posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:33 AM
Further to my previous post, I earnestly believe that a form of "inverted feudalism" could provide a better method of social policy framework.
I use "feudalism" as a term of reference since most people are aware that it involved a closed communal group at differing levels of hierarchy that
owed allegiance to a "head".
Closed communities could be geographically grouped peoples, i.e. towns and villages that choose to be represented as "feudal" entities. However,
rather than power being asserted from the "top-down" as in the historical model, power is asserted from the people-up. The communities are small
enough for the real voice of the people to be heard and to run their locality.
Of course, there are some attributes that require a larger infrastructure - health care in the form of hospitals, policing and the armed forces.
However, these could be derived from reasonable taxation and controlled by accountable members of the social hierarchy, voted for and in confidence of
The most important negative aspect of this would be the introduction of communal borders. However, is this such a bad thing? Our own borders start
at our front-door, then to our property perimeter, then to our road or street and upward until we lose sight of our own community. Why should we not
reclaim our communities and have pride in them, protect them.
This may seem an anathema to the current all-inclusive model of society, but the fact is that humans do not work well in this scenario. We are by
nature, tribal although we can probably work well in numbers of around 15,000 max - i.e. a "town".
I'd like to hear of reasons why a this model would not work, right up to a national scale. We try to do it naturally, why can we not support it
physically so that we once again have government by the people for the people. Accountability of government right on our streets.
Of course, the politically correct fear is one of "exclusion" - The people that don't fit into the "local" model are simply exiled. Is this such
a bad thing for harmony and social normality. We are by nature tribal and all tribes have exhibited a policy of exclusion for the betterment of the
people rather than the person. We don't need to revert to whipping them through the streets but it would negate many of the social ills that we see
What do other people think? The question of whether "we need money" has a far greater implication for social policy than just the form of value
that we trade to survive.