Image credit: Freepik
This essay is a follow-up to my essay of some months ago about
“Just Governance.” [[1]].
Today, I will sketch out some ideas on a possible structure to
support just governance. I am aware that to try to specify in detail how just
governance will work is a bit Utopian. This section, therefore, puts forward a
few off-the-wall ideas for how things might work. They are, necessarily,
tentative. And none of them is, as yet, fully thought through.
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.
I will only consider here the “finished product” of just
governance, once there are no remaining unavoidable debts or obligations
inherited from systems of the past. The full-scale migration from a world of
states to a world of just governance is a story for another day.
Communities
Just governance will, by design, be de-centralized. It
will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It will have no central point, at
which political power can collect. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one
interest group unjustly to override the interests of others.
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. Like
Aristotle’s ideal community, the units will be big enough to be economically sustainable
in the free market, yet small enough that people can get to know each other
fairly well. It’s interesting that today’s European micro-states and
dependencies, like Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Andorra,
all have populations in a range of 30,000 to 80,000, the kind of size I have in
mind.
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.
The institutions of just governance, too, will be built
from the bottom up. 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.
Free movement between communities and neighbourhoods
within them will be the norm. Absent exceptional circumstances (such as an
individual being barred due to past conduct, or an epidemic in progress),
anyone lawfully able to reach a neighbourhood may visit it. Though it will be
possible for individual neighbourhoods or communities to enforce rules on immigration if and when they wish, provided they promulgate these rules
beforehand.
Neighbourhoods of Just Governance (NJGs)
I envisage that the 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. The nearest equivalent to one today would be an
area residents’ association.
Once legacy states are gone, I envisage that incoming
migration will be controlled at the neighbourhood level. I expect that, under normal
circumstances, those wishing to reside permanently in a neighbourhood will be
expected to present themselves at a meeting of the NJG, and seek approval from
its members.
Change of residence, while requiring agreement from those in
the receiving neighbourhood, will be easy enough that dis-satisfied convivial
people can choose to move to places more congenial to them. Visitors, who
behave convivially, will be free to go anywhere in the public space they wish.
And temporary, periodic and permanent migration will be controlled only at the
lowest, neighbourhood, level.
At need, neighbourhoods will be able to split or merge.
Communities of Just Governance (CJGs)
I envisage the CJG to govern a unit large enough to be
economically viable in the free market. (This is not the same as being
completely self-sufficient – that would require far more people).
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. Planning new
infrastructure entirely within the community. (Such infrastructure would
normally be paid for by user tolls, until its capital costs have been paid off).
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 annual meetings
open to all community residents, something like a New England open town
meeting.
These meetings would have the power to make decisions through
a direct democratic process. CJGs will also be able to make decisions through
referendums, where a meeting is not feasible.
At need, and with the agreement of the people they serve,
communities will be able to split or merge.
Societies for Just Governance (SJGs)
The institution, which I expect to deliver those services
of just governance that wider in scope than 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.
At this scale, I expect the services to include: Judges and
arbitrators. Detectives. Risk and cost-benefit assessors. Co-ordinators of inter-community
infrastructure. Diplomats and negotiators. And quality auditors. The people who
do these jobs will work, at different times, on behalf of different
communities. Judges in particular, I expect, will travel from place to place,
as they used to in the days of assizes. And quality auditors will most likely
be senior individuals assigned from another branch of just governance (such as
judges or assessors) to a particular community for a fixed term.
An SJG will be a project management and contracting
organization. It will use 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.
In principle, any SJG will be able to deliver services
within any CJG. However, I envisage that at any time, a CJG will probably have
a preferred SJG to provide each type of local services. The inhabitants of the
CJG will be able to change their preferred SJG at the annual meeting.
Areas of Just Governance (AJGs)
Anything which requires a larger scale of co-operation
yet, will be handled through alliances. An alliance of CJGs in a geographical
area, I will dub an AJG, or Area of Just Governance. It is the nearest in just
governance to a country today. (There might, also, be
alliances which are not geographically contiguous; for example, currency unions).
I would expect the legislative function, including
maintenance of the Convivial Code, to be a function of an AJG. As new AJGs
appear in place of states, their home-grown versions of the Code will be
gradually merged with those of pre-existing AJGs.
It would also be at the AJG level that military defence
would be organized.
Centres of expertise
I envisage that there will be centres of expertise, which
will train (where necessary) and provide skilled individuals and teams to SJGs
for projects required by communities or by an AJG as a whole. These might be
evolved from older institutions, such as universities or training colleges.
Centres of expertise may operate over one or many AJGs.
The legislative
In just governance, the legislative will be needed in only
a few situations:
1)
Initial construction and agreement of the Convivial
Code.
2)
Determining when a change is necessary to the
Code.
3) Specifying the changes.
4) Managing the introduction of a new version of the Code.
Its work will require significant input from “experts.”
But what it produces must be validated by the governed, with everyone’s views
taken into account.
Any proposed variations to the Code will need to go through
an exhaustive and public change control process. Comparable, perhaps, in
difficulty with getting an amendment agreed to the US constitution.
Furthermore, when the Code is updated, all parties to contracts must agree if
they wish to move to the new version; if not, they will stay with the old.
Money and currency
Money, in some form, is vital to the functioning of any
economy. And the broader the range of skills and interests among those taking
part in an economy, the more vital money becomes.
Who should be able to issue money under just governance? I
confess I’m in two minds about this question. It’s tempting to answer, anyone
who has the resources to honour the money they issue. That would be, in
essence, a return to the early days of banking. But might it not lead to a
cacophony of competing currencies, which could easily descend into chaos
whenever an issuer fails, and their money becomes worthless?
Whoever issues it, the currency must, of course, have a
physical form. And it must be backed by a standard, based on the market value
of physical goods. I envisage that currencies would probably be linked to the
values of suitable baskets of commodities, which may include precious metals.
Financing just governance
A convenient way to finance just governance might be to have
a single currency, shared by an alliance of CJGs. This alliance usually would, but
might not, cover an entire AJG. And the currency would be allowed to be
inflated by a fixed, small amount each month or year.
This should ensure that the periodic payments for just
governance are in direct proportion to the value of assets denominated in that
currency. In the process, it would do away with taxation, as it exists today,
altogether!
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation for the UK using
data from 2017. It suggested that all the core functions of governance – about
10% of government spending at the time – could be covered by inflating the
currency at about 1.3% per year (at a historical average of GDP to wealth). Or
1.5% per year to cover all functions of just governance.
Banks of Just Governance (BJGs)
As a wild shot at a potential solution, consider the
following. Banks for Just Governance (BJGs) would issue currencies. Beyond
changes in the commodity prices, a BJG would be allowed to inflate its currency
each year by a percentage sufficient to cover the needs of the CJGs it serves.
Each year, each CJG town meeting should be able to elect its
BJG (and so currency) for the subsequent year. The proceeds of the inflation
they have authorized would then be passed each month to the CJGs to cover their
operating expenses.
There would, obviously, be reasons of convenience to
continue with the same BJG each year. But at need, it will be possible for
individual CJGs, or a whole AJG, to change currency.
In conclusion
And wouldn’t it be great if we could get rid of the legacy states, and replace them by set ups like this, all over the whole world?
No comments:
Post a Comment