Global decentralized democracy. The key is to not let any one entity aquire to much power, inorder to accomplish this government must be kept local decentralized and most important voluntary. This will keep centralized power low and competition high.
Then you voluntarily move to a part of the world that shares your political views. Because unlike the current system, the decentralized model gives options through competing jurisdictions.
In the centralized democratic model, only the majority has a voice. In a decentralized model every one had a voice.
I think, that it’s best not to orwellify language - as that causes confusion. If you want to build something new, use the dictionary version of words in a clear manner. If words don’t exist, for what you are seeking to create then make new words instead of reshaping (orwellifying) existing words.
e.g. the word ‘democracy’ from mirriam-webster:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Notice in particular: “especially : rule of the majority”
Rule of the majority is ‘mob rule’, turned upright it translates as ‘minority oppression’. I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s the message you are trying to put across. So, instead of using words that do not express what you want, write out highly specific definitions for what you do want. That way we can all be clear about what you are meaning.
Uhuh and who pays for that? If the spot on the map is in another country or on another continent do I only get a voice if I’m rich enough to go there?
I think it’s a bad definition, it’s more fitting for an Ochlocracy. I consider the rechtstaat to be the most important factor making Democracy the least bad form of government.
I think that, before discussing systems of managing government power, there should properly first be clear reason and evidence that governmental power is required at all.
“If men are good, you don’t need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don’t dare have one. ” ― Robert LeFevre
EDIT: furthermore, a clear definition of “government power” should also rightly be on the table.
I harp on this all the time. You are right I should rename it to Global Decentralized Confederated States.
1.joined by an agreement or treaty.
“some local groups united to form confederate councils"
synonyms: allied, in alliance, in league, cooperating, associated, united, combined, amalgamated
plural noun: states
2.a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
That’s a good bit more clear.
It’s not a question if governmental power is required at all but instead having a choice of having a government or not. Anything that is forced removes freedom. Living in anarchy or in a state must be a individual choice to maintain liberty.
Please elaborate I don’t quite understand what you mean.
Tanstafl. Fuel costs money, food costs money, if you can’t drive such as myself or are flying or taking a boat then transportation costs money. Shipping property costs money. If I want to move to my new destination of political paradise how do I afford to do so if I don’t have the funds to do so? Being WILLING to move is not enough you need to have the oppurtunity to move as well.
Given my political persuasions I’d probably be happier in California or New York, or maybe even Florida or any number of places. However the question is HOW DO YOU GET ME THERE?
I have never heard of this before. Thank you for the link.
But, there is no right form of government for everyone. Some want complete security and to be controlled by a parental authority, while others want to be left alone with no government.
Liberty comes down to choice.
1.the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.
"compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty"
synonyms: independence, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty, self-government, self-rule, self-determination; More
2.the power or scope to act as one pleases.
“individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences"
synonyms: freedom, independence, free rein, license, self-determination, free will, latitude
I’ll take the latter, No government interference whatsoever. Tell all the beaurocrats and so called authorities to bugger off. Y’all can have them. I don’t want them.
Life is full of risks, it is up to the individual to mitigate these risks. Be careful what jurisdiction you choose to live in and fight hard to keep it the way you want. You could also be born in to a jurisdiction that you do not agree with. But risk can not be completely eliminated. As Dennis Leary would say “Life is rough wear helmet”
And that should be your choice.
But there is still the definition of ‘government power’ that you haven’t addressed.
If government power is the use of coercion, then it would follow from your own statements that choosing to live under a state would be self-contradicting.
EDIT: Also important to note that Anarchy means to live without rulers, not without rules.
EDIT again: well okay, I guess I am orwellifying the language here a bit. But in the anarchist community anyway, this is how the word is used. It’s not surprising that States everywhere don’t like the idea of anarchy - as for anarchists, this means that those who manage the state no longer have a job wherein they can coerce people – which is why a lot of them are attracted to such positions of power in the first place – control over others.
Might be a good idea to clarify the difference between a government and a State. It seems to me that any voluntary body can maintain a body of government, but a State seems to be a coercive government.
Liberty gives the individual the liberty to give up their liberty. I’m not saying that government is necessary nor am I saying anrachy is the end all solution. I am merely pointing out that liberty requires choice. I am neither an anarchist or statist I am a libertarian. Liberty above all!
I wish more people would realize this instead of believing the state sponsored propaga that anarchy means chaos. The problem is that the modern word of anarchy has to many definitions.
I subscribe to definition 1C minus the word utopian.
: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
1 a :absence of government
b :a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c :a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a :absence or denial of any authority or established order
b :absence of order :disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
You might be interested in this: http://www.panarchy.org/index.html
If you are facebook you might want to look up “John Zube” He’s an active promotor of panarchy and related ideas.
And I call this attitude naive at best if not outright delusional when put in contrast with the notion of having to move to exercise one’s political choice. When you’re having to live on less than a thousand dollars a month a move to the next city is a near impossibility let alone another province/state, god forbid another country or continent. Get a reality check man.