13. Just
governance
Next, I will outline my proposal for a new, bottom-up system
of governance, which can replace, and fix the problems with, the current,
top-down, failed system of political states and governments.
I call my proposed system, to supersede the political state,
“just governance.” The following is a brief summary of how it might work.
The functions of just governance
The new system will govern communities of individuals, in
much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also
adjudicate as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the
voluntary societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies
they interact with.
The primary function of just governance will be provision of
common-sense justice to all. Maintenance of peace and tranquillity, and the
upholding of the human rights of all those who respect others’ equal rights,
are also important functions. And just governance will allow maximum freedom
for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.
Just governance will also include strong quality assurance
on its own processes. For example, lying, or any kind of dishonesty, by
officials of governance against the people they are supposed to be serving will
be a very serious, even a dismissal, offence. Regular audits will also be
conducted on both the value-for-money to the governed of all projects of
governance, and the honesty, objectivity, openness and transparency of all
those in positions of any power. Think of Donald Trump’s “DOGE” on steroids.
Just governance will also need some subsidiary functions,
such as diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy
states. Another possible function would be some level of co-ordination of
infrastructure development between neighbouring communities.
Crucially, just governance will not have any permanent
legislative. For its code of law, the natural law of humanity, comes from human
nature, not from edicts made by political élites.
The character of just governance
Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It
will focus on the individual, and on small communities. And it will not allow
any political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the
governed against their wills. Moreover, it will not seek to control or to
meddle with economic activity in any way.
In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It
will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of
political power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive
rather than pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest
group unjustly to override the interests of others.
Just governance need not be territorial. But it is likely
that, while there are legacy states still in existence, in order to defend
against their aggressions the community it governs will need to be defined as
the inhabitants of a particular territory. I refer to such a governance as an
“area of just governance.”
The judicial function
The primary institutions of just governance will be
judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and objective assessment
of externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just
governance.
Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come
from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the common-sense
nature of its principles.
As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be a
separation between two areas of justice. On the one hand, arbitration and
restorative justice; that is, the resolution of disputes, and the calculation
and ordering of restitution for wrongs. And on the other hand, criminal or
retributive justice.
Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make
objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such
as pollution or noise, which cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause,
damage to others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be
made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they
caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. The judicial
function will also be able to analyze and assess actual or alleged risks, in
much the same way as for externalities.
Secondary aims and functions
The secondary aims of just governance are upholding human
rights, and allowing maximum freedom for everyone. That freedom, of course,
must be tempered by individual responsibility for the effects of willed actions
on others.
The function that upholds rights would correspond, in
today’s terms, to a police force. Other aspects of the upholding rights
function might be the emergency services which today are often required, with
or without police, at or after incidents. Under the same heading, when
required, would come dealing with disasters such as floods, and defence against
invaders, military aggressors and violent gangs.
Local and emergency rules
There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what I
call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for
the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in
the local area. Like which side of the road you should drive on. But local
rules must be kept to a minimum.
There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the
event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. But the scope and
period of such rules must be as limited as possible.
Comparison with today’s governments
In stark contrast to today’s governments, a just governance
will have no political or religious agendas. It will not pick favourites to be
treated better than they deserve, or scapegoats to be treated worse than they
deserve. It will at all times maintain its objectives of upholding rights and
freedoms, delivering common-sense justice to all, and allowing maximum freedom
to all who behave in a convivial manner. It will never intentionally impose
costs on groups or individuals for anything that does not bring corresponding
benefits to those same groups or individuals.
If an apparent problem surfaces, it will be evaluated
objectively and honestly before any action is taken on it. The true version of
the precautionary principle, “look before you leap,” will be restored. No
precipitate action will be taken unless the claimed problem is shown to be,
beyond reasonable doubt, real. And no action will be taken that imposes costs
on anyone who is not provably a part of the cause of a problem.
Should emergency action be taken, which does not result in a
solution to the problem, just governance will take steps to compensate those
who were unjustly harmed. Should the claimed problem be found to be based on
false principles, it will take appropriate action against those that made, or
aided or abetted, the false claims.
Rules for territorial just governances
This section applies to areas of just governance. That is,
just governances which, for historical reasons, are still territorial.
I expect that only in three circumstances will a territorial just
governance ever need to negotiate with those outside its area. First, its trade
policies with other just governances, and with legacy states while they still
exist, will always be along the lines of: “you treat us fair, and we’ll treat
you fair.” It may make trade agreements, as long as they fully conform to this
ideal.
Second, its foreign policies will be along the same lines.
But in addition, while legacy states still exist, it may make mutual defence
pacts with other just governances, or in exceptional circumstances with a
legacy state or states. It will not make any other pacts or “treaties” with
external parties, including multi-national companies or other multi-national
organizations.
Third, provided the people governed agree in each case, it
may make alliances as necessary with other just governances, for the purpose of
improving just governance.
A possible structure for just governance
Here, I will sketch out some ideas on a possible structure
for just governance. Of course, any new system on this kind of scale will have
to be prototyped first; and the good ideas taken forward, and the less good
modified. So, the system may end up looking significantly different from my
proposals.
Just governance will, by design, be de-centralized. The
communities, in which the governed live, will be small enough to produce
diverse “flavours” of community for people of different tastes. I have in mind
a town or small city, with a population range of a few thousands up to perhaps
a hundred thousand. Economically, different communities will tend to specialize
in different things. So, there will be much trade, both between neighbouring
communities and between those further apart. Moreover, free movement will be
the norm.
I envisage, first, local or neighbourhood organizations, on
a scale of a few hundred people. And second, community organizations, on the
scale of a town, small city, or suburb of a larger city. There will also be
governance institutions, which can provide services on a wider basis than just
a single community. Anything, which requires a larger scale of co-operation
yet, will be handled through alliances.
The neighbourhood
I envisage that the neighbourhood of just governance (NJG)
will be a voluntary society in a neighbourhood of a few hundred people, for
those who take an interest in just governance locally. Its main functions will
be to conserve the special characteristics of the local area, and to assess
possible changes to it, including the suitability of potential incoming
migrants. It will operate, in essence, by direct democracy.
Once legacy states are gone, I envisage that incoming
migration will be controlled at the neighbourhood level. I expect that those
wishing to join and to reside permanently in a neighbourhood will be expected
to present themselves to a meeting of the NJG, and seek approval from its
members.
The community
I envisage the community of just governance (CJG) to govern
a unit large enough to be economically viable in the free market. I envisage
that CJGs will probably be non-profit companies. I expect the remit of a CJG to
be closer to that of a town council than anything else today.
I would expect the CJG to organize those functions of just
governance which must be delivered at the local level. I expect the services to
include: Police (except detectives), firemen, paramedics and other first
responders. Maintaining a capability for military defence. Making and
administering local (and, at need, emergency) rules as required. Providing
premises and support staff for courts of just governance. And maintaining
pre-existing infrastructure in the public space, such as roads and footpaths.
In addition to regular discussions on CJG-level matters
among representatives from the NJGs, I expect there would be periodic (probably
yearly) meetings open to all community residents, something like a New England
open town meeting.
At need, and with the agreement of the people they serve,
communities will be able to split or merge.
At the wider level
The institution, which I expect to deliver those services of
just governance that can be managed and delivered from outside any particular
CJG, I have dubbed the Society for Just Governance (SJG). An SJG will probably
be a non-profit company. It will be the nearest equivalent in just governance
to a government today.
It will be a project management and contracting
organization, using externally sourced skills, such as detectives, judges and
arbitrators, risk and cost-benefit assessors, diplomats and negotiators, and
quality auditors, to do the work. It will compete with other SJGs in the free
market.
Co-operation between just governances
Where just governances are territorial, they will have the
latitude to co-operate with each other, for any of the purposes of just
governance, through alliances. Individual communities will be able to withdraw
from or change alliances, if their people so indicate.
How to pay for just governance
What an individual is expected to pay for just governance
should be in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see the
benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property – as
being in direct proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic
payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.
Of the remaining current governmental functions, those
services which are necessary, but not part of core governance – such as
welfare, pensions, health care and education – need to be de-politicized, with
control being passed to those who provide those services. And new, just and
more flexible financial arrangements will have to be devised. Development of
new infrastructure will also need to be reviewed. I would expect that, under
just governance, most new infrastructure would be paid for by user fees, such
as tolls.
As an important feature of the system of payment for just
governance, there will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor will
there be any re-distributory or confiscatory taxation.
In the best of all possible worlds, just governance might be
funded, in an area with a common currency, without the need for any form of
taxation resembling today’s. This could be done by allowing the currency to be
inflated by a small percentage each month or year. About 1.5% a year (0.125% a
month) was my back-of-an-envelope figure for what might be needed to support
the core functions of just governance. This would affect all assets denominated
in the currency, so should produce the desired distribution of payments
according to wealth. But to work out how to make such a system practical goes
beyond my pay grade in economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment