It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IAMIAM
reply to post by 19872012
Interesting idea my friend,
Would you mind clarifying for me something though. What is the difference between 50 people deciding what you can do, and 50 people who represent 500 deciding what you can do?
Secondly, how would you finance this endeavor, ie. what kind of trade system would you put in place?
With Love,
Your Brother
Originally posted by 19872012
The larger a nation is, the less accurately and less connected the leaders are to the people. Even a US state has several million people on average, and attracts sociopaths and opportunists more than humanitarians to the seats of power.
I think there should be a system where people get paid "hours" instead of dollars or pounds or pesos, where an hour of work is a currency.
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by 19872012
The larger a nation is, the less accurately and less connected the leaders are to the people. Even a US state has several million people on average, and attracts sociopaths and opportunists more than humanitarians to the seats of power.
I think there should be a system where people get paid "hours" instead of dollars or pounds or pesos, where an hour of work is a currency.
Thank you for elaborating on your thought my friend. Now let me ask you this as we flesh out your idea. How many people do you trust absolutely to have power over you?
On the money issue, will everyone be getting paid the same amount of hours regardless of what their job is?
And, once you leave your community what if they don't accept your hour "credits" in their localised economy, or is this a world wide thing?
Originally posted by 19872012
This new system would be about the community ruling itself, like a household does. Essentially it's post-political.
Yes, everyone would get paid the same amount. A janitor would make as much as a lawyer. The lawyer would be rewarded for their hard studying by having a job they enjoyed.
Each community would register online to a database of communities all around the world, and the Earth Council would approve each community as having legit currency.
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by 19872012
This new system would be about the community ruling itself, like a household does. Essentially it's post-political.
Yes, everyone would get paid the same amount. A janitor would make as much as a lawyer. The lawyer would be rewarded for their hard studying by having a job they enjoyed.
Each community would register online to a database of communities all around the world, and the Earth Council would approve each community as having legit currency.
I like where you are going with this my friend. Elaborate a bit if you don't mind. Build your structure from ground up. Think of things such as how would you supply the communities, how would you administer justice/settle disputes, how would you manage growth (can't forget the kiddies), don't forget culture and education. Build on what you got. Let your imagination run wild and lets see how it goes.
I'll be back to the thread in a bit. I think you have an interesting start for sure.
Thanks for sharing.
With love,
Your Brother
Originally posted by 19872012
The communities would be self-sufficient in food and water. If water in the area was scant, they would have access to a water line joint-operated by multiple tribes, probably from a desalination plant.
Justice and disputes would be settled in-group. A group of elders might choose the course of action. Though there would be nothing as cruel as the death penalty or life in prison.
This society would not be based on growth, but on sustainability and maxing out happiness.
Art would be highly valued.
Education would be done either by the kids' parents, or by other people in the community.
Justice and disputes would be settled in-group. A group of elders might choose the course of action. Though there would be nothing as cruel as the death penalty or life in prison.
This society would not be based on growth, but on sustainability and maxing out happiness.
Art would be highly valued.
Education would be done either by the kids' parents, or by other people in the community.
Originally posted by 19872012
The cities would be no different from the countryside, aside from the communities being close together.
Apart from having next-to-no natural resources, making them far more reliant on the communities outside for help. Sort of like now, but with no big central government making sure resources get where they're needed.
Well they might not necessarily be older, but the groups would essentially be large families, and the people agreed to be the wisest would be the chiefs.
Sounds pretty familiar.
I guess I couldn't be totally sure life in prison or the death penalty would never be used, but this social setup, IMO, would emphasize compassion over cruel justice.
What, in your view, is 'cruel justice'?
he zeitgeist of this era will laugh at how foolish the endless growth of the 20th century was.
Which didn't answer my question at all.
Everyone loves art and entertainment.
Not everybody. Certainly not enough to make art a central part of the governmental system.
Then maybe someone from another community would be sent over?
Why can't schools just be managed by your 'tribal confederation'?
Originally posted by 19872012
Larry, I will answer all your points, but first - I want to ask you - do you think the current nation-state, people with gold making the rules system is better than my idea?
Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
Originally posted by 19872012
Larry, I will answer all your points, but first - I want to ask you - do you think the current nation-state, people with gold making the rules system is better than my idea?
If your idea could be made to work, I would love it. It reminds me a little of anarcho-communism, which is also something I like in theory. I just don't think it could be put into practice on anything even resembling a nationwide scale.
That said, I don't really believe the current idea of the nation-state is so bad. I feel it could do with a lot of reform, but I see government as necessary to guarantee basic freedoms and to hold society together.