, but there could be many ways wealth can be hidden in other countries or outside of view. Especially if one is part of the Government that protects the wealth barrier. B. Elect trustworthy people. Perhaps nothing is more effective against corruption then elect people who have an interest in a fair and transparent Government, and to treat these people fairly. C. Keep watch over the value of money as in deflation and inflation, look into whether the accounting of Government is correct, and whether the value of money and Government behavior match. Demanding constant openness from Government about its finances, the total and the fractions. This is a first barrier against the stealing of money. The stealing of money is probably the biggest problem, just after the rigging of elections. D. Maintain Sovereign countries at a certain maximum size. Having many similar countries, with their own coin, means the behavior of Governments can be compared. The diversity gives breathing room to unusual experiments, corrupting Government in a continent (the world) requires corrupting many Governments and not just one, smaller country size heightens democratic influence of each individual reducing the crushing force of society on the least powerful. When significant amount of people know a significant percentage of people in a country it will be difficult to maintain an objective Justice, as it will be hard to be objective on people you already know. Reasonable size for objective countries would therefore probably be between 1 million and 100 million people. Enough not to know most people, and few enough to maintain democracy and diversity. In the long term countries could become smaller for more democratic freedom. Having more countries can result in higher international objectivity, and more effective international Justice, since a larger group can be more objective to each member, and not having extremely powerful (large) members makes power more equal and therefore the will of the majority easier to bring to effect.

A variation on the above problem that can happen before the constitution proposal is ratified, is a pretense-change. The investment-funds and banks are forced to accept direction from Government, framed as implementing the goal in the proposal, clearly in line with the goals of the proposals here. It would be good, if only it were real. But it is not likely to be real, as the money is still owned by banks and investors. Poor sport the politicians might say. But the banks and funds can still move their money to other currencies to subvert the economy and have political leverage over government, and they can still withhold investment in areas where it is needed but would only return a loss. All they're doing is accepting a potential temporary setback in profitability. As soon as the political will is drained of initiative, the controls over banks and funds relaxes until it is just another friendly suggestion suddenly out of fashion. A trick that pretends to implement the system for a few seconds, only it doesn't, and then it returns, exclaiming the new system did not even work, `look, it was tried !' It is only tried if it is tried fully: finance under government and private moneys destroyed, democratizing businesses and distribution of resources. Then run that for a couple of centuries. Then see what has happened. That is a real test. You don't test a society on the fly inside another one, while only implementing maybe 3% of its provisions, under direction of people with interests hostile to it.

2. When there is no King, who is there to keep the system out of chaos ? In Capitalism and more so in Monarchy, the extremely wealthy have an interest in keeping the system going, even though they don't contribute to the system under the terms of the system. But what if everyone is inside the system, if everyone has a stake in overall wellbeing, but nobody hovers above the masses for its own self interest while being able to mend flaws to its own profitability ? The mending of flaws that would take the form of providing a structure. In the system proposed, we are all in the boat, and everyone has a part of the wheel. Except perhaps the King Elect (see Constitution under Electoral Committee), to whom this interest of hovering will fall in case it is needed.

Post revolution disintegration

It is possible that the Constitution proposed is too complicated to be sustained, so that the system of state disintegrates. It can also disintegrate for lack of popular interest in it, or it can be a system that it too overbearing for a simple rural setting. In such cases a simplified system might suffice, containing the essentials of resource distribution, no private capital investment gambling, a democratic government, and where possible turning the larger companies (if any) into democracies when starter leaves. Simple resource distribution: everyone gets the same size and value resources (land); the resource of the elders goes to the children, every 30 years the resource boundaries are adjusted to make room for more people, or to make the patches bigger when there are fewer people. Simple anti-capitalist rules: the government could create a pool of money, from which to lend to people that need consumption credit. The people who need the money pay it back, the government decides if the money is necessary for the stated goal. People who lend try to give security for the sum, unless the Government waves that. This would prevent some private money gambling, since there is an alternative. The money (or valuables) pool also acts as an insurance company for the community. The money is best stored in different portions, so that not all is lost at the same time to a thieve. Government officials can be personally accountable for their part. There exist many ways to have a more or less democratic government. One can appoint the eldest person in the area, city or village. One can determine a certain age, for instance 55, and have all people who have a birthday in that year be the government. One can elect for every so many people one representative. One can elect one person directly from between everyone, for life or for a number of years. One can appoint a government per lottery. One could combine schemes. One can also make skill demands, such as the Chinese did, so that only people who possess certain skills such as writing can be in the government. Then one can make demands on the government to perform certain acts and duties, so that the government does not become despotic, such as the Jews did who had their Kings copy large religious texts. Such simple systems could be enough in some rural settings, and they can be a back-up system in more complicated areas in case of disintegration. A way to boot up the system.

`What about me ?!'

`What does this mean for me ?'

If we did all the above, globally, so that no war resulted, these changes will mean different things for different people. Naturally one would want to know what it means for ... you ! I'd expect the following changes for various people:

Abused people: things may look up, because if people are more happy with their life, more secure in their income, they tend to become less frustrated and abusive, but make sure Government doesn't forget to be responsible.

Advertisement industry: no changes.

All kinds of advice businesses: no changes.

Anarchists: well, actually things do look up if you can manage to get your own country. If all you actually wanted was less oppression, you probably already have that with this system, in both cases things look better then they ever have.

Army: lots of changes, but should keep the job and might get a raise for being a good sport about this. In general, war-fighting will be just one of the tasks trained for. The army will not be allowed to carry weapons over the border in times of peace, and can therefore not sail with weapons ships on the oceans. More training for things like flooding, famine, chaos, fires, epidemics.

Art: no changes, maybe more inspiration and more beautiful art if the world is more beautiful.

Black markets, black workers: no changes in principle, still have to evade the law and police.

Book publishers, commodity producers (from spoons to shoes): no changes, except organization of the companies themselves.

Building industry: no changes, except organization of the companies themselves.

Butchers, Cattle rangers, meat producers: have to take reasonable care of the animals, not hurt them.

Casino's, gambling (excluding gambling in the economy): no changes.

Charities: no direct changes, but could be awarded (huge) sums of money to invest (at will) to achieve the stated aims, if the Government/People think that is a good thing to invest in.

Conservatives: to the degree `Conservatives' want to preserve the past (what parts?) such as a disparity of power between leaders and minions, things look worse then they ever did, and this is probably not a recoverable problem.

Criminals: fraud should get more difficult, and with natural advances in technology crime will be getting more difficult all the time; less chance to hire yourself to a corrupt Government.

Doctors, medicine, nurses: will probably receive more funding from Government, people value health highly; more funding for tropical medicine as well.

Drugs business (criminal): no changes from this system in principle, depends on Government decisions.

Entrepreneurs of small businesses (6 or less employees): your big competitors may become less competitive because they are likely to become democracies which means higher worker wages and higher prices, they may also fracture into smaller businesses. Therefore things are probably looking better. You retain total control over the business, can sell it to anyone, disintegrate it, etc, no changes in control, but you will be forced to give `a clear indication' of how the profit is split within the business. What `clear indication' means depends on Government regulation. This is meant to stimulate consumer selection on this issue, make consumers see what they are buying (stimulating) in terms of social organization. That could be good for equitable businesses, bad for exploitive ones, irrelevant for one-person businesses.

Entrepreneurs of small businesses (7 to 10 employees): Same as 6 or less employees, but employees can veto firing of employees and the disintegration of the business.

Entrepreneurs of small businesses (11 to 29 employees): Same as 7 to 10 employees, but you can not sell the company to anyone but the employees. You can not give it to your son/daughter. But this potential sale at your discretion is to be fair, which means taking over of (honest) debt, a fair price, and a share of future profits for life. Otherwise no changes.

Entrepreneurs of medium/large businesses (30 or more employees): Same as 11 to 29 employees, but employees now get the ability to occupy the building of your business, and the police will not be allowed to throw them out. Therefore you can not abuse workers to such a degree that they will occupy the business. Hopefully this will mean there is no change for you.

Environmentalists: things should look good, with the more democracy and removal of wealth-run Countries, policies and laws could become more rational and environmentally friendly. And not just talk, but doing too.

Farmers: will start renting land from either specialized resource-rent companies or individuals, the Government sets a maximum on this rent cost.

Fascists: things look bad, democracy won.

Fire-men: no changes.

Internationalists: things look up: trade, fair trade, no war.

Investors, investment bank owners, stock exchanges: find another job.

Lawyers, Judges: continue as is, but with a new constitution some study is required. The details of law that don't conflict with the constitution remain the same in principle, which may actually be the bulk of the law.

Liberals, free speech, free chances for all: things should look dramatically better, especially with the resource-distribution, chances are way more equal for all.

Lobby groups: no changes, except organization of the companies themselves.

Managers, Bosses: if you're not an entrepreneur, you will be applying for a job not with a money fund or previous owners, but with a group of employees; the job of managing and bossing will become more sensitive to the workers, who can fire you. You will be judged by different people whether you will be allowed to keep your job. If you are a rude person, things look down, if you are a friendly and competent person, things look good.

Mercenaries: things look bad if there is less war, which is likely, certainly long term. Find a peace-time job, maybe in the army or in civil security.

Miners: the rules for businesses or government monopolies apply, both mean more power for workers. The mine itself could be nationalized or if meaningful competition is possible it could become fractured between many businesses. In many cases mining is likely to become a nationalized industry.

Music: no changes.

NWO: nope, you'll have a hard time gaining global control. Multinational companies are cut off at the borders of Countries, the Nations do not accept a higher power in their Country but themselves. There is international diplomacy, but it is based on communications between Nations, and not on its own global platform. You will also have more trouble massing armies of different countries together for rape and pillage, this problem will get worse over time. With global Capitalism gone, Countries no longer disintegrate, and don't need the outside "help." With the high level of democracy in Countries, the international diplomacy is more likely to revolve around actual charity and good will (as opposed to the media deceptions around it). Also with the past experience of the NWO, people are on the lookout not to repeat its disasters again.

Nationalists: things look great, finally the Nation is fully sovereign, forever - even the chance of war and defeat should come down. The borders are not open at all, they can be closed at will.

Nature maintenance: should be ok.

News anchors/newspaper editors: less predictable material compared to the manipulative subject choices, unfair bias and half truth/lies you are spewing now every day. The minority groups who purchase and profit from the manipulations are gone, employee run companies will probably want to advertise in different type media. Market share of truth is likely to increase, should get less single directional bias across the industry: translates into higher job quality, a more interesting job.

Owners of great Wealth, Money or property: you loose, find a job. With some luck you retain something, but it won't be that much.

Police: no changes.

Politicians: popular politicians are likely to find at least one voter block somewhere that wants to elect them, or maybe even one sector of the country for the Country Council. Current politicians will probably be back in business as politicians somewhere, and have the potential to be voted into power in different places. However it could often be local Government, or maybe an advice function, and not National (only 50 places there).

Polluters: no direct changes, but care for nature is likely to go up, and with it laws against pollution - there may also be less funding for polluting businesses then there used to be.

Popular stars of music, sports, etc: you'll continue to sell your apparently great product, so whatever happens, the money keeps on coming. However, with private investors gone and with it the single handed control over large amounts of money, you may find you are discussing income with a group of employees instead. Whether this means more or less income, it is difficult to say, sometimes it may be more, other times it could be less. If the public has more money, it may have more money to buy your product, maybe that makes up for a loss, if there is one. So: could go several ways, but none too extreme probably. If you are extremely wealthy though, look under `Owners of great Wealth.' Stars are classified as workers (that's good), therefore your wealth up to more or less the new limit won't be taken away from you during a financial take-over of the Country, because it was earned by working. Hence: keep an eye out for the `maximum amount of wealth,' in your country, if you are rich. Don't invest your money in the stock-exchange and such, it could mean that is all taken away from you, depending on what happens.

Power plant workers: can't say for sure but there is a good change you'll end up in the public sector, like public transportation.

Prisoners: there will be no death sentences, that punishment is gone. You'll get the right to be segregated all the time from other prisoners, which might be good if you're innocent. You'll have a right to read, if you don't already. Otherwise things remain the same. However, with better economic opportunities and more justice in the economy, you are less likely to have to commit crimes for lack of food etc. Less likely to need to steal.

Progressives: the acid of private capital is removed, it can no longer threaten politics with financial chaos if politics don't do what it wants. They are neither around to offer bribes to politicians (sweet jobs), or give them the wrong advice. Secondly, politics will have the power of finance for itself, making the potential to act much greater. Things are looking dramatically better, short term but even more so long term. The negative effect of private investment is removed, with that weight gone all progressive initiative will find life getting better, social business setup should be able to survive just fine.

Public transportation workers: end up in a nationalized industry which is probably managed by internal democracy overseen by the government, taken out of the private markets.

Religionists: no changes, if you wanted a better world, maybe you finally got what you wanted ! Note the power if you organize voter blocks, and the potential to play a positive role here using State power.

Retail bank workers, investment bank employees: if you work there, you may continue to work there but not for a private fund but a public fund, as part of democratic nationalized finance, which also implies all the usual money transactions. You may get different goals though, toward managing the economy for its own benefit and the people, rather then trying to make maximum profit.

Royal family: it depends on your popularity, if that is high - it usually is high, much higher then an average person - then there should be no trouble to be elected in the top 10. If this is not successful, the royal family could end up losing its job and must find another, but may retain an amount of private wealth, or maybe a castle, that's how these things tend to go.

Scientists: no specific changes, but high end democratic government is likely to have a greater interest in the truth, and spend more money on getting it. Economics should be better, justice better, lots of investment in better health-care, more study on the maintenance of nature, disaster avoidance, clean technologies. Less investments for weapons, spy stuff. In all, things are probably looking up because truth is something to hold on to.

Socialists / Communists: this is our victory. This is what comes progressively after capitalism: the removal of private finance, trade in whole companies that ignore worker rights, and trade in natural resources which in practice ends up under control of large financial interests. This is socialism, formally, and the spirit of it.

Spies: there will probably be less interest in this service, because there is less war tension. Spying and government secrecy do not work well with democracy, maybe the police can use undercover agents to fight organized crime. Write a book or movie so we get to know what we missed, probably a (large) market for that.

Sport organizations for people: no changes, except organization of the companies themselves.

Students: studying for jobs that the government deems common interest will be regarded as work, the product being the skills the students acquire. For building this "product" inside themselves, they are payed. This should mean most students don't need additional jobs or loans. Loans will be harder to get if you can not present collateral, because loans (parts/remainder) that have no collateral are terminated after 7 years running.

TV/Entertainment/Radio: no changes.

Teachers: schools are half in the markets (consumer choice), and half nationalized (receive government funding for teaching). How this exactly is being done may differ, it is possible that teachers are government payed, or that pupils/parents receive government money to pay schools. In general there is probably not much changes, and private schools are allowed.

Tourism: in principle no changes from this system, but whether nature will allow the pollution associated with tourism, who knows. With fully sovereign nations and a more stable economy in which wealth (power) is better distributed, more people might have the necessary money to go on vacations, and be interested in visiting different countries. If it is not the same (Capitalist) misery there as everywhere, maybe tourism is going to attract more people, who want to visit other nicely going countries.

Unemployed: it is probably getting easier to be employed, because businesses that are run by employees are more likely to take a caring attitude. With your resource-right, at least you have one potential source of income and economic opportunity that nobody can take away.

Volunteer organizations: no changes.

Weapons manufacturers: maybe 90%-95% could go bankrupt if you can't diversify to peace-time production.

Weapons scientists: you'll be lucky to just lose your job, but in principle that's all that would result, try to get a peace-time job.

Workers businesses run by original entrepreneur: no immediate changes, except some additional power for companies with more then 6 employees, more power in companies of 7 to 10 employees: veto the firing of employees, prevent destruction of business by employer, more for 11-29: the business will have to be sold to you and nobody else if the entrepreneur leaves, and most for 30 or more: also allowed to occupy the business.

Workers businesses run not by original entrepreneur and Workers of international businesses: you will become owners of the business, and have to get yourself organized as a democracy. There are all kinds of ways to do this, find one that works for you. This will in general mean you get better working conditions and income then under dictatorial rule, depending on success in the markets. However, income and conditions are modified by general health of the markets, country, etc. International businesses are detached from their foreign management, get yourself organized as an independent unit if possible, with potential trade based relations to your foreign employer.


From conspiracy theory to system analysis and system changes

We see all kinds of scandals in mainstream news and in alternative news. But is that the beginning and end of our problem, clean out the rotten apples and all will be well. If we could just elect the right business leaders, if we could make sure nobody is lying about the money, then it would be better. No doubt that is the truth, better business leaders and no lies make the world better. There is however a deeper problem, quite obvious and in your face, working against you: how private investment alters market pressures. Private money that is going to be successful, will always seek the highest returns, and that always means the workers are to be exploited to the maximum. Is exploitation somewhere else worse, then that's where the smart money is going. Companies that don't exploit to the maximum are eventually removed from the system for lack of Capital. These things seem to be taboo in Western Culture, probably because they are undeniably true and demand fundamental changes in the makeup of our society. Who wants to take on the Government of Finance ? Not something private Capital is likely to invest in, is it. When academia is on the leash of the Government and big private investors, and Government is on the leash of private investors owned media and dependent on a friendly private investment sector to make it to the next election without a recession, which professional intellectuals dare bite the hand that feeds them.

Since the days of the Communist uprisings in Europe against abject conditions, there hasn't been much serious system-analysis of the economy. Even the present day rebellion against “the ruling elite” does barely dare touch the holiest tenets of private Capitalism such as the right to invest money in businesses. Because of this, this “anti-elite” rebellion may end up being an insignificant ripple on the surface of society that will die away when the main characters die away. Since the early days of anti-Capitalist struggle, the ideological battle-line has become: the people in favor of Trade, and the people in favor of nationalizing the banks. Unfortunately both sides wouldn't quite agree that this was the extend of their disagreement, because the people who favor Trade also favor “free private finance” as “an extension of market logic”, and the people who favor nationalizing banks also favored nationalizing most if not all industry, turning everything into large collectively run companies. An interesting occurrence of being divided and conquered. Today both systems have failed: first Capitalism failed, then – although it was hardly allowed to exist at all – Communism failed and collapsed back into already and renewed capitalist failure, such as wars and the threat of all kinds of bad things, pollution, poverty, world war, etc. That is the present condition. Communism in practice has failed so far to replace a failed system. This double failure presents great advantages, because we know of so many things now that we shouldn't do. Never did we have so much information on how to build a better system.

When you think about it, this is really quite funny isn't it. Because both sides, to the degree they mean well, hold half of the truth. Trade and market-operations can work, they keep businesses straight, the products popular, and people in reach of some power and even adventure (running the business). Hardly anyone is alive that contests this in principle. On the other hand the nationalizing of the investment sector is not contradictory with a free market economy. This is because the private investment-sector can not be understood at all as being part of productive company competition for consumer favors. It does not produce anything, it does not work, rather “it controls,” or “it enters a state of risk-taking.” Like the word says: it is a natural government function, and its productive capacity to the degree it exists is that of decision making. It all belongs under “the People's democracy”. Their true and effective democracy, as opposed to the Capitalist influenced irresponsible government. Even government succumbs to the “market pressure” of private Capital, even government can't be its real self, the kind of government it would be if only faced with voter pressure, voters free from private finance effects (such as subservient media, hacked history books, etc).

The obvious solution to the economic problem of finance, is to turn it into a political tool directed by democracy, and that it is heavily reduced as a market factor even if used by Government. This changes control over finance from private gambling and dictatorial investment-banker control, to democratic Government control, a step up in Democracy. When markets become overrun with Capital, they do respond proportionally less to market pressures. This solution to the problem of finance, though solving the most important negative long term factor in the economy, is not immediately reducing the existence and emergence of the exploitive companies that private Capital likes to invest in, but it can and should work against them and not like a catalyst like private finance is. An essential point is that private finance is being seen as bad across the board, hence all laws that make the life of private Capital easy are to be removed.

A second phase of the solution takes on the actual markets. The actual markets are made up of companies, and when these are dictatorial they cause the same problems that a country run by dictatorship does. It causes less capable leadership to have power, oppression and exploitation, hopelessness and injustices, etc. A convenient solution is: when a company has grown to some size, and the original starter leaves, the company then becomes by definition a democracy. This solves the inheritance problem, nobody but the original starter has a natural right to rule as dictator, and nobody has more right then the workers to take over the company. This prevents the emergence of an incompetent “ruling elite/class.” Problems melt away by the minute ? Sure, and why not. A business starter has a natural right to be a dictator, because it made the business to what it is, proving it to be probably a capable worker and leader, proved by the existence of the company (in principle at least).

Next big problem: ownership. Ownership has boggled the hell out of the Marxists. They thought it be best to pretend there wasn't a problem by hoping they could do away with the concept of ownership altogether, pretend everyone owned everything. It didn't work. But in the earlier days of anti-Capitalist struggle they did get many things exactly right, such as that ownership should be taken away from the ownership monopolists, and that finance should be nationalized. Ultimately all this is a fight of democracy versus dictatorship. On a global, national but also company scale, and for the individual. To remove dictatorship, give power to the people. Ownership is a strong power, therefore I propose to give people fractional ownership rights to the resources of the Earth, at least in principle. This presents on the face of it major logistical problems. But these can be solved by turning “ownership of a fraction of the Earth” into an abstract right, embedded in an accounting system that can both re-accept land and hand it back out. What you can do with the resources is to be limited, perhaps it is therefore not justified to speak of ownership. But it represents real individual power for people nevertheless, you can decide to which company/person you may want to lend out your “right”, or use it yourself within the confines of the general limits for that particular resource type/place. This gives individuals power, and power is what it “is all about”, isn't it. Where the power is the money goes, and there is no satisfying life without power. Needless to say, setting up such a system that it would actually work well, is not going to be straightforward. But in concept it seems good, in practice possible with enough good will (where there is a will ... ).

These things would achieve a free-market economy, in which many companies would be run ultimately by the workers, probably by a representative democratic organization system. The companies would no longer face the hostile and negative second hidden hand of private finance, the effects of its gambling, which are problematic in the long run and by definition a burden (a needless tax). People who want to gamble can go to the Casino. No gambling on other people as if they were horses on a race track. It is immoral and it does not work. The Islam got that right, as did the early Christians and Jews, all major movements which noticed the problem of private finance. So did the early Communists. And it is still true, it is up to us to formulate our answer. I suggest we root it out with root and branch, make its life difficult and illegal, and set a functioning alternative in its place. Weed can't grow back where there is no space anymore. If the problem of finance is solved alternatively, and if private finance is faced with problems, then its second hidden hand in the markets (the first hand is consumer preferences) is proportionally reduced, and the economy should be proportionally better in the long run (decades/centuries). Even if the problem can not be utterly destroyed – there could be some illegal private finance gambling - there should be benefits, it is not a make or break problem. Any set-back for the private finance sector in favor of consumer preference and political democracy is worthwhile in principle (not counting violent reactionary terrorist activity by the private finance sector to hold on to its unjustified privileges).

All this is of course nice in theory, but what about practice. One of the main problems is the private Capitalist financiers, banks and international finance institutions, who will not like this idea all that much. They have a lot to lose. But there is a solution for them: simply decide that the local currency will be without any value, and that savings and debts within certain limits have been transported to a new currency. This collapses all power of the private financiers, investor banks, who become nationalized and part of the Government. That way the financiers have lost everything, and therefore they can't hurt the economy anymore. Problem solved. There is probably a course somewhere for them to follow, so they can become productive workers. It should make them proud. With most of their money gone, they can finance no more terrorists, wars and military coups against democracies.

Why talk about scandals and conspiracies, if at the end of the day we're not actually going to do something. Proposing an alternative and making it real. Doing something will end up being much more satisfying, even if it fails. Then we'll know ever more for next time. I propose a long term strategy of talking and thinking spanning at least several decades before confident majority action can be undertaken with the least amount of resistance. Without overwhelming majority support this won't work, because it involves strong democratic controls on the state. Without a majority the state would relapse into private Capital corruption, without a large majority the system would be unstable/chaotic. It takes time for a majority to develop itself, especially if confidence and understanding are required.

Jos Boersema (Holland, Groningen; certified office cleaner)

Fur further reading (analysis, constitution proposal and revolutionary theory – let's hope it doesn't have to come to a full scale popular revolution, but “all options are on the table”, right?), see: In short: distributing power into finer, brighter and wider hands. See also for a shortest version possible.

DAVID text simulation

D.A.V.I.D. small scale text simulation

This is a text simulation of the D.A.V.I.D. law system, scaled down to comprise only 100 persons in order to keep the complexity small, makes it easier to see that/if the system has no holes. The parameters are simplified to make it easier to compute. The example only accounts for adults able to work for simplicity.

  100 Persons: p1, p2, p3, ... p99, p100
  90 x 100x100 meter of farmland.
  90 x 100x100 square meter of nature, some of which viable for a variety of economic activities, such as logging.
  30 x 100x100 meter of land is occupied by roads and other public areas, such as squares, parking lots, a waste dumping area, a Government building.
  30 x 100x100 meter of land is occupied by private homes.
  One river producing fish roughly equal in economic value to the average produce of 10 x 100x100 meter of farmland.

The National Government comprises a single meeting of 100 persons, where decisions are made by majority vote. A meeting is called when a serious problem comes up, or otherwise once a month.

- The Government has set aside the above mentioned areas for either nature, of which some parts for limited economic use such as non destructive logging and hunting, it set aside the land used for roads as public area, it declared the lands already build as meant for buildings, it has found 90 x 100x100 meter of farmland which was decided could not be used for anything but farming and light farming oriented buildings, such as barns. If a person would want to build something on designated farm land, he/she would file a request to the Government, then the farm-land usage issue would be looked at again in light of the request. Each person gets a resource right equal to 100x100 farmland and 30x30 meter of private home space.
- Each person goes to the resource bank of the Government, and comes away with a description of either "100x100 farmland place yet to be determined," or "100x100 exact location: ......". Each person also comes away with the area of their private home. 10 people live small, they transfer 20x20 of their living right into an additional 10x10 farmland, which has been confirmed to exist. 10 persons live large and have big gardens also suitable for farming, they have taken a farming right the size of their private gardens, leaving 5 of them with only 20x20 meter of farm land right in reserve, and 5 of them came 20x20 meter of land right short of having the right to have their garden under their control. 2 of them decide to give up part of their garden, 3 of them decide they will put up a bid to hire someone its farm land right. They offer a nominal amount of money to the total value of 1 days of average work income per month. Some people see the offer and take it up, these people now retain 80x80 meter of farm-land in reserve.
- 25 persons, p1-p25 are farmers. They quickly put up bids in order to hire the land they want to farm. To prevent one farmer to get control of all the land, a Government meeting is convened. It is decided that the maximum rent price for 100x100 meter of farm land will be 3 days of average work per month. It is decided that any one farmers can't control more then 10% of all available farm land, and that if imbalance proves to be a problem additional taxes will be levied on farmers per their amount of farm land under control. 80 persons make a contract with one of the farmers to hire their land, the left over people seem to want to leave the land barren for now. The division of farm-land between the farmers goes in an acceptable way. The Government convenes and appoints a small 5 man commission that would see to it that the land is divided fairly, serious problems would be reported back to the main meeting for resolution.
- 3 persons decide they want to exploit the river, they have taken out a fishing right on the river expected to be roughly equal in economic value to the farm-land. They put out an offer for more fishing rights, 5 persons convert their unused farm-land right into a fishing right, and hire it to the would be fishing industry.
- 2 persons decide they want to log in the forest and put up the occasional trap for wild meat to sell. They switch their farming right into a logging right. The Government meeting is unable to decide yet what the value of the timber is going to be, therefore is unable to decide on a logging concession, allowing the loggers to go at it as if their own right to log is up to the limit nature can sustain, half for each. When it proves more valuable, the right will be shrunk, so that the loggers will have to hire more logging rights from others. When it proves less valuable, the right will be expanded, and the loggers will get additional farming land rights, which is also convertible into fishing rights.
- The Government keeps an eye on the average profitability of the various resource using activities, making sure that the size of the rights of use remains more or less equal. It is decided to review these problems, and to levy a tax on everyone to a value of 2 days of work a month, so that that money can later be used to straighten out apparent differences over the past year in the profitability of various resources.
- The remaining 72 persons start working in a variety of needed trades, such as home building, schooling children, a hospital, a mill to produce flour from grain, a cloth making company to produce clothing from wool from sheep and cotton, a printing company for paper and ink.
- The Government decides on a fiat money system, the printing company will produce hard to forge bills. It is decided to coin some coins because they wear down less quickly. The metal for the coins will be bought for an amount of wool from a nearby country, because there is no metal mine in the Country. The Government decides to start the money system by giving everyone 1.000 money units. The Government decides it will levy a taxation on everyone, needed to pay for the road maintenance, the policeman, the judge, and the doctor who is also payed for as a public convenience from taxation, since the sick are unable to work [note that this is not necessary, but it is one possible option]. The policeman is charged with tax collection, the Judge will rule in disputes on all kinds of issues. The Government decided who will be the police and who will be the Judge. Both end up doing the job part time. The policeman therefore also doubles as a fire-brigade and is a part time farmer [Well, it is a tiny group, isn't it. Full scale this would not be part time.]
- The Government decides that it will be useful to have a non-profit lending system, so that persons can purchase goods asynchronous to making expected earnings. It is decided a small part time committee of 5 will manage it. The paper and ink and other expenses will be payed for by taxation. Some people complain that taxes get too high, but they quickly realize that they may on occasion need credit. The majority decides it will be done.

Now how does this run for for instance p1.
P1 is a farmer. He makes his crops, paying an amount of soil rent to those he has contracts with every month. He pays for that rent by selling his crops. In a bad year he will take a loan, and pay that back later. If someone wants to increase the soil rent, he has the option to either find another willing person within one month to own that land, if that is successful he will rent the land from that new person, pushing the previous contract holder out. If that is not successful, he will have to accept the new rate, or stop renting it. In practice this will not get out of hand, because of the Government enforced rent maximum. This means the farmer is quite secure in its farm. If for some reason soil rent prices are quite high, he will (have to) compute that through into crop prices. The costumers will be able to pay easier for the high crop prices, having gotten more money from the higher soil prices. The two effects of high rent and high crop prices cancel each other out naturally. In practice this effect will be mixed with other economic factors like who owns what and who buys what, it is not exactly one to one exactly, but it is a stabilizing factor in principle. The money just goes round and round through the system, as it is supposed to.

- The Government (that is the meeting of everyone) decides that it will be unacceptable if one person comes to own more then 5 times the average of everyone. The policeman will see to it that nobody becomes too rich, because that is not good for everyone. The decision is that a rich person should simply take a rest or a vacation, instead of always trying to better everyone else all the time. That would just cause anger to build up. "Enough is enough," and "we don't need that!" were heard that day in city hall ;-) ...

Another person is p30, p30 is making thread from wool. She gets some minimum income to the value of 2.5 days work per month from renting out a fishing right. Since she doesn't need a lot of soil for her clothing company, she had a natural resource right to spare. She buys wool from the sheep farms, turns it into thread and then into various clothing. She also buys other types of fibers suitable for making clothing. For this she needed to buy a couple of machines, which she could not afford at first. She applied for a business credit, and got the money from the Government. She didn't need to promise to give any new employees in her business a fair wage that deviated not too much from her own income, and neither that she would give her company to her employees if any if she retired, because that was already the law and therefore inescapable for all businesses. She used the money to buy the machines she needed. The credit she would pay back over 10 years, using the machines as collateral. This inflated the money supply somewhat, therefore the Government did not fund any other new businesses that year, and raised taxation a little. That way the value of money was retained as it had been. When the money would be re-payed, that would leave more spending room for the Government, and that way the value would come back for everyone. At the end of the 10 years there would be a little less money then usual, allowing the Government to print some additional money, and issue a tax cut because the budged would already be in, for instance.

Now to follow a single coin. The coin is struck, and lands in the Government's secret vault (a sock under the policeman's bed.) From there the Government switches a badly used coin that it got as yearly taxes from the printing company out, and puts the good coin back in, as if nothing had happened. Only the old coin was switched for the new. The Government decided the long road needed some repairs, therefore it bought 2 days work to repair holes from 3 persons (p89, p90, p91 for instance). P90 gets the coin as payment, and uses it to buy a cup of coffee and sandwich in the village bakery. The village bakery puts the coin in a savings account with the local money protection bank, because a thief has been going around and nobody knew yet who it was. The savings account service is a part time business run by the judge. After 6 month, the bakery owner (a working owner), takes all the cash out of the savings account, and pays the judge for the service, but not with our coin. The bakery owner then goes to the clothing shop, and buys a new coat for which he had been saving up. The coin then lands in the clothing shop, and she uses it to pay back part of her loan on the machines she bought on credit. The Government marks down her outstanding loan on receiving the money among which our coin. The Government accountant is suddenly out of ink, and uses our coin to buy ink from the printing company, and the coin is going again.

And they lived long and became happy people; and so did their animals. map example


How does this scale up to 30.000.000 persons ? It would likely work better, because with more persons there is more room for specialized and professional/dedicated businesses in all possible areas of endeavor. The Government would not need to worry about a single credit to a single company, but loans out and in would balance themselves. It will also be easier to conduct trade with foreign Nations, for instance for raw materials, the Government itself will be run more professionally by specialized full time people.


How does this scale to persons ? Since persons would be grouped (grouping) in sovereign countries of roughly 30.000.000 persons, a group of would consist of a large number of individual and separately organized economic D.A.V.I.D. systems, roughly 300 such groups. Each group will experience the rewards and punishments of how well they keep their own DAVID economy up and functioning. Some groups may experience hardship because corruption occurred, but other groups will be totally unaffected by that, as they are separate and independent. If some groups suffer from corruption, others may even do better because of certain trade repercussions: if an iron producing Nation is doing badly for itself because of high crime, then other iron producing Nations might fetch a somewhat higher price internationally, for lessening competition on the international iron market. The great multitude of independent DAVID economic systems (aka sovereign Countries), provides for a tremendous potential to review the policies and experiences of other Nations, and take full advantage of each others successes and failures. With 300 Nations running side by side there is unlikely to be a shortage of such information, but the world would be running over with the abundance of different experiences with different policy decisions. With 300 fully sovereign Nations, this will also intrinsically make the world a more interesting and varied place. With so many Nations, not one Nation, not one single policy decision can destroy the entire world. Damage would always be local to the Nation itself, whereas policy successes can be quickly spread throughout the world through popularity resulting from actual verifiable results. Each Nation will then decide for itself what it is going to do with the historical information, if anything. The system scales even better to a group of, then it does for just a single 30.000.000 group.