Call for governance structure proposals, in local Steemit vernacular.
Some proposed principles and options
Our planet, a framework to keep it
To sustain the wealth of diversity of our home; it’s ecology, peoples and cultures.
To utilize functionality from any ideology that helps us.
To provide equitable means of viable trade.
A structure to develop standards to provide as much protection as possible,
while allowing local and individual freedom of choice.
Heritage - our planet, ours to manage
Ideologies and Interest Groups - our planet, many perspectives
Currency - our planet
Capitalism - our planet not for sale
Rights and Responsibilities - our planet
This covers a lot of ground. There are many choices to be made and much work to be done. Develop a basic system with natural process of refinement. Or redesign. For everything. Everything related to governing those activities essential to our planet.
There are many choices I am prepared to make for myself. I hope to share these specific rights and responsibilities with people who are in many ways like minded. My personal choices are not the purpose of this article.
What I hope we can do is develop a set of choices that allow all people to choose with whom to work, live, and share choices. To do so we may develop global choices that maintain rights and responsibilities that apply to all individuals and groups.
There are behaviors supported by some major interest groups, that other groups would protect their members from. There is very little that must be agreed by all, to make coordination possible.
What are our needs? What nurtures us? We need the planet. Alive.
We need to use what we perceive. How fast can a meme travel? What is the speed of insight? (link to Imaginary Physics and Faith, later)
End Preamble
Anarchy sounds fine to me. Started with intent to write a short piece in multiple versions. Each saying the same thing but labeled differently and reworded accordingly. One each for socialism, democracy, ANCOM, religious freedom, corporate free enterprise, capitalism. Maybe a couple others. I still like the idea but this approach seems more forthcoming.
Many existing ideologies may contribute to what will be helpful. I’ve borrowed concepts liberally without tracking. I can credit mom for teaching me about sharing, siblings and peers for making it real, after that sources are difficult, references possible.
We can allow many forms of control, governance, to apply within differing ideologies (choice of groups including religious). Here are some intended toward a structure that integrates different choices primarily by choosing currency based on the net value of our resources. Living planet, air, water. soil, minerals, sunshine, extent of terrain, range of orbits and la grange points. Plus our knowledge, skills and intentions. Many data types and structures. Machinery, programs and AI.
Participation is optional. There are a few rules we can use as guidelines, for people who choose to work together, for large projects, research, some forms of education, response to dangers. Choosing how to share.
All people have equal "right" to bounty of earth. Earth is our heritage but few things come freely. Few feel secure in earth’s bounty without some controls.
We can have free enterprise the way it is, “free for all” so to speak, take what you can get. (part of what we may need to change to live)
OR
We can consider all of Earth’s resources the assets of all. Assets of all people, in terms of what we choose to extract for people. People are not assets of other individuals or the group interest. Except by contract.
Earth does not belong to people. Nurturing all life on the planet works out best for us. To the extent we choose to extract what we think is viable, the resources can be extracted on open accountable bid. For us.
Hopefully “for us” regardless existence of aliens, spirits, or alternate time-lines and realities. Or the shape of earth. Hopefully “for us” regardless whether we do this for a deity or as actualization of some other belief. For most of us, the choices we need to make are quite consistent for all of us, in terms of nurturing the earth, regardless of belief system.
Resources essential to life go where they need to. All the rest belongs to everybody. So we sell it on open market. Profit distributed equally. Profit that comes after the profits of corporations and other individual contributors. We may want to work a bit on our definition of Corporation. Regardless changes of corporate structure, the currency I am proposing is intended to mean profit equates to life provided for. On an open market that includes the arts and all things we value.
We can choose a decent standard as minimum. The bounty of earth is free for the choosing, at cost of effort and usually environment. If we choose too much at environmental expense, we loose greatly the treasure of earth. Ecosystems die. Some of us die. Maybe even all of us. Earth’s recovery will take longer if we mess up bad. How much and how many can we save and nurture? We know of many preferred choices.
No welfare. No pension. No minimum wage. Essentials provided. With a bit of cash. Improve standards as feasible. If you don't work or arrange profitable venture, you will not get much. We can choose a decent standard as minimum. Value of labor automatically balances value of resources. (We'll need a team with math skills to set up.) We choose how much to tax what resources, to optimize what we are able to do with least environmental footprint. Gas and tires will pave the roads. No income tax. No business income tax.
Portions required for infrastructure, including basic income, come from the difference between what it cost us to extract resources on accountable bid and what people are willing to pay. Supply and demand, but with a cut for infrastructure where demand includes demanding planet accountability thus moderating supply. Supply based on one planet, for now. Much less red tape. Way fewer layers of management and percentages. Resource tax also pays for the full material cycle, including full costs for accidents. When materials are combined accountability for separating for recycle is part of the cost.
Stuff will cost more, sort of, like it should. You will get what you need, including basic health and education. Education requires social developmental cultural aspects. Many aspects can proceed individually with testing standards online free. Preferably with helpful guidance. The more effective our processes become, the higher standard we can afford for all, and the more opportunity there is for any.
To work together we need a currency that makes sense. Based on the value of resources. The value of earth. The value that sustains us. A unit equates to an amount of life provided for. That means life sustained. Sustain-ably. Inherently ecosystem essential.
Local bedroom laws (for example) are irrelevant to design of global structure; within limits we have not yet chosen. Starting from existing location of people making choices, while limiting development in undisturbed regions, each person or group may choose (purchase in one way or other) an available viable region on earth to be fully responsible for, we'll decide what limits of responsibility and what responses we may apply. As interest groups we need some decisions who wants to work with what system where. There is still a lot of terrain for individuals or small groups. Including indigenous groups. The products of our extractions belong to everyone. Some groups or tribes may have rights and responsibilities for large terrain, but eminent domain as a globe, means we must use what is most viable in anyone’s terrain. Earth is everyone’s.
“Extractions” will need further definition. I think of extraction including agriculture while still allowing individual or group rights and responsibility over our common asset. Mostly we have a shortage of poets. We can think of education as investment in developing skilled workers. For extraction, so to speak.
Anarchy.
Credit to the Facebook group Compassionate Anarchy for their choice of group name and substantial content living up to the name.
Participations are optional. If you choose no systemic participation there is no requirement of others to provide system rights or basis to demand any responsibility to the system. Each person still has claim to equitable viable share. The larger community may still impose restrictions on harm to environment, including humans. We all have responsibility for environment. We all have a right to defend ourselves. People may freely trade, material or “currency”.
Free market and sustainable supply determines how much terrain or benefit from resources of earth each person will be eligible for. Resolving enduring tenancy rights will take some balancing. It is in our interest to have individuals with ownership of rights and responsibilities over terrain. Over farms. Over homes. Not everyone wants that to mean personal terrain and responsibility beyond their apartment or lot. Varying degree of participation is practical with associated rights and responsibilities.
All people have equal "right" to bounty of earth. Earth is our home by heritage. Earth is sufficient that we can produce and provide sufficient food water and housing for all. Including providing sufficient undisturbed planet to sustain the diverse environment that we treasure. That we need. We do not know the limits of loss that leave humanity viable. That leave Earth the gem it is. We do have the techniques to provide for all viably.
There is enough water. Systems need some work and developing. We need work. It is not unrealistic to hope we can provide at least 20 liters of clean water available to each person every day. (20 liters is an example target, lets start with enough for health.) Wanna use more water? Open market within environmental feasibility. Full cycle, water returns to environment. Business gets paid for extraction and purification on accountable bids. Market demand generates the value of water beyond essential need. There may be sense in a sliding scale resource tax that increases with extravagant use. Similar circumstances with food. Value may be accepted as currency but must be available as food and water. We want to sustain as many existing consumers (haha) as we can manage. With a bit of cash to spend and opportunity to earn more. We do not need more people really. Some less over time might help. I am convinced this planet can sustain more ecosystem than we have left plus provide well for more than twenty billion people. At least till we are out of the nest and established beyond earth. If that is how we go. Or eventually we go out. Of this realm at least.
Individuals can accept provided housing as some portion of their heritage or use that portion of one’s share to make other choices. Provided housing developed on open bid. Not really different than open market but bypasses eligibility requirement for mortgage. Rights and responsibilities predetermined according to each development. Mixed or specific interests predetermined. Individual choice of how big a share of heritage used toward housing. If you accept modest housing more of your dividends of earth are available for other things. Modesty of housing is based on it’s resource footprint which includes manpower. It’s in the nature of our new currency. There are many options for how we arrange our communities. Existing local architectures can be re-framed in community perspective to reflect local choices and infrastructure.
Where we develop modestly adequate facilities, low budget choices, we can plan upgrade paths that maintain developing community. (Thank you Jayla, from my daughter’s thesis)
There are numerous options for more viable and durable housing. We can benefit from our own collated library of techniques and sources. Couple other things we want our own database for. Social media. Wiki of some sort to organize options for currency and infrastructure. Variants of this governance intention. Combined those intentions become governance. If we can satisfy essential interests for most of us. Or at least enough to begin. Two, if you have rights over a piece of property and we get along.
Will stuff cost more? Resource extravagance will cost more. Living heritage is free. If you want to have or do things with resource costs, contributions will have to be made to acquire non-essentials, balanced against their environment resource limits by supply and demand. Each person (or group) is getting their share of: after extraction and distribution profits, after covering global infrastructure costs, from all resources. A person with no need of food water housing or comfort does not need a heritage share of resources. (a corporation).
Resource tax can be used to limit extraction to sustainable rates. If a resource is in much demand with severe limits on sustainable availability, the cost on open market may be much much higher than extraction cost. Our Public Profit available for more sustainable choices.
We are choosing new definitions of rights and responsibilities. By defining our values. New designs for sustainable infrastructure built by business development. This only works if we are willing to share. There is no rationale for rights of resources based on national boundaries. No person’s heritage is more that of earth than any other person’s. Open market for where you want to live. There are likely to be local rules and ideologies that may influence your choice.
We do want to maintain much of status quo.
People can stay where they are for the most part, and we can make that viable within resource limitations. If it requires more resources by far, to supply essential resources to some places, it may be preferable to encourage some relocation or it may be essential to manage adequate provision. People may choose to pay transport cost for essential or other goods, also inherently priced on footprint. Making essentials locally available is primary to minimizing footprint while adding local security, choices, and quality control.
The existing infrastructures have provided everything we have done together. (+/-)
History of rule of law is imposed. In much intent those laws remain consistent with control systems we want. In many ways we need to change primary accounting. Rewrite laws based on transparency and our new systems of currency and of rights and responsibilities. I think we can make better use of the analytic capacities of our lawyers. There are only quite limited global standards that we need agree on. Terms of currency based on resources extracted on supply and demand from sustainable extractions. A few protections we almost all agree on. And some choices of convenience. Metric comes to mind. Perhaps some traffic routes.
We really can’t just start from scratch. We need industrial production; some of it More of certain ones. Sustainable ones.
How do we get there from here?
When I suggest “global” decisions that only refers to those of us who align our choices to some refinement of these principles. Or some other principles we are able to choose for sustainable culture. A person can be a thoroughly independent anarchist and still accept aligned rights and responsibilities on independent terrain. If our offer is good enough we may be able to claim a share of our globe shared among differing interests. Lets do it right so any near rational interest group will see benefit.
Vested Interests
We do not know the mindset of “the 1%” or of whoever major influences of “the establishment”. This proposal intends to restructure much of the establishment. This will limit many existing systems from accruing further wealth for services no longer needed. We need to replace those opportunities with viable options. We need to recognize value for services rendered. We are in effect claiming all assets of earth for all. Enough for each and motivation and opportunity to earn more. Many territorial rights and responsibility can remain as they are. Many cannot. Some things will be revealed as proceeds of crime and may be reclaimed, but the intention of this article is to further our starting points of designing a responsible future. To give perspective of some existing intentions. You intend to share right?
Many existing interests may have much alignment with these intentions. If we have more tenable plans than theirs, they may welcome these possibilities. Darwin might suggest adaptability may have played a part in their achievements. (cough, cough) Perhaps more of us in all sectors will welcome being accountable if we have opportunity to sustain ourselves and work toward our purposes. With choice of whom to align with.
Existing providers, “the establishment” should be in good position to prosper within the new range of opportunities for the many, that will undoubtedly also be profitable for the few. The ones who adapted “successfully” by earlier standards and are able to adapt to new opportunities generated by other people’s ventures. The nature of the standards is changed to reflect the value of the finite resources of earth.
By doing so we maximize the market and the numbers of people who may contribute dynamically with new enterprises. If we are successful we can quickly develop circumstance where everyone has essentials and basics, with a bit of cash even if they don’t do anything. The system can improve circumstances for all and keep improving if we successfully demand that total use of resources is sustainable.
After all, the other option is die. Something I intend to do personally but I’d be happy to be seeing a long term future for our children when I do. Long term is now.
The more that becomes freely or easily available the higher the expected cost of wages and the higher it drives the cost of exotic resources. Exotic being a combination of rare compared to demand or environmentally expensive. Everything we do has environment expense and earth can only sustain so much. The losses of Earth and dignity we already regret may seem small before we get this fully implemented to provide well viably for all whom we have been able to save. With coordinated intention using all available tools we may be able to turn this around pretty quick, geologically speaking, perhaps even quickly reducing losses in very immediate urgency.
No shortage of money to be made.
Anyone might see that capitalism in some form has driven most of our developments. Time is of the essence, we must deter unsustainable ventures or die, by definition. How big a market do we want to keep? All of us. How informed do we want them/us to be? As informed as feasible with choices we can provide.
So that is my effort for now to make this an appealing possibility for vested financial interests to negotiate with what is best for the rest of us. And for us to acknowledge credit for services provided. Perhaps even some amnesty for what should be considered proceeds of crime. Not my call. Not my objective. Future of accountability is my first concern. How we count our treasures.
Interest Groups
Other major sets of interests overlap among religious, national, and cultural values which are sometimes associated with key power or public figures. I don’t have an answer for everything and I want help with more than setting up the accounting. We can maintain cultural identities as we choose. By nation. By tribe. By interests, work, or ideologies.
If we congregate aligned with some set of these more specific principles we can govern ourselves locally in accordance with those choices, within global limitations we need define further; choices that keep the planet. I want more skills involved than lawyers to define our priorities and develop a system intended most of all to improve the quality of life.
Not just our living standards.
Not just fully adequate durable housing and safe adequate food water and health care. Not just a smooth running infrastructure. Not just an array of teaching and testing standards. Not just opportunity for creative endeavors. Not just freedoms of faith and of speech.
Freedom to change your mind.
Freedom to move and information to make choices. Freedom to affect the choices of your community. Freedom and encouragement to enjoy being part of our environment. Freedom to choose what dignity means to us.
Congregate how we choose.
Forced integration makes no more sense than forced segregation. Women deserve places they can get away from men. And men can maybe still have clubs too. But this varies quite substantially in terms of what freedoms we want available.
There are some groups that want the freedom to live where everybody lives first of all by the code of their faith. In today’s world it is practical to provide a realist perspective of each major form of religion and ideology with ample opportunity to accept further guidance. Not Just internet access to scriptures but also included in what we present sincerely to all. It is my hope that we get maximum value from all sacred texts. That the bible and salvation by Jesus Christ is made available to all peoples is imperative to Christians. To facilitate this system, as I see it, major religions might accept mutually agreeable presentations of all religious ideologies to all. It also means individual freedom to pursue further information and freedom to relocate. Perhaps locales may choose that a range of images and media not be available within their community, censorship, but intended to allow presentation of all ideas. This still allows mixed communities and non-theistic communities. The world as a whole is mixed. I would like to see much of it stay so. I also see value in many cultures having opportunity to maintain individuality and localized choices. And this is near as I can imagine getting agreement among perspectives.
Freedom of individual religions.
Freedom to live not intruded on by religion or state. Exposure of perspectives available to individuals. Ecology underlies economy. Cultural rights to live among like minded or mixed with select-able limits. Everybody fed. Maximum market. Long term repeat market. Maximum workforce. Maximum skilled workforce. Maximum creative and independent opportunities for individuals, creating more opportunities for the 1% with the trickle up effect. Capitalism at it’s best. Anarchy at it’s best. Socialism at it’s best. ANCOM at it’s best. Religion at it’s best. And I imagine, Democracy at it’s best.
I can make a case for fascism in this framework. Let me know, I might have a job for you. But if you bow or call me Sir I’m liable to kick you (proly in friendly jest but I have tolerance limits).
And of course there is a pen name I’ve used, Schrodinger’s Christ, the only name I have chosen. Perhaps pretentious or worse on both names. Oh well, think I’ll stick with Schrodi. Imaginary Physics and Faith is a different article and you can’t really “follow” even if you were inclined to.
“Clearly” this is meant to optimize science.
Transparent science. Open source. And especially this is meant to give birth to a science of politics. How we hire who to organize the infrastructure. Hire them to debate advantage of differing proposals and inform us of potential results of available choices. Population does not need to vote directly on every or any debate. Each does have opportunity to support or caution against any choice. At least In my area. Choices are the will of the community. The community that has the will to learn at least what the question is and the will to respond with at least... a vote. Who do you want to run what job? All have options and channels to contribute and organize with others to voice possibilities or concerns. Within global choices and hopefully within local choices.
Dealing with extremely problematic individuals and groups.
Snakes have played a role in our evolution. Among figurative snakes, few of us, if any, are guiltless. There are degrees of disregard of dignity and life that we need to stop from doing further harm. Living ecosystems are essential and those disregards must be curbed.
There is limit to the expenses I would have us spend to maintain people responsible for some things. Mostly I am quite against choosing capital punishment in our new establishments. People within certain establishments may have chosen that possibility for themselves. Military comes to mind. Police in some states. Organized or disorganized gangs. I'd be willing to give most of them new options with rights and responsibilities. I'm hoping most. Some types would get thorough monitoring to be in my neighborhood. Like lawyers. We can put their analytic skills to better use, and their awareness of many circumstances we will still need to deal with, but let's keep an eye on them. I’m thinking lawyers can take a joke.
Some thrive with few opportunities.
Does not make it OK that some have very few opportunities. One reason to thrive is to provide more opportunity for children and community. Nothing wrong with having privileges. Privileges are sometimes abused, often considered "deserved." Deserve is not a very helpful word. Earth is the heritage of all people. It is in our best interest that all people have more than adequate sustenance and opportunity. Leaves everyone the largest possible market whether selling art or essentials. If we redesign currency to reflect the one resource we have, Earth, coordination that preserves earth becomes inherent in the system.
There is a lot of work to do.
There are many things to tally. Essential needs to meet. No work shortage while we get organized doing the things that will need done. Many of the skills in systems we no longer need will be helpful other places. Many systems will remain, restructured by nature of currency, with technology allowing coordination. Our technologies. Our choices.
I have suggested choosing to provide quite substantial support free. What that means, are our choices. Willingness to work could be a primary factor on what we make available. Similar with any child. If they are given gifts and rights without associated responsibilities there are problems. Give a phone without conditions it becomes theft to take it back. Unconditional love has conditions (in which to thrive.)
Help Rework this or re-frame your own Governance proposal.
So what have I missed? What needs clarity? What further interests can we mutually serve? What else will make it more functional? More Acceptable? Who else is much aligned and prepared to help produce a plan we want to share?
A proposal outlining development of global rights and responsibilities and local rights and responsibilities. It only works if we share. Our home planet. Our heritage. Our responsibility.
We are a superposition of perspectives, each and together. We can use that.
Wanna share a planet? And beyond?
Schrodi
Post-amble
This was where I was going to end but this “article” doesn’t know quite where it started and doesn’t know where to end. It seems a bit sloppy, especially given the importance as I see these choices. This is a zeroeth version, my name is not at the bottom of the first version which requires some agreement of process and combined input. Parts began on another platform. Presentation changed a bit now that I am with my Steemian community.
(What’s the name of that font that automatically double spaces end of sentences and a few other adjustments making easy reading for more people? Let’s use that.)
Balancing local tenancy rights where this is in conflict between cultures.
How about identifying who wants what how badly. Jerusalem goes to the highest bidder. After we have settled accounts for services rendered. And costs incurred. Separating the scramble for resources from our individual cultures (countries) may help resolve numerous terrain disputes, Local choices can become functional, that retain national boundaries reflecting who currently choose to be on which side of boundaries in dispute. Set the simplest logistical line that minimizes how many would need to move to be in the region of their choice.
Local tenancy rights can be assigned to species and ecosystems. Ecosystems must consider microbial environment too. Not exactly voting for measles’ rights unless it becomes clear there is a helpful responsible role.
Creatures that would not be present but for our husbandry, meaning basically pets, work animals and meat, can also be assigned some level of right’s of tenancy. Some expected dignity. Allow them their natural behavior and to be themselves as individuals. Mostly we make choices for them. Including limitations on behavior. Our rights taken, to make choices for their existence, our responsibility to manage their behavior. And eco-impact.
Wild creatures may benefit from human monitoring, especially after having done so much damage. There are those among us who know how to live in harmony with ecosystems. Much of that knowledge and will is lost and it behooves us to preserve and encourage what remains.
Much of non urban non agricultural non industrial terrain may be returned with rights of heritage to indigenous peoples. Also appropriate shares of agricultural terrain. Capacity to manage rights and responsibilities of agriculture may need developing for some instances. Some opportunities should improve immediately.
There will be further resources that we must choose to extract where most viable. I do not need to do any accounting to see that majority of many indigenous peoples urgently need capacity to develop their own complete infrastructures with the most sustainable methods we are able to choose. Knowing there is much recovery needed. It is a long term investment of resources that will reward us. Plus any accounting can see that in large measures their livelihoods cultures and languages have been stolen. And we have not adequately offered our own culture and language with our own western opportunities. If we let each insistent religion present their scripture and perspective can we then have a choice? Indigenous interests may align by choices, perhaps more than by tribes of origin.
(I had a pic here of a couple politicians, one wearing a fake headdress. Not sourced and not needed.)
To some a headdress may mean no more than "a feather in one's cap", which may mean someone taken advantage of. A sexual adventure or other business deal. Many of us may have worn costume versions as children or for a party without awareness that it may be offensive. Many may have worn pretend crowns without concern of illegally or inappropriately pretending authority.
Among native North Americans wearing a headdress or a feather, is done only with very specific respects. As well as I understand.
These invaders pretense of authority has little to do with commandeering headdress. And yet that is what happened, usurped crown and headdress. And they seem to have no regard for human dignity or for the planet and life that nurtures us. Roots have been violent most places with variation. We are left with many displaced populations and convoluted claims of heritage.
Convoluted unless we simplify our claims. Each has equal heritage of earth’s bounty. Each may claim right to eat and drink. Each will be held to some accounts by the community. We can function as communities within a larger community that uses currency based on resources that are the heritage of all.
they* to varying degrees is us. Purported authority in severest degrees. Taken authority whether by politics, business, gun, or church.
Buying cheap furniture from stolen forest or jungle assembled by cheap labor wrapped i plastic is us being they*.
Many indigenous histories include invasions. They are not threatening our planet. Many still know how to respect and live as part of the planet. Many are also included in those of us buying cheap furniture in plastic wrap or going to the throne for justice.
Plus it's a funny picture.
Open source, Beyond Software and Wiki. Transparency
This will apply differently depending on local choices. Small groupings may have transparent access to globally relevant information, irrespective of electronic participation. Within feasibility.
There is much to tally to know what we have to work with. What resources with what labor and eco expenses. What techniques best meet urgent needs viably. Our entire development process can and must remain transparent. A rational number is a fraction. Perhaps it is computational impractical to measure every resource and cost as an actual fraction of the earth. But we can use double precision error correcting code. And we must be, in effect, close enough. Currency must reflect what we have, to be rational.
Where choices must be made all interests must have avenue to be considered. Choices presented to ourselves must address biases in the form of the question. We do not want to be lead. We want no disruption of all perspectives clearly presented. We are entitled to be heard. We are entitled to vote on choices. Some things need to start happening before all interests can be tallied. Computers are fast for these tallies, given secure structure.
There is much data related to our earth’s resources. It needs to be available and updated. While many elite may support much of this in principle we will have to come to terms for services from the past. And we need to come to terms to work with existing structures that we still need.
These proposed changes will disrupt many existing structures. Some will have transferable skills and knowledge. To look at today’s world and say there is not enough work is the clearest indication of economic insanity I can think of.
Personally I would choose all medical records be securely kept open. With identities. Along with anything else. Not what everybody wants. Should answer some questions pretty quickly among participating cross-section. (With some data structure standards available.)
When we the people pay for science, including especially medical science, we want a share of the benefits including security of transparent methodology and results. We are the major investors.
Mostly I agree that we do not need rulers in authority. If the fire dept. shows up to save our house or child, I want them to know exactly who is in charge.
Ellipsis - make your points.
