The case for eliminating government – 7

SocratesAh, eliminating government by creating something better. This is the final post in the seven part series.

In my previous post, I asked how we could capitalize on a dynamic in which people who do bad things provoke positive actions we want to see.  I used the domestic abuse dynamic as an example.  You’ve probably thought of other examples if you’ve followed the case I’m making for eliminating government.

The domestic violence example shows we already see people’s bad actions perpetrating resulting good actions of others.

In our innovation, our economic system known as Copiosis, we create a society based on several innovations on the status quo which globalizes the dynamic illustrated in the domestic abuse example.  It creates a situation where everyone (even those who act badly) create a better world without the need of money as it is known today, without jobs, insurance, the financial sector, without corporations, politicians and politics and, for sure, without government.

Central to our innovation is net benefit.  Net benefit represents the contribution you make to society as recognized by the universe.  You earn net benefit when you make people and the planet better off.  Do the opposite and you earn nothing.  Note this is not a coercive edict.  You can do things that make the planet and people worse off.  You just don’t earn net benefit.  You probably won’t get any help doing those acts either, nor will people want to have much to do with you.

Net benefit is calculated via our net benefit formula.  We are in version six of that formula as it nears a beta.  The formula is never static, it will constantly evolve as social values evolve.  The formula accounts for the following inputs:

  • Resource availability
  • Number of producers using the resources
  • Consumer demand
  • Objective consumer benefits
  • Subjective consumer benefits
  • Effect (both positive and negative) of producer activity on the environment
  • Effect (both positive and negative) of producer activity on humanity

These inputs are used to determine what a person earns as she moves through the world affecting the lives of others and the planet as a whole.

The formula is administered by the Copiosis Administration, formerly called the Payer Organization.  This administration’s sole responsibility is rewarding individuals with net benefit via the formula.  The administration does not control nor direct nor exercise authority.  It rewards net benefit after the fact, for the consequences of the actions of individuals.  It gives no direction, although it may offer suggestions on where maximum net benefit may be earned.  It gives no orders.

Membership in the administration is open to all.  Anyone may become part of the administration and from time to time everyone is a part of the administration.  Within the administration, individual members have no authority to tell each other what to do. They have no power to punish internally or externally. Each is independent, making up her own mind about what to do to support the administration function at any given time.

The Copiosis Administration doesn’t have authority over functions that enforce whatever laws or policies that exist in our system.  Those functions are performed however. Individual societies decide the how, regulated by the net benefit formula and its principle of “making people and the planet better off.”  So, if you kill someone because they have murdered someone, have you made both parties better off?  What about society at large?  Have you made it “safer”?  The net benefit principle inspires people to maximize net benefit reward—they will create new and better ways to mete out justice.

What will that look like?

I can only guess.  But I’m sure such justice will be proactive, not reactive, humanitarian-focused not incarceration-based.  It will be better than the status quo for sure.

The military and police will likely remain, but their make up and tactics will change dramatically based on net benefit principle as well as how net benefit works (For more detail on this see our Copiosis Technical Overview.).  The same would also be true for any other actions by individuals that accomplish those functions formerly reserved to government.  Those operating the criminal justice system (beyond the police), for example, would earn net benefit if their actions result in net benefit (making people and the planet better off).  Judges would earn net benefit based on the consequences of their decisions, not on whether their decisions matched law.  The same is true for other roles individuals play in law enforcement.  It won’t matter what the law is since the law is neither an excuse nor a justification for actions.  What does matter is the consequences of one’s actions.

What is the use of government in a society where net benefit is the measure of value?  There may be no laws to pass concerning human behavior since such laws would not be enforced unless their enforcement brought benefits.  But laws may also be unnecessary since if the behavior they require brought benefits then people would already be motivated to act that way.  If their behavior the existing laws prohibited caused damage, the behavior would already cost those who did these acts, in both unearned net benefit, plus the ostracization of the community.  Others would already be working to prevent such actions whether a law prohibited that action or not.  Why?  Because doing so earns them net benefit.

The existing government would eventually have and spend less and less money (and receive less and less tax income) as more communities adopted the net benefit philosophy. Eventually, there would be no appropriations bills.  Various Cabinet posts and their departments could cease to exist as individuals organize around functions that produce net benefit.  There might be something for the Secretary of State to do, and little for the others. About the only role remaining for government officials would be to represent the nation in relations with the governments of other nations.

In many respects you might consider this result “anarchy”.  The definition of anarchy that best fits this situation is “absence of government”.  There could be anarchistic disorder, but those perpetrating such action risk a lot in both net-benefit terms and social ire.  No one earns net benefit for chaos, and since most people prefer to live chaos-free, they won’t tolerate people in their communities who foment it.

Another definition of anarchy is “a utopian society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy complete freedom”.  That comes near Copiosis except for that word “utopian.”  The Copiosis society would by no means be a utopia.  There will always be plenty of problems to address and difficulties to overcome.  Mother Nature will see to that even if people get along with each other much better.  But since a Copiosis society would have no government and since the individuals of that society would not be constrained by law or the government, one could say they “enjoy complete freedom.”

Always bearing in mind that behaving irresponsibly would cost you what you might otherwise have gained, I suppose that shortly after the adoption of a Copiosis system, a nation would experience a rapid withering away of that bureaucracy which we are now call government while at the same time the functions of government would be performed far better and more dependably than ever.

The whole idea of a government as a controlling or directing agency will come to a gradual soft and benevolent end. And so, in calling for eliminating government, I don’t argue for a violent overthrow or some kind of treasonous act. I call for applying the same tactics companies apply when competing with incumbent products and services:  Offer something better.  Gain market share.  Make the incumbent obsolete.  Customer defection will do the rest.

Leave a Reply