Copyright 2004 Richard K. Moore _________________________________________________ CHAPTER 7: A CHARTER FOR A DEMOCRATIC WORLD: HARMONIZATION AND LOCALISM * Introduction Up until this point, this book has been addressed to readers in today's untransformed cultures, particularly those in the industrialized West. It has presented an historical analysis, focusing on the role of elites and the dynamics of hierarchy, imperialism, growth, and capitalism. Special attention was devoted to exposing the sham of liberal democracy, and showing how it functions, by design, as an effective mechanism of elite domination. The objective of this analysis has been to make it clear that our current societal systems are leading us inevitably to disaster, and that relief cannot be found by attempting to reform those inherently flawed systems. The central conclusion of this investigation was stated as a Transformational Imperative, identifying We the People as being the only conceivable agent of social transformation. That was followed by the development of a Harmonization Imperative: for We the People to come into existence, we must first find a way to overcome the factionalism that keeps us divided and facilitates rule by elites. The rest of the material has been an exploration of the potential of harmonization as a means of transforming our cultures and enabling We the People to wake up. I developed a scenario of how a harmonization movement might develop, based on awakened communities and networking, and the kinds of obstacles it would be likely to encounter. That scenario was not intended to be a detailed prediction or recommendation, but rather a rough map of what I see as a plausible route. We can compare the scenario to a satellite photo of mountainous terrain: from such a photo we can identify the main passes through the mountains, but we can't really know what the terrain is like until we get there -- "The map is not the territory." Again, this material has been addressed to readers in today's hierarchical societies, in the hope that some might be inspired to pursue what appears to be a promising route to social transformation. The rest of this book is intended for a moment in the future, that moment when the movement achieves victory. We the People have woken up all over the world, and we have just succeeded in bringing the world's elites into our harmonization circle. In accomplishing this victory, we have learned to make plans and take action together and to develop effective strategies. Now with everyone on board, We the People of the world are ready to take on the responsibility of transforming our societies and our global economy. At this special moment of victory everyone in the world is unified in a common spirit, as we have seen historically whenever tyrants have been overthrown. People celebrate and dance in the streets, and everyone is embraced as a brother or sister. Everyone, for the moment at least, is reading from the same page, is full of hope for the future, and has a spirit of trust toward humanity in general. We have been unified up to this point by our common struggle, but that's now over. Now begins a much more difficult task, with many trade-offs to be made, and we will need a new organizing principle. Presumably our first step will be to arrange a global council, to establish a basic system of world order. By using harmonization, with back-and-forth exchange between the global council and ad hoc local councils and networks -- and in our current spirit of cooperation -- we can expect to converge on a universally acceptable global charter. What elites accomplished at Bretton Woods, we too can accomplish. This rest of this chapter is my advance contribution to the dialog of this future global council. I will be developing, from a systems perspective, a proposal for a global charter for a democratic and sustainable global society. My starting point is to identify a minimal set of 'enabling qualities' for our new society: - genuinely democratic - peaceful - stable - economically efficient - sustainable - can deal effectively with issues at all levels up to the global If even one of these qualities is lacking in our new society, then I suggest we will have serious problems sooner or later. But if we can be sure our society will exhibit these qualities as it operates, then we will be enabled to carry on with the business of running and transforming our societies. We will be able to set our agendas at all levels democratically, pursue them efficiently in peace, and plan our futures with an expectation of stability. That's all we need from a charter; the rest will be up to us, We the People, as creative and responsible citizens working together. The list of qualities is not itself a charter. It makes little sense to proclaim, for example, "Thou shalt be stable". That states a desirable outcome, but it says nothing about how to achieve it, nor how compliance would be measured. What our charter needs to be about is a set of system constraints (charter provisions), which are well defined and achievable, and which can be expected to lead to system dynamics which exhibit the qualities we are seeking. In case this seems confusing, here's a simple example. You don't want your child to be injured in traffic: that's a 'quality' that you want to see realized. What you tell your child is: "Look both ways and cross with the light." That's a system constraint. If your child constrains its behavior in that way whenever it crosses the street (microcosm), then 'not being injured in traffic' is likely to characterize that child's life (macrocosm). But if you tell your child directly, "Don't get injured", that conveys little useful information. Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" presented an entirely analogous exercise in systems analysis. Smith identified a small number of constraints (eg., each buyer and seller is small compared to the market size), and then demonstrated, by examples and logic, that compliance with those constraints in the microcosm would cause everyone's economic self interest to lead toward the common good in the macrocosm. His model has proven to be accurate in those competitive sub-markets (eg., PC peripherals) where his constraints largely apply. His model has no relevance to a capitalist economy generally, which is designed to facilitate the concentration of wealth into a few hands. Similarly we seek a charter, with a small number of primary provisions, that will ensure that as people pursue their own self interest in their local microcosm, the global society will exhibit our minimal enabling qualities in the macrocosm. * A global charter: the primary provisions The first constraint I would like to introduce has to do with harmonization. If we can ensure that harmonization processes will be used to develop agendas and to resolve conflicts in our society, then that will go a long way toward facilitating our enabling qualities. Harmonization facilitates democracy by allowing every voice to be heard and taken into account. It facilitates peace by providing a way to resolve conflicts to everyone's benefit. It facilitates stability by inhibiting the emergence of factional strife. It facilitates "dealing effectively with issues" by providing a tool -- the harmonization session -- which is designed for that express purpose. What I offered in the previous paragraph was a rationale for considering harmonization as a system constraint. But the suitability of a constraint is not established by such a rationale, no matter how persuasive it might seem. The test of a constraint comes later, as we consider what its consequences are likely to be in conjunction with the other constraints. Before stating the first constraint in the language of a provision, I'd like to bring in the principle of localism, in the context of democracy. To begin with, let me suggest that genuine democracy can exist among a group of people only if every one of their individual voices is able to participate in the policy decisions of that group. I for one would not be at all happy if I don't get my two cents in. Who doesn't feel the same way? Who has nothing to contribute? Who has no unique concerns? Who doesn't care how their community is run? If every voice is to be heard, then there would seem to be a limit to how large a democratic group of people can be. How can every voice be heard, for example, in a city of ten million people? I don't know what this size limit is, but I'm sure we'll know by the time we're considering charter provisions. If I had to guess now, I'd say the limit is somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000 citizens. By a process of iteration, and participant rotation, such a group of people can converge via harmonization on a shared sense of We the People, in which everyone's concerns are represented. I suggest that if we want a democratic society, we would be well advised to build it on a foundation of political units, or 'communities', each of which is small enough to enable an inclusive, participatory, democratic process. A 'community' might be a neighborhood in a town or city, or it might be a rural village -- presumably it would be some existing, traditional unit of society. The boundaries of communities will presumably be determined by the people involved, and the sizes of different communities might vary considerably, both in area and population. The only requirement, from the perspective of democracy, is that a community be small enough that everyone can participate effectively in the community's affairs. Thus at the community level it is possible to achieve genuine participatory democracy -- a democracy without factions, without representation, and with no need for elected authorities. We the People of a community can think and speak for ourselves, with a sensible and coherent voice, and with every individual voice included in the process. If every individual voice needs to be heard, then we will have some challenges to face when it comes to dealing with global issues democratically and effectively. It turns out that those challenges become easier to deal with if we can assume our society is based on democratic communities as the lowest-level political entity. More about that in the next section. With these rationales as an introduction, permit me to offer my first three provisions: Provision 1 (Communities): Communities are to be established, in which every person will be included on the basis of their primary residence, and which are small enough to enable an inclusive democratic process. Provision 2 (Harmonization): Communities are to set their policies by a process of inclusive democratic harmonization, and by similar processes a harmonious relationship is to be maintained among communities as they interact and collaborate with one another. Provision 3 (Local sovereignty): Presuming it abides by all the provisions of this charter, each community has the sovereign right to manage its internal affairs, and its external relationships, as it sees fit -- without interference by the rest of society. However, if the actions or inactions of a community raise legitimate concerns in another community, those concerns are to be resolved as per Provision 2 (Harmonization). If these provisions are followed, then we could expect to have genuine democracy at the local level, and we could expect effective and peaceful collaboration among neighboring communities. Provision 3 (Local sovereignty) has an economic rationale in addition to the obvious democratic rationale. Not only does this provision ensure that the management of the community's resources will serve the needs of the people in the community, but it facilitates economic efficiency. The feedback loops are small at the local level, the consequences of policies are visible to everyone, and effective corrective measures can be taken promptly whenever they are needed. The people of such a sovereign community, when working in harmony, have both the motivation and the means to manage the community wisely and with a view to the long term. They can make better decisions about how to use and preserve their local commons than can some remote regulatory agency. In a society made up of such democratic communities we could expect a proliferation of creative initiatives and a renaissance of civic culture. In order for a community to be able to manage its own affairs, it will need to have dominion over its own local resources. If the land and resources in a community are controlled by absentee owners, for example, then the community won't have the resources it needs to pursue its own survival and prosperity, and its sovereignty would be meaningless. Furthermore, if people or entities are permitted to accumulate property on a wide-scale basis, then they could establish economic empires and democracy generally would be undermined. Due to these considerations, permit me to offer my fourth charter provision: Provision 4 (Local ownership): All real property in a community -- land, structures, and natural resources -- are to remain under the exclusive control and ownership of residents of that community, of associations of such residents, or of the community as a whole, subject to compliance with the other provisions of this charter. No mortgage or lien is valid or enforceable against any real property in a community by any non-resident person or entity. This provision gives communities a maximum degree of control over their own destinies. With the benefit of short feedback loops, and the ability to adjust policies when needed, we could expect the grassroots of our new society to operate with a reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness. It would be in each citizen's and community's self interest to make the most of what it has, to reuse and recycle on a systematic basis, to minimize waste, to make appropriate use of resources, and to generally follow sensible economic practices. Furthermore, it would be in each community's self interest to actively collaborate with its neighboring communities, and with networks of communities, in achieving the benefits of scale for large projects such as infrastructure development and regional resource management. A society cannot remain stable if its economic practices are unsustainable. Unsustainable practices on the part of any community would endanger that community's future and would be ultimately destabilizing for the surrounding society. Based on self-interest, we could expect sovereign communities to voluntarily employ sustainable practices. Nonetheless, we must acknowledge that some communities might unwisely choose to pursue short-term convenience by over-exploiting their own resources. Not out of paternalism to such a community, but in order to ensure the stability of society generally, such an unwise pursuit cannot be permitted. In this regard, permit me to suggest three related provisions: Provision 5 (Sustainability): While ownership of land and natural resources resides within each community, as per Provision 4 (Local ownership), the sustained productivity of those lands and resources is an asset held in trust by the community on behalf of society generally and future generations. All use, exploitation, or development of such land and resources must be carried out in such a way as to sustain and improve the overall productivity of that land and resources in perpetuity. Provision 6 (Non-renewable resource): Non-renewable resources, such as minerals and fossil fuels, are a special case and are considered to be jointly owned by the community in which they reside and by society generally. Policies regarding extraction and use of such resources must be determined in a context in which the overall best interest of society in the long term can be harmonized with the legitimate prerogatives of local ownership and autonomy. Provision 7 (Global commons): Resources which are not found within a community, such as those in wilderness areas or the high seas, are to be under the ownership and control of global society generally, and are to be managed according the sustainability constraints of Provision 5 and 6. These seven provisions define the fundamental operating constraints for our new society. Harmonization helps ensure that local affairs will be run democratically, that conflicts can be resolved satisfactorily, and that effective and creative policies can be developed within communities and among neighboring communities. Local sovereignty, together with the sustainability requirements, facilitates sound and efficient economic practices and inhibits the emergence of economic empires or hierarchical political structures. In addition, local sovereignty can be expected to encourage diversity and experimentation, as various communities around the world find creative ways to deal with their own unique problems and opportunities. Communities could be expected to learn from one another, and successful initiatives to be adapted for use elsewhere. In this way a culture of localism and harmonization can be expected to lead to a global cultural renaissance -- in the realms of art, economics, appropriate technologies, and even the human spirit itself. In order to deal with unusual emergencies, and in order to make amendments our global charter, we will need to have a formula for assembling future global councils. There are probably many different formulas that would do the job, and I'll offer one as an example. Basically, my proposal would be to assemble two intermediate levels of councils, local and regional, leading up to the global council. A local council would be made up of delegations from each of 60 local communities, and a regional council would be made up delegations from each of 60 local councils. Each community would first reach consensus on the issues of the day, and then select a delegation of three people to represent that consensus at its local council. Each local council would then reach consensus on the issues and select a 3-person delegation to represent that consensus at its regional council. Regional councils would repeat the same process, and send a 3-person delegation to the global council. If significant issues come up at any level that have not been discussed at lower levels, or if the lower-level perspectives are in conflict and cannot be harmonized, then those issues would be kicked back down to the next lower level councils for further discussion. This process would iterate until a harmonized consensus can be reached at the global level. If we assume that our average community population is about three thousand, and that the global population is about six billion, then we would have about two million communities worldwide. There would be about 33,000 local councils, and about 550 regional councils, each involving 180 delegates. The global council itself would include about 1,600 delegates from the regional councils. Each council would break down into smaller groups, and would employ a process of iteration and participant rotation in order to reach an eventual harmonized consensus. Such a multi-level, iterative process would take some time to converge on a global consensus, perhaps several weeks or perhaps a month or two. In case that might seem cumbersome, we need to remember that a global council is not like a world government, rather it is more like an international treaty conference. The council process is not employed to legislate every-day issues, but rather to consider amendments to the global charter and to deal with unusual problems or conflicts that might arise and which defy resolution by the normal process of voluntary harmonization among communities. Permit me to put these ideas in the form of a charter provision: Provision 8 (Councils): If problems or conflicts arise which cannot be otherwise resolved by the provisions of this charter, then any community can call for a global council to be assembled. Each community will send three delegates to a council of sixty local communities; each local council will send three delegates to a council of sixty localities in the region; and each regional council will send three delegates to a global council. Council sessions at all levels will employ democratic harmonization processes, as per Provision 2 (Harmonization). Delegates from each level will be selected after a harmonized consensus has been reached at that level, and they will be selected by a process of nomination and majority vote. No delegation will include more than one representative from the same lower level constituency. Delegations are empowered only to represent the consensus which has been reached in the council that selected them. Issues which cannot be harmonized by any council will be referred back to lower-level councils for further consideration. The global council will continue until the problematic issues have been resolved Delegates at all levels would be ordinary citizens, taking time off from their normal occupations. There would be no role in our new society for any kind of professional politicians. A global council would be an exciting affair for citizens to participate in. Those who were selected to attend at the global level would be, for the duration, living in a temporary community of fellow citizens from around the world, all acting as equals as they discuss the issues of the day. Delegates at lower level councils would be likely to return home after their initial session, only to reassemble if issues were referred back down for further consideration. Each day reports of sessions at all levels would be sent out to their constituencies so that everyone can track the proceedings. We could expect a great deal of inherent system stability in a culture based on harmonization. 'Running smoothly' can be expected to be the norm. This is true because harmonization tends to nip potential conflicts in the bud. When problems first arise, they can be addressed right away, in whatever context or level they arise. Once harmonization is established, that serves as a kind of stabilizing flywheel -- the atmosphere of collaboration and mutual trust makes it easier to deal with problems when they do arise. If problems are not allowed to fester and grow, then there is little reason for initiatives to arise which threaten social stability. Thus the need for global councils would not be expected to arise very often. I have been giving rationales for these provisions, but we will need to look more deeply into their likely consequences before we can have confidence that they would lead to a society with the desirable enabling qualities outlined in the opening section of this chapter. In order to take that deeper look, we will want to consider a number of scenarios. We will want to look at how large scale problems can be dealt with, how the global commons can be managed, and how potential aggressors can be brought under control without creating a centralized military force -- which itself could become a vehicle for the seizure of power by some ambitious individual or clique. * The maintenance of peace and harmony In a world in which everyone's concerns are taken into account, and where societies everywhere cooperate and trade with one another for mutual benefit, there would seem to be little motivation for any group or society to pursue a path of aggression. But there are pessimistic scenarios which deserve consideration, such as that of some charismatic leader (eg., a Genghis Khan) who convinces his followers to go on the warpath. We cannot be sure that harmonization provides a secure defense against all such anomalies. We need a Plan B in case something goes wrong. At this point, I must reiterate that global transformation can only be possible when a culture of harmonization has spread to the whole globe. We can't begin transforming the world if some nation like China or the USA, for example, stays outside the process and retains its elite leadership and its nuclear weapons. In any scenario of transformation or transition, we must assume that everyone everywhere will be cooperating from the outset and will be participating in the harmonization process. Before we can talk about maintaining peace, we must assume that an initial state of global peace and cooperation characterizes the transitional period. With that proviso, we can assume that all weapons of mass destruction, and all major weapons systems generally, will be dismantled or recycled during the transitional period, along with the related manufacturing facilities. A peaceful and democratic world has no need of such weapons, and their continued existence would pose an extreme potential danger to social stability and safety. The first step toward global peace would be universal disarmament. As part of this arrangement, all facilities in all societies would always be open to inspection by any visitors who cared to investigate them. A democratic and peaceful society has nothing to hide. But, considering again our need for a Plan B, I suggest that disarmament should not be total. If there were no weapons nor any kind of militias, for example, then it would be possible for a rogue society to secretly produce a small arsenal and begin a path of conquest against its defenseless neighbors. We should be able to ensure, by inspections, that no big weapons systems are secretly developed, but at the very low end of weaponry (rifles, grenades, hand-held rockets, etc.) inspections might not always be effective. We can't expect to regularly search everyone's basement, nor would that be compatible with a democratic society. Rather than no weapons at all, I think a more stable arrangement would be to designate a certain level of low-scale military technology, and then encourage every society to maintain that level of deterrent capability. As in the Swiss system, it might be desirable for most able-bodied people to go through a military training program, so they'd know how to handle weapons and operate effectively in a militia unit. The idea would be to have ready-reserve militia units, that exercise regularly, and which can mobilize if a deterrent capability is ever required. The designated level of military technology would emphasize defense over offense. Perhaps there would be anti-tank rockets, but no tanks; ground-to-air missiles, but no military aircraft, torpedo boats but no destroyers, etc. The objective would be to make it difficult for a rogue to obtain an effective offensive capability, while ensuring that societies will have an adequate defensive capability if a rogue somehow succeeds in assembling a secret arsenal. Any attempt to build a military in excess of the designated levels would be considered an act of aggression against neighboring societal units, and an early response by them would minimize violence and enable the underlying conflicts to be resolved before they get out of hand. In keeping with a society based on harmonization and localism, militia units would be community-based and under the democratic control of each community. Just as there are no centralized political governments, there would be no centralized military commands. The dynamics of defense in such a system would be similar to the dynamics of the human immune system. If a rogue emerges, then surrounding militias can voluntarily and coherently combine forces to surround the rogue with overwhelming numbers -- minimizing combat and ensuring a quick resolution. This would be much like antibodies swarming to overwhelm and isolate an invading organism. When the rogue has been disarmed, the militias can go back home to their regular jobs, and a process of reconciliation and harmonization can begin in order to resolve the source of aggression, and restore peace and stability. Permit me to put these ideas in the form of charter provision: Provision 9 (Militias): Each community shall maintain a well-trained, ready-reserve militia unit for the purpose of maintaining the peace. The level of armaments available to this militia shall be strictly limited to that specified in this charter. If any community, or group of communities, attempts to acquire armaments which exceed those specifications, or initiates actual aggression against other communities, then surrounding communities are authorized and encouraged to mobilize their militias and collaborate voluntarily to contain and disarm the aggressing forces. Simultaneously, regional councils shall be assembled in the vicinity of the disturbance with the purpose of investigating and resolving the source of the aggression. When the conflict has been resolved, militia units shall return to their communities and resume their reserve status. A common view, particularly in liberal circles, is that the best way to achieve world peace is to establish a strong and benign world government. Everything I've been saying in this book can be interpreted as an attempt to refute that perspective. Centralization and hierarchy have their own inherent dynamics, and such structures will never stay benign in the long run. If positions of power exist, someone will exploit them sooner or later. Power corrupts, it's that simple. If there is a world government with a military force, then a coup is always a possibility -- and a formidable danger to global stability. In the previous section, I argued that centralized government is not necessary or desirable from the perspective of day-to-day governance. In this section, I've been attempting to show that peace can be maintained without any centralized military command. Defensive forces can form themselves when needed, on whatever scale is needed, and they can go back home when the emergency is dealt with. With no central military command at any level, the danger posed by military coups is minimized. In a culture of harmonization, it seems unlikely that aggression would occur or that militias would need to be mobilized. In order to reduce this likelihood still further, let us consider what kind of circumstances might lead to the emergence of an aggressor. Clearly we would prefer to nip such any such development in the bud before it led to actual aggression. It seems to me that a scenario of potential aggressiveness could only occur if some locality or region begins to engage is some kind of secret activity, including perhaps the development of armaments in excess of the prescribed levels. In order to prevent the emergence of secret activity, and to keep our societies as open as possible, we would be well advised to address the issue of secrecy directly. In a democratic society there should be no need for secrecy, apart from the right of citizens to privacy in their personal lives. Permit me to propose one feasible way to address this issue. This proposal is based on the idea of a guest exchange program. Suppose that each year each community sends off three citizens to live as guests elsewhere for the year, and in turn accepts three guests. Actually, a 'guest' might not be a single citizen, but might be a couple or a family. The three selected guest contingents would go to three different randomly selected locations throughout the world, with provision made for location preferences. Guests would participate as equals in the host community's harmonization process, and they would be able to observe everything going on in their host community, as can any citizen. If the guests are able to function in consensus effectively in that community, then we can assume the community is pretty much in line with acceptable global norms. By such a mechanism, secret programs would be inhibited and any kind of brewing dissatisfaction would come to the attention of the rest of society. In addition to this negative function -- preventing conflicts from arising -- such a guest program would serve many positive functions as well. It would facilitate mutual understanding among societies, and encourage the cross-pollenization of ideas and skills. Guests would be provided with employment, or with educational opportunities, depending on their age, skills, and interests. They would be expected to contribute to their host communities, and be responsible citizens, just as they would in their own home communities. I've suggested that three guests be included in this program in order to ensure that sufficient cross-pollenization occurs among societies. But in fact, such a program might be very popular, and communities might choose both to send off and to accept a larger number of guest contingents on a voluntary basis. Permit me to put these ideas in the form of a charter provision: Provision 10 (Cultural exchanges): In order to encourage cross-cultural exchange among communities, and to maintain open societies, a guest-exchange program shall be organized worldwide each year. Each community shall select at least three guest contingents to contribute to this program, and in turn will accept at least three guest contingents. A contingent will consist of an individual, a couple, or a family. Each contingent will reside in its host community for one year, and the destination of contingents will be determined partly randomly, and partly by preference of the members of the contingent. Guests shall enjoy the same status, and assume similar responsibilities, as permanent local residents. * The management of large-scale projects and operations The avoidance of centralized and hierarchical structures is of fundamental importance if democracy is to be maintained in our new society. In the preceding sections I have attempted to show how governance and peace-keeping can be achieved without centralized governments or centralized military commands. The avoidance of centralized economic entities is equally important to the maintenance of democracy. If any person or clique is able to accumulate excessive wealth, or to control a very large economic operation, they could very easily leverage that economic power into political power. Abundant evidence for this fact can be found throughout history and particularly since the advent of monopoly capitalism. And yet, we cannot escape the realities of the industrial revolution. We cannot afford to ignore the advantages of mass-production, the economies of scale, and the benefits of technology -- if we want to survive and prosper. We do not want to throw the baby-of-efficiency out with the corporate-bath-water. We need, however to apply these tools toward the benefit of our families and our communities, rather than devote them to the accumulation of wealth by a few. In a democratic society we can expect to use the tools in that way. And we need to use these tools within the constraints of economic sustainability, and with due respect for the environment which provides us with sustenance. In a society where resources are controlled locally and democratically, we will have every motivation to use those resources wisely and with an eye toward improving the quality of life in our communities in the long run. We also need to use these tools in such a way that they do not end up controlling us. We do not want to create production systems which, like corporations, take on a life of their own and end up dominating society. Industrialism without hierarchy is the nut that needs to be cracked. I do not mean to over-emphasize the importance of industrial methods. There is also much room for returning to small-scale ways of doing things, which in many situations can be more efficient than mass-scale approaches. Local production for local consumption, and low-technology agriculture, are in many contexts exactly the 'appropriate technologies'. Yet even in those contexts, things like high-efficiency turbine generators, solar cells, personal computer systems, and satellite communications can offer much complementary benefit. At least in the large, modern societies, industrial methods -- used appropriately -- certainly have a role to play. We need benefits of scale, but how much scale do we need? I suggest that the largest operating entity we really need is a single-site facility -- on the scale of a single factory, a regional airport, or a seaport. We might be talking about a massive factory or other facility, employing thousands of workers, and covering many acres. But it can be locally owned, controlled democratically, and it can be autonomous from other economic entities. Larger, multi-site entities -- such as the modern large corporation -- do not add significantly more real economic efficiency. They do however facilitate centralized control and the building of monopolies. An autonomous factory can seek the best vendors on a competitive basis, and choose its markets and distribution channels according to free-market principles. No single factory, even if massive, is going to dominate its sector of the larger economy. By limiting scale in this way, Adam Smith's constraints can be maintained, and his "invisible hand" can be expected to lead to overall economic benefit in the macrocosm. Our Provision 4 (Local ownership)requires that ownership of real property remain within its local community. In the case of privately owned enterprises, I suggest that this provision must be rigorously adhered to. If any private, presumably for-profit entity, is permitted to grow beyond strict limits, we may encourage the emergence another J.D. Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan who will be clever enough to leverage his success formula into an economic empire. Human nature, if anything, is infinitely creative in the pursuit of goals, whether beneficial or not. For our large endeavors, such as a regional factory or seaport, we need a more democratic and inherently socially responsible kind of enterprise. There are probably many entity structures that would suit our purposes here, and as usual I'll offer one common-sense proposal just to demonstrate feasibility. I suggest that a larger-than-community enterprise be organized as a joint- venture partnership among a group of communities, who mutually agree to assume specified obligations in regard to funding, providing land and access, and otherwise contributing to the enterprise. These same collaborating communities would receive specified rewards (eg., a specified share of profits, or a guarantee of employment availability) from the operation of the enterprise. The group of participating communities should include any communities whose residents are intending to be workers in the factory, as the workers and their communities are also stakeholders in the enterprise. The enterprise would be overseen by a board of directors, including representation from all partner communities, and other communities and groups which have a stakeholder interest. The board would not be a fixed body (beware power cliques) but would be constituted by rotating representatives from the stakeholder communities.The primary mission of the board would be to maintain harmony between the interests of the stakeholders (including the workers) and the operational requirements of the enterprise, within the provisions of our global charter. The actions of the board would be fully transparent, indeed videos of board meetings could be made available to stakeholders. The existence of such a joint-venture entity would not be destabilizing to the local political environment because all affected communities would be represented on the board and included fully in the policy-setting process. Furthermore, any such single facility -- even a very large one -- would be only one small player in the wider marketplace. If we allow enterprises to be larger than a community -- but limit such enterprises to a single site of operations -- then we can expect continued political stability, along with the continued guidance of Smith's invisible hand, and we would be able to achieve the scale of operation necessary to support a complex economy -- on a site by site basis. There would be no 'personhood' or 'limited liability' associated with such a joint-venture enterprise. The communities involved in the enterprise would need to assume collective responsibility for the consequences of the enterprise, foreseen or unforeseen, according to an agreed formula -- just as if the communities had caused those consequences in the absence of any enterprise. The enterprise is a mechanism to enable effective collaboration, not a means of escaping responsibility for actions and decisions. An enterprise, once established, has no inherent right to continue existing. At any time the stakeholder communities can agree, through their board, to disband the operation, reconstitute its management, or convert the facility to some other purpose -- always within the provisions of our global charter. I cannot attempt here to comprehensively consider the full range of economic empire-building strategies, and seek a way to prevent each. When the time comes, better minds than mine will be working on the problem. Our main safeguards are the democratic process and local sovereignty. If some operator becomes a problem, people can respond to the actual situation and take remedial action at the grassroots level, or councils can be organized at higher levels. Within the scope of the limited examples we have considered, permit me to suggest an appropriate charter provision: Provision 11 (Collective entities): Enterprises or agencies which exceed the scope or territory of a single community are to be undertaken as joint-venture partnerships involving all affected stakeholder communities. Equity ownership in, and liens and mortgages against such entities are limited to residents of the stakeholder communities and the communities themselves. Stakeholder communities shall include at a minimum all communities whose territory is affected, over whose territory access will be required, who will be contributing resources or manpower, or who might be environmentally or economically affected by the entity's operations. Any liabilities or debts incurred by such an entity, if they cannot be covered out of its operating budget, become liabilities and debts of the stakeholders, according to an agreed formula. Policy in such enterprises is to be set by a rotating board, including representation from all stakeholders, and by means of harmonization processes. As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, the American Constitution over-emphasizes property rights in comparison to personal rights and social justice. Whereas the Bill of Rights merely promises 'no harm' as regards civil liberties, the Constitution overall includes much more active provisions when it comes to guaranteeing the rights of property. In a society which has does not restrict its cultural values to greed and wealth accumulation, we can expect that property rights might in some cases need to compromise with other considerations. In particular, the enforceability of contracts may need to be limited in certain circumstances. To be more specific, we cannot let contracts among business entities undermine local sovereignty. To some extent our latest provision addresses this issue with the phrase, "liens and mortgages against such enterprises are limited to residents of the stakeholder communities and the communities themselves". As regards contracts, suppose that our local factory fails to deliver on a contract, and a significant economic penalty has been agreed to. If the factory enterprise cannot afford to cover the penalty, then I suggest the stakeholders need to have the freedom to either meet the obligation or defer it. This can be seen as a kind of bankruptcy protection, but one generous to the debtor. Admittedly, the hypothetical purchaser under the contract may suffer unfair economic hardship, particularly if advance payments have been made -- but strict enforcement might compromise local sovereignty and economic viability. If a community is forced to devote a fraction of its productivity to repaying an external debt, that is tantamount to a mortgage on the community, and would be contrary to Provision 4 (Local ownership). This situation is not really as troublesome as it might at first appear. It does not mean that business relationships would be unstable and unpredictable. What it does mean is that reliability and reputation would be a strong element in business relationships. Relationships among vendors and buyers would tend to be oriented around trust bonds, and in the long run this would be more stabilizing than a punitive system of contract enforcement. And if an enterprise did stumble, it would be in everyone's best long-term interest to allow that entity to reorganize itself and become again a contributor to the regional economy and an employer. Or if the enterprise is not worth continuing, then the communities' sovereignty over their real property should not be compromised. They should have the right to recycle the facilities and equipment to the benefit of the stakeholders. In light of these considerations, permit me to amend Provision 4 as follows: Provision 4 (Local ownership, amended): All real property in a community -- land, structures, and natural resources -- are to remain under the exclusive control and ownership of residents of that community, of associations of such residents, or of the community as a whole, subject to compliance with the other provisions of this charter. No mortgage or lien is valid or enforceable against any real property in a community by any non-resident person or entity. The repayment of debts and other obligations, owed by a community or resident to an external person or entity, cannot be enforced without the agreement of the debtor community, as per Provision 2 (Harmonization) and Provision 3 (Local sovereignty). * The management of the global commons In this final section of the current chapter, I will dispense with proposing further charter provisions. I've probably gone overboard as it is with my amateur legalese, but that seemed like the clearest way to summarize and refer to the desired system constraints. What I'll try to do here is explore how we might democratically handle our global-scale problems, efficiently and effectively. As an example, let's consider the management of the high seas. To begin with, there is the question of territorial waters, which presumably would require language in Provision 1 (Communities). Local stewardship of coastal waters, within some kind of specified boundaries, makes economic and ecological sense by the same arguments offered earlier regarding local sovereignty generally. Coastal communities would be motivated by self-interest to wisely manage their fishing stocks and other marine resources, and they would be bound by our sustainability provisions. Coastal communities would have primary responsibility for ensuring adequate safety facilities (foghorns, rescue craft, or whatever) in support of coastal shipping, just as they would need to provide safe passage for land traffic and visitors. Neighboring coastal communities, and economically-involved non-coastal communities would naturally collaborate in establishing entities, as per Provision 11 (Collective entities), to provide things like ports and warehousing, harbor-master services, rescue helicopters, patrol craft, etc. Local control of territorial waters can be expected to work out satisfactorily, with considerable variety in local usage patterns. For the high seas we need a more systematic approach. We need to set sensible global policies in order to help restore fishing stocks to acceptable levels of viability and productivity. We need to have sound policies which seek to maximize overall marine productivity, within the constraints of sustainability and ecological integrity. If we harvest too much, we reduce net productivity. If we harvest too little, we are contributing unnecessarily to world hunger and adding stress to land-based food production. I don't believe this kind of policy-making would be particularly problematic. At the level of basic policy guidelines, and the specification of goals and objectives, this would be the responsibility of a global council devoted to that purpose, as per Provision 8 (Councils). A team could be assembled by such a council, with appropriate scientific and citizen representation, to draw up more detailed policies, for review, modification, and eventual amendment and endorsement by a subsequent global council. As regards compliance-monitoring, policing, satellite tracking of shipping traffic, rescue services, and other such operational issues, I suggest that we would want to establish various co-operating but separate agencies to deal with various tasks, as per Provision 11 (Collective entities). These agencies would be special in that their "stakeholder communities" would include the whole global society. Clearly, every stakeholder could not be directly represented on the board of such an agency. Care would need to be taken to ensure that every class of stakeholder is represented, and that rotation be used to diversify participation over time. And it goes without saying, under our charter, that the performance of such agencies remains always under the scrutiny of all affected communities and enterprises. If an agency's performance is inadequate, or if the agency starts getting carried away with its own importance, councils can be assembled at whatever level is appropriate, and the problems can be addressed. Presumably our local-militia concept can be extended to maintaining order and preventing piracy or aggression on the high seas. Earlier I estimated there would be about 550 regional councils. Perhaps each region could be responsible for providing and supporting one armed vessel, with an emphasis on defensive armaments, to participate in a co-operative global navy. Under normal circumstances, the assignments of these vessels would be coordinated by one of our high-seas agencies, something like a 'high seas safety agency'. The vessels would carry out routine patrols, be available to deal with rescues or emergencies, and participate in the monitoring processes, such as measuring fish stocks or inspecting cargoes. If any kind of aggressor scenario arises, either on the high seas or in a coastal area where our vessels might be needed for support, then I suggest that we stick with the principles of Provision 9 (Militias). Our 'high seas safety agency' would be available as a collective resource, and a communication switchboard, but it would not become the Lord Admiralty of a Global Naval Force. When it comes to anything like a combat scenario, each vessel remains under the democratic control of the region which provided the ship and the crew. Collaboration in the face of aggression would be determined by each crew and its home region, based on their interpretation of the alleged aggressive events. But there is no reason to expect that the vessels in the region of a genuine rogue would fail to respond when needed. They would expect the same support from their naval colleagues if their own home port or their own shipping were under some kind of attack. By maintaining the autonomy of individual vessels, we guard against a 'high seas safety agency' which might seek unilaterally to mask an aggressive invasion under the rhetoric of 'restoring order'. Once again, we want to avoid centralized military commands and the possibility of coups by power-seeking individuals or cliques. * System review In the Introduction to this chapter I put forward these 'enabling qualities' for our new society: - genuinely democratic - peaceful - stable - economically efficient - sustainable - can deal effectively with issues at all levels up to the global Throughout the chapter I have indicated how the each of the proposed charter provisions can be expected to contribute to the realization of these qualities. We've looked at a few representative scenarios dealing with issues that might arise at each level, from local to the global, and we've found, I hope you will agree, plausible approaches to dealing with those issues -- approaches which are viable within the context of the identified provisions, and which are supportive of our enabling qualities. As in the previous chapter, I am not attempting to offer a comprehensive final recipe. Just as that chapter endeavored to show a satellite photo of a promising pass through the mountains, so this chapter has endeavored to show a satellite map of a plausible democratic global system. Again, the map is not the territory, and the real terrain will surely bring surprises. My hope in preparing this early set of proposals is to encourage us to take a broad view of the solutions available to us, and to encourage us to keep always in mind the whole-system dynamics we would set in motion by our adopted global charter. Harmonization in the microcosm shows us that there is inherent wisdom latent within every group of people. We the People as an awakened macrocosm can be expected to exhibit a level of collective wisdom that will raise the human species to the next level of self-aware evolution. In our final chapter we will explore some of the cultural implications of a truly democartic society. At the outset, I believe we will have the wisdom to adopt a sensible global charter, one much better I'm sure than my own amateur proposals. _________________________________________________