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.

 

My idea for a new system of governance

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
What i propose is we all collectively decide to stop funding national governments and return to communal governance. Small groups of 100-200 people who are basically like an extended family, probably consisting of several different extended families connected through marriage.

That way, there would be no need for police, or military, or anything of the sort, because the fabric of society would be held together through familial love, and wrong-doers would be reprimanded with mercy, like parents punish their children. I believe most people are good, and that if we took care of each other, we could take care of the few bad apples who are not very nice people. And there would be fewer people like that if society functioned better, only the mentally ill would be violent and they would be very rare if there was no poverty and we had a better diet and medicine.

There would not be a global government per se, but a tiered system, starting with individual, then community, then tribes of several different communities in a locality, then confederations of tribes (this would be analogous to the modern day nation and would cover a similar population and land area), and these confederations would bring out representatives to the Earth Council, which would in turn speak to the Galactic Council once we are re-united with our ET relatives in the galaxy. The Earth Council would basically collect information on the Internet and make sure justice and peace were stable throughout the world, and take action (non-violent if possible) to stop any injustices that developed among communities.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
You know, the founding fathers had no intention of these 50 states being one massive behemoth of a country that marched to one drummer. It was basically an umbrella government that would just provide security and interstate commerce rules to all of these "smaller" communities call states. At that time the population of the states was nothing like it is now.

So if you want what you desire then we simply need to move back towards a smaller federal government and a constitutional way of thinking. Tomorrow is constitution day and I suggest everyone read it and think about what the founders were trying to say when they wrote it. It’s not far off from what you desire.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
aw thats cute: aren't we all ready connected though small families we have political families, gangster families, families of economic power etc and that whole judicial system of punishment from within the family exist here in Australia were aboriginals have an elder heading there magistrate but it doesn't really work and its in outter communities and reserves. really ad some sophistication to your post (fart)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


A good understanding and implementation of the 10th Amendment would solve many of our Federal ills." Those powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal government shall belong to the states" - to paraphrase slightly.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


How would this work in the city? Or even in the suburbs?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


Hey great idea man. I am down, what do you want to call it?

Thankfully this is what the world is moving to. My only question is is this, what do you propose for the cities?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The cities?

Well, there would be communities living within the cities!!!! For example, an apartment building might all be considered one community.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

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



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.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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?


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.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

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


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. There would also be modern universities ran by the tribal confederation.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

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.

And those in the cities?


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.

Why not? What if that's what they choose?

More importantly, why is having a group of elders (who get the position presumably just by being older) making group decisions better than having a group of elected representatives do the same?


This society would not be based on growth, but on sustainability and maxing out happiness.

If they wanted to grow, who'd stop them? If they wanted to merge, who'd stop them?


Art would be highly valued.

How would you impose your values onto the rest of the country/ rest of mankind? This sounds less like a 'new' (actually it's been proposed many times before, and actually sounds a little like the anarcho-communist wet dream) system of governance and more like your own version of utopia.


Education would be done either by the kids' parents, or by other people in the community.

What if they're not very clever?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
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.
And those in the cities?

The cities would be no different from the countryside, aside from the communities being close together.


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.

Why not? What if that's what they choose?

More importantly, why is having a group of elders (who get the position presumably just by being older) making group decisions better than having a group of elected representatives do the same?

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. 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.


This society would not be based on growth, but on sustainability and maxing out happiness.

If they wanted to grow, who'd stop them? If they wanted to merge, who'd stop them?

The zeitgeist of this era will laugh at how foolish the endless growth of the 20th century was.


Art would be highly valued.

How would you impose your values onto the rest of the country/ rest of mankind? This sounds less like a 'new' (actually it's been proposed many times before, and actually sounds a little like the anarcho-communist wet dream) system of governance and more like your own version of utopia.

Everyone loves art and entertainment.


Education would be done either by the kids' parents, or by other people in the community.

What if they're not very clever?

Then maybe someone from another community would be sent over?


edit on 19-9-2010 by 19872012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

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'?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

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.


Fair enough.

As for the schooling, home-schooling is already becoming much more popular, and with the Net, it's easier to teach even if you're not that smart.

Cruel justice is justice that's meant for retribution and not to solve the issue. Or worst, for onlooker's entertainment. Also, justice that requires torture or death.

As for the art part, well, I guess that's my opinion, but I really think pretty much all human beings at least value some art (such as music).

And the cities - urban agriculture. =]



edit on 22-9-2010 by 19872012 because: (no reason given)




edit on 22-9-2010 by 19872012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join