An international brainstorming and solutions center should be set up that includes all the UN members. It should come up with creative solutions to world issues such as poverty, violence, water, climate change, etc. It should come up with policies and funding mechanisms (maybe crowd sourcing?) to implement solutions. Pie in the sky? But that's how great ideas germinate.

Srini Vasan

So, the current organization is OK but it needs better policies to regulate the world?

Being able to operate independently of and control the existing congressional-military-industrial-banking-lobbying world order. Consult as many people as tecnologically possible or with randomly selected representatives instead of carreer politicians. The operation should be fully transparent.

One can only dream

We must recognize how every nation, like every species, is necessary to the natural order.

If an empire emerges from time to time, it should be only to recall these important precepts allowing the conservation of all species and all nations.

Empires must stop grasping the levers that ensure the vitality of other nations, because no one wins by participating in the disappearance of nature and cultures.

Is it not urgent that the monarchist federalism imposed in recent centuries by a certain empire finally retracts to allow the emergence of republics enlightened by the peremptory rules of universal law?

Nations that have grown too fat must stop swallowing others.

Martine Labossiere

Are you suggesting the natural order as in nature's rules be the guiding principles of a constitution?

"...must stop grasping the levers that ensure the vitality of other nations ..." meaning stop interfering with other nations? How - by constitution or just good intentions?

If a nation has grown fat, doesn't this imply they have an organization/constitution that others should adopt?

What about violent war? How are nations to compete as nature would have them compete?

Mr Hodge,

To your first question, I would answer "yes".

The basis of a Constitution should be the rules of the nature and respond to the particular needs of the nation concerned.

As Mirabeau said in 1775 in his "Essai on the despotism: "All the good of society must be born of the order of this society; and this order is clearly indicated by nature".

Please see this : Research Constitute the Republic of Quebec in accordance with jus cogens

John Hodge I believe anything close to a one-world-order would be catastrophic for mankind.

If we look at the two closest examples of when something similar was achieved we can see why it would be so dangerous.

1st: THE ROMAN EMPIRE. By the 3rd century Roman authority had expanded in every direction to its natural borders. In the North was impenetrable forests and arctic cold; to the west was the Atlantic Ocean. In the south the Sahara desert. And in the east the deserts of Arabia.

What was the result? The result was decline and misery. With the government at Rome ruling everyone and everything, there was nowhere for a differing opinion to ever be heard.

When a person or book was banned, it was eliminated from all existence.

Everything ended up requiring government approval, and by the 5th century AD people were selling themselves or their kids into slavery to avoid the harsh effects of taxation or the law.

2nd example, CHINA: China and its central authority had conquered and controlled all surrounding cultures and sank into endless decline. It was as if time stood still for 1000 years.

China is only coming out of it now because it learns from, and is forced to deal with, cultures outside its control.

Independent nations, like independent people form a sort of social-Darwinism. An idea that cannot take hold in America can be brought to Australia. The Stem Cell Research that is outlawed in the States can be tried in South Africa.

Books banned in one nation can be read in another.

We were able to climb out of the European DARK AGES brought about by ROME and the CHINESE DARK AGES because there were still other nations and other land areas that these people could not control.

a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT that controlled every corner of the globe might send all mankind back to the stone age.

A look at constitutions is also very interesting.

The American document is short, libertarian, and brief. Its focus is on the limitation of government power so that the power of the people can be expressed.

America stood over the Iraqis holding guns in 2009 when they cobbled together their own constitution. It reminds us of what the document might look like today if it were to be made now.

Whereas the American Constitution of 1789 is full of thou shalt nots

(i.e. congress shall make no law ...)

The 2009 Iraqi constitution if full of GOVERNMENT SHALL AND MUST.

It is a laundry list empowering government to do everything for everyone.

It innumerate vague terms like "government shall ensure a clean environment"

or

"government shall enforce just and safe working environments"

Just what a safe environment or clean environment is, will of course be decided by government.

No dictator could ask for a freer hand in lording over a country than the one given to him by the 2009 Iraqi constitution.

Stephen Martin Fritz

You outline the problem quite well. I would suggest one added factor - war. If there remains separate nations defined as the authority with military ability, war and destruction seems inevitable. Or, as you point out, the nation declines and falls internally. So, humanity does not know (and may never know) the policies to assure continued existence. So, "shalt not" seems better for the federal authority. However, the American Constitution has endured longer than most - certainly longer than socialists societies. But we have seen a slow shift from the "shalt not" organization to the dictation to individual regulation - this is causing decline.

John Hodge War is an interesting subject. Most societies approach war from the position that it is universally bad. But then hey proceed to engage in the on a regular basis under the guise of doing good.

A case can be made that some aggressive actions have done good.

For example, trade and exchange with India, China, and Japan was all started at the point of a gun. Had the west not used military threats to force these nations to trade, all three (and a third of the people on the earth) would still be living in grinding poverty.

The moral question is: If I go to war with you today and kill 50,000 of your people. But this allows 500,000 more to survive in the future, was this war morally justified?

Stephen Martin Fritz

Have you seen Ian Morris book "WAR! What is it good for? " ?

John Hodge No, I have not seen this book "WAR what is it good for." Have you read it? Is it interesting?

Stephen Martin Fritz

Yes. It suggest a new perspective on war.

I have some ideas on an answer of this question. However, I'm enough uncertain that there isn't a major problem with them that I asked the question.

The failure of governments and societies suggest the many problems you suggest and more.

You solution ideas wold be appreciated.

The world is as it is because we are who we are.

There is an element of aggression in us that cannot be "preached-into-submission".

So no amount of finger wagging or "Jesus in his robes" or "Gandhi in his loin cloth" or the Beatles singing "Give Peace A Chance" will guarantee future peace forever.

The best solution for long term peace is free trade and production. The major trading nations seem to get into the fewest wars with each other.

Of course, when the wars finally do come around, these nations are so rich that they can wage them on a world-wide scale!

Stephen Martin Fritz

Let me add another issue. ROME fell to the less advanced by first internal decay, then war.

So, stop war and disallow internal decay. Democracy decays to ..., cold periods (reduced food production) follow warm periods. And we're trying to reduce the warm period and it extra food production - nothing like shooting ourselves in the ...

John Hodge By the time the western Roman empire fell I do not believe they were any more advanced than the Germanic barbarians. Constantine had moved the capitol of he empire to Constantinople a century earlier because what trade and production was still going on in the empire was happening in the east.

The internal decay you write about in Rome was there, but it was a great centralization of authority and the focus on governmental actions like WARS rather than on trade.

Rome fell not because they forgot how to fight, but they forgot that producing and trading societies can produce the biggest and strongest militarizes.

By 410 AD Western Rome couldn't field an army big enough to stop Germanic nomad armies.

Fundamentally, diversity and decentralization are better than a system with a single center. Yes, the subunits can fight each other, but even a bunch of local wars are better than totalitarian and inescapable (whole planet authority!) slavery.

Denis Korneev

So, you suggest a system similar to the Westphalia Sovereignty system. Does this also imply a strict non-interference between states. The fall of the Westphalia system seems to be there was lack of enforcement, little adjudication between states, and no overall military for outside conflict.

What if a state became totalitarian, would the federal authority be obliged to interfere?

There have been examples of supreme authority enforcing slavery. They were weakened because the admin cost was higher than nature allows. That is, weather changes. Warm periods (lots of food production) are followed by decades of cold periods (little food production) and starvation and disintegration. This would seem to suggest a planet wide poor system would disintegrate.

Aden Handasyde

The quest here is to suggest a new different form of organization of a world order. There currently exists a world order in human affairs. However, as you suggest it more akin to dystopia then utopia. Being a pragmatist, I only seek a better form not a utopia.

The history of humanity has seen many such transformations of the world order, from family groups to tribes to chiefdoms to states to nations. Each was achieved by surrendering some part of the value system of the old in exchange for some greater value to the individual (emphasize individual - not group). For example, the tribe surrendered the consultation within the family for decisions to tribal consultation which could be detrimental to a family group on some decisions such as not seeking blood revenge. The return was greater power against other tribes. Greater protection and allowed freedom of action by the individual seems a common gain for all the transformation of scale.

The UN is failing. So does socialism. Why? Perhaps because the gained value in reality is loss of range of action is reduced. The UN has had a policy of interference and coercion since it was formed. This seems part of the dystopia type society.

So, the question is what do we give up in exchange for greater security and greater range of allowed action by individuals. What is the organization (who does what to/for whom)?

Though groups and nations are on some ways stronger and more intrusive than ever into the lives of individual citizens, we must also recognize that since production and trade has given us so many choices, individuals express MORE INDIVIDUALITY than at any other time in history.

Governments remain small and far away in poorer developing nations. But this does not mean the individual is free to do as they please. In poorer cultures people move less and know their neighbors through generations. Individuality is stifled under these conditions too.

When every neighbor knows what every other neighbor is up to, there is great pressure to conform. Everyone knows when you miss church and everyone knows when you kick your dogs.

The oppression of the neighbors undoubtedly weighs down upon us as much as the oppression of the State.

Democracy is associated with liberty because it frees us from the next-door neighbors just as much as it frees us from the far-away government.

Stephen Martin Fritz

It's the other way around. In family and tribe organizations, everybody is supposed to intrude actively in other individuals actions. The intrusiveness of the UN and socialists organizations derives from family values. The attempt to have family values (you conformity) is a route to having society regress to the size of tribes(disintegrate). That is what happened to Europe after Rome.

BTW, the use of money, debt, and taxes is another aspect of the new world order currently being mishandled (another discussion topic).

John Hodge I think humans display two basic moral patterns, the pattern that governs family life, and is called "socialistic" when applied to society beyond the family.

And the other is called "social or ethical" morality; and it evolved to guide our action at the group level.

We tend to apply family reality to situations of plenty and safety (picnics) and social or ethical morality to situations where there is not enough for all or when we are in danger (job interviews or mass migrations)

As society becomes wealthier-and-wealthier we find it right and just to apply family morality to more-and-more aspects of social existence:

FAMILY MORALITY:

-Everyone should have enough

-Resources should be shared

-The smallest and weakest should be looked after first

-Everyone is inherently valuable

-Every member is fundamentally equal to any other member

I think there is little danger to a U.N. induced regression to the size of tribes unless worldwide production and trade is hindered.

The moral dilemma for our times is:

"IS IT REALLY BEST TO APPLY FAMILY MORALITY TO SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES?"

Social morality, that is - ethics based morality - governed social life for most of human history in every culture. Using it, we see right-and-wrong in a different way:

SOCIETAL MORALITY:

-Those who do more should get more

-Some people can be better or worse than others

-The smartest, strongest, and wisest should be looked up to an emulated

-Through their own actions some make themselves VALUELESS to society and society can be better off without them (i.e. the death penalty)

-Groups can be as distinct as individuals - and some can be better than others, just as with individuals.

History is the tension, interplay, and social evolution of these two intrinsic moral patterns.

Aden Handasyde

When we "make a living" we are doing what other people want or need us to do.

We have to satisfy others before they agree to give us their money in return for doing what they want from us.

When we turn it around to emphasize "doing what we love" we are focusing not on the needs of others but on the whims of ourselves.

The fundamental moral basis of a capitalist economy is that you have to give before you receive. The business owner has to put our thousands of dollars to rent his building, stick his shelves, hire and train his employees before he makes his first dollar in sales.

Every day is election day in the free market. It doesn't matter how much money you spent at Walmart last month, if they fail to carry what you want this month you will not give them a penny.

To focus on doing what we love is an ideal, but the traditional, ethical, focus was to find a way to do what others needed us to do.

Stephen Martin Fritz

Your " SOCIETAL MORALITY " seems alike Darwin and nature survival of the fittest should be incorporated into the ethics.

You suggest an interesting distinction. Let me think about it.

I note the dominant societies of the past collapsed (regressed to smaller size with many fewer individuals) when a disaster happened. This is usually the change from a warm period to a change to colder period. This satisfies you requirement for less trade (food) availability. Contrary to the political hype, humanity has had a warm period and a cold period id due (if the past cycles are a model) .

see Tainter " The collapse of complex societies"

Aden Handasyde

I think your recommendation is too narrowly focused. The problem is the assumption that those things will result in survival. I think I have learned that human ideas of what should be are very often wrong or, at least, misuse of resources. Think of all the government programs that have had results opposite to the stated intentions.

"if you love right..." This seems to imply one "should" seek to "love right". and do what a church instructs. This is different from determine what one loves that also returns to one adequate food, shelter, etc. If one's great love is to kill people, become a soldier in a fighting army (not a peacetime army). My brother liked killing, so became a hunter and a farmer.

Aden Handasyde

"people like me" ??

goodby!

Aden Handasyde

Capitalism is an economic system, (like socialism) that allows for the creation and distribution of goods. Capitalism differs from socialism in that in socialistic models the ownership and running of the business is done by committees rather than by individuals.

There is the idea that an "employee owned" business is somehow more noble or less materialistic than an individually owned business.

But this has never proven to be the case in reality. If the goal is to alleviate human suffering, capitalist economies are far-and-away more effective at doing this than socialistic nations are.

But in doing so the capitalistic nations also create huge disparities of wealth, where corporate CEOs can make tens of millions while their factory workers make ten bucks an hour.

This seems grossly unfair.

The problem with the socialist arrangement is that though there is less economic stratification there is also far less wealth actually produced. So we live more equally, but our culture is less wealthy.

Human migration is always towards the more capitalist (richer) nations.

People find a middle ground by PREACHING SOCIALISM while choosing to actually live among the capitalists.

Stephen Martin Fritz

RE: your comments a few days ago about Family and Societal morality

I note the family/tribe places emphasis on total lack of privacy and ownership. Complexity has meant privacy and ownership is supported by the government.

I think if a society places family morality high, any situation (fro example, a cold period with insufficient food) results in the society becoming family size - that is collapse from complexity to simpler and less population density.

The societal morality seems to be nature's morality. At least this is an opinion. That is it is a specific application of morality. That is the rub, I think. I think humanity lacks the necessary wisdom to determine who or what system is the wisest, etc.

I suggest the problem is determining the laws to accomplish nature's ends. So, the problem is how to choose the proper laws that allow survival (maintenance of the complexity society evolves into) through the catastrophic events with regression to simpler organizations that support far fewer people. Perhaps, a federal structure that can tolerate many different approaches to laws (autocratic, democratic, republic, theocratic, capitalist, etc.). then the people vote with their feet.

John Hodge John, the way I see it, we have two moral structures or senses. One guides our activities in times of plenty the other in times of distress or want.

In early human history there were only two types of people, the female type and the male type.

Virtually every female could be counted upon to have babies and live the life of a mother until her early death. In the same way, every adult male lived as a group protector, climbing up a competitive hierarchical chain that only existed between the males and that fostered leadership and mating opportunities.

If you met one female, you've met them all, if you met any one male you met them all.

This sexual dimorphism honed our two-sided moral outlook.

Because of the need to feed and raise all her children, females found DOING RIGHT as it was understood in a Mind 1 view. All her children were treated equally. The smallest and weakest were looked after the most carefully. And all their lives were worth preserving. No one was expendable and everyone mattered.

In this outlook the biggest danger comes from the stronger who may try to hoard resources from the smaller and weaker. Good moms made sure the older kids didn't hurt the younger and that everyone shared.

In the male world of fighting and protection the youngest were sent to the edges of the group and were considered the most expendable. It was not the smallest and weakest who came first, and mattered most, but the biggest and strongest. In this outlook some lives mattered more than others, some people were more valuable than others.

In this Mind 2 view the biggest danger comes from not pulling your weight and not doing your duty.

These two moral patterns came together in modern humans with the movement toward monogamy and with expanded tool use and trade. Males moved into the family and FATHERS were created --- and mothers moved out of the family and into society - and WOMEN were created.

Now, both males and females share a Dual Moral outlook and can feel right and wrong in both ways.

As society becomes richer and safer and more-and-more women occupy positions of decision and authority we are all moving into a Mind 1 (liberal) condition. Everybody counts, every life matters equally, and every problem can be solved in a world where there is enough for all - by simply taking from those who have too much and giving to those who have too little --- always with the emphasis on looking after the smaller and weaker first.

It really has little to do with family size and everything to do with our perception of safety ad relative plenty. As long as there seems to be enough for all

FAMILY MORALITY will come to dominate our outlook.

In easy times we play and picnic

Everyone can be a clown, everyone can play, all traditions can be set aside, and its fun time for all.

Should a severe economic downturn happen (as with Nazi Germany in WWII) things could go far into the other directions where it is understood that some have to be sacrificed, where old-established traditions are all that matter, and doing ones duty is forced to become the prevailing moral outlook.

Today we don't have much use for words like honor and virtue ... but should we return to situation of want and danger, such language will return to our vocabularies.

Aden Handasyde

Can you explain?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/geonomics

is a viable possibility for social systems evolution:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Geonomics-in-1-Lesson

Such an advancement cannot be made by a legal constitution or nwo policy.

With a growing global population, the selection pressure will be-come stronger and the selection procedure points to a geonomic model as peaceful conflict resolution for survival of the human species.

Hello, well I think the word 'development' is rather obscene. Development in biology means an organism unfolds harmoniously in its environment. It means that the flower becomes a fruit, or the embryo becomes a child. But the social sciences have taken over this concept and perverted it. When we say 'development' in the modern sense, we generally mean outside intervention and meddling. If you meddle too much with an organism, it will be damaged or will die, which is precisely, I think, what we've been doing with other people's lives.

I think development has failed largely because the assumptions that underlay the whole concept were absolutely false."

Aden Handasyde

1). Who is going to implement this?

2). What will it's constitution say?

3). How will this new world order impact the hundreds being killed weekly in Mexican drug dealings or those being killed daily in America cities? Will these killers still be allowed the freedom to kill, or will they be restricted in some way?

Stephen Martin Fritz

RE: your post suggesting male and female society morals

The need to have nurturing and providing/protecting in a society has been recognized by religeons for centuries, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon

So, accepting your model of a requirement to switch back to the male mode to deal with catastrophe, what constitution would allow this. History is full of accounts of societies that fail and collapse (revert to a simpler form supporting far fewer people)?

Vadim S. Gorshkov

Humanity has built new world orders with reorganization many times in the past. From family groups to tribes, to chiefdoms, to states to nations. I like the summary in Jared Diamond's "The world until yesterday", part 1. The usual anthropology discussion are too long.

Idealism- yes, indeed. Many (most) fail. Compare the French Revolution with the American revolution. Both suggested a major change in constitution and both were based on ideal. The French Revolution failed to deliver a surviving society. The American Revolution did deliver a society that has thrived for longer than most. The Communist like the other socialist revolution failed.

Each of the successes allowed society's size to increase dramatically and to reduce the destruction of war (although war / conquering other societies is part of the growth). Not long ago, the death of males was more often violent.

So, if a global catastrophe is imminent, nature is offering us a chance to grow or to collapse into a simpler society - that is, attempt to learn a lesson. We have no choice - learn or collapse with the accompanying the very high mortality rate.

I think there are several possible catastrophes including a cold period which will cause a sever food shortage. Such cold periods have followed warm periods and killed many societies in the past.

Stephen I. Ternyik

The idea and social organization based on private/individual stewardship of some of the resources (land, etc.) is new in human history. The overall problem is efficient use of all resources, only some are susceptible to private ownership. For example river, or air between countries - the common resources. Private ownership often (usually) leads to the Tragedy of the Commons.

But the socialists style of organization has failed many time in just the last century. And their failure was caused by an even more egregious Tragedy of the Commons.

So, I think socialist forms have been tried and failed. But aside from that, What would be the constitution that may succeed? How would it differ from the forms already tried?

Karen A. Darbinyan

I agree that meddling or intervention in the language of the UN, US, Russia, Chine, And Britain in the British empire etc. leads to revolution. So, are you suggesting a hands off policy by the Federal authority. The US constitution started that way. But within 3-5 years of the Constitution, the US veered to pass amendments which interfered with states (the Bill of Rights) and laws such as those requiring Northern states to return slaves to the South (eventually a cause of the Civil War).

So, what constitution provision or organization would prevent this (presuming it is required).

John Hodge I think the human moral outlook that we call "liberal" was adopted as the default moral outlook by females in pre-history and even pre-humanity and our second moral outlook, now expressed as "conservatism" was the default moral outlook by males in their role in society at that time as well.

But modern culture, and man's move toward monogamy and expanded trade has made each of us Dually Moral and today both sexes move easily through both moral patterns.

Though there does seem to be some lingering affinity for females to default to a more liberal outlook and males toward a more conservative bent. But this is speaking in generalities.

http://www.earthjurist.org/

Article Earth System Law: The Juridical Dimensions of Earth System Governance

Article Sharing the Earth: A Biocentric Account of Ecological Justice

https://www.earthlawcenter.org/what-is-earth-law

Concerning geonomics, earth system law is in its beginning stages.

In my view, such a new social order will emerge, when the selection pressure (from nature) increases painfully. Such an evolving legal constitution will then reflect the eco-logical necessities for the survival procedure of the human species. Personally and as inspiration, I like to re-read the works of Thomas Paine, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

John Hodge

A good humanist world order requires that:

- the universal rights promoted are really respected without perversion,

- the laws on the primary protection of persons are actually applied,

- and that the problems sometimes addressed in the legislation of the States can be quickly detected and corrected.

There are States where a semblance of order is forced, while it actually causes disorder...

Please see this article for examples:

Experiment Findings Problems encountered by the Office des Professions du Québec...

Martine Labossiere Stephen I. Ternyik Stephen Martin Fritz Vadim S. Gorshkov

We have explored many of the problems the a new Constitution should solve. But we are not closer to a positive statement other than Martine's answer that it should follow nature's laws.

So, let me ask : Should the constitution be positive in it's procedure to do / act to achieve goals (as Martine suggests), or prohibitory (identified what the state, Fed.government, individuals) should NOT do. For example, other than the first 3 of 10 Commandments, the rules are prohibitory for individuals. I think the Founders meant the federeral government be prohibitive, letting states do their one laws. With the Bill of Rights and currently the Fed has taken the lead in laws that require the Fed to do thinks like welfare, health care, etc.

John Hodge The question of whether the wording in a constitution should empower government (i.e. thou shalt address pollution) or restrictive (thou shalt make no law that inhibits exports) depends on ones view of the nature of government.

People with a "liberal" bent tend to see government as a representative of the collective "us" and therefor to limit government is to limit "us" and why would we want to limit ourselves? So liberals tent to want to empower what they view as an essentially benevolent entity that can be directed to do good.

People with a "conservative" bent tend to view government as something separate from the people. It is a social entity that has a necessary role to protect the nation and establish a court system but to do little more than that. They see government as POWER and AUTHORITY and something that needs to be watched lest that power be over-extended and used against we-the-people.

With expanding wealth and security more and more people are moving toward the liberal outlook on government and it is being empowered to do everything from school our children and watch over our doctors, to monitoring our social media accounts and inspecting our cars. In my state we are even told by government how well-done our meat needs to be cooked!

All for our own good of course!

For the conservative, government is the strict daddy telling us to mow the lawn. For the liberal government is the permissive mommy who does our laundry and makes our beds.

Stephen Martin Fritz

"government is the strict daddy telling us..."

Certainly not the "conservative" outlook of doing little more than courts and international protecting.

Stefan Rüster

So, you think government Should interfere and regulate state and individual actions? Much like the UN and US is now doing but with different regulations/rules.

John Hodge I think the conservative outlook is to limit government to its historic social role.

That does not mean the conservatives seek smaller government. Government for the conservative can grow infinitely large as long as its limited to more armies, more border patrol agents, more policemen, more spy agencies....

It is wears a uniform, has a badge, and carries a gun, it is GOOD GOVERNMENT for the conservative.

For the liberal, government is fundamentally Robin Hood. Taking from those who have more than they need to give it to those who have less. And, like the conservative, the effort is never ending.

It is the wealth disparity that matters to the liberal. So even if every poor person ate three times as much as they needed, had 4 color TVs, two cars, a house and beach house, if there were millionaire CEOs making a lot more, the fight to redistribute wealth would still have to go on.

Put these two impulses together and look in the mirror. It is who we are.

Luckily, the free market seems to be providing a near infinite fountain of wealth. And so there is little real need to fight over the resources, both sides ratchet up their favorite programs every year while doing nothing to reduce the spending favored by those of the different persuasion.

"Après nous, le déluge"

What is fascinating is to see American Academics discussing deep political matters (what a Constitution can be) as if everybody was a good American Citizen... Constitution mean so different things for people, they have a long history for many people. History has not begun in 1776....

I am interpreting that all want the federal government to regulate details of life. The suggestions or problem identifications just are different areas where government is to regulate and dictate actions. As a whole they cover a very wide area to be nearly all aspects of life.

I'm a bit confused about Stephen Martin Fritz saying he like conservatism but then allows a "daddy" to instruct when and what to do.

Who is to pay for all this regulation?

Mark B Alan

The great advance of the 20th century was in advances in advertising and transportation. How to make everybody aware of the wide array of goods available to them and finding ways to get them to everyone cheaply and efficiently. This is where the BIG BOX stores like Walmart shine.

They put mom & pop local stores out of business because they do the same job BETTER AND MORE CHEAPLY.

In the long run people get all the things they got from mom & pop stores with money left over to buy even more. So in the end they spend on additional things and employ more people. MORE PEOPLE have jobs when a Walmart comes into town, not fewer.

The great achievement of the 21st century seems like it will be the micro-dispersal of sales down to the individual.

Everyone with a used lawnmower or hand-me-down baby carriage will be able to offer it on-line to people in the local area.

Ever more goods will be changing hands ever more rapidly. The economists refer to this as the VELOCITY OF MONEY .... how fast does a single dollar change hands between how many different people buying ever more different products.

This new computer-based home commercial exchange economy (Craig's List + Angies list etc) is part of what is keeping America's economy chugging along.

There is simply so many millions of independent economic transactions happening every day outside of corporate America that the old economic models are hardly adequate to explain today's economy.

Mark B Alan

So, your suggesting more government regulation and a system nearer to socialism?

Mark B Alan

SO how is the reduced size of corporations to happen. History is the size of businesses grows because of increased efficiency. The natural tendency is to grow.

Hos is war to be prevented if the winning (the more powerful) side prospers more than without war.

What power is to "simply rid ourselves" of government when the government is enacted by people to help them survive. Only later does decay creep in.

Mark B Alan

Omitting the corporate income tax will only make the corporate organization more popular (reducing taxes encourages , taxes discourage). War existed before corporations and if anything, the growth of corporations has correlated with the decrease in war experienced over the last millennia. (Ian Morris, "War! What is it good for?")

Velocity of money is like inflation. Both are a government used method to stimulate an economy that when overused causes prolonged (more than 3 years depression or recession). Increasing inflation caused the stagflation. Increasing loans such as for housing, investments increases the velocity of money. That is what caused the 2008 crisis. Both are government controlled and misused. If people start keeping money "under the mattress" The velocity of money slows and the economy slows thru decreased investment. You have the velocity of money function backward.

Mark:

"... outlawing the corporate form ..." as I said your are proposing a socialists form of government with the government regulating the other result you deem correct.

Mark B Alan

"Outlawing the corporate form"

Can you provide two or three real-world examples of a large association of productive and distributive manufacturing that does not take this form?

Mark B Alan

The hierarchical structure of corporations, like the hierarchical structure of society or households is an innate organizational pattern of human beings. To suggest that things should be different is interesting, but is like suggesting that things should be different in the world of physics.

Maybe things might be better if electrons had a slightly larger mass or photons had a clear anti-particle, or gravity did not work on Tuesdays.

Corporatism is not an intellectual decision we make or don't make it is a biological expression of how human being organize themselves. It is not an intellectual decision made by whim.

I think the closest we come to what you seek is found in democratic systems. In poor cultures hierarchical arrangements are strictly vertical and tightly bound. Politically the king is at the top, aristocrats beneath, followed my knights, merchants, peasants, slaves, etc.

Business, in poorer times, are also more tightly vertical with owners and managers having near dictatorial control at the top of social structure lording over workers and employees.

As times become richer these political and social vertical arrangements begin to topple over to more horizontal and democratic ones.

Politically we do our best to give everyone a voice and imagine we are all equal. At work, employees gain rights, regular people becomes stock holders or join unions etc.

At home the man was king of his castle ... now he is but part of a committee that includes his wife and kids

We never completely abandon the vertical CORPORATE model but we mitigate it - but again, not based on whim .... but in times of wealth and ease.

This concept is discussed at length at www.ourhumanherds.com

Mark B Alan

Did you write the second article also?