… under reasonable law.
In order for society to function with as few abuses as can be achieved by an architecture of economics and the State, it seems best for all individuals to have as much power as reasonably possible under a common law. Since this proposed work is rather substantial, taking some 15 years to develop, the following graphic is meant to provide a systematic overview of its major topics.
coThe purpose is not to say something new about these topics, but rather to create a balanced whole of past practices which together will hopefully prove more difficult to corrupt. It is a systematic implementation of the principle Distribute power, with its emphasis on the danger of internal betrayal from whatever side, as should be the concern for any democratic system of State, and any free market designed to remain open. For a proper understanding you are invited to study the here provided book ‘Distribute Power.’ Thank you for your interest.
A system of economics and Government is developed here, with the following features. ① Private ownership of an equal value share of the natural resources in the Nation as an inalienable right for all, with a swap and rental market. ②Anyone can start their business on their land and run it as they see fit, including hiring of employees, but when the starter leaves the business and the business has a substantial size it will have to reform as a co-operative. ③ Measures against extreme power centralization: a high maximum on private wealth, a maximum on the size of a business, maximum Capital for a business, no for profit investment in dictatorial businesses, maximum on lending to a business. ④ A more democratic State, allowing the immediate control of all Representatives. The economy overall is a (free) market.
The State overall has separation (balance) of powers, manages the necessary bureaucracy and public sector, legislates, levies taxation for its budget, etc. The State is prohibited from managing the economy, it is not a planned economy but a dynamic meritocracy of free people. The fabulously rich in the economy are not allowed to exist, so that they will not manage the State. The Nation will have a size small enough to make its people have a practical say over their Government. Freedom of speech and assembly are guaranteed, including the right to again change and overturn this system. People who would prefer a variation of this system or even something quite different might still want to support it as a first step, to achieve the freedoms (and land!) necessary to realize their ideas. Note that a lot should be possible for individuals and groups of any size within this system, without the need for Sovereign Secession, even though that right is guaranteed for contiguous groups larger than 1 million.
The implementation methodology comprises of 9 ways:
① Buy fair trade (from small businesses, small land owners, co-operatives).
② Set up new co-operative, small land owning businesses and funds. Also buy land.
③ Engage existing politics, set up a party.
④ Set up a new Government by electing delegates with 50 persons, first as a good cause.
⑤ Set up Militias to defend anyone their right to free speech & assembly (oppose tyranny).
⑥ If an open front war against a tyrannical army breaks out, reform as a regular army.
⑦ If we get defeated, reform as a leaderless cell resistance.
⑧ If even that gets defeated, try to hide the truth & the way for a better day.
If there is one recurring problem with the debate, it is the semantics of the name. “Market Socialism” ? “Distributism” ? Freedom, equality, brotherhood ? Democracy ? Republic ? Free market ? Capitalism, Socialism, Communism ? Anarchy ? Let’s get past the buzz words. The name does not matter, or as the saying goes: don’t judge a book by its cover, even though the cover of this book is quite nice, isn’t it. I like it, anyway. I hope you do too. It got a nice ring on it, what more could you want. The best things in life are free !
Detail versus Shallowness
Some properties of this proposal that you can expect: It is detailed and long. Every single thing is reasoned out. It is hopefully not obscure, but some things might take some thinking on the part of the reader. The bulk of the book is a Constitution. Reading laws or a Constitution is not as easy as some prose.
Without the necessary detail, an economic or state ideology is weak in practice. “Freedom”, “Solidarity”, “Equality”: it can mean anything if the detail is not hammered out clearly. Imagine yourself somehow the owner of a fresh Revolution, anything you say will be done. Now you are going to implement a buzzword ideology. The problems of the Nation are flying you in the face, moment by moment. The time to think it through has passed, you should already have known what to do, how, and what the consequences will be.
How can the people supporting an ideology get what they want, if they do not bother to spell out what they want in detail ? There appears to be a rather serious void of detail in most ideologies, possibly leading to some of the great catastrophes of history. One might even conclude that most tragedy in history has been caused by shallowness of ideology. One day the slogan was “democracy!” A few years later, who became the owner of that Revolution crowns himself Emperor. Did someone forgot to cross a t ? Democracy: how exactly ?
Whatever this book here is, it is not a shallow book devoid of detail. This book is supposed to propose a system which is ready to be implemented, without causing more confusion than can be remedied in the moment. Putting even more detail into it than it has now, starts to seem unwise. This book does not need to define traffic law, nor a criminal code for the usual offenses, etc. We have those. The powers to alter them and effectuate them are set up. Although it is in theory possible to implement everything here proposed at once, it is better to slowly massage improvements into the existing order, starting just with the personal choices of a few people within the society they are living in.
The problem is not only: what is the best system for the happiness of all, the greater problem is: can you live that way. Incidentally that question also affects the current order, which is sometimes overlooked. The conclusion about people being able to live in the currently existing order is: no, the people generally are not capable of living in the current order, because they make a war and a catastrophe out of it on a regular bases. On the other hand, the current order hobbles on to a degree. It sometimes degrades slowly or collapses suddenly, it reforms with some minor alterations in varying directions. It is doubtful that this can be called a success. Could it be a little better, maybe ?
It remains to be seen if the here proposed order is an improvement in practice, although it seems better in theory. It seems this proposal should be better due to its more refined power distribution and balance. On the other hand it does not take much for a population to ruin a good thing. Hopefully the order given in this proposal can better cope with an amount of misbehavior by the population, but everything has its limits.