If the world's economy was shut down

[Alias]

.. This modern Economic Theory causes for instance this absurd insanity with White Supremacists rally in Charlottesville (depicted by the media as Neo Nazis) and the events at Barkley University with liberal thugs rampage depicted by the media as "Anarchists". I'm not going into President Trump's remarks on the matter but there is a valid point about the media "spin" that creates the social discord. Complicit, just as much as the city officials that allow such chaos to take place by allowing such opposing views to meet on the street.

But they're all - crazy extreme factions, media, officials, even the evil clown in the big gold chair - products of the same structure.
These symptoms are reactions - unreasoning, unpremeditated, unguided - to a malaise they can't, or won't make the effort to understand, so they stick facile labels on whichever bits irritate them the most and make a big stink and noise against those bits - or even less, against the labels. Against some tangible part - not for a fully realized whole.

Imagine Utopia.
A number of creative, clever people of different historical periods and nationalities have.
I wouldn't necessarily want to live in all of them, but I'd rather live in any of them than the mess we're making now.
British Columbia, Washington and Oregon are on fire. Austin is under water.
10,000 species are going extinct this very minute. 25,000 people starve to death every day.
The whole planet might be blown to smithereens by the thousands of nuclear missiles that two generations of reasoning, responsible, competent human beings have invented, manufactured and established in luxurious accommodations, for the safety and security of their compatriots.
(this is not sane)

All the utopian ideas have some remarkable similarities.
Let's start by analyzing what they have in common.

[Ranvier]

Again Allas, it's good to know that there are sane people on this planet. I was beginning to think that I may be irrational in my delusion of sanity

-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 12:24 am to add the following --

... What are your thoughts on Pluracracy?

[Alias]

I must confess to not knowing what that is, nor having listened to the videos. Too few dry days this summer; too many chores to get done.
In Canada, we have two seasons: winter and preparing for next winter. (or winter and road construction)
I'll try - drummed-out scout's honour.

[Ranvier]

No pressure, take your time.
Cute about Canada, although I've been to Montreal for a Jazz festival and the weather was beautiful for a week that I was there

[Alias]

No pressure, take your time.
Cute about Canada, although I've been to Montreal for a Jazz festival and the weather was beautiful for a week that I was there

So it was, before the climate changed.

Superficial quick search turned up nothing useful. (Anarchism thread runs 13 pages - nuh-ahh) Could you link me some links to the articles you wants scrutinized?

[Ranvier]

Allas

Certainly,
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 50#p293950

[Alias]

Okay, that is interesting. It doesn't look very different from something I posted a while back, that
was written on another forum, and I brought it over for consideration by a poster here who had similar interest.
You could glance over some of the discussion of ways and means.
onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=7667

More detail later, but I'd like to mention two words that bothered me (sorry, I'm persnickety about words)
Cosmetic: The tenth item in dashes column should begin "Dewards", because rewording moral behaviour, while not an absurdity, belongs under law-making rather than political organization.
Content: I'm troubled by "factions", which strongly suggests antagonism. (In Babylon 5, the Minbari ruling council consists of three 'casts' - religious, military and worker - and that doesn't seem any more satisfactory, since it suggests hierarchical layers). Might try something like "agencies" "departments" or even just "branches" of government, as the US has now in its [laughably inadequate] balance of powers.

[Ranvier]

Alias

How about "Alignments" instead of Factions"? Out of the ones you had suggested, perhaps "Branches" would be the most adequate.

These are all rough ideas, where specific wording is all subject to modification. These groups (Alignments) could be described as functional affiliation (another human need: sports fan, military, nationalism) similar to human body systems (CNS, GI, Circulatory etc.), each codependent on one another. Each Alignment has their own hierarchy of achievement within each group (similar to the military rank). This wasn't mentioned in the original draft but the hierarchy within the social group is one of human needs, which becomes a source self-esteem and strive to achieve more based upon individual characteristics (Ex. People are driven by Power, Respect, or Admiration)

This is a quick reply. I will examine your link now.

-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 3:49 pm to add the following --

Alias

Summary of my observations on your Zatamon Social Contract:

1. Freedom and Compassion (Kinship, cooperation) = (Introverts vs Extroverts)(Antisocial vs Social)
Rationale for Compassion first: Logic in satisfying primary needs first
(Physiologic: Food + Water > Safety (home) > electricity (necessary in modern days)
Then Quality of Life: Freedom of choice, speech, affiliation etc. (expand: need for voluntary segregation of polar opposite groups)

2. Avoid terms Socialism or Communism due to unfavorable historical connotation (Generally bad approach = wasteful, inefficient, often unfair)

3. Issue with your core concept of the government = Socialist Capitalism (similar to China, not great for human rights, freedoms, and excessive bureaucracy)

4. Competition and duplication – bad approach. Competition is necessary as a motive. Without competition no one will want to do anything. This is too “utopian” in reliance on honesty in “equal cooperation”. Not Possible.

5. The social sector is based on the honor system of wealth distribution (No money). Not likely to be successful until children are born into such system. This would have to be tested.

6. Big problem. Who coordinates the labor market? What is the incentive to participate? 2-3 hours work days and “no one gets a free ride”. Why not? Government structure and the relationship to the citizens is no different than Communism. Controlling the police and the military. What prevents the government corruption of power?

7. Multiple dangerous implications in such government structure. Society is not modeled around the individual but individuals must abide by the government rule. Historically bad idea.

8. The government relationship with the Free Market private sector is problematic. There has to be some concept for the exchange rate.

Other than that we share the same principles in mind: eliminate poverty, reduce crime, and increase the quality of life for everyone. All good notions but in my humble opinion it’s not that much different from Communism.

[Alias]

I just saw dewards. I meant, of course, rewards. No edit button and i was in too much of a gurry - you know, curry, burry, hurry... one of those bearby ketters.
TBC

-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 7:40 pm to add the following --

How about "Alignments" instead of Factions"? Out of the ones you had suggested, perhaps "Branches" would be the most adequate.

Sure, why not? I imagine these agencies would all share information and consult one another before making decisions - that is, co-operate in long-range planning.

These are all rough ideas, where specific wording is all subject to modification.

I get that. It wasn't a serious objection.
[/quote]
Each Alignment has their own hierarchy of achievement within each group (similar to the military rank).[/quote]
I'm not a fan of militarism in any endeavour, nor chains of command based on rank and obedience. Biggest problem: who decides the promotions? I prefer a more democratic system of leadership, and cell-structure of functions and responsibilities. Just a detail.

2. Avoid terms Socialism or Communism due to unfavorable historical connotation

To be fair, he couldn't avoid mentioning those ideologies without being accused of a copout. This wasn't a formal essay, but a forum contribution.
My own comment: I don't give a flying fig who has a problem with connotation: I remain a steadfast socialist.

(Generally bad approach = wasteful, inefficient, often unfair)

Not sure to what this refers.

3. Issue with your core concept of the government

It's not my concept. The capitalism part doesn't come under government auspices. The proposal if for a transition to a better arrangement which would cause the least social disruption to achieve, rather that what might be built after a complete breakdown or revolution.

= Socialist Capitalism (similar to China, not great for human rights, freedoms, and excessive bureaucracy)

That's not an issue here. China's problems grow out of china's history and leadership, not the core concepts of a political model.
In fact, nobody in the last three hundred years has been able to get away from capitalist commerce, and nobody in the last four thousand years has been able to get away from money. Any government and economy we know about will have been constrained by established ownership and international trade.

4. Competition and duplication – bad approach.

I don't understand this one. Duplication of what? Bad approach to what?

Competition is necessary as a motive. Without competition no one will want to do anything.

Where does this conviction come from? That's a very serious question.
Examine your own motivations for your various decisions and actions. Pick ten high achievers from history, in arts, sciences, scholarship and social service - and examine their motives.
Then consider what motivates thousands of ordinary people to make helpful videos and post them on you tube, to share their knowledge and experience.

5. The social sector is based on the honor system of wealth distribution (No money).

No, it relies on strict regulation by elected administrators.

6. Big problem. Who coordinates the labor market?

There is no such thing as a labour market. It's one of capitalism's big fat lies.
The public sector in this model doesn't buy or sell anything. It simply co-ordinates the distribution resources, energy, basic goods and services.

What is the incentive to participate?

Physical well-being and security. This is your part-time job in exchange for which you get food, shelter, health-care, transportation and education.

2-3 hours work days and “no one gets a free ride”. Why not?

Except old people, children, the disabled and injured.

Government structure and the relationship to the citizens is no different than Communism.

Yes, if a government had ever actually operated on communal principles.

Controlling the police and the military.

By what other agency can police and military be controlled?

What prevents the government corruption of power?

I believe I went into that in some detail in my responses. Zatamon didn't cover the structure of government nor the process of selection. I proposed a system that could insure maximum transparency with minimum corruption opportunity. Fundamentally: since administrators don't have money flowing through their hands, it can't stick. Since theyare insulated from the private sector, they can't take any pay or kickbacks, award contracts, hand out favours or receive support from influential citizens. They have little or nothing to gain.
Since the terms of office are short and there are no career politicians, nobody has time to consolidate power.... Power over whom, or what, anyway?

7. Multiple dangerous implications in such government structure.

Such as?

8. The government relationship with the Free Market private sector is problematic. There has to be some concept for the exchange rate.

Why? What are they exchanging?

... it’s not that much different from Communism.

And what is communism?

[Ranvier]

Alias

I will address all the points that you gad raised...soon

But in the meant time let me comment on the core differences between the systems

My concept of Pluracrocy:
1. People are the government and can at any time be intimately and directly involved in day to day function of their "Alignment". This is not a military ranking system of subordinates but more of "seniority" based on respect from attainment in education level and the "time" an individual devotes to the Alignment. Anyone can move within the hierarchy as much as one wishes, again based on education and time. The actual executive government (board of directors and CEO/President) are the employees of the people (share holders). People make decisions about the natural resources and needs of the population, where the board of directors executes these wishes in best ability since they've been chosen for their "chair" bast on excellence in qualifications within the Alignment.
This is more of a direct democracy by consensus within each Alignment, where local ranking candidates take the chair position within local group. Only these candidates can move to Regional > State (in US) > Federal. So this is not a general election per se. (This is a major problem within changing the US Constitution but can be slowly adopted from "pilot cities" to regional, to state level. If and when Pluracracy was adopted by several states, eventually it could be possible to adopt the system at a Federal level.

2. The premises are similar but functionally different. Pluracrocy coalesces people based on affinities for specific trade skills (mentored within the group as in Medicine, Science Research, or Education) and personalities in groups of "kinship" within the Alignment. This is a premise that wasn't included in the original draft but there is no "criminality" of behavior in voluntary segregation within regions. People who believe that abortion should be legal move to reside in the region that allows abortion. This is to encompass all attitudes and beliefs in harmony further reducing social discord and animosity.

3. These local and regional groups are meant to be... can best be compared to the University campus, where people associate in groups by interests, kinship of support system and and the Alignment (major in school). Of course there are public spaces where people can physically be present to exchange ideas, concerns, or aspirations across the local and regional Alignments. But Introverted or reclusive personalities are not "forced" to do anything that they don't want to do, in contrast to the Zatamon's communist system.

Zatamon's system

1. This is basically Socialis/Communist Capitalism, where the Government is an entity that imposes the will on the people (violation of rights). People are in the submissive relationship to the government, that controls, imposes, and demands certain behaviors. Everyone must do "something" that some people may disagree with.

2. There is no specific mention of how human nature, goals and aspirations can flourish within that system that imposes a minimum of whatever unspecified activity 2-3 hours a day. Presumably the choice in type of activity (labor) is voluntary but it's unclear if that can be achieved for the entire population.

3. There is no specific mention about laws and regulations. How are these government officials chosen under the communist "regime" (I had to put that in there). Is it a single party system or do people have a choice? (Major problem with Socialist and especially Communist systems). I will address are the other points you raised in you post but I would disagree with the ease of implementation of such system, especially in US, in this respect Pluracracy would be far easier since government is already run as a corporation "gone rogue". By comparison, in Pluracracy only minor changes are necessary by establishing a Regional Bank or State Reserve separate from the current Fed Reserve.

-- Updated August 30th, 2017, 5:39 am to add the following --

* funny typo's
**had
***mean time
Probably more, a little tired today.

[Alias]

As I mentioned, Zatamon did not work out the mechanism of governance; this was a proposal simply for the separation of public and private spheres, so that people could have all the necessities of life assured, and also the opportunity to pursue ambition and luxury.
As far as i can see, neither have you addressed the process and mechanism; you have proposed a structure for satisfying basic needs and psychological needs.
In bot cases, the idea is good, but details need attention. I can't see how the citizen consensus works, nor who assigns specific leadership positions and functional roles and daily tasks in each alignment, nor how long-term goals are set for the whole; which shareholders come to the annual meeting and how they communicate.
(Not mad keen on the corporate analogy, but that's by the way.)

That's what I'm interested in - hows and means.
In Z's system, I proposed a method of choosing administrators that has nothing to do with elections or parties*.
I suggested rotating committees of randomly chosen citizens. All competent adults are eligible, just as they would be for jury duty. They would serve for a period of two years, so that no administrator is kept away from their normal life and work too long. Half the committee changes each year, so that the new members have more experienced ones to learn from.
Of course, the civil service is taking care of the day-to-day running of each department, continuously, just as they do now.

*Elsewhere, I suggested a method of electing governing bodies in our present form of democracy that would minimize corruption.

-- Updated August 30th, 2017, 7:57 pm to add the following --

. This is basically Socialis/Communist Capitalism, where the Government is an entity that imposes the will on the people (violation of rights).

What are rights? Is there - has there ever been - can there ever be - a political organization that some people don't disagree with? Is there a society where some are not forced to stop doing what they wish to do (like raping young girls, or taking other people's stuff) because the majority think it's wrong?
Is there - can there be - a viable society where most people are not required to contribute in some way that some of them may find disagreeable?

2. There is no specific mention of how human nature, goals and aspirations can flourish within that system that imposes a minimum of whatever unspecified activity 2-3 hours a day.

The rest of the day, you do whatever makes you happy. If you're satisfied with the basic standard of living, go lie on the beach, play baseball, write songs, teach your children to cook.
If you want luxuries or more intensive involvement in a project, go to work for the private sector and earn money or status or both.

Presumably the choice in type of activity (labor) is voluntary but it's unclear if that can be achieved for the entire population.

You don't think there is enough work on infrastructure maintenance, food, clothing, housing and tool production, transport, communication, health care, education, energy and environmental hygiene would provide enough work for all the able adults for half a day? Well, then, cut back everyone's working time by whatever amount is surplus.

3. There is no specific mention about laws and regulations. How are these government officials chosen under the communist "regime"

Yes - but without having answered my question: What is communism?

I would disagree with the ease of implementation of such system, especially in US, in this respect Pluracracy would be far easier since government is already run as a corporation "gone rogue". By comparison, in Pluracracy only minor changes are necessary by establishing a Regional Bank or State Reserve separate from the current Fed Reserve.

Of this, I remain skeptical.
However, I also believe that the States is not going to stay United much longer - and shouldn't.
So that point is moot.

[Ranvier]

Alias
This is why any development of such System requires more than one person to keep the conception honest and balanced.
1. There is a general similarity in the core concepts that both require the separation of the public and private sectors but there is a core difference between the two systems as to the arrangement of the public sector (the government). We must ascertain which one is "better" to build upon as a platform. Just because Pluracracy is my concept doesn't mean I'm closed to any other platform.

2. The differences in choice in governance:

Zatamon's system: rotating committees of randomly chosen citizens. I should ask here if the "rotating committee" is the governing body or this is the elective committee to nominate/approve candidates for government offices?

Pluracracy system: Each Alignment chooses its own representative from the highest ranking members: locally, regionally, state, eventually federal.
Ex. All eligible (18+) people in US (about 192M citizens) Would be in their specific Alignment (out of seven). The distribution among the Alignments would vary depending on skills (profession) and individual choice. Regardless of such distribution of citizens among the Alignments, each has 1 board member. Let us say initially that the hierarchy of achievement within the Alignment is on a scale from 0 - 100. According to bell curve distribution only about 5-7% would have the highest achievement in education and time devotion to the Alignment. Each local group would elect it's own representative, from these regional representative, from those a state representative, to final Federal representative. Remember that the functions of each level on day to day basis is different for Each Alignment. For instance, regions are more preoccupied with maintaining the proper "movement" of voluntary segregation depending on convictions: pot smokers, same sex marriage, or abortion. If something bothers someone, they just have to move to a different region. Locally, the Alignment groups are concerned with short term goals and projects that are of the greatest urgency and priority. Obliviously the Engineering Alignment local group would not undertake the project of building a new State Highway, that would be in the purview of the State Alignment...end so on. Federal Alignment would be concerned with the disaster relief or international trade (the government is a company after all). In essence the "board members" are chosen in "peer review" as emergent preference but can be recalled annually due to a bad performance at Alignment "share holder" meeting that anyone can attend. Typically leader personalities emerge naturally within any group.

I just noticed the update...

"What are rights?" - Freedom is a right. In a free society no one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. People get enough in dividends from the private sector that those who do not wish to contribute don't have to. Those who do get involved in the public sector, rise withing their Alignment. This way only the best of the best emerge naturally and those who really have passion for something. Why force people into "jobs" that they don't want to do? Not very efficient or safe (Ex Medicine).

The rest of the day, you do whatever makes you happy. If you're satisfied with the basic standard of living, go lie on the beach, play baseball, write songs, teach your children to cook.
If you want luxuries or more intensive involvement in a project, go to work for the private sector and earn money or status or both.

We agree on this point completely. It's up to anyone how much they wish to achieve.

You don't think there is enough work on infrastructure maintenance, food, clothing, housing and tool production, transport, communication, health care, education, energy and environmental hygiene would provide enough work for all the able adults for half a day? Well, then, cut back everyone's working time by whatever amount is surplus.

Imagine this scenario: A group of men sit on the beach and one of them say "it would be nice to have a screen or shed of some sort to protect us from this scorching heat of Sun. Another one say "Maybe we should do something about that?". Third one says, "I have an Idea, lets build one"... People can't sit on the beach all they long, eventually people will want to do something they need or enjoy doing. There is no need to force anyone to do something they don't want to do. The only question that remains is how to do it? We are brainwashed that we must "work" to live. That is simply not true. Once all the houses are built, food is plentiful, and a "couple of guys" can supplement electricity needs of the solar panels on the roof... no one must work, unless they are so bored as to want to do something useful. Now one may argue that people with too much time on their hands will turn to violence or indulge in drugs out of boredom. Well that is their choice but most likely it's another "fairy tale" to force people to "slave labor". Something to be researched, although judging by all the people on this Forum most people here enjoy "doing" more than being useless.

Yes - but without having answered my question: What is communism?

Communism would be for instance to take all the "fruit" of ones labor and distribute it "equally" to the rest of the population regardless of how much one works. You see this often in DMV People clock in... and others are sitting in the waiting area for hours to be seen. No incentive to "work".

[Alias]

2. The differences in choice in governance:

Zatamon's system: rotating committees of randomly chosen citizens. I should ask here if the "rotating committee" is the governing body or this is the elective committee to nominate/approve candidates for government offices?

No. Zatamon didn't design a system of governance or administrator selection. O proposed one. And I did say, just above: random selection, as in jury duty. you number comes up, you either serve as administrator for your district, or give and excellent why you must defer it. (Like nursing a baby or taking final exams in medical school.) This means everybody gets the exact same chance to govern and most people do, some time during their adult life. How many administrators serve at any one time would depend on the area and number of people whose interests they must represent.


Except for basing seniority on longevity, I'm happy with your design up to here:

"share holder" meeting that anyone can attend.

Where do hold a meeting of millions?

Typically leader personalities emerge naturally within any group.

This is a problem. Typically, it's the most aggressive, rather than the most competent - who are often quiet and unassuming. Add it to "time devoted" and you may have a leadership of senile bullies. ( I thought we didn't like the current state of affairs. )

I just noticed the update...

Freedom is a right. In a free society no one should be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

This is impossible in any social organization. People are always required - by laws, by their parents and superiors, by their own needs and by prevailing circumstances, to do all manner of things they don't want to, and to refrain from doing even more things they do want to. And you have defined neither "rights" nor "freedom".

People get enough in dividends from the private sector that those who do not wish to contribute don't have to.

Then why shouldn't they just enrich themselves in the private sector and make use of public conveniences to which they have not contributed?
And if you don't like duplication, how do you share the roads, bridges and harbours?

Why force people into "jobs" that they don't want to do? Not very efficient or safe (Ex Medicine).

Who said anyone was forced into a job. It's a simple contractual obligation: You get a free education in whatever you have aptitude and desire for, and a basic standard of living and social security. In return, you do the work you're trained and suited for. It's exactly the same as having a job, only without all the hassle and waste of collecting, counting, protecting and redistributing mountains of money.

Imagine this scenario: A group of men sit on the beach and one of them say "it would be nice to have a screen or shed of some sort to protect us from this scorching heat of Sun. Another one say "Maybe we should do something about that?". Third one says, "I have an Idea, lets build one"... People can't sit on the beach all they long, eventually people will want to do something they need or enjoy doing. There is no need to force anyone to do something they don't want to do.

Eventually is not a reliable timetable for the sowing and harvesting of wheat; nor is it a good idea to have a beach catacombed with sun-screens, while the levees are crumbling.
"I thought you were cooking for the school cafeteria." "Naw, don't feel like it." "Oh well, I guess somebody will feed the kids eventually." If you think social contract is unsafe for the Emergency room, I respectfully suggest that laissez-faire is more so.
Public services need to be planned, co-ordinated and carried out in an orderly fashion.

We are brainwashed that we must "work" to live. That is simply not true.

It is until robots can do everything we need.

Communism would be for instance to take all the "fruit" of ones labor and distribute it "equally" to the rest of the population regardless of how much one works.

That's not a definition; that's an inaccurate popular characterization.

Well, you've made a pretty good imaginary system. Could do with details, particulars, honing. Can't actually happen, any more than Zatamon's, or Huxley's, or mine.
If humanity as a whole, or the citizens of any one nation, wanted to organize themselves more efficiently and equitable, they already have. The ones that haven't were prevented by some obstacle, either in the population or in the power structure. Those obstacles aren't going away, until the whole politico-economic system is swept away by a catastrophe - which, itself, will prevent any kind of orderly, planned transition.

-- Updated August 31st, 2017, 5:36 pm to add the following --

Sigh! No good at multitasking. Let me try that first paragraph again, with closer attention.
Zatamon didn't design a system of governance or of administrator selection.
I proposed one, just as a possible model. Random selection of administrators, as in jury duty: no candidates, no elections. When your number comes up, you either serve as administrator for your district, or give an excellent reason why you must defer it, (like nursing a baby or taking final exams in medical school.) This means everybody gets the exact same chance to govern and most people do, some time during their adult life. How many administrators serve at any one time would depend on the area and number of people whose interests they must represent.

[Ranvier]

Alias

Let me just state again that I have the will, drive, and the desire to conceptualize a New System of social structure that is not just a theoretical thought exercise but could actually become a viable “option” for the betterment of humanity. I don’t have anyone around me that would be equally driven to get involved beyond “let’s see what happens”. Even among the intellectuals here in this Forum, there are not many people that are preoccupied with such interest, other than an endless critique of Trump or reflections on Brexit. This is why I respect your opinions and participation in such debate. With this in mind…

Communism
There are vast amount of books and opinions on this subject. One thing to keep in mind that is was already attempted to implement several times and places with less than desirable results. We could discuss at length the finer point of the Marxist Theory… but here is my short version of the Communist system.

It’s based on the premise of “fair” and “equal” participation of the “entire” population in the production and distribution of wealth. The benefit being that there is virtually no unemployment (good) in the economic sense. However, the productivity, historically had been proven to be far inferior of that of Capitalism, with great inefficiency in bureaucracy. Tainted by over-regulation of commerce (virtually nonexistent) by the centralized government (of the “people”, who in principle own everything with public concept of “ownership”), stifling the creative diversity and incentive to achieve more. This is almost hypocrisy of the system that blames Capitalism for removing “meaning” from human creation by taking possession of that creativity (Factory worker doesn’t get to keep what he produced). This Marxist ideology is still visible in the European education system, where one does not ask questions or undermine the existing theory, until perhaps one becomes a Minister of education at the top. This patriarchal approach is reflected in all the branches of the human thought as monolithic in nature, constricted by the inelasticity to adopt to change. Freedom of speech (right), freedom of choice (right), freedom to be different (right) is heavily censored in an attempts to “equalize” the population but in reality it’s nothing more than human control of the population to adhere to rigid maxims.

This gave birth to Socialism, which is a milder version of Communism that allows for the private free market system. The communal ideology is still present (welfare system, free healthcare system, unemployment benefits etc.) as in Communism but with Capitalist economic system. Currently, there is nowhere on the planet a pure Communism or Democracy but a fusion into some flavor of Social Democracy or some other difficult to describe totalitarian system. However, with growing population and the fast growing changes in technology, there is an increasing “need” to “control” the population, best with “uniformity” of “leftist” ideology in “equality”. One can observe such rise in leftist movements in Europe and the effects on the free speech for instance in the Laws recently enacted by the European Union. This entire topic becomes much more complicated in that fact that none of these things are random expressions of human will or necessity… or wisdom for that matter but a manipulation of the ideology of masses to achieve specific goals. This is why I’m quite certain that most people will be biased by what they were taught and what they have privilege to observe to deduce their own conclusions about the Marxist theory. I would like to learn of your perspective on Communism…

No. Zatamon didn't design a system of governance or administrator selection. O proposed one. And I did say, just above: random selection, as in jury duty. you number comes up, you either serve as administrator for your district, or give and excellent why you must defer it. (Like nursing a baby or taking final exams in medical school.) This means everybody gets the exact same chance to govern and most people do, some time during their adult life. How many administrators serve at any one time would depend on the area and number of people whose interests they must represent.

Except for basing seniority on longevity, I'm happy with your design up to here:
Seniority is not based on longevity, anyone can be dismissed annually.

Ranvier
"share holder" meeting that anyone can attend.

Where do hold a meeting of millions?
Local groups are small enough that this can be accomplished at a local “board meeting”
Regional and state candidates elected from the pool of the best achieved local leaders is presented with their full biography and programs they propose on a “State Alignment Website”, where people (stock holders) can ask questions in the Forum style and vote by majority consensus. Ultimately it doesn’t matter because it’s the people that dictate their will and the direction the Alignment takes, candidates for the “chair” of given level (local, regional, or state) is just an “executive employee” a CEO if you will.

Ranvier
Typically leader personalities emerge naturally within any group.

This is a problem. Typically, it's the most aggressive, rather than the most competent - who are often quiet and unassuming. Add it to "time devoted" and you may have a leadership of senile bullies. ( I thought we didn't like the current state of affairs. )

I understand. I also thought about such mechanism but the problem becomes that the randomly chosen “jury” may not be the best suited for the position. Presumably, it would be best to design a system that allows the “brightest” most educated and achieved individuals selected through evidence of willingness to devote their time and effort to the public benefit. I believe, or perhaps only the best I could conceive, was the hierarchy of Alignment system for individuals to naturally emerge as leaders. Of course people have their life experience under the belt on the “wise” ones know that leaders and “heroes” have a short life span, so they rather chose the role of the invisible adviser as “puppet master” in timid modesty. However, under the “incorporated” arrangement of the “the people”, competition becomes a healthy cooperation to choose the best individual for the position. Imagine Trump and Hilary, where they realize between each other that under the “rule” of one of them, both of them would make more money, therefore one of them would be naturally inclined to concede (logically).

Ranvier

Why force people into "jobs" that they don't want to do? Not very efficient or safe (Ex Medicine).

Who said anyone was forced into a job. It's a simple contractual obligation: You get a free education in whatever you have aptitude and desire for, and a basic standard of living and social security. In return, you do the work you're trained and suited for. It's exactly the same as having a job, only without all the hassle and waste of collecting, counting, protecting and redistributing mountains of money.

Eventually is not a reliable timetable for the sowing and harvesting of wheat; nor is it a good idea to have a beach catacombed with sun-screens, while the levees are crumbling.
"I thought you were cooking for the school cafeteria." "Naw, don't feel like it." "Oh well, I guess somebody will feed the kids eventually." If you think social contract is unsafe for the Emergency room, I respectfully suggest that laissez-faire is more so.
Public services need to be planned, co-ordinated and carried out in an orderly fashion.
Ranvier

We are brainwashed that we must "work" to live. That is simply not true.

It is until robots can do everything we need.

I urge you to realize that people make enough in dividends to “purchase” the basic necessities of life, just by being a citizen. Otherwise Food, electricity, shelter, healthcare, education (abolishment of the old archaic system is necessary), public transport, telecommunication etc. is free. Anyone who wishes for more, can work for the private sector or formulate the “consensus” within the Alignment that we need more.

It’s a brainwash that everyone needs to work to provide these basic necessities. How many times do I have to build a house? Once it’s there, it’s done. I calculate that about 5%-10% of the population would actually have to “work” to provide these basic necessities for everyone that needs it. I still didn’t produce the outline of the human personalities but only certain percentage of the population deeply cares about the material goods and profit. There is a considerable percentage of the population that places far greater importance on Respect or the Admiration within the society (my model breaks down human behavior to 8 motives). Take scientists for instance… their motive is certainly not the profit; otherwise they would have gone into business major. Think about the computer games, why do people run around with their avatar (wasting time for hours) just to get their “mage” or “paladin” to level… 50? Because it offers “instant” gratification in Respect or Admiration they don’t get in the real life. That is what the Alignment offers in the real life.

[Alias]

Presumably, it would be best to design a system that allows the “brightest” most educated and achieved individuals selected through evidence of willingness to devote their time and effort to the public benefit.

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.

My 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.

I do, however, wish that money could be removed the administration of the common weal, as well as its governance and law-making.

This Marxist ideology is still visible in the European education system, where one does not ask questions or undermine the existing theory, until perhaps one becomes a Minister of education at the top. This patriarchal approach is reflected in all the branches of the human thought as monolithic in nature, constricted by the inelasticity to adopt to change. Freedom of speech (right), freedom of choice (right), freedom to be different (right) is heavily censored in an attempts to “equalize” the population but in reality it’s nothing more than human control of the population to adhere to rigid maxims.

I would like to see some proof of these allegations in specific examples of specific European countries. Which particular freedoms of differentness are being more persecuted in which parts of Europe than in The US? And what, exactly, is being stifled by which governments?
I also question the assumption that change is a good in itself.
Come to think of it, has Europe not undergone and undertaken more changes and more radical changes in the political and economic arenas over the last 50 years than America?

-- Updated August 31st, 2017, 11:07 pm to add the following --

Wha...? I must have hit a button. Lost it all.

I urge you to realize that people make enough in dividends to “purchase” the basic necessities of life, just by being a citizen. Otherwise Food, electricity, shelter, healthcare, education (abolishment of the old archaic system is necessary), public transport, telecommunication etc. is free. Anyone who wishes for more, can work for the private sector or formulate the “consensus” within the Alignment that we need more.

I don't follow "dividend', "purchase" and "free" as belonging to the same system. How is the wealth that everybody owns created in the first place, and how do you keep track of who is entitled to what? And i really don't see the mechanism of how things are co-ordinated to produce the amount of everything that will be needed by everyone and getting it all to the right place at the right time.

How 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?