Issues that I rarely see being addressed in articles about non-traditional governance models are crime and law enforcement. Would like to see more about what I believe is the reason most idealistic models fail in real life and/or devolve into oppressive authoritarianism.
What laws are in place regarding criminal behavior, who created them and how, who enforces them, and what happens to people who break the laws? What laws are acknowledged but not written down and part of the culture, and what laws are written down? And who provides oversight for the law-givers and enforcers?
In some cases, societies that appear to offer a free and safe economic framework have a dark side - literal physical punishment (caning) and mandatory death sentences, the arbitrary rules of a ruling elite - and government ignoring crimes such as sex trafficking.
I studied the history of intentional communities in the United States and their governance models in college under the tutelage of a sociologist named C. George Benello. A radical anarchist from a left-leaning perspective, he warned us about how easy it was for people to turn to tyranny and mob rule even if well-intentioned.
Later, I was a consultant regarding, among other issues, management conflict in groups–from mainstream businesses, government agencies, and nonprofits to communes and other institutions run by participatory democratic principles. The smart, educated and committed folks who created the governance models appeared to assume that their model would be superior.
Mostly, they were unprepared for the day when their idealistic theories about human nature failed, and people like me were called in, before the lawyers and after the consent decrees from the courts. Sadly, some conflicts ended in lawsuits and the bitter termination of long-time friendships and marriages. And, the end of the institution or community.
Again, I would like to know more about how current non-traditional governance models make allowances for conflict and criminal behavior, from non-resolvable disagreements among leadership to enforcing unpopular rules to dealing with criminal behavior, from petty theft to assault and worse. And what has been the experiences of people living in those communities.
Thanks for this comment. It's a very important subject. I plan to write a future article about how law enforcement works in Ciudad Morazán. My book, Pioneering Prosperity: The Morazan Model for Free Cities, has several explanations and examples of law enforcement and dispute resolution in Morazan.
For most America’s history, it was chock full of semi-autonomous zones, in fact many of cities had much in common with her Shenzhen example, at least as it was from the 1980s until recently (not saying it isnt now, its just the Xi et al have been trying to politically and economically centralize and I dont know how far theyve gotten).
From the founding of the United States, the relationship between states and the federal government was designed to be both a political AND ECONOMIC federation where individual states maintained substantial political AND ECONOMIC semi-autonomy. This semi-autonomous framework allowed localities to function with considerable self-governance, including in economic matters, balancing the power of the federal government with the sovereignty of states. For most of its history, the country was far from the highly centralized political structure that we have now. States had a great deal of flexibility in shaping their economic policies, and many enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy in managing local trade, business regulations, and taxation.
The example of Shenzhen is fairly similar to to how many cities and regions in the Old Republic would often operate. Like it, American cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, San Francisco, or a bunch of others, played major roles in driving local economic growth and they collectively fed into a vibrant whole. These cities maintained market-driven policies while integrating into the global economy, but also protected local trade and capital flow through interventions that served regional interests, much like Shenzhen did after it was designated a Special Economic Zone and employed a mix of free-market policies and local interventions.
I am a fan of Murray Rothbard's histories of the United States. He wrote about these ideas. History is my weakest subject, but I learned a lot listening to the audio versions of his books on trip with my husband. Thank you!
Cool post! For most America’s history, it was chock full of semi-autonomous zones, in fact many of cities had much in common with your Shenzhen example, at least as it was from the 1980s until recently (not saying it isnt now, its just the Xi et al have been trying to politically and economically centralize and I dont know how far theyve gotten).
From the founding of the United States, the relationship between states and the federal government was designed to be both a political AND ECONOMIC federation where individual states maintained substantial political AND ECONOMIC semi-autonomy. This semi-autonomous framework allowed localities to function with considerable self-governance, including in economic matters, balancing the power of the federal government with the sovereignty of states. For most of its history, the country was far from the highly centralized political structure that we have now. States had a great deal of flexibility in shaping their economic policies, and many enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy in managing local trade, business regulations, and taxation.
The example of Shenzhen is fairly similar to to how many cities and regions in the Old Republic would often operate. Like it, American cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, San Francisco, or a bunch of others, played major roles in driving local economic growth and they collectively fed into a vibrant whole. These cities maintained market-driven policies while integrating into the global economy, but also protected local trade and capital flow through interventions that served regional interests, much like Shenzhen did after it was designated a Special Economic Zone and employed a mix of free-market policies and local interventions.
Thanks for sharing this. I love your series.
Issues that I rarely see being addressed in articles about non-traditional governance models are crime and law enforcement. Would like to see more about what I believe is the reason most idealistic models fail in real life and/or devolve into oppressive authoritarianism.
What laws are in place regarding criminal behavior, who created them and how, who enforces them, and what happens to people who break the laws? What laws are acknowledged but not written down and part of the culture, and what laws are written down? And who provides oversight for the law-givers and enforcers?
In some cases, societies that appear to offer a free and safe economic framework have a dark side - literal physical punishment (caning) and mandatory death sentences, the arbitrary rules of a ruling elite - and government ignoring crimes such as sex trafficking.
I studied the history of intentional communities in the United States and their governance models in college under the tutelage of a sociologist named C. George Benello. A radical anarchist from a left-leaning perspective, he warned us about how easy it was for people to turn to tyranny and mob rule even if well-intentioned.
Later, I was a consultant regarding, among other issues, management conflict in groups–from mainstream businesses, government agencies, and nonprofits to communes and other institutions run by participatory democratic principles. The smart, educated and committed folks who created the governance models appeared to assume that their model would be superior.
Mostly, they were unprepared for the day when their idealistic theories about human nature failed, and people like me were called in, before the lawyers and after the consent decrees from the courts. Sadly, some conflicts ended in lawsuits and the bitter termination of long-time friendships and marriages. And, the end of the institution or community.
Again, I would like to know more about how current non-traditional governance models make allowances for conflict and criminal behavior, from non-resolvable disagreements among leadership to enforcing unpopular rules to dealing with criminal behavior, from petty theft to assault and worse. And what has been the experiences of people living in those communities.
Thanks for this comment. It's a very important subject. I plan to write a future article about how law enforcement works in Ciudad Morazán. My book, Pioneering Prosperity: The Morazan Model for Free Cities, has several explanations and examples of law enforcement and dispute resolution in Morazan.
For most America’s history, it was chock full of semi-autonomous zones, in fact many of cities had much in common with her Shenzhen example, at least as it was from the 1980s until recently (not saying it isnt now, its just the Xi et al have been trying to politically and economically centralize and I dont know how far theyve gotten).
From the founding of the United States, the relationship between states and the federal government was designed to be both a political AND ECONOMIC federation where individual states maintained substantial political AND ECONOMIC semi-autonomy. This semi-autonomous framework allowed localities to function with considerable self-governance, including in economic matters, balancing the power of the federal government with the sovereignty of states. For most of its history, the country was far from the highly centralized political structure that we have now. States had a great deal of flexibility in shaping their economic policies, and many enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy in managing local trade, business regulations, and taxation.
The example of Shenzhen is fairly similar to to how many cities and regions in the Old Republic would often operate. Like it, American cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, San Francisco, or a bunch of others, played major roles in driving local economic growth and they collectively fed into a vibrant whole. These cities maintained market-driven policies while integrating into the global economy, but also protected local trade and capital flow through interventions that served regional interests, much like Shenzhen did after it was designated a Special Economic Zone and employed a mix of free-market policies and local interventions.
I am a fan of Murray Rothbard's histories of the United States. He wrote about these ideas. History is my weakest subject, but I learned a lot listening to the audio versions of his books on trip with my husband. Thank you!
Cool post! For most America’s history, it was chock full of semi-autonomous zones, in fact many of cities had much in common with your Shenzhen example, at least as it was from the 1980s until recently (not saying it isnt now, its just the Xi et al have been trying to politically and economically centralize and I dont know how far theyve gotten).
From the founding of the United States, the relationship between states and the federal government was designed to be both a political AND ECONOMIC federation where individual states maintained substantial political AND ECONOMIC semi-autonomy. This semi-autonomous framework allowed localities to function with considerable self-governance, including in economic matters, balancing the power of the federal government with the sovereignty of states. For most of its history, the country was far from the highly centralized political structure that we have now. States had a great deal of flexibility in shaping their economic policies, and many enjoyed a relatively high degree of autonomy in managing local trade, business regulations, and taxation.
The example of Shenzhen is fairly similar to to how many cities and regions in the Old Republic would often operate. Like it, American cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, San Francisco, or a bunch of others, played major roles in driving local economic growth and they collectively fed into a vibrant whole. These cities maintained market-driven policies while integrating into the global economy, but also protected local trade and capital flow through interventions that served regional interests, much like Shenzhen did after it was designated a Special Economic Zone and employed a mix of free-market policies and local interventions.