Governance Redefined, Part IV

GOVERNANCE REDEFINED

 PART IV.  THE VOLITIONMENT

If Postcapia were an entirely static country, then the Autonoment would suffice to fill its governmental needs.  However, no country is entirely static.  Over time populations change as to their size, composition, tastes, attitudes, living standards, average age, and so on.  Technological innovations alter transportation, manufacturing, distribution, communications, entertainment, and social discourse.  Climate change can affect agricultural practices, water supplies, and the distribution of people and industry.  And, obviously, governments must adjust to meet the challenges posed by these changes.  In Postcapia, the branch charged with this function is the Volitionment.  An explanation of its workings follows.

HOW PROPOSED LAWS ARE SUBMITTED

In general terms, the reader is asked to picture the Volitionment not as a tangible mass of buildings but rather as an ethereal sequence of information-laden waves sweeping back and forth through the entire society crudely mimicking the mysterious currents that course through our brains.

Postcapians start with the notion that there is no single “will of the people” as such.  Rather there are as many “wills of the people” as there are people.  To this end they believe any individual is entitled to propose a new law or amend an old one by applying to the Volitionment.

Given the propensity of people to feel passionately that there “ought to be a law” about this, that, or whatever, one would think that a veritable torrent of submissions to the Volitionment would result.  In fact, the rate of submissions is far less than would be supposed, for their processing is made rigorous, time-consuming, and expensive.  Every submission to the Volitionment can deal with one topic only, must provide a detailed description of its purpose, and be accompanied by several exhibits, among which are the following:

 Exhibit One has to demonstrate that the proposal applies equally to all citizens, respects private property, and is in strict accord with the Constitution. (more of which will be said later)

 Exhibit Two has to show that the proposal either does not conflict with the existing body of law or it must identify any such conflict and spell out how it is resolved by the submission.

 Exhibit Three requires an analysis of how the proposal is to be enforced and an estimate of the cost of such enforcement.

 Exhibit Four has to show that enactment of the proposal would, at the worst, be revenue neutral, taking into account its environmental impact.  As part of the documentation, all savings and/or income claimed to be generated by the proposal has to be audited by an accredited organization.

Exhibit Five has to provide a full description of the quantitative feedback cycle(s) by which the proposal would be tested in the field for compliance with the commitments made in the previous four exhibits.  The feedback control mechanism must spell out in advance what the law is meant to accomplish in quantitative terms and the methodology for measuring its efficacy.  Furthermore, the mechanism may include provisions for expanding the law’s scope if it succeeds in its original mission.  In any case, the mechanism must contain  means for its automatic self-destruction if it fails to do so.

Exhibit Six must detail whatever changes might be necessary in Autonoment’s software if the submission were to become law.

The cost associated with the introduction of any given submission varies greatly, of course, with its scope, but the petitioner is sure to encounter the following.  For one, he is nearly always forced to employ a competent consultant versed in the preparation of the necessary legalistic documentation.  Next a submission fee is required in advance to cover the Volitionment’s cost of reviewing the proposal.  Finally the anticipated expenses related to the submission’s feedback cycle have to be escrowed.  Needless to add, the total of these expenses is bound to be considerable.

On the other hand, genuinely worthy proposals nearly always see the light of day one way or another.  If the author does not have the means to pursue his inventive idea, help is normally available from any one of a number of non-profit foundations set up for the sole purpose of sponsoring proposals that they believe to be socially beneficial.  Failing that, an author can often find a wealthy sponsor who either has a direct financial interest in the proposal or backs it out of a compelling sense of social responsibility.

THE COMMENTARY PHASE

Before describing the path taken by submissions to the Volitionment, I must sketch the political structure of the society through which they flow.  Imagine a pyramid made up of five permeable layers-the word “permeable” meant to emphasize the mobility with which individuals can move freely between its informal divisions.  The bottom layer of the pyramid is devoted to individual activity.  Above it lies the corporate level encompassing every form of commercial enterprise from the single-owner shop to huge conglomerates.  Sitting on top of the corporate layer are the non-profit organizations of every description.  Atop the non-profit layer sits the Autonoment and above it, at the very peak of the pyramid, rises the Volitionment.

Once a submission is found in order, it is routed upward through this pyramid, layer by layer beginning with the undermost.  A full month is allowed for examination and comment by each successive tier-the submission growing ever more heavily burdened by remarks at every stage.  Finally, after the Autonoment’s agents have had their say, the voluminous submission package arrives at the doorstep of the Volitionment.

THE VALIDATION PHASE

 The Volitionment is dominated by its prestigious Validation Board made up of worthies elected by the Society of Econeers from among their own fraternity.  As a rule, those selected are highly-qualified, experienced professionals who are so well-established they can afford to absent themselves from their firms in order to donate six months of non-paying public service.

On a rotating basis, every incoming submission is assigned to a particular board member whose job it is to determine whether or not it meets the Volitionment’s requirements.  He is given two months to arrive at his decision during which time he is expected to refer to all the remarks the proposal engendered on its upward journey through the pyramid.  If need be, he can call upon the support of the Volitionment’s large professional staff of full-time technicians, legal experts, and clerical help.  At the same time he can be counted on to scrutinize the draft’s feedback provision to make certain that a bad measure will die of its own accord.  Another area that is sure to attract his special attention is the submission’s self-financing arrangements that are to provide sufficient income to pay for its anticipated expenses.  What is specifically beyond his authority is making a subjective judgment as to the merits or lack thereof of the proposal itself- the right of each citizen to create law being held paramount.

Only a minority of proposals sail through the vetting process and enter into the law books unscathed.  By the same token, few are summarily rejected.  The great majority of cases are set aside and the authors given every opportunity to correct identified defects and resubmit their proposals.  Authors who feel that their draft has been unfairly dealt with can avail themselves of an appeal process before the full Validation Board, but this is a highly expensive route that is seldom resorted to.

Once a proposal is finally approved, its routing back down the pyramid is as lengthy as its ascent.  Each tier is given a full month to adjust its policies and procedures to conform to the forthcoming statute before its provisions are activated.  This delay is particularly helpful to the Autonoment’s programmers who must update their software to conform to each new law.

Although the reader may well have grasped the matter by himself, it is of such importance that I feel obliged to call his attention to the similarity between Postcapia’s political feedback cycle and nature’s own evolutionary scheme.  Every one of their proposed laws is, in effect, a trial-and-error test analogous to nature’s own random mutations.  In both instances, Postcapian and natural, most attempted innovations fail, but the seemingly inefficient process eventually results in what is wanted-a continuous series of incremental improvements.

THE CONSTITUTION

Some two centuries ago, when Postcapia’s constitutional convention was held, the delegates brought with them many conflicting ideas, but, to get their proceedings off to a constructive start, they began their deliberations with the one concept they all agreed upon: the long-term survival of their society depended upon its integration into the natural world.  Given this imperative, they envisioned their constitution as a means of permanently anchoring their ship of state in nature’s certainties so that no matter what transient forces buffeted it in the future, it would remain intact and afloat.

How then were they to ingratiate Postcapia into nature’s vast dominion?  Living within her physical laws presented no problem.  Gravity, the laws of motion, entropy, relativity, and so on gave them no choice.  However, nature’s metaphysical laws seemed much less discernable until, after talking to scientists, the delegates understood that nature too had a keen interest in self-preservation.  In other words, she was forced to keep everything under her jurisdiction in balance.  Let one spinning plate fall from its spindle, and the whole kid and caboodle would come crashing down.  What to do, then, in a dynamic universe chock full of spinning plates?  Nature’s solution, the scientists explained, was to create a mechanism-known to them as “feedback”-capable of immediately readjusting any impending imbalance.  And she, forthwith, applied it to all her creations whether living or nonliving, whether galaxies or subatomic particles.  Thereafter, absolutely nothing could gain entrance to her dominion that was not so equipped.

The scientists then went on to describe the principles of feedback.  Every feedback cycle, regardless of its character and scale, followed a strict five-stage process:

One, the creation of standards under which the system must adhere
Two, the collection of quantitative data relating to the standards
Three, the comparison of that data to the standards
Four, the transference of any resulting discrepancy to some kind of an actuator, and
Five, the actuator’s reaction bringing the system back to within its original setting

 When the delegates assessed their existing situation in the light of these revelations, they realized, to their dismay, that were any feedback mechanism attempted in their corrupted society, it would be disrupted before it ever got off the ground.  As things stood, Postcapia dared not even knock at nature’s door.  So it was that they felt compelled to craft a set of constitutional clauses establishing an environment conducive to feedback.  These clauses stipulated full freedom of expression; the encouragement of innovation; the unimpeded flow of trustworthy information; and the availability of facilities capable of assessing data impartially.  The scientists added that it “went without saying” that honesty was to prevail at all stages of the loop.  The delegates, having a less sanguine opinion of human nature, decided that “it went with saying” and added a clause to that effect.

Having thus joined their laws to nature’s own, the delegates went on to consider what other clauses were needed to underpin their legal system.  It did not take them long, however, to determine that in satisfying nature’s needs they had simultaneously satisfied their own and that additional guiding principles were neither needed nor wanted.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

In that Postcapia’s political system is so radically different from ours, questions are bound to arise in the reader’s mind that have not thus far been addressed.  The following is an effort to anticipate some of these queries.

Q: Are there other branches in Postcapia’s government besides the ones mentioned in this essay.

 A: Yes.  Chief among these are the Judgment dealing with the judiciary and enforcement agencies and the Datament composed of information specialists.

Q: Regarding the Autonoment, assigning the job of monitoring Postcapia’s routine affairs to computers seems, on the face of it, coldblooded.  Shouldn’t human beings be involved in these critical matters?

 A: No.  For this function, information processing is more responsive, more accurate, and, implausible as it sounds, more humane than the judgment of individuals.  Were each sector manned, personal prejudices and ambitions, jurisdictional disputes, and/or ideological considerations might interfere with the process.  On the other hand, nothing prevents a computer from recognizing a deviation from the norm and demanding that some counteraction be undertaken.  In this connection, it should be noted that, in many areas, the computers are programmed not just to maintain the status quo but to constantly apply incremental improvements so as to advance the culture.  For example, successive flat readings regarding the prevalence of diabetes might prompt a computer to demand that its regulator reduce the rate by one percent.  And, as discussed, response teams are always on hand if the computers go to far astray.

 Q:  As far as the Volitionment is concerned, what stops some of the proposed laws from being selfishly motivated?

 A:  Nothing.  Postcapians would assume that selfishness arises, not in some cases, but in all of them just as it does in all commercial transactions.  This alarms them not at all for, as in the case of commercial transactions, every successful proposal causes the well being of society as a whole to notch up accordingly as each selfish need is fulfilled.  Thus it follows that the more such instances, the better.

Q: Why must every proposed law be self-funded?  What about situations in which no income is possible?

 A:  Obviously, the Postcapian society cannot leave itself open to costs imposed on it by individual citizens.  In compelling circumstances in which government funding would be required, the Validation Board is authorized to grant conditional approval subject to the measure winning acceptance in a general election.

 Q: Are lobbyists allowed to influence the Validation Board?

 A: No.  Just as the brain is wrapped in a membrane that protects it from extraneous elements, Postcapians see to it that their board is not interfered with.

 Q: Are there political parties in Postcapia?

 A: No, but not because they are expressly prohibited.  It’s just that Postcapians find no use for them.  Political parties exist to espouse a set of ideological positions and enact them into law-the very antithesis of the Postcapian approach of solving each problem rationally on its own merits.  And, because Postcapians avoid  political parties, they have the good fortune to avoid politics as well. 

Q: Concerning the government in general, the foregoing discussion makes no mention of checks and balances in the Postcapian political system.

A: They weren’t mentioned because they don’t exist.  Checks and balances are a vital necessity in a government composed of untrustworthy branches.  But they carry a heavy penalty in terms of duplication of effort and the disorderly flow of information.  The Postcapian branches of government, however, are entirely trustworthy, so there is no need to curb them in any way beyond the limitations imposed by the system itself.

Q: There was no mention of planning either.

 A: In the Postcapian system, everyone-buyer, seller, speculator-is constantly staking his hard-earned cash in accordance with his judgment as to what the future holds.  In so doing, he directs his little part of the economy in the most efficient, coordinated, communicative, and forward-looking manner he believes is best.  Society then automatically moves in the direction determined by the net effect of all such myriad decisions.  Government’s only responsibility is to provide the information needed by these marketplace participants to make their individual decisions.

Q: What governmental social services are available for indigents?

A: None.  Those in need of charitable assistance and deserving of help can obtain it through Postcapia’s highly developed network of privately funded charities.  As a practical matter, these dispense help more compassionately, more flexibly, and more broadly than government agencies attempting the same function.  Under the latter’s formulaic approach, for example, an able-bodied idler would be treated as generously as a motivated blind person.  Not so in Postcapia. 

 Q: Why is Postcapia’s government so indifferent to personal suffering?

 A:  Postcapians view the use tax dollars to assist the needy as incompatible with their government’s professed policy of treating all its citizens alike.  Government cannot be in the business of institutionalized compassion and, at the same time, credibly maintain that it is providing a level playing field for everyone.

 Q: How are taxes collected and tax rates set?

 A: As detailed in my essay, “Money Redefined,” (under the Economics heading) taxes are assessed on assets.  The rate of taxation is based on the results of a general election in which voters are asked to choose which, if any, proposed rate adjustments or to be adopted-each adjustment fully enumerated on the ballot as to amount and use to which it is intended.  In effect then, the public enjoys a line item veto on the country’s budget-the very epitome of “taxation with representation.” Needless to add there is a great deal of public debate as to the desirability of each alternative prior to the election itself.

 Q: Expand upon Postcapia’s response to national disasters?

 A: As much as possible the regulatory agents assign as much of the cost as possible to the individuals and companies actually hurt by the disaster.  Thanks to this policy, development in hazardous areas is either avoided altogether or is heavily insured.  And private charities are expected to handle the bulk of the relief effort.  In exceptional circumstances, however, the regulators can draw on an Emergency Fund to subsidize private companies engaged in the relief effort.

Q:  What do Postcapian newspapers write about without the daily antics of duplicitous politicians as they go about pretending to guarantee health and happiness, redress historical wrongs, institu­tionalize compassion, increase the standard of liv­ing, and other feats of supernatural derring-do fi­nanced on the “never-never?”

 A:  Constructive matters such as advances in science, artistic achievement, and commercial success.

Q: How did the Postcapians ever manage to adopt so radical a political system?

 A:  The Postcapians would ask us the same question with, I believe, greater justification.  As they see it, aligning their government with nature’s staid administration is the most conservative policy that can be conceived of.  By contrast, they would consider our form of government to be radically disjoined from the ecological systems upon which we are entirely dependent.  And they would marvel that any civilized people would expose themselves to such a dangerous course.