In my previous post I started presenting an
Idyllic view of life on Earth in year 2500 AD, where a bunch of humans (well,
there are still 500 millions of them, that’s 1,000 times more than the current
number of elephants, more than 12,000 times the current number of all rhinos,
and more than 5,000 times the current number of gorillas, just to compare with
other large mammals with similar metabolic demands) live scattered in little
villages surrounded by fertile fields they till and tend with the help of
heavily automated machinery, which enables them to lead lives of leisure and
health, with a substantial part of their time devoted to traveling and knowing
the world. Today I want to focus on how they govern themselves, to ensure a
maximum of safety and freedom. To that end, I’ll first need to review why we
need a government in the first place, what it is essential for and what it has
ended doing because of the very contingent vagaries of our chosen path of
social development (and thus we should at least consider freeing it of those
responsibilities). Why is there a group of people we are willing to surrender a
fraction of our liberty to, then?
·
For
clarification of the rules we give to ourselves. As the publicity, clarity and
consistency of those rules is a precondition to live together in harmony, we
want an independent body charged with proposing them, discussing them and giving
those that are finally chosen a “seal of approval” that allows everybody to
know since when they are enacted and thus can be enforced. This we will call
“State as legislator” (aka the legislative branch). Today, we produce a most
complex and protracted amount of legislation hierarchically organized, so there
are some charters and rules for multinational bodies, then each country has a
constitution and a myriad laws and regulations published by the parliament, the
region, the city hall, the professional governing body, ad infinitum
·
For
convenience, as they can provide us with services that it would be very
difficult (read: impossible) to leave to private initiative because there is no
“market” for them, as they a) can’t be priced fairly (their price elasticity is
infinite) or b) imply a huge asymmetry of information or power between the
provider and the receiver or c) the good
of ensuring universal access vastly outweights the lack of competition derived
from providing them publicly. Under this category I have in other posts classed
(basic) education, healthcare (up to a point), basic infrastructure (energy and
telecommunications) and safety & security (police & army), but what is
true of the XXIst century may not be of the XXVIth. This we will call the “State
as big corporation that gives us things nobody else would” (aka the executive
branch)
·
For
arbitration, as an impartial 3rd party to adjudicate in the myriad
disputes, big and small, that arise incessantly when living together. As each
person is endowed by nature with an inordinate fondness for his own welfare and
enjoyment and too little for those of his fellow humans, so every time there is
a conflict between different parties its resolution can be greatly expedited if
there is an external source of legitimate decision both parties can agree to
submit to. This we will call “State as judge” (aka juridical branch)
·
For
security and peace of mind, we want there to be a monopoly of violence, and
that monopoly to be exercised by an institution that is as transparent as
possible, as accountable to the majority as possible, and as restrained in its
use as possible. I have listed that security previously as one of the services
the State provided for convenience, but I think it belongs to a separate
category, as the previous three would be meaningless if the State did not have
the means to enforce the laws that it passed, to secure the monopolies it
granted itself and to have its judicial decisions respected. Indeed, this is
the most problematic of all the things we want to have performed, as history
shows it is all too easy to allow for increasing levels of “mission creep” and
ensuring the safety of the citizens ends up being the excuse for meddling in
their lives, administering every little activity and communication they engage
in and just bossing around for its own sake. This we will call “State as a
night (or day) watchman” (aka security apparatus)
So we are breaking no new ground here, people
may disagree regarding the extent of the involvement of a collective apparatus
(agencies of the State) in each of those areas, but a vast majority are for at
least some limited involvement in each, if not for their complete
collectivization (now, remember I am an anarcho
traditionalist… the anarchistic part makes me oppose to that majority’s opinion
in this, which will be abundantly clear when I describe what I consider the
ideal society). I maintain that such approval derives from the irrational
attachment we have to an outmoded social organization which was geared towards
international competition through increased production of material goods, and
is particularly ill suited to the kind of future that is starting to take shape
already in the second decade of the XXIst century.
We will leave how we get from here to there for
a later post, and start right away describing how each of those functions will
evolve between now and 2500 AD. Given that the village (remember, about 10,000
people strong) is the main administrative unit, and that there will be about
50,000 of them, which would make their coordination pretty cumbersome for any
project that required the collaboration of multiple villages, I see as
necessary an intermediate level of “village federations”, of which there should
be roughly around 500 (so each one encompasses 100 villages, and represents the
interests of a million people).
·
Legislation
consists of two documents: the “Charter of Humanity” and the “Village Charter”.
The first lists the rights and duties of every human being (so it not only
identifies what every person can legitimately expect to receive, but who has
the direct duty to provide it to him/ her), and it shouldn’t be more than a
page long (along the lines of the current UN declaration of the rights of man,
but in stark contrast with it, it would be embedded in a society with the means
to respect them). Two rights merit special attention, the right to means of
subsistence (the State shall effectively provide enough food to any citizen,
regardless of employment or status) and the right to move and settle where they
see fit (people will be actively encouraged to travel to become familiar with
how other villages order their affairs, and any village shall accept and
provide for any traveler that declares his intention to settle in it)
The second defines (again, in no more than two, three pages) how each
particular village is ruled. The universal template stipulates the appointment
of a council of “village elders” (between five and ten in number) to act as
board of directors of the collective facilities (we will describe what they
consist in when we deal with the economic organization) and as judges. They may
have great latitude to appoint auxiliary bodies to temporarily take care of the
communal business (oversee some significant public work, investigate some new
area of research, gather evidence in some complex case they have to decide
about, etc.). Now each village may have their own rules on how those elders are
chosen (democratically or by examination or by birth, for a short period or for
life, etc.) and to what kind of restrictions they are bound (some villages may
prefer that they devote their time exclusively to the community, and so declare
it incompatible to pursue any individual business whilst in office, and some
others may allow them to engage in both). The key here, again, is that people
will have the freedom to move from one village to another and to settle
wherever they want (remember indeed that a significant amount of time is spent
travelling and communicating with people in other villages), so if one is very
poorly managed it will just see its population dwindle and will thus have the
greater incentive to reform.
The village elders send one representative (at least twice a year,
although there is also latitude on how frequently they meet) to a council of
the village federation where the issues between different villages are resolved
(as villages never overlap, and have a fixed amount of land allotted to them,
there should be almost very few of these, although some are conceivable, like
pollution of a shared river by an upstream neighbor) and common initiatives
(like the improvement and upgrade of the communication networks) are approved
and monitored. Finally, the different federations send two representatives to
the world council (which meets at least once a year), where the biggest
projects humanity as a whole embarks upon are decided and steered. Thus a minimalist framework of laws and
institutions regulate the use of the commons, and everybody has a strictly equal
representation. All the rest of day to day activities are regulated by
“private” contracts or free agreements between the directly affected parts, as
the citizenry is homogeneous enough regarding power, wealth and ability to
influence each other as not to require infinitely complex norms to restore a
semblance of balance and fairness.
·
There
is just one monopoly in the hands of the state, and two additional services
that it provides. It monopolizes land, and assigns it sequentially both for its
residential use and for agriculture and industry (we will explain more about
the latter when we talk about the economy). Every newborn and every foreigner
that arrives with the stated intent of settling in the village is allotted a
patch of land to build a dwelling in and (if such is his inclination) to
cultivate. After the first generation all the available patches may have some
housing already built in them, and once they are made available (after the
death of the previous inhabitants) the new dwellers may choose to tear it down
and build a new house from scratch, or to modify it as they see fit. Some
villages may want to enforce some building regulations (to ensure a modicum of
safety or of energy efficiency) and some not. Regarding services, the only ones
provided by the state are physical means of communication (keeping roads in
good state and, if by the sea, a functioning harbor) and telecommunications
(having high bandwidth access universally available to any citizen within the
area under the control of the village). Significantly, medicine is left in the
hands of the citizenry because by then it will have stopped having infinite
price elasticity. If a citizen is diagnosed with a terminal illness, he won’t
be willing to pay a fortune (all that he has and more) to extend his life a few
months, but he will instead bid farewell to his loved ones and get a modest
dose of painkillers to die peacefully. Beyond that, normal medical services
will be provided by those with the inclination and the ability to do so,
offered in an open market subject to competition, which will determine that
they set reasonable prices in exchange for the best service they can offer. I
will have more to say regarding both education and security later on, so I do
not have to belabor this point.
·
We
already mentioned that the village elders would be the judges to which any case
of disagreement is brought. They will not need to be trained in a whole
monstrous discipline (law), as all the relevant laws will occupy all of four or
five pages in plain language and understandable by everybody. In a society of
equals (we will see when we talk of how economy works what mechanisms it will
develop to limit inequality and ensure nobody becomes so wealthy as to exert an
unduly influence on the common business) there is less risk of the judiciary being
bought by particular interests, but in this case we would have the tempering
effect of the freedom of movement. If the elders of a village were consistently
unjust, and there were no legal ways of removing them from office, their
village would witness an exodus that would force them (or their descendants) to
change their ways. I do expect a very substantial reduction of crimes,
specially against persons and properties (in an open societies where everybody
is effectively –against just nominally, as in our own society- ensured of
having enough to subsist it is to be expected that only pathological cases,
with which we will deal in short order, may be compelled to threaten, maim or
hurt their fellow citizens or their rightful belongings), but given the litigious
nature of human beings I could imagine in certain zones and places a
significant burden on the elders under the weight of countless demands of civil
and commercial nature. Although nothing in my proposed organization would
prevent them from appointing auxiliary courts for judging in particular areas,
I’d rather prefer that they would provide guidelines for the writing of
contract between individuals to better foresee and resolve in advance the
potential differences in interpretation that may arise during their execution.
·
Finally,
we come to the very delicate aspect of how will the community enforce the norms
that it dictates to itself. Old school anarchists were violently opposed to the
idea that a dedicated force to that end were even necessary, as in a perfect
society, defined by its liberty, equality and fraternity (or any such set of
republican virtues) people would naturally behave well and disinterestedly
contribute to their countrymen’s well being to the full extent of their
capabilities, never breaking a rule they would have given to themselves freely
and voluntarily. Maybe, maybe not (as never in the history of our species has
such society existed, or is likely to exist). I tend more towards Kant’s view
of men, from whose crooked timber nothing good ever came. Even in my dreamed
society of equals, where ambition is reconducted to “speaking great words and
making great deeds” instead of “owning more shiny things than your neighbor”
there will be unjustified violence (as long as there are young men full of
testosterone and alcohol), petty crime and potentially more serious one (rape,
sexual abuse, even murder). There will be lazy bums, maladapted whiners,
miscreants, malingerers, communal job slackers (the equivalent of today’s tax
evaders), remorseless over procreators, and more seriously, violent
psychopaths, dangerous schizophrenics, pedophiles and wife beaters. The most
benign cases may be talked out of their wayward ways and with some monitoring
and supervision be made productive citizens again. Unfortunately, evil is very
real and some people will be (as they are today) evil beyond redemption, so
they will have to be identified (some are wily and skilled in dissimulation)
and dealt with, humanely but firmly. For all that, a dedicated police force is
unavoidable, and it is better if they are under the community’s control, in the
form of the village elders, who decide on their size, eventual expansion or
contraction, the guidelines of conduct of their members and their eventual
dismissal.
So essentially that is all the state I see in
the XXVIth century: 5 officials per every 10,000 people, plus the police force
they deem necessary (but which on average I think shouldn’t go beyond 10-15
well trained officers), a short set of universal rules and another, similarly
short set of local rules, and open borders to ultimately vote with your feet in
case or irresolvable disagreement with the latter (both with how they are
written or how they are effectively implemented).
That minimal State will need very little surplus
to be extracted from the population in the form or taxes (or rather, communal
work) for its maintenance, but that leads us to how this future world will
organize its production and distribution, something with which I will deal in
my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment