Every modern political system today has one fundamental agreement; centralization of power. This central force allows rights to be inherited to the populace. The effective quality of the government is the efficiency at which rights are inherited. Longevity of the government is proportional to the liquidity of the government. Initially a system of centralization was unsegmented; with democracy it became segmented in to spheres of influence. Again the liquidity of the government can be proportional to the amount of spheres of influence, and the liquidity is the effective communication amongst spheres of influence. Theoretically a government with high efficiency amongst many spheres of influence would be approaching perfect. Well... The maximum amount of spheres of influence is the individual. And the ultimate efficiency is the ability of effective precise communication. People have very little rights of there own to maintain the environment they live in; they've lost it to larger spheres of influence. As cities grow larger the central figures can simply not grasp the situation, and therefore the communication breaks down. Bringing power back to the people would be the ability of the individual to take action, and then not have fear that if he could justify his actions in front of a court...he would be released freely. Even if a person takes action today he's at high risk of repercussions, attempting to benefit the world often has high price. This price needs to be removed. A moral society with a centralized law would have the obligation of learning law from childhood. The courts would learn the identical law. The law must be contiguous, consistent, and slow to change. Thus a person would have the confidence to act as extreme as having to kill someone to maintain the peace of a nation, after which he would justify his actions with witness and be held equal to his status before the action..if not higher. This would maintain a society where communication is high, a centralized law is prevalent, and the people would be punished for being uneducated. It would allow for the most freedom, and the least bureaucracy. Of course there would have to be a leader who could organize a military, which people would be happy to serve to maintain their freedom. Which would be effective due to the fact the citizens are so apt to communication. That's an ideal theoretical political system...aka Judaism in practice. What are the thoughts on its potential?
You guys are out of your mind. 50 posts on 'Fifth Grader Suspended For Wearing Anti-Obama Shirt' where your opinion does no matter. And not one here, where you opinion is valued? Most of you forum posters are out of your mind.
Do you consider Communism a modern political system? It's aim is exactly the opposite of centralized power. The ultimate goal is to dismantle the state entirely.
My opinion on that idea is that it it is a sound plan, but it as well creates inefficiencies IMO. If we want maximum efficiency, we need absolute power. By we, I mean we the people, not some corrupt politician. Constitutions limit the power of the government and thus, the people, and therefore are pointless. I do agree with you that communication is a problem with massive beauracracies; after all, even though the government might be very powerful, things are still slow to take action. Localization, as much as possible, I think is a good idea. It would cater to the different values of different people and maintain an efficient, stable environment. Centralized power, for the whole nation, would be for nationalist needs, with the Sovereign as the Head of State. However localization following the same model would be a good idea
Communism was attempted by setting up an infrastructure / job market. It was attempting to build communism (to some degree) immediately, it was changing the extrinsic components of the nation. Also communism was much about making identical. I still believe in having monetary standard. What I am proposing is an intrinsic change; where instead of changing the infrastructure you make everyone aware of law. When everyone is aware of the law, the extrinsic components will automatically mold themselves optimally. I'm talking...you only learn law until you're maybe...16. Then you pick up a trade.
What would the inefficiencies be? When people need something, they will go out and get it...or they will stop needing it...or they will produce it themself. People can attain what they need more efficiently than it can be provided. It also forces people to adjust what they need. If you want extravagance then it will be inefficient...yes.
How will they "go and get it"? Who will provide it to them? Or do I need to engineer my own computer when I want it? Totalitarian democracy is a good plan.
