Search the Community

Back in 1984 I decided to do my civic duty and vote in the presidential election. I knew then that it was an exercise in futility but I wanted to experience the actual thing. The only candidate that had anything in common with me was the Libertarian candidate ... so I duly voted for him. I felt really good about voting ... the glow lasted for about 10-15 minutes then flagged as I recalled that it was utterly pointless. Some time later I began a project to create my own government (on paper) wherein my voting would be meaningful ... if this was at all possible. This took the form of writing a formal constitution using as the initial model the US constitution. I wrote and rewrote all manner of more or less bizarre rules as I fluffed up the manuscript and alternately stripped it down. After about 6 months of such fluffing and stripping my "constitution" was becoming more and more streamlined and shorter ... shorter is what I wanted most ... short means "if it's possible at all, it must be simple". It finally dawned on me that there is only one political question. It is this. "Who says what goes?" Armed with this 'fact', I proceeded to fluff and strip away and finally went for the "gold" ... the solution to all of man's governmental problems ... in 50 words or less. Yup ... 50 ... count 'em ;o) -------------------------------------------------- Each individual shall have the right to: Cast one personal vote Receive votes from others Recall those votes and Cast them for another Votes must be given to one personal acquaintance A representative must have not less than twice the votes of any of his electors The highest representative rules -------------------------------------------------- I won't explain these rules in detail because, as part of this post, I'd like to see if people can actually understand the rules without further elucidation. That's important. To work correctly, anyone must understand, almost intuitively, what's supposed to happen. It's a control system that if well understood shouldn't go "out of control", i.e. go over to the dark side. Conjectures: 1) This form should produce a bottom up representative government immune to gross corruption. 2) Government is not "inherently" evil. It's simply a hierarchical control system (albeit with guns). The reason it hasn't worked so far is that it's like a circus performer first learning to balance on a cylinder while standing on a wood board ... he ALWAYS fails ... then, finally ... success. With experience, it becomes very easy and pleases the crowd. 3) A bottom up representative government will shrink to least control (maximized freedom) ... as opposed to top down government that expands control to totality (enslavement). 4) A constitution is for the army to read ... not so much for the people. It's the young men in the army who will be called upon to enforce the constitution. These guys, at 19, don't understand complex philosophical arguments and are easily turned by sophists ... but they do understand command and control systems. They can understand these terms very well. It would be difficult to confuse even the gruntiest grunts into supporting a gross violation of the command structure. Questions: 1) What do you think? 2) Would this make a viable transitional form if rational anarchy is indeed the 'final destination'? 3) What would happen if the Libertarian Party held this form and put the highest representative on the presidential ballot? 4) What if someone as logically effective as Stefan Molyneux was the candidate? 5) What if the presidential election were held on the internet and the denizens therein declared by fiat that their election was the only valid election? At what point would the army follow the "People's Election" and ignore the mainstream? 6) What if there was an online government at the ready to take over after the "collapse"? 7) What if they printed their own debt free currency and distributed it to the party members, i.e. anyone at all who wanted to join? 8) What if the duly elected members of that party received those monies in quantities proportional to the votes they received? Would this suffice to do a "full restart" of civilization if such were required after a catastrophic collapse? 9) What if the online truth community created their own "shadow government" that ruled on every topic that the mainstream governments did and ... by their utter variance ... showed the people what 'proper government' would do in that specific instance? Would the people want to hear that opinion lucidly expressed from the representatives of an actual political party that could be their own "sticking place"? Would they not then experience a moral, intellectual and ethical congruence with rationality that would be to the good of all? Thank you for reading this far... and, in advance, for any comments generated.