A Celebration Society

Category: City design

Blog posts about Celebration Society city state designs, or other model city designs

  • Let’s Replace Our Lead Pipes

    Let’s Replace Our Lead Pipes

    Every great civilization has its high points and its low points. Often, it’s difficult to see the low points of one’s own society from within it.

    One popular pastime among Americans is to compare it to Rome. Such people often opine that American will soon go the way of the Roman Empire.

    The Romans were known for many accomplishments, from amphitheaters to roads that still exist today. They even had a system of government that made those they conquered often want to be part of the Roman Empire.

    They also had lead pipes. Lead is a wonderful material for pipes. It’s malleable, and resistant to corrosion and breakage. It is also a neurotoxin. It causes brain damage, and damage to other organs as well. Over time, exposure can lead to loss of intelligence and even insanity.

    Rome was known for some insane emperors. Caligula and Nero come to mind. It doesn’t take many insane leaders to turn a civilization uncivilized.

    What are our lead pipes? We Americans live in a society where:

    • We feel so unsafe, many of us feel the need to carry guns
    • Our kids are forced into a system that trains them to be drones. At the same time, we’re training drones to think like us
    • We slave at jobs that many of us hate, to pay for lives that we don’t have enough time to enjoy
    • Our financial system protects the financial service providers, leaving the rest of us at their mercy
    • Almost everyone detests the tax system, but no one seems able to do anything about it
    • We’re proud of democratic institutions that barely function, often giving us laws that 80% of us dislike

    I could go on, and other societies have their issues as well. But here’s a modest proposal: let’s try something different!

    Let’s create one model Celebration Society somewhere on Earth within the next decade. We can start it as a simulation; something fun and risk-free. Once that works, those participants who wish can join together and create a new city-state for real to further test it out.

    As I’ve demonstrated in my book, we have the technology and understandings right now to create a society in which everyone’s basic needs are met automatically, by machines. Done thoughtfully, our allies including leaders in different fields are saying that this could be a blueprint for a new world.

    We don’t have to go the way of the Romans.

     

  • Citizen Income Vs. Guaranteed Income

    Citizen Income Vs. Guaranteed Income

    I’ve written elsewhere about the many hurdles standing between the beautiful idea of a guaranteed income and its actual implementation in a way that takes care of all the people.

     Briefly, all approaches to a guaranteed income (universal, basic and minimum) share certain characteristics. They propose that everyone in the society–or at least all of those in a broad class such as adult citizens–are assured of some minimum level of monthly cash.

    This is an inherently confrontational, scarcity-based solution to a problem that is best answered from the context of abundance. First, all such schemes are proposed on the basis of somehow taking away money and other assets from those who are wealthy, have a high income (not the same as wealthy), or who own the means of production. Without passing moral judgment on the rightness or wrongness of such a concept, I simply observe that it is a substantial hurdle.The very people expected to pay for this are those most adroit at avoiding taxation , getting laws passed or modified to suit them, or moving their assets abroad.

     Second, this is not a hurdle in a single nation,  but in every nation. In our interconnected world, as conditions continue to destabilize due to  accelerating change, greater numbers of people will be seeking to relocate from one country to another.
    Imagine if a city implements such an income, as has been proposed. What will keep people from leaving other cities that lack such an income? It’s not just a problem with cities within nations. In Europe, the rules allow EU residents to freely travel across borders. If any EU nation institutes a guaranteed income by itself, it had better prepare for an upsurge in immigrants. This will strain the social fabric.

    The availability of such an income, even if delayed for a time due to citizenship requirements, would be an almost irresistible attractor. Already, there is much nativist sentiment arising in Europe and United States. It will get far worse with a guaranteed income.

    Essentially, those who advocate a guaranteed income are attempting to solve a problem associated with the uprising of planetary abundance from within the context of the Scarcity Game.

    It may work in wealthy, homogenous nations, if they can protect their borders. But in  divided nations, the reaction will be quite different. In such nations, for many years to come, a guaranteed income will be derided as socialism, and for many recipients there will be a sense of shame in accepting the money. This is not a way to create meaning.

    All these problems with the guaranteed income can be addressed within the Celebrationist model. First, the entire society will be a consensual co-creation of the various residents/owners. If some kind of guaranteed income were to exist in such a society, no one would be able to say that it was imposed upon them from above.

    Second, in a Celebration Society, Citizen will be a hard-won office; a position of respect. While this office will potentially be available to every resident, not everyone will seek it nor qualify for it. The income will be paid not just for holding the office of Citizen, but for one’s sworn availability to be of service in the government.

    Only Citizens will have roles in the government . Duties will include jury duty, occasional service via lottery selection as members of Parliament, and-most vital – a deep knowledge of the Charter and the society’s laws, and vigilance about assuring that these are respected and that the government has integrity.

    If a Citizen were called upon to work several hours per week, which would, in my estimation, ordinarily be the case unless one were serving a single term in Parliament, no one would ever call such a situation welfare. Such service would be respected, and even esteemed. It would be meaningful, and useful to the society.

    This income would be paid from the two basic sources of societal revenues. First, as a tourist destination, the society would charge most visitors a daily fee equivalent to DisneyWorld. Second, those people as well as residents and Citizens would purchase things. Since a consumption tax favors savings and long term investments, and treats everyone the same based on their consumption levels, I’d favor that a simple flat consumption tax be charged on all transactions. This should be limited by Charter to some modest level such as 15%, with no exemptions. (That fact plus an all-electronic monetary system would largely eliminate tax system manipulation.) Eventually, with full Celebrationist systems of production, even those taxes would likely be phased out.

    No forced redistribution of wealth would be required, and this might even be a culture wherein those Citizens who did not need the Citizen income would be encouraged to return it to the General Welfare Fund, so that others such as residents who are in need would be cared for. This is part of the whole societal concept of “paying it forward”.

    A guaranteed income is at best a palliative; at worst a mirage. We can do better, and we must.

     

  • Reality isn’t realistic

    Reality isn’t realistic

    When people tell me that a Celebration Society isn’t “realistic”, I’m perplexed. Sure, it’s bold; perhaps even outrageous. But unrealistic is a far more damning term. Is it valid?

    As I’ve explained elsewhere, those who believe that automation will once again create more jobs than it destroys are engaged in dangerous, wishful thinking. They are assuming that history will repeat itself here, and ignoring vital new machine learning capabilities. Among those who agree with me, most believe that the solution is retraining or a guaranteed income for those displaced. As I have also explained elsewhere, neither of those is going to be enough. At best they’re palliatives; at worst mirages.

    If I’m right in the above conclusions—and some pretty solid people agree with me here—then the Holmesian response would be, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    I’m not saying that a Celebration Society is the only solution that remains. But I will go so far as to say that all of the remaining solutions will have to be based on abundance rather than scarcity–at least, if we are to avert massive social disruption and eventual total state control of everyday life. If others have a better abundance-based solution than a Celebration Society , I’m eager to learn about it. (Perhaps the two, combined in some manner, would be better still.)

    All of that is to explain why I’m not much impressed by arguments that a Celebration Society isn’t realistic. But we could go further. Reality isn’t very realistic either—at least, if we define “realistic” as Google does: “representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.” To be clear about this, we have to go deeper. “True to life” means that it comports with our understanding of how life works.

    The problem is that this understanding is not how reality works. We know this from science. Most people used to believe the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the solar system, if not the whole universe. Why not? Those appear to be true, based on everyday experience.

    Biologists have long known that human senses of sight and hearing capture and interpret only a tiny fraction of the available spectra. Some animals smell thousands of times better than we do.

    Now, physics knows that matter is mostly empty space. But that’s hardly true to life. We know that time only moves forward, but a recent finding in physics solves a great problem in physics by showing that time mostly moves forward, but it also “jiggles” backwards. That certainly isn’t our experience in life.

    So, we have to accept that we’re imperfect modelers of reality. Much of scientific advancement has happened by developing ever more accurate models. However, as quantum physics demonstrates perhaps best of all, the most accurate models may have little to do with anything that is familiar, accurate, or true to life.

    A Celebration Society may not fit the definition of realistic, but it offers a way out of technological unemployment, a problem that most of us are going to find very realistic in the 2020’s. So, the next time someone says that a Celebration Society isn’t realistic, I’m going to respond, “Compared to what?”

  • Celebration Societies or Charter Cities?

    Celebration Societies or Charter Cities?

    There has been much discussion of Paul Romer’s charter cities, and an experiment of this sort may be taking shape in the Honduras– though not one to Romer’s liking. I expect that people will want to compare celebration society city states to charter cities. I wish to facilitate this comparison, highlighting important differences and showing why these differences matter. First, there are certain important similarities.

    Charter cities work on the basis of capitalism, essentially seeking to transport successful first-world models of investment and development to less developed regions of the world. Romer argues that this is how the British lease of Hong Kong brought prosperity to that city state. Capitalism will also enable the creation of early celebration societies.

    In both cases, an outside party will be given control of a small portion of a nation’s territory in exchange for the promise of significant economic improvement. In both cases, establishing consistent and transparent rule of law is considered paramount. In both cases, the outside party will establish its own system of government.

    Here are the differences that I see:

    1) Long-time residents of the host country do not need to be worried about being “kicked out” by the foreigners. Celebration Society cities will offer displaced residents the choice of either becoming residents of the new society (with the ability to become Citizens just like any other resident) or an above-fair-market-value settlement for their land to help them relocate elsewhere within the host country.

    2) Rather than generating profit only for outside investors, the Celebration Society will continue to contribute a direct share of its revenues to the host country.  (If the first celebration societies not only showcase a superior quality of life but also significantly benefit their host countries, that combination will facilitate the creation of additional societies.)

    3) A Celebration Society will be owned by its residents and governed by its Citizens. Outside investors may be offered long-term concessions on infrastructure projects, but never ownership of the society itself.

    4) The population of a charter city will basically come from the host country. The vast majority of the populace of a Celebration Society would likely be immigrants from other countries; at least in the initial cases. (While it is possible that a single host country could itself populate a new Celebration Society, making that a restriction would increase the challenge of collecting the vast number of escrow funders/residents needed.))

    5) Rather than companies bearing the cost of initial construction and improvement, then reaping the benefits of the city’s productivity, the cost of initial construction and improvement for Celebration Society cities will be borne by a combination of resident investment and tip-it-forward funds from existing Celebration Society cities; potentially supplemented by impact investors who are as concerned about the success of the experiment as their own ROI. As a result, the city’s profits flow back to the residents less what is shared with the host country. (Note: Profits from individual companies owned by residents will still flow to the owners of those companies, less taxes.)

    6) The investors in a charter city would be in a favored position. The nature of the Celebration Society government prevents power blocs and entrenched interests from gaining control. It would still be possible for a company to bribe individual members of Parliament to vote favorable laws. However since those laws would be transparent, and have a waiting period before they become permanent, it becomes significantly more difficult to maintain unfair laws that favor a company over other companies or the general populace.

    7) Further, once bribes were recognized, the company and its executives and owners would probably be expelled for violating the Charter. Therefore, it would be a last-ditch emergency tactic rather than standard operating procedure. Likewise, with a monetary system that is envisioned as being all-electronic, blockchain-based and traceable, bribes would probably have to be paid in money that is never repatriated to the celebration society. This would create considerable problems both for the payor and the recipient(s) of such a bribe.

    8) Some critics have expressed concern that organized crime might flourish in charter cities. Organized crime in general (AKA racketeering) requires minions to be effective. Such minions must perceive that their expected reward from the criminal activity exceeds the risk. As an early Celebration Society gradually shifts from capitalism to celebrationism, the incentives of criminal activity will become less appealing and the perceived risks greater. With their basic needs met by the celebrationist production system, few residents will risk their opportunity to live in one of the most pleasant places on Earth merely for the chance at illicit gains that they do not need.

    Eventually, I expect that celebration societies will be created not only as new city states in largely uninhabited land, but also as “retrofits” to existing societies. At that point, the comparison to charter cities will break down. However, this welcome development is years and probably decades in the future.

    Caveat: I have read only a limited amount about charter cities, and it is possible that some proposed charter city designs will address some of the differences I have highlighted.