I am a dirty socialist. Why, you might ask? Power corrupts. In this day and age, people use power afforded them by political or social status, and money, which gives us the ability to buy things, and therefore control. I don't think money is an entirely bad thing, per se – it's just that the most basic of human qualities – thinking about one's own needs, or greed – seems to be at the hearts of those in the world who currently control things. The rich keep getting richer, and the poor stay poor, or get poorer. That's why I like the concept of a society that strives to be classless. It may never happen, but I think it is an important goal to reach toward nonetheless. I don't want to see millions starve while a couple hundred have fleets of expensive cars that they don't use, and summer homes that they visit one day a year. Preventing that, to me, is what financial social justice is about.
Greed and the thirst for power run human society, and probably have always run it. I'm upset with this. I think that what I would like to see from humanity is a society more resembling a beehive – except with a rotating queen. An amorphous mass of humanity that considers the effects of one change on all its citizens. Ever notice the root of the word “community”? It's the same as “communism”. It's for the common good.
There are those who say people with entrepreneurial spirit and the willingness to get their businesses off the ground can do it without assistance. They must be living in a fantasy world. It is impossible to create a vast corporate empire without it having money, yes, but where did that money come from? It came from tangible goods and services, produced by the community.
Or in some cases, many communities. That money was gradually appropriated over time, because someone cornered the market on one particular service, and used anti-competitive business practices to force other, smaller-scale businesses out of business. I call that Walmarting.
Walmarting stands against everything I believe in when speaking about community-building. Nobody needs thirty billion dollars. The love of money for the sake of having more than the next person is the essence of greed, and the reason some people don't have enough to eat.
I have a new structure for city governments in mind. I think that this structure, which decentralizes power, can be used on provincial, national, and international levels as well, to make sure that no one person has an opportunity to become a dictator. It goes something like this:
In the cities that I designed, there would be city councils, in order to enact policies that are reflectant of the citizens' needs and desires. However, in an attempt to decentralize the power that may be afforded to a leader of these councils, I propose that a different councilor chair each successive meeting on a rotational basis, instead of having a mayor. This removes one position of power. If the city has a council of 8 members, that means that the chair of the meeting abstains from voting on proposals, so that a majority vote (4-3, 5-2) can be obtained for or against a proposal. If there ends up being public outcry about the results of a proposal, then a referendum can be ordered, and the citizens themselves can cast their votes on the proposal. It can then be readdressed in council, and possibly modified with the suggestions gathered from the citizens at large, until a vote on the proposal receives a majority vote. The aim for this process is to keep the interests of the populace at large in mind – have power ultimately rest with the people, instead of a few select individuals, who by definition are supposed to be public servants – that is, they serve the public; the public does not serve them. If, after all this due process, some members of the public are unsatisfied with some laws that are passed, they have two options: challenge a law in court, or move to a different location, where the laws can be more reflective of their own beliefs. You might think I'm giving some would-be criminals an out-clause here, but I think that if they end up deciding “I can't live here because I can't get what I want”, when what they want is motivated by greed and the desire for more power, it's better for everyone if they just leave to find that in some other place.
The notion of a co-operative structure in all possible forms of organization appeals to me much more than that of a structure with a "dear leader", because having power corrupts.
Greed and the thirst for power run human society, and probably have always run it. I'm upset with this. I think that what I would like to see from humanity is a society more resembling a beehive – except with a rotating queen. An amorphous mass of humanity that considers the effects of one change on all its citizens. Ever notice the root of the word “community”? It's the same as “communism”. It's for the common good.
There are those who say people with entrepreneurial spirit and the willingness to get their businesses off the ground can do it without assistance. They must be living in a fantasy world. It is impossible to create a vast corporate empire without it having money, yes, but where did that money come from? It came from tangible goods and services, produced by the community.
Or in some cases, many communities. That money was gradually appropriated over time, because someone cornered the market on one particular service, and used anti-competitive business practices to force other, smaller-scale businesses out of business. I call that Walmarting.
Walmarting stands against everything I believe in when speaking about community-building. Nobody needs thirty billion dollars. The love of money for the sake of having more than the next person is the essence of greed, and the reason some people don't have enough to eat.
I have a new structure for city governments in mind. I think that this structure, which decentralizes power, can be used on provincial, national, and international levels as well, to make sure that no one person has an opportunity to become a dictator. It goes something like this:
In the cities that I designed, there would be city councils, in order to enact policies that are reflectant of the citizens' needs and desires. However, in an attempt to decentralize the power that may be afforded to a leader of these councils, I propose that a different councilor chair each successive meeting on a rotational basis, instead of having a mayor. This removes one position of power. If the city has a council of 8 members, that means that the chair of the meeting abstains from voting on proposals, so that a majority vote (4-3, 5-2) can be obtained for or against a proposal. If there ends up being public outcry about the results of a proposal, then a referendum can be ordered, and the citizens themselves can cast their votes on the proposal. It can then be readdressed in council, and possibly modified with the suggestions gathered from the citizens at large, until a vote on the proposal receives a majority vote. The aim for this process is to keep the interests of the populace at large in mind – have power ultimately rest with the people, instead of a few select individuals, who by definition are supposed to be public servants – that is, they serve the public; the public does not serve them. If, after all this due process, some members of the public are unsatisfied with some laws that are passed, they have two options: challenge a law in court, or move to a different location, where the laws can be more reflective of their own beliefs. You might think I'm giving some would-be criminals an out-clause here, but I think that if they end up deciding “I can't live here because I can't get what I want”, when what they want is motivated by greed and the desire for more power, it's better for everyone if they just leave to find that in some other place.
The notion of a co-operative structure in all possible forms of organization appeals to me much more than that of a structure with a "dear leader", because having power corrupts.
No comments:
Post a Comment