A Rough Prototype

I've often quoted or parapharased Buckminster Fuller by pointing out that one cannot create change (in governance or economics) by fighting the existing reality, but rather by creating a new model which will be demonstrably better than the existing reality. The Universe abhors a vacuum. You can't tear down the existing system without having something to replace it. If the new something works better, it will be naturally and cooperatively accepted as the new way to do things, much the way that evolution works.

There are a number of things that need to happen, aspects of a new model that need to be assembled. What I'll attempt to do is build a "prototype". Not the usual prototype, which is a full featured, ready for release, thing, but rather a rough outline, a framework, adequate to see how pieces connect, adequate to be "turned over" and viewed from different viewpoints, ready to be filled in with details, enough of a framework to check assumptions inherent and supporting. Change happens when a new tool, with which to interact with the environment, is adopted (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

One understanding we need to come to (and there is no "first", no "order") is that there isn't enough "work" to go around. This is largely due to automation and robotics. It has nothing to do with globalisation. As we'll "see" in a few paragraphs, it doesn't matter where things are done. We are all passengers on Spaceship Earth. And, even in those "third world countries" with lower pay scales, automation and robotics are eliminating human jobs.

Now, counter this understanding with the knowledge that humans were meant for better things anyway. Humans are creative. They're problem solvers. The human mind was not meant for repetive work. Humans were not designed to be machine operators. Buckminster Fuller expressed it as "the true business of people should be to go back to school and begin thinking about whatever they were thinking about before someone interrupted to tell them they need to earn a living."

Brings us to "living". We have to accept that people don't have to "earn" a living. We are living. Every single person on earth has the potential to solve problems and advance the likelihood of Man's survival on earth. That is true wealth (as opposed to wealth, as now defined, a zero sum game where one man's wealth is another's debt). We must establish what many call a UBI, a Universal Basic Income. Though the need is not for a universal income but rather for the distribution of needed resources, food, housing, clothing, educational opportunity. (You'll note that our current definition of wealth has nothing to do with actual resources.) We have resources to go around, though not "wealth" as currently defined.

This distribution must be universal. If it is only one nation, or one region, doing this, far too many resources will be squandered trying to keep the have-nots from getting what the haves, have. Consider how much we waste in defending borders and "sovereignty". More on this, again, in a few paragraphs.

In place of unfettered capitalism, unfettered sharing and cooperation. Employee owned production and shared assets. Uber, Lyft, car sharing, bike sharing are the beginnings of a sharing economy.

Children are born problem solvers. Then, we tend to educate that out of them by occupying them with facts and specializations. Mr. Fuller expressed it as "there is no such thing as genius. Some children are less damaged than others" There is nothing wrong with facts they are much needed, but they also must be applied. Humans are comprehensive thinkers and are only made into specialists, denied "the big picture" in order to control them. Children will learn, they are insatiable wonderers. Remember the "why? why? why?" stage. I'll bet you were glad, as an "adult" when you taught your kids to stop asking that. Children will learn what they are interested in knowing. They just need to be exposed, constantly, to all of it. Computers and the internet make that possible. Adults will do the same. Children and adults are capable of seeing what needs doing and will learn the skills necessary to do it. I'm a liveaboard, and I can't possibly count the number of people I know who have learned how to rebuild a carbeutor, or replace a pump impeller, or cook a gourmet meal by watching YouTube videos. The knowledge is "there" and more keeps coming. People will use it, to better themselves and the world, given the opportunity, means, and lack of discouragement. (Humans don't need to be encouraged to learn--it's a natural activity. Imagine a Montesori type learning environment, where children are encourage to solve problmes,something they are interested in. The facts come along with the solutions. As often as possible that problem solving should be done in a group setting--the way most problems are truly solved.

Government has become overblown. It doesn't seem to work well, so we add to it, rather than investigate why it's not working and making changes.

Municipal governments seem to work fairly well. They actually mangage to build infrastructure, run school sytems, police departments, fire departments, etc. They could do better using different techniques, but they do have a list of credits.

State governments, for the most part, deal with coordinating and/or limitiing what municipalities can do. Were states not worried about "sovereignty" they wouldn't be worried about limiting what municipalities do. Municipalities can coordinate working with other municipalities on an "as needed" basis, without the resource wasting overhead of the State. In short, we can eliminate state governments.

Nations, national governments were concocted to build navies to protect trade routes and to allow the exceedingly rich and powerful discoverers of those trade routes to work extranationally. We now call those seafarers "oligarchs", and they continue to operate beyond the pale of national governments, or extranationally. Nations were meant to impede the flow of resources and information--our resources, our know-how for "our" navy. Nations are wasteful, an impediment to Man's survival, enable too much harmful behavior, and should be eliminated. I've had some new thoughts on this. Click here.

This brings us to the level of a world government. No, not the UN, which is a group of nationalists fighting for their self interests, nor anything like it. But,something is needed at this level because some problems are just bigger than municipalities and scale becomes important.

Governance by Charette

Let's look at how municipal and a world government might operate in the best interests of Everyone--100% of humanity. The actual government would be a small group of people, perhaps a bit larger the than usual city council or county commission, whose main function to become aware of problems, by their own insight, or more often being informed of them by citizens, identifying a preliminary set of stakeholders in that problem, and calling a meeting of those stake holders.(In the business world, these meetings are sometimes called "charrettes") Those stake holders, in their meetings, define the problem, perhaps add or subtract stakeholders as the problem becomes clearer. Once the problem is defined, the group continues to work together, cooperatively and consultatively, openingly sharing information, ideas, strategies, opinions, until they arrive at a solution. Done properly, the solution, in most cases, will not be a "compromise", but more often will be the result of an AHA! moment that all of the stakeholders readily "get on board with". (This is not supposition--I've experienced it many times. It's almost magic.) The solution is reported to the original governing body who if appropriate, aids in it's implementation, though much of that will be done by the stakeholders themselves. The next stage of the governing body's responsibility is to publish/broadcast the solution so that other municipalities can implement it, or another charrette can include it in its discussions.

BACK