|
Top-level
@DrDanMarshall Decisions at the federal level should be made through consensus among all participating communes, ensuring that no commune exercises undue influence over others, with mechanisms to prevent coercion, such as transparent decision-making processes, equal representation, and safeguards against the centralization of capital. 4 comments
@DrDanMarshall @Radical_EgoCom I have found the clarification of our positions to be helpful. Two spots we couldn't agree was on, essentially, how egoistic humans (and collectives of humans) are, and the related question of how universal nepotism is. Those questions would have to be answered by empirical investigation, so we can't do it here. @Radical_EgoCom Beyond that, I think my central thesis can be boiled down to this: Do you think purely voluntary solidarity between one commune and another could be so strong that a prosperous commune could be convinced to help a fellow commune that has suffered a disaster, not only to some decent minimum of getting back on their feet, but back to economic *equality* with the first one? Or would it require a degree of coercion equivalent to taxation? |
Gregory's Server
@Radical_EgoCom What do you mean by "consensus"? Would a rich commune be able to veto a measure? Or would it be more like "accept the majority decision or there's the door"?
If a commune proved stingy, would the federation be able to authorize the seizure of its capital by force? What other ways could we prevent the centralization of capital?
(And, yes, poorer communes would be more vulnerable to de-federation than rich ones.)