As I mentioned, I thought about the "jury" system myself. I'm not dismissing it as a bad idea, other than that there may be a better way. In the "jury" random selection for the office, there is no means to ascertain whom we might get from the pool of citizens. There is much diversity within the population, intelligence not withstanding, which is not indicative of knowledge but the ability to learn new things. If we place people with average intelligence in the office (not necessarily bad), they would have to rely on the expertise of advisers as "puppet masters". In effect, we just left the decision making process to the "advisers" that can steer the policy in any direction of their choosing. I suggest that it would be better to place people in the position of executing the will of the people, who are best qualified to do so because that's what they've been doing all along at a different levels. You are thinking in terms of current government model but think instead from the point of view of a company with share holders. Would it be wise to elect to CEO at random from the pool of share holders?Alias wrote: I don't think so. The academically accomplished and intellectually gifted can greatly benefit the community by reflecting and analyzing situations, pointing out hazards and recommending options. They can also do much good by educating others, inventing new technologies, devising better means of self-actualization and formulating ethical solutions to problems.
But I see no reason why all citizens should not be able to administer the daily operations of a system of production and distribution - running the machinery. After all, that's who does - has always done - the producing and servicing of all societies; that's who does the budgeting and planning for every family, every grist mill, every farm and textile factory.
If you have a good education and public information network, everyone can keep up with current events. The main thing is: no vested interest in governance; no consolidation of cliques or elites. All citizens know exactly know exactly how government operates; mistakes and injustices can't be covered up - at the same time, you're give the present administrator your support, because it might be your turn next.
I'm suspicious of all hierarchies, especially those that take root over time, because they tend to become rigid and authoritarian.
Hierarchy is a fact of any social system because there is a chain of events that must take place in order to accomplish a goal. Someone has to steer the ship, someone has to operate the engine room, someone has to make food, and all such activities must be coordinated by someone. People may choose where we are going but a captain has to decide on the best course and the speed to get us there. Beside, those who do not like the hierarchy system, are not forced to do anything that they don't want to do. One can remain within a local group of "equals" within the Alignment but as I mentioned using the video game analogy, people need hierarchy as a feedback mechanism that informs them about their "progress" within a social standing... Ex. for Respect and Admiration. A "rank" is an empirical measure of one's accomplishment within the society. Hierarchy has a bad connotation because it implies superiority of one over another, which is difficult to accept to the maxim of "equality". However, humans are not equal (Presumably with Eastern culture, age deems respect). Some individuals are born physically beautiful, while others were not. Some have ability to learn with ease, while others struggle at school. Some posses creative skills to create art, while others have no skills at all. That is a fact of life. There is no logic in "artificially" convincing people that they are equal, other than that we should all have equal rights, which is also far from the truth in practice in any modern society.
That is beautiful in principle but perhaps only possible in small groups. This is definitely possible in a family setting or a small tribal society. However, once we grow to the point of a large city, where most people are strangers, common interests diverge significantly. That is another fact of human life and society. The "commune" only works in such small setting but not on the large scale, hence the "ism" was attempted without success. This is why I came up with my model to break up a large society into much smaller, more cohesive groups that are bound by a common goal of an Alignment. This in turn reinforces the human need for kinship and sense of belonging. In a modern society, an individual becomes "invisible" (not exactly) to the society. This is why people will pass by a homeless person without a second thought. Do an experiment and start crying in a public place and see how many people will come up to ask "what's wrong?"... Well, maybe in Canada they willMy take on commune is simply that: a group of people with a common interest in survival: a community pooling its resources and efforts; sharing its benefits and safety.
The "ism" part is completely unnecessary to the concept. The historical misapplications, lies, distortions and abuses do not result from the concept itself, any more than the abuses and corruptions of democratic process prove that democracy is a bad idea. But we needn't bother with that anyway, since I never advocated communism in the first place.
Perhaps in the distant future, for now that is too great of a change to accomplish. This is like a Star Trek idea of a 27th century but no in the 21st.I do, however, wish that money could be removed the administration of the common weal, as well as its governance and law-making.
Some people are motivated by Admiration (Scientists, Teachers, or Physicians), others are motivated by Respect (Police, Military, or Criminals), and others still are motivated by Power or Freedom. Everyone should have ease in opportunity to leave their life in what motivates them without subjugation to will of someone else. By telling people that EVERYONE must work and how much, you are forcing people to adhere to certain rules. Well, artist may take an issue with that rule.RanvierAliasHow many times do I have to build a house? Once it’s there, it’s done.
Have you ever owned a house more than ten years old? It needs maintenance all the time and repairs with increasing frequency. Especially if there are weather events - which there often are and more often will be. Have you ever seen the inside of a hospital or airplane factory? It's never "done".
Food need regrowing, re-processing every time it's eaten; babies need their nappies changed several times a day; only a year later, another batch of students will have to be taught the very same geometry; livestock needs its stables cleaned every day; people keep getting new illnesses and breaking new bones; the same bus - with occasional new tires and lube job - needs driving down the same - periodically resurfaced - street every hour.
You don't need fewer people working all day; you need people working fewer hours.
Everyone needs a chance to contribute something useful and valued. Otherwise, how are they to earn all that Respect and Admiration?
The dividend proceeds are from the private commercial sector that is "taxed" for using the land and the natural resources to produce the product. In other words, the factories, commercial buildings that stand on public land, and the resources from the land (oil, gold, iron) are taxed by the government. The revenue from that taxation is distributed to the share holders (the people). This is a sufficient amount for citizens to purchase the basic necessities such a clothing, cell phone, or a PC. The government (the people) are the owner of the land and the resources, where the "chair" for each Alignment within the public sector is the executive "branch" of the will of the people. The public sector (with suggested two currency system) must have some kind of exchange rate with the private sector. People can choose between allocating their time for the public sector or to "work" for the private sector. Those who devote their time for the Alignment will earn the public "monetary" and "moral" currency, where only the monetary currency has the exchange rate with the private sector and the moral currency can only be used to advance within the "rank" of Alignment.
As for your objections; Farmers want to farm, that's what they do. That's what they know and love to do. Same is true for Teachers, Physicians, or Engineers. I actually envision that people would compete for something to do within the Alignment. Again, the Idea that everyone must work is from the imprint in our minds that we must work, only to generate profit and power for those who crave it. Those who crave for such things can work for the private sector but those who just want to do something useful with their time can learn or do something productive within their skill set for the Alignment. Best of both worlds.
