Kicking around the idea of Nodular Anarchy / Micro Communism

I was thinking since both anarchy and communism were never achieved in history(because of private interests defending their dominance). Why can we create a union of "city-nations"(nodes) in america that are anarchist or communist. They have no government and no tangible money. These "nodes" combine to create a country within a country. You can setup a colony of nodes in any country. We'll just stop buying the elitist products or use their institutions or their money. We'll make and use our own. We don't need them they need us.



1)Institute an anarcho-syndicate union of nodes. There is a VERY limited tier of influence after that.
2)No FIAT money. Replace it with a Silver/gold based Debit/credit system. All electronic.
3)Everyone is paid a allowance based on how much you give back to the union node.Tier 1-10. Tier 10 has an unlimited cap.
4)Remove the income tax along with all taxes
5)Remove prisons for anything but rapists,murderers and child molesters. If you can't play ball with the community they just simply kick you out of it. Other communities also ban you from entry or sale/purchase of any goods.
6)All businesses are owned by the people that live in that union node EQUALLY. There are only 3 types of business entities. Not-for profit, worker union cooperative, and public service corporation. A Public service corporation is the same as a normal corporation except ownership is divided evenly between the populace of the node. Everyone has 1% ownership of all businesses in the node. No more no less.
7)private ownership of infrastructure is illegal. The public(populace of the local node)owns it.
8)Minimum income floor. Yes you can sit on your ass and still get your allowance but it is capped by Tier 1 community income rules. Only people on Tier 10 are not capped but they have to volunteer an insane amount of time/energy/expertise to the community.
9)There are no mayors,governors,presidents,congress,cfr,tlc etc. Only the people. The people run the nation.The people vote in every law,ordinance, etc.
10)giving your allowance to another person is illegal unless waived by the finance committee of the local node.
11)One constitution. Amendments have to be voted in by the nodes at above 75-80%.
12)Anyone not living in the node cannot vote in the node.
13)All personal records are accessible and you can see and understand how a ruling or a pay scale works. You also can see all the records of the nodes and rulings,laws,annulments,ordinances,etc. No secret cronyism No lobbyists No old boy networks.

Apparently u've never been in a Gang Neighbourhood lol

Originally posted by BobAthome
Apparently u've never been in a Gang Neighbourhood lol

anarchy does not == mob rule or tribalism.


There will be police,fire fighters, Anti-fraud etc.

I have something you should be interested in. It's not quite Micro Communism yet I hope it does the job!

Not far off from anarchism, Minarchists believe government should be limited to protecting the basic right of life, liberty, and property. They endorse a Night Watchman State, which is limited to Court, Police, and Military. Minarchists favor small, local or city level jurisdictions, rather than a large national government. Leaving anyone who doesn’t want to work or live under a certain municipality, be able to move to another jurisdiction easily. Although closely related to Market Anarchists, minarchism understands that government is inevitable, so instead of fight it, limit it.

Source

1. Every community has a pile of "stuff".
2. Every time you add stuff to the pile, your status increases.
3. Your status in the community determines how much you can take from the pile.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I was thinking since both anarchy and communism were never achieved in history(because of private interests defending their dominance). Why can we create a union of "city-nations"(nodes) in america that are anarchist or communist.

Because communism doesn't work.

Socialism necessarily MUST expand its territory of influence out to natural borders. It can not operate in any fashion unless the citizens of that area are prevented from leaving and new citizens are prevented from entering.

Otherwise you get the situation we have now in the United States with illegals.

Lets use two states as an example, say California and Nevada.

If California enacts huge social welfare programs while Nevada does not, the indigent citizens of Nevada will leave Nevada and head to California for the free handouts.

Because this necessarily burdens the California citizens with excessive taxes and destroys the California economy, productive working members of California's economy will head to Nevada due to the lower taxes and regulations.

So productive industry and workers will move out of CA while indigents will move into CA.

Eventually CA will have to prevent its citizens from leaving and prevent new indigents from arriving if it wishes to maintain its socialist economy.

This is why socialist policies are always pushed up to the national level.

When socialist policies are enacted at the national level, it makes it extremely difficult to run away from them by moving.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I might also add this is why Hitler was against state's rights and felt Lincoln did the right thing by waging war against the South.

Hitler was a huge advocate of what the North did during the civil war.

Lincoln's primary focus of the war was to maintain the union at all costs. Many people think the war was about slavery, which is not true at all. Lincoln actually wanted to ship all the blacks back to Africa and had made numerous offers to the south that included keeping slavery intact in order to prevent the south from leaving the union.

Lincoln was concerned with losing the ability to enact corporate welfare on a national level without worrying about industry fleeing his grasp.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I might also add this is why Hitler was against state's rights and felt Lincoln did the right thing by waging war against the South.

Hitler was a huge advocate of what the North did during the civil war.

Lincoln's primary focus of the war was to maintain the union at all costs.

Lincoln was concerned with losing the ability to enact corporate welfare on a national level without worrying about industry fleeing his grasp.

edit on 19-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

And Charlie Manson was a fan of what the south did prior to the war -
100% of all Grand Wizards approved of segregation.

Hitler believed immigrants, gays and liberals created the degradation of Germany culture and society.
Does this correlation of this fact, your mates rhetoric and ideas make you akin to Hitler???

Just continuing on the "logic"

I think either extreme creates Power, you contend that wealth alone cannot be converted into power and force, I believe this is why your later postulations always smell so funny to me, I have figured it out... Funny that the most maddening problem has a very simple variable waiting to be discovered. Amen!

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman



OP I think this proposition would extinguish individual determination and provided to be tyrannical in its
attempt to create equality. Someone will always find a way to exact control - if not thru economic dominance,
thru governmental artifice

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


you would need someone to donate an immense amount of private land, and even then, if the powers that be got suspicous they could easily turn the public against you " oh no! the nodes are after your sons and daughters!" and then bye, bye little nodes once the authorities come in. i suggest buying a private island and starting the colony there.

reply to post by Janky Red


Charles Manson wasn't a socialist dictator like Hitler or Lincoln.

You'll never find a socialist dictator in favor of state's rights because they know the exact scenario I just described would prevent them from implementing their corporate and social welfare programs.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

you would need someone to donate an immense amount of private land, and even then, if the powers that be got suspicous they could easily turn the public against you " oh no! the nodes are after your sons and daughters!" and then bye, bye little nodes once the authorities come in. i suggest buying a private island and starting the colony there.

edit on 19-11-2010 by snusfanatic because: (no reason given)

micronesia, or build a few in the carribean.

What about arizona,nevada or montana?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Charles Manson wasn't a socialist dictator like Hitler or Lincoln.

You'll never find a socialist dictator in favor of state's rights because they know the exact scenario I just described would prevent them from implementing their corporate and social welfare programs.

edit on 19-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a huge authoritarian fascist.

By the way all the nodes are population locked. If the node gets too big they make another node and put the runoff there. Like a bee hive.

reply to post by mnemeth1


First they strip private ownership of property:they don't tell you that inludes ownership of yourself, once"Ownership" is an out dated concept; along go the rights that are based on "ownership":i.e. right to life; privacy; free speech. Please spend time on Michael Badnariks constitution course( googlevideo is best 1hourblocks) its posted multiple times around ats you will see the evil that is the "Ism's" (i.e. communism/socialism"..) Rant off.

reply to post by 46ACE


The income floor is needed to deter desperation and crime. Give people the bare minimum if they just sit on thier asses. If they help the community they get a larger luxury allowance.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

We do that now.there are plenty of "safety net" programs.

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

We do that now.there are plenty of "safety net" programs.

They are not safety nets they are redistributed capitol. Even if your (soft)banned from the economy because there isn't enough work to go around your still not screwed. Desperation breeds crime.Small business and service industry lives off of socialist redistributed capitol. If they want the Benz or Hummer they need to participate with the community or live with their limited luxury allowance.

Private interests through the government,banks,creditors and corporations steal from us anyway. No we can run society ourselves. We don't don't need parasitic extensions(government/corporations) of a larger parasite (private interests) to feed on us and steal from us any longer.

What about making a floating island somewhere and go live there?
www.ehow.com...

That too fractured imo. I think the Declaration and the Constitution had the ideas right.

Each State is supposed to have the powers and rights of a Nation, unto itself.

The Union is comprised of a number Nation-States, each sending elected Reps. to a Union Capitol to form the Federal Government.

We have local government, it's just not payed much attention to. We need to start by paying more attention to local issues. Then, tie local governments more strongly to County governments and those, more strongly to State.

The issue isn't in the design. The issue in is that humans are so easily corrupted and manipulated.

The Federal Government has become a massive, over reaching, entity of it's own. It's independent of the States and in fact it continues to try and enforce it's views on the States in a broad and all encompassing manner. The Federal system was not meant to be a controlling entity. It was simply meant to be the manifestation of the combined will of the States.

The States need to take back much of the powers that the Federal Government has seized. They need to take more of the tax money and operate social programs, health care regulation, transportation and other programs for themselves, or in cooperation with other willing state partners.

Instead, the Feds have stuck their noses in everything and have limited any states ability to define it's own culture, economic policy, civil and social policies in a significant manner.

The Federal government should be making foundational economic policies (through the votes of the states) and defending the nation from OUTSIDE threats and handling National Union level political interactions.

The States should be doing almost everything else for themselves or in cooperation with other states on a State government level, imo.

All of the systems for this type of dynamic exist because it was this way more-so in the past. We still have these systems and still use them, but on a continuously marginalized level.

Smaller Federal government, more powerful states, means power is distributed and thus less corruptible. Any given state can go bonkers and defy the constitution or take unilateral action and the other states can act reign in the dangerous policies but if we centralize the power, all of the leadership takes on a more like minded set of values and is thus more corruptible.

Democracy is much like science. The key is dissent! There must be competing views and continuous debate in order for a democracy to manifest the overall will of it's people.