The proverbial lines between the Public and Private Sectors can get blurred in some cases within the Integrated and Adaptive Community Developments. Government is by all accounts, a necessary function, especially in any densely populated urban environmenti. It is further necessary to expand, generally over a geographically defined area, to provide for, to defend and to protect the interests of its citizens and their life and liberties.
It is also imperative that a governing body of some sort, regulateii industry and production within the community. It is however, equally imperative that government not be allowed to regulate the actual business itself except insofar as it is a definable and quantifiable matter of public concern. Government should not however, exceed its granted authority by regulating the options that the individual has regarding whatever the manner of business may offeriii.
Since the Integrated and Adaptive Community Developments have corporate entities that do not operate under the traditional “for-profit” modelsiv, these corporate entities can, through the foundations that will oversee the governance within the community developments, provide for the vast majority of the public services within the community developments. While this is not a traditional model, it does allow for the modernization and necessary funding associated with many critical components of the infrastructure within the community. Government, such as it is, will still be responsible for the oversight of the public services and the public servants who staff them, though funding for these agencies will ultimately be augmented and subsidized by the corporate interests of the community itself without burdening the wage earner with oppressive taxes.
The public or civil servants, will still undergo such training as has been mandated to be necessary in addition to having more direct access to more advanced training through the contributions of the corporate entities and the people. They will furthermore, still be held accountable not only to the governing body, but also via the Citizen Review Boards and Ombudsman Forums in such cases wherein it becomes necessary and/or beneficial to review not only the actions of the individual, but also the policies of the corporate entity as well. This direct accountability to all of the interconnected aspects of the community, and the ability of each the corporation, the governing body and the individual (or “people” in a legal sense of the word) all working together in a complex system of checks and balances, should greatly reduce abuse on all fronts.
In the sense that government is indeed a servant of the people, and not their lord or master, all government employees shall ultimately be subjected to such requirements as shall be more fully established in regards to public service … at such a time as this becomes a realistic possibility insofar as actual changes in the current status quo of governance.
Such regulations shall also serve to restrict the ability of other groups to receive “bonuses”, “gifts” or other similar financial gains, though to exactly what degree must be determined by the relevant board and/or agency of the foundation at the time such safety measures can realistically be expected to be implemented. Such measures are seen as necessary and prudent to ensure that outside corporate (or other) entities do not seek to undermine the system of checks and balances. Such efforts would include (but not necessarily be limited to) Political Action Committees and other political lobbying bodies, Pharmaceutical Corporations providing bonuses for the distribution of (often harmful psychotropic) drugs and other wares, and any other similar efforts wherein the end result can be measurably detrimental to the individual and/or the society as a whole.
While there is no ability to fully quantify these measures at the present time, certain factors can be introduced in order to establish the basic principles, the reasoning behind them, the extent to which they may be viable and ultimately, the solutions to implement such programs without any notable detrimental financial impact on those who would normally be associated with such … blatant bribery … for the sake of being succinct and honest in regards to such drastic actionsv.
Public housing will be available based on the needs of the individual and/or their family. Given the nature of the community developments, this will never be so drastic as to reduce the political class to living in the slums, though there may arguably be reasonable justification even for that, though that is truly a subjective and pointless argument within the confines of this book, and is perhaps best left to future philosophers who will study how humanity coped with the current societal evolution and the resultant changes taking place, in addition to sociologists who will be studying how we dealt, successfully or not, with those problems.
Private homes will not be subject to restrictions should the family choose to stay in such homes, though if museum quality works begin inundating the home, or if insurance or other premiums are suddenly bolstered to unprecedented levels, they may be subject to further investigations should it become necessary. Personal investment accounts should be placed in a “blind trust” account, meaning that those politicians who do have information regarding insider trading, will not profit directly from such trades, and shall be subject to criminal prosecution for sharing such information, in the same way that the average citizen shall be accountable to the very same laws.
Any and all financial records of the politicians shall be subject to annual reporting and review for a period not less than ten years after such time as they have left office. Again, in an effort to attempt to close the door on any attempts to utilize third parties, corporate or individual, in order to bypass such restrictions as they shall serve under.
There are certainly other measures that will need to be introduced, though not to punish those who wish to serve, despite that some may very well see it in such a light. Some have suggested that a viable alternative would be merely to seek out those that are willing to serve free of any salary, though upon closer inspection, such theories seemed to have inadvertently opened the door to substantially more abuse than the current system allows for in its disarray.
It is imperative to remember that all of these discussions are mere speculation at this point in time, though if the current system is not drastically changed, no matter what “ism” any governing body may proclaim for its banner, at the end of the day there are separate rules of accounting for government employees and the people who they lord over. This system of politics and “isms” alone merits great debates and discussions for the merits of the introduction of a new paradigm and a radical shift in the way that people … and their governing agents and agencies, are held to account.
i Author and Historian James Scott argues that “The prime aim of the Modern State is to establish metrics for rendering a social hieroglyph into a legible and administratively more convenient format” though it should be noted that the belief of the founders of the community development is that the role of the State is substantially more limited in design and purpose, and must at all levels, be held directly (and enforce-ably) accountable to those people whom it claims to serve, but who it more often lords over as a master, through coercion, force and the unlawful kidnapping of the individual when no “crime” has been committed.
ii There is a quantifiable need to have government regulate business and industry. Certain aspects such as health concerns in restaurants and hospitals and other “critical” infrastructure among the most notable cases. However, it is equally imperative that the people hold the government to account and limit its authority as well. For example; there is an inherent need for government to regulate cleanliness in restaurants and bars to ensure at least minimal standards are kept, for reasons of health and other safety concerns. However, government should not have the authority or even the ability to stop one location from allowing smoking any more than they have the authority to demand another location allow smoking. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” is not just a slogan, but should be the right of any and every business and even home owner.
iii As long as the offering of the business interest is within the parameters as set forth by the law, and as approved by the general population. In the example given above, it should be perfectly legal for any bar or restaurant to allow smoking, as long as the substance being smoked is a legal substance. A hospital should be regulated for cleanliness and minimum standards established for the training and qualifications of personnel, but does any government truly have the right to deny homeopathic or other alternative methods to the individual?
iv While the actual process is quite technical and complicated, the short version is that the majority of the proceeds ... or profits in the traditional business models, will be circulated back into the community directly. Since the foundations will own the vast share of the corporation, this can be done without overly burdening the taxpayer and/or contributing members of society.
v If such individuals as are seeking to become public servants, they should be fully willing to actually serve the public … and in order to do so, possess at least some understanding of why such drastic (even draconian) measures have been put into place, and ultimately, the purpose they serve given human history as a reference.
Let us know what you think please!