A Celebration Society

Category: Government

Blog posts about Celebration Society government

  • 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.

     

  • Rites of Passage

    Rites of Passage

    Google’s dictionary defines a rite of passage as, “a ceremony or event marking an important stage in someone’s life, especially birth, puberty, marriage, and death.”  I think this is a very serviceable definition.

    One thing missing from our modern society is a complete set of these. Yes, we have marriage, divorce, birth, birthdays and funerals/wakes. But some of the most important of these events are not recognized in modern society. They were very much part of traditional societies.

    I should think that a Celebration Society would benefit from also recognizing these events: puberty, formation of a new House/family corporation, First Recognition (the first time one is acknowledged in a city-state wide celebration for one’s service), induction into the Royalty, becoming a resident, becoming an adult, renewing of marriage vows, adoption into a family, and others–most importantly, becoming a Citizen.

    Some rites of passage would be brief and private; others lengthy and public. Each would be designed by the Citizens as a whole to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the society; excepting those that are very private in nature, which would be designed by those involved (possibly using model examples from previous such events, as those participating may wish to share their libraries.) I envision the Royalty as developing a Rite of Passage for those inducted; perhaps something to finally integrate one’s shadows.

    The Oath of Office for a Citizen would be brief yet poignant, coming as the completion of a long, arduous journey in which the person’s character would be tested and found worthy. The entire Rite of Passage for Citizenship would, it seems to me, likely include something like this:

    Begins with a resident who is of age (perhaps 25, as that is when the brain matures), or who has special judicial exemption, formally petitioning the Parliament. This is the Application Stage.

    Parliament reviews these applications either as they come in or in batches. (It may delegate this process.) Each receives either Approved or Not Yet as a response. The latter comes with remedial preparation recommendations. The former comes with an agenda for the Candidate Citizen to follow. This will include some particular service(s) the person is to do, usually as part of a team. Such services will be those that Parliament has deemed important to the society or in service to another Celebration Society, perhaps one in its formative stages. This is the Service Stage. I would envision this Stage extending over months, though it will be a community decision.

    Upon completion of the Service Stage, the participants evaluate each other. Those directly affected by the service also evaluate them, and Parliament or its representatives (advisors, who accompany the Candidate Citizens in their service or at least regularly check in and available for consultation) does so as well. This is a formal process, which may be either anonymous or not. At the end of this Stage, each Candidate Citizen is either Passed or given a grade of Needs Review. If Needs Review is the result, they would have to repeat this Stage. If Passed, they would move on to the next stage.

    The next Stage, which might immediately follow the Service Stage or might be offered on a periodic basis, would be the Community Stage. This is by far the toughest Stage. Here, the Candidate Citizens are taken to live in primitive conditions for a period of time, perhaps a week, as a group. They are provided with minimal tools, clothing (or the means to make clothing), and the means to find or build shelter. Food is available, but may require significant gathering, preparation and even the figuring out of clues to find a stash or a source. Temperatures and precipitation may be challenging.

    In this stage,  the group would determine its own leaders and structure. It would determine if there were time only for survival activities or also some fun and games. (Possible games would be suggested by advisors.) There would be team building exercises, such as those on PSI 7, guided by the advisors, who would accompany the group. In quiet time, each participant would be expected to read and re-read the Charter until they had it memorized.

    If the people fail to cooperate, fail to work hard and long hours, or fail to uphold community principles, they will fail together. Some may become sick. On rare occasions, someone may die–though medical care and evacuation will be standing by. The point is that these people will experience, for once in their lives, the kinds of unremitting harsh conditions that many of our ancestors survived through backbreaking work, fear and pain. In so doing, they will learn their own characters and those of their neighbors at a depth and clarity not otherwise available. The point is that people who survive this test will be ready to accept the mantle of Citizenship, with all of its benefits, and also to cherish the duties that accompany the office.

    Also, a nation-state ruled by people who will never forget the hard lives of their ancestors is a nation-state that will never take for granted its own prosperity, ease of life, and celebration.

    At the end of the Community Stage, the survivors will evaluate each other. It may be private, public or both; a decision that Parliament will make and evolve. They will be asking themselves one question, ruthlessly: is this a person I would trust with my life, and the lives of my dear ones? They ask this of each fellow participant in turn, followed by asking it of themselves. The goal is to find objectivity through group process.

    Those who fail this stage will be invited to repeat it, after a suitable rest period. They may also be required to repeat the Service Stage, if there is a consensus that such would be important. The Citizen’s Rite of Passage is guided by this motto: Character is Destiny.

    The goal of all this is simple. When a group of Candidate Citizens stands together, dressed in their finery, palms upheld in front of a Supreme Court Justice or a member of the Royalty, that they will swear their Oath of Office together, without fear or hesitation–confident, joyous, eager, and prepared to be Citizens of a Celebration Society; proud to be pioneers of a new world.

    (An example of an abundance-based society that is missing such a Rite of Passage for Citizenship is The Mandalorian, Season 3, Episode 6. Aside: it shows robots displaying emotions that robots will almost certainly not feel. We need to remember that robots are and always will be dumb boxes, governed by essentially non-corporeal AIs.)

  • The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    The Celebrationist Initiative Process

    When the citizenry of a democratic nation loses control of its government, reforms are proposed. In the USA, multiple issues now enjoy supermajority (even 80%) citizen support yet are continually thwarted in Congress. One solution often discussed is a national initiative; similar to those available in states such as California and Colorado.

    US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) spearheaded such an effort, called the National Initiative for Democracy, or NI4D. The idea of NI4D is that “We the People” can adopt such a change to the government in a manner similar to how the original founding documents were adopted.

    Without debating the merits of such an approach, I do believe that in a Celebration Society an Initiative process should exist. No matter how well-crafted a structure of government may be, over time it can become dysfunctional. Indeed, as of 2012, the majority of the world’s democratic governments were dealing with gridlock.

    The Celebrationist Initiative process would be a “final defense” of the concept of government by, for and of the people. However, unlike existing democracies, the government would consist only of Citizens, and Citizen would be an office earned through an arduous process, not a birthright. Part of becoming a Citizen would be the demonstration of knowledge of how the government works; a requirement sadly lacking in many nations today.

    Citizens would be expected to know the Charter—the highest law of the land, without exception—and to be familiar with all laws of the land. While such a requirement might seem absurd in an existing nation such as the US, where the IRS code alone is thousands of pages thick, the Celebrationist system of government would rely heavily on nudges and other non-regulatory methods of stimulating appropriate behavior. Laws would be simple, and used only when societal values required them.

    While the actual mechanics of the Initiative process would be decided by the Citizens of a Celebration Society themselves, I would suggest the following as guidelines:

    1. Any Citizen could propose an Initiative for consideration. To force clarity and concision, it would be limited as to the number of words; perhaps 1,000.
    2. Upon some small threshold of Citizens, perhaps 5%, approving a proposed Initiative, it would be put to a vote by all Citizens. In the case of a change to law passed by Parliament, a simple majority exceeding 50% might suffice. For changes to the Charter, I would recommend a supermajority requirement.
    3. Voting on Initiatives might be limited to a quarterly or annual event. However, I would also advocate an “emergency” provision, whereby a Citizen could declare an “emergency” and get it considered and voted upon in a much faster timeframe.
    4. In order to prevent abuse of the process or excessive numbers of Initiative proposals clogging the system, I would advocate that each Citizen be limited to proposing one or two Initiatives per calendar year. Further, should a particular Citizen become known for proposing Initiatives others regarded as silly or otherwise inappropriate, one’s AI Butler could be instructed to flag all Initiatives proposed by such a person for an automatic “No” vote.
    5. Like changes to law made by Parliament, I would advocate that Initiatives have to be immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court for clarity, internal consistency, and word count. However, unlike laws passed by Parliament, which would be remanded to Parliament if nonconforming, Initiatives would be remanded to the Citizens as a whole. Further, to avert an obvious problem, I would advocate that Initiatives changing the Supreme Court be exempt from Court review.

    I believe that this is a sufficient start to discussing and designing an Initiative process. I would point out that the whole thing, like much of Celebrationist government (and as pioneered by Estonia), could function online. No physical meetings or papers would be required, though of course those could be used if preferred.

    I see the Initiative as being the original source of government. In my view, once we have a sufficient body of would-be residents, funding and agreements to take ownership of a body of land, the next step will be for those residents to convene and develop the following:

    1. The Charter for their society (and a bright line to separate Charter from other law)
    2. Specific processes for Initiatives (without a Supreme Court, initially)
    3. A process and set of requirements by which a resident may become a Citizen (I would advocate, at minimum, a Rite of Passage, a written exam, and an Oath of Office.)

    Once a body of Citizens has been created consistent with processes developed by the residents, it can in turn constitute the four branches of government and the system will evolve from there.

    Aside: Democracy would have a much more limited role in a Celebration Society than in existing democratic republics. Members of parliament would be selected by lottery, as would jurors. (While serving in Parliament, members would vote per rules established by Parliament itself.) One of the very few uses of direct democracy—perhaps the only one—would be the Initiative process.

    The purpose would not be to limit Citizen access to government, for Citizens would have access to all practicable aspects of the government. Rather, it would be to free Citizens from excessive need to attend to matters of government beyond their own interests. In effect, Citizens would delegate government to those fellow Citizens selected by lottery to serve, in the confidence that the Initiative process would protect them against any major mistakes.

  • A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    A Partial Celebrationist Experiment

    While I’d prefer that a Celebrationist experiment be tried because of pure enthusiasm, that’s rarely enough for groups of people to create great change. Great societal change seems to come on the heels of perceived necessity. Accelerating automation will soon provide this perception for people pretty much everywhere, and that’s the reason I expect a Celebrationist experiment to be tried in the near future.

    There are other circumstances that can cause this perception of necessity. Great instability in the physical environment is one of them. Consider Syria’s Kurds. Not to be confused with the Kurds located elsewhere, the Syrian Kurds have embarked upon a major social experiment with Celebrationist elements. They also happen to enjoy the proud distinction of having beaten back an attempted ISIS invasion in their city of Kobani, despite most of the world expecting another ISIS massacre.

    Since ISIS is a ruthless, well-armed invader with the courage of its convictions, this Kurdish city must have really had something worth fighting for. And they did.

    Says the Huffington Post: “The world watched in resignation. The lone superpower said it would not help. U.S. officials grimly predicted the city would fall. Yet the small band of Kurds held on for days, then weeks. The U.S.-led coalition against the self-described Islamic State began to help, first with a smattering of airstrikes then with daily assaults. And by January 2015, in a stunning turnabout that has been called a contemporary Stalingrad, the Kurds won.

    In succeeding, the Syrian Kurds defended not just a strategic outpost in the Middle East, but also a utopian idea of government they’re putting into practice — what they talk about as a space where decisions are made at the neighborhood level, where gender equity and ethnic inclusion are legally mandated, and where barter is becoming more important than currency.”

    Herein lies one of the wildest tales of social engineering I’ve heard. It starts with a man of Russian Jewish ancestry, who grew up believing in Marxism.

    The Syrian Kurds’ leader derived their philosophy from long engagement with Murray Bookchin, a self-described libertarian socialist. His vision was “… of a world where citizens’ assemblies supplant state bureaucracy and environmentalism is king.”

    “His passing sparked a celebration of his life in the Kurdish regions. And now, Syrian Kurds have — at the urging of Abdullah Ocalan, an imprisoned Kurdish icon — built a Bookchin-inspired society that is the antithesis of the Islamic State.

    The territory where the 1.5 million or so Syrian Kurds have launched this social experiment, carved out of the wreck of Bashar Assad’s police state, includes Kobani and two other small “cantons,” or regions. They call it all Rojava.”

    Bookchin grew up a communist, but … (later) set out to “rethink everything,” (He) began to dream of a future in which machines could replace most human effort and free individuals could develop themselves as they saw fit. But he believed that in the interim, social problems — the biggest among them the struggle between amoral corporate power and humanity’s best interests — would lay waste to the natural world. “The notion of progress, once regarded as faith in the evolution of greater human cooperation and care, is now identified with ever greater competition and reckless economic growth,”

    Bookchin said…. “I wrote about alternative technology, arguing that technology should be as humanly scaled as possible,” Bookchin recalled in the later interview. In Bookchin’s view, “utopia was no longer just an idle dream, but something that could happen,” according to his biographer and longtime companion, Janet Biehl.

    “Murray’s contribution to that was to figure what is going to be the institution,” she said. Bookchin proposed reshaping a capitalist world by setting up micro-level systems of local popular assemblies. Such a political structure would, he believed, marry the best of both the intellectual traditions he valued.

    While Rojava has its critics, it has successfully implemented a system in which local groups of citizens select representatives, apparently through consensus. Those representatives select higher-level representatives. All representatives are subject to recall. Ultimately, the whole society of 1.5 million people is represented by two co-presidents; always a man and a woman.

    We need the first Celebration Society to be successful. That means eliminating existential risk factors as much as possible. Rojava is unfortunately in a highly unstable part of the world, so I would not favor an early Celebrationist experiment happening there. However, once Celebrationism is widely recognized as a viable successor to capitalism, we might be able to co-create a Celebration Society in this most unlikely location.

    Rojava includes many brave men and women who are willing to go their own way, following principles they hold dear. That’s a great beginning to a eventual conversation with them about Celebrationism.

  • Issues of Private Property

    Issues of Private Property

    Todd William pointed out that I didn’t clearly address issues of private property in the book. I’ll address them here.

    Private property and ownership are legal concepts. They are structured as part of the legal system. In a Celebration Society, this will be the Charter supported by specific laws regarding property and ownership, enforced by the Judiciary.

    Ownership of land will be the basic connection between a person and a Celebration Society. (There will also be a legal structure, the Family Corporation, which will allocate assets among those who together constitute a “family”.) Owner(s) of land will have the right to build specific kinds of residences and other structures, consistent with a condominium agreement. (That agreement will specify types of structures that are permitted and occupancy requirements.)

    Ownership of means of production will mean that one can produce whatever is desired, consistent with the Charter and laws, on one’s residential land, or in owned or leased facilities that are zoned for production.

    In my view, a Citizen must have their primary residence in the celebration society of which they are a Citizen. The society will provide for all basic needs of Citizens, including the use of a small condominium apartment in the downtown area. So, if a Citizen loses ownership of their land, they will still have the apartment, which cannot be lost since they do not individually own it.

    In general, I see private property as being more respected in a Celebration Society than is commonly the case in advanced Western societies. There should be clear rules regarding rights and the enforcement of those rights. Barring fraud or significant violation of law, I see no ordinary basis for depriving an owner of their property. Should one choose to emigrate from the society, one would be free to take along all portable assets and sell other assets such as land, consistent with the Charter and laws. (For example, one might be permitted to sell land only to qualified person(s) on a waiting list for city-state residency.)

    Eminent domain will likely be a carefully restricted power; to be used only in cases of necessity. (Since a Celebration Society will be a planned development, with little further development of infrastructure once the society is built other than technological improvement, I see this as a lesser issue than in typical sprawling societies that are frequently evolving their infrastructure.)

    In a Celebration Society, private property will remain a reality for so long as people find it useful. The society itself will be created as a voluntary collaboration amongst owners in the acquisition and development of land and infrastructure. I expect this to take a condominium structure. During the early years of transition from capitalism, people will trade and transact in a capitalist manner, using either the national money recognized by the society or other money (such as complementary currencies) favored by those transacting.

    Even in a full Celebrationist system of production, there will be certain unique goods and services and others not economical to produce locally; for example, due to economies of scale. In such cases, people will continue to transact in a capitalist manner. However, over time, I expect scaling issues and the attribute of uniqueness to fade both in actuality and in its perceived value.

    (Once everyone can enjoy an identical copy of a masterpiece or 4K-acuity full wall displays of natural beauty, the demand for original artworks and prime real estate locations will diminish. Further, natural beauty will be encouraged and prevail throughout the society, and it is likely that the most beauteous natural features will be reserved by the owners as parks for common enjoyment.)

    Once full Celebrationist production is in effect, prices of all manner of products and services should plunge towards zero. With automated production of all necessities for the Citizens (and possibly residents) assured by the government, the need for personal means of production will fall away. It will remain an option for those so inclined, but at that point there will be no evident continuing value in private ownership of means of production.

    Means of production is, of course, distinct from products themselves. People want products either for their utility or status, so those need to be considered separately. Likewise, there will soon be widely available VR experiences which will in future substitute for actual experiences and physical products in many cases. (This is discussed in the book.)

    One important distinction is between ownership and governance. Anyone who is prepared to support the Charter may own property in a Celebration Society. They might not even need to live there, though there may be condominium covenants assuring development and not raw land speculation, and likely others encouraging residency rather than absentee ownership. (I would favor this, but through “nudges”, as discussed elsewhere, rather than through law.)

    Unlike ownership, governance will solely be by Citizens. Any resident (not an absentee owner) may pursue qualification to become a Citizen, and this will be encouraged. In my view, the society will function best if the percentage of non-Citizen owners is small, as there is always the possibility of divergent interests.

    There will need to be provisions in the Charter protecting the ownership and other personal rights of non-Citizen owners. Since the Charter can be changed by supermajority vote of the Citizens or by unanimous vote of the Branches of government, non-Citizen owners could theoretically be at risk of expropriation of their land and other fixed assets. This is a matter that the society will need to address in its founding stages; I have no definitive solution. That said, the risk is no greater than, for example, in the United States.

    In my view, the Charter will need to carefully define ownership in terms of both rights and responsibilities. If one owns something, they are also responsible for its upkeep and preventing any negative social effects from its use. (e.g., pollution). There is also the matter of what can be owned. While non-sentient assets are fine, as sentience increases the rights of that which is owned should increase. (Ownership of sentient beings is a separate issue that will be explored in another blog.)