A Federated Alternative to Republics and Democracies

Political Philosophy
1

I propose an alternative system of republics and democracy.

I propose a charter-based multi-governmental form. I just came up with this in a thread.

The idea is that you have a set of charters within one central government that you can freely associated with. This is then adjudicated by the various agreements within the charters.

Each charter is freely associated within the central government and has a seat of government.

Charters can be withdrawn if they fall below a certain threshold and new charters can be voted for or even created by the central government, should there be a warrant for it.

Thus people can choose what set of morality they want, with all the benefits of a central government to maintain the market of charters.

This would entail a very large bureaucracy and would allow for power to disperse based on what the people actually want.

Public places would be managed by inter-charter votes. Private places based on charter affiliation.

Labor law would be again be inter-charter agreement. You may have to be a certain charter to join a company, and that would be no big deal as there would be data agreements within charters to change charters.

This would be huge boon to both liberty enthusiasts and socialists and would eliminate the need for political parties. Thus ending the tension between parties in the Western World, pushing back on to a path of progress.

2

By whom? How?

Does anything go? Let’s assume there is taxation in one charter; can one person who doesn’t want to be taxed create a charter without taxation?

How? Who is voting? One vote per person or one vote per charter? Do we examine what the charter says, or is there someone representing the charter?

What makes it so that some domains are inter-charter and others are not?

This would be huge boon to both liberty enthusiasts and socialists and would eliminate the need for political parties. Thus ending the tension between parties in the Western World, pushing back on to a path of progress.

You haven’t explained why your system is better than the current situation yet. It seems there will be tension between charters, so maybe you eliminated parties, but you just replaced them with something else.

Also, if I take taxation for example, either your system is very permissive, which would be good for liberty enthusiasts but not socialists who will have less funds for the common good they want, or it won’t be very permissive, and it’s going to be the other way around. So it’s a bit questionable to say both are going to be happy when both logically can’t have it their way sometimes, if not most of the time.

3

We are essentially crafting a constitution with this argument. I like to keep things as abstract as possible as to leave room for different interpretations. But in this case I suppose it would be appropriate to define the relations??

By whom? How?

I am reasoning about it. I would supposed that to separate this from ancap, I would instead of having you found a new charter you would instead to vote to have a new charter from within a charter. Thus a form of a charter schism. This is just a preliminary idea, I suppose, as to make this not just a copy-paste of other ideas. I really need to refine this though. I will think about it. I have thought about it for a bit and I realized that schism makes the most sense, for now, since then you inherent the laws and the agreements of the prior system and would likely require a vote. I am still thinking about this.

How? Who is voting? One vote per person or one vote per charter? Do we examine what the charter says, or is there someone representing the charter?

I would rather put the charters in charge and have them deal with it. Thus the people would have to elect a head of charter. I didn’t realize that “inter-charter votes” was a bit confusing.

I believe that the nature of what is inter-charter would be derived from some naturally universal principles, like a matter of life or death, inter-charter trade, and defense. What is necessary for a nation to function, essentially.

I would argue that people would get what they want and from who they want. If they want certain realities, then they pay a very real toll. That is the benefit. You can get your socialist dream, but it is probably other impoverished people. You can get your liberation dream, but it probably won’t be wealthy. And so forth. People can have a real choice. And that is the real boon to it. Yes it is limited by practical reality, but that is the best part. You make of it what you will.

You mention taxes. That would be somewhat complicated, now that I think of it. It would probably be a flat tax, by necessity, as a complicated tax structure could not exist in such an environment (it could be very cumbersome).

4

I like to keep things as abstract as possible as to leave room for different interpretations

The questions were more about the different roles (president, legislator, etc., in current systems, for example) and processes in your system. I don’t think those are unimportant to specify, even quickly. You mention charters a lot, but a charter is just a piece of paper. What’s interesting is how you get them and who decides.

For example, to keep the example of the anti-tax person: whether they create it from a past charter or whether they ask for the modification of an existing charter, who else decides (i.e., vote)? Everyone? Just those who “endorse” the charter? The head of the charter?

I believe that the nature of what is inter-charter would be derived from some naturally universal principles, like a matter of life or death, inter-charter trade, and defense. What is necessary for a nation to function, essentially.

What is necessary for a nation to function definitely isn’t something clear. I mean, just look at the classical liberals or libertarians who want a state as minimal as possible. You ask them, and they all point to different ‘necessary functions’. Those words (‘necessary’ and ‘function’) are way too ambiguous. Just a quick example, drug consumption, is that inter-charter? Or can people have their own charter and be free of anti-drug measures? I am not sure if it falls under ‘matter of life and death’.

I would argue that people would get what they want and from who they want.

This is logically impossible as I said. If A want money from B and B wants to not have his money taken and given to A, either A will have what he wants or B will. They can’t both have what they want.

If they want certain realities, then they pay a very real toll. That is the benefit. You can get your socialist dream, but it is probably other impoverished people. You can get your liberation dream, but it probably won’t be wealthy. And so forth. People can have a real choice. And that is the real boon to it.

I am not sure I understand this idea of toll. You give examples of tolls but how do they come from your system?
How do people have a real choice? Would you say people have a real choice today? I mean they can vote. If no, then what’s the difference?
Even if you want to keep it abstract, you really should expand on why exactly your system improves the situation compared to current regimes.

You mention taxes. That would be somewhat complicated, now that I think of it. It would probably be a flat tax, by necessity, as a complicated tax structure could not exist in such an environment (it could be very cumbersome).

Well, if you want your bureaucracy, then it probably should be clear how you get the money for it. And to see if liberty enthusiasts will definitely benefit, as you said, I would like an account of how an individual would go about avoiding taxes.

5

What’s interesting is how you get them and who decides?

I would argue that the charter itself would decide the structure. I am more anarchist-leaning in that regard, where I would let power decide what power wants. It could call for emergency tyranny, which admittedly had some disastrous results in the 20th century but essentially no limits. Since the people can choose this should not be a big deal, as it will be always bound by inter-charter agreements. People can always choose to leave. That would have to be a requirement by the national government, that charters are easy to leave (again data agreements and various inter-charter agreements).

So essentially it is up to the charter to decide how their things are run. I would like to have a clause, at the national level, that forces schisms though if perhaps 5% of the population dissents from a size of probably 1% of the population. Thus charters can be 0.05% of the population, or approximately 165,000 people, which is about the size of a small city or moderate township, which I feel is appropriate. A town deserves a right to vote federally is my thinking. This opens us up to all sorts of derivative forms, and perhaps inter-charter organizations too, so then you can group under a common banner of laws. Hence the appeal, that of choice.

What is necessary for a nation to function definitely isn’t something clear.

This is intentional as there would be disagreement naturally so I am abstract as to allow for different agreements. Nonetheless. I would appeal to the life of an organism, and argue what is necessary is what defines the boundaries of existence of living things. In that regard, food, a physical space, and essentially a national consciousness. These are the necessities I would espouse. Thus on further reflection the national government would not be the one meddling with trade, on further reflection, but instead facilitating it, which is a different distinction. I would have the national government as the one facilitating these sorts of things rather than dictating what they are. Thus a sort of phenomenological government, one that doesn’t define what things are necessarily i.e. that we have certain drugs as good or bad, but rather helps us get what we consider to be good into our hands, a government that espouses that it is not the highest power but instead the charters are and hence sorta confederation-inspired in nature. I would like this so then we don’t have to worry about what any central government has to say about what we have to do in our lives. I want central government out of our lives and instead decentralized government, a government of free conscience, in our lives. So then it eliminates the idea of loyalty to power. So then self-power is eliminated and thus power can exist for other means, freeing power from it’s constant question for more of itself.

This is logically impossible as I said. If A want money from B and B to not have his money taken and given to A, either A will have what he wants or B will. They can’t both have what they want.

I am aware of the physical limitations and perhaps even the impasses that may occur in such a system. I am not a total idealist with these notions. There will have to be politics between the charters, which will be fascinating actually. Because it would be based on paper, instead of rhetoric. I would argue this is the domain of politics, the physical limitations of what is possible with groups of people. And to be clear I meant earlier by toll was metaphorical. There is a clear tradeoff, if I want to be more literal about it, and within this framework of tradeoffs people can make their own conscientious choice. Hence we are no longer bound by universal laws, but instead that of the subjective variety, which aligns nicely with post-Kantian views of morality and even 21st century morality, arguably, which is pluralistic in nature.

Well, if you want your bureaucracy, then it probably should be learn how you get the money for it. And to see if liberty enthusiasts will definitely benefit, as you said, I would like an account of how an individual would go about avoiding taxes.

Taxes would be mediated by the charters, but admittedly there would have to be a deposit for the central government.

I should mention but I do have a metaphysical backing for my argument. I am arguing about the truth and power dialectical. It is a dialectical that I have derived from reading Hegel. It is a tension between truths (an arguably metaphysical idea) and power (truth as power presents it to be). I argue that, using Kantian terms, truth is the noumena and power is the phenomena. Note I don’t really ascribe to Kantian terms, but his epistemology is very apt for explaining the differences.

I am going to write more on the matter, perhaps a small book, which I tend to distribute, so I am ready for more discussion. You have been insightful for structuring my arguments, I appreciate it @Suny.

6

Glad I could help.

I would argue that the charter itself would decide the structure

So essentially it is up to the charter to decide how their things are run.

But unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by charters, charters can’t do anything; they’re just documents. Who is doing the deciding behind the charters?
For example, the law decides what’s okay and what isn’t, but behind the laws are the legislators, those who make them. Who are the legislators of the charters?

I would like to have a clause, at the national level, that forces schisms though if perhaps 5% of the population dissents from a size of probably 1% of the population.

How do we know if people dissent? regular fixed ‘elections’?
And when we know people dissent, how is the new charter written?

There will have to be politics between the charters, which will be fascinating actually. Because it would be based on paper, instead of rhetoric.

Why would it not be based on rhetoric?

Nonetheless. I would appeal to the life of an organism, and argue what is necessary is what defines the boundaries of existence of living things. In that regard, food, a physical space, and essentially a national consciousness.

What’s a national consciousness and why is it necessary for the existence of living things?

I would like this so then we don’t have to worry about what any central government has to say about what we have to do in our lives.

But would we have to worry about what decentralized governments or the charters or the inter-charter agreements have to say about what we have to do in our lives?
If yes, does it matter that it is not the ‘central government’?

Again, you really should take a somewhat concrete case (like taxation) and show how things will go differently in your system compared to the current ones.

Taxes would be mediated by the charters, but admittedly there would have to be a deposit for the central government.

My central question about taxes is how they are imposed on the individual. Is there a difference with the current system, where you virtually can’t escape them (while staying in the country), but in theory, you could have a person who wants to end taxes, and you can vote for him? Maybe they’ll win, and maybe they’ll end the taxes. I still don’t see the answer.