[A Little Trip] Goverment and Constution

[Othniel]

Ok, folks, ideas here;


My suggest;
City council, 7 people, based on skill and leadership within those occupations, no mayor.

Constution; Lets draw from Hammarabi's code...

[Ward]

Ok, folks, ideas here;


My suggest;
City council, 7 people, based on skill and leadership within those occupations, no mayor.

Constution; Lets draw from Hammarabi's code...


I also think we should have a town meeting at less ever two months and a vote of confadence for each member of the board every 6 mo's .

[Norbert]

I would suggest harsh penalties for stealing, as well as clause for 'no-work, no-food', modified for injury/illness. Basically, if you have a light duty slip from Doc Glenn, you do what you can. Also, I would suggest strongly that if someone is infectious they absolutly have no contact with the communal food stores.

[Glen]

I would suggest harsh penalties for stealing, as well as clause for 'no-work, no-food', modified for injury/illness. Basically, if you have a light duty slip from Doc Glenn, you do what you can. Also, I would suggest strongly that if someone is infectious they absolutly have no contact with the communal food stores.

BTW, I am a strong believer that exercise is better for recovery than bedrest...:eek:

[Darkest]

I think that if there is ANY surplus food at all, and there are starving people, feed them. Let's all eat meager for a year or two so that EVERYONE can eat. Small children, the sick or wounded, pregnant women... they have to eat, even if they aren't doing that much work. No one should have to die of starvation at our colony.

[Glen]

I think that if there is ANY surplus food at all, and there are starving people, feed them. Let's all eat meager for a year or two so that EVERYONE can eat. Small children, the sick or wounded, pregnant women... they have to eat, even if they aren't doing that much work. No one should have to die of starvation at our colony.

I tend to agree with that.

[Ward]

I think that if there is ANY surplus food at all, and there are starving people, feed them. Let's all eat meager for a year or two so that EVERYONE can eat. Small children, the sick or wounded, pregnant women... they have to eat, even if they aren't doing that much work. No one should have to die of starvation at our colony.


well what about the healthy person who refused to do any work at all .

I'm not willing to support some one like that .

[Glen]

well what about the healthy person who refused to do any work at all .

I'm not willing to support some one like that .

He didn't specify people like that...

[Psychomeltdown]

well what about the healthy person who refused to do any work at all .

I'm not willing to support some one like that .
No work, no Eat clause goes into effect.

If they continue not to work, then banishment.

if they turn bandit and begin stealing from our stores, then harsh penalties are needed.

[Ward]

He didn't specify people like that...



Well As I once stated if there is work you can do and you do it you are working . Knowing my luck I will have to start taking it easy with in a year or two cutting back to 8 hr days instead of 12 hr days .

[Bulgaroktonos]

I don't think we should get into the policy of banishment, rather exclusion. If people want to live on their own and work for themselves, that should be fine. However, they should not expect to recieve the benefits of our labor without trade.

Thus the same thing should be applied to those who would refuse to work. They should simply be forced to fend for themselves, rather than banishing them, as that is in reality an incredibly ineffective punishment.

If we attempted to enforce it, it would be a waste of our own resources. Also, are we calling "no work" outright refusal to work, or what? What constitutes "work?"

I think that the executive council should be composed of those we put in charge of the various positions, as they are elected to do the job, and to have the experts subject to those without expertise is foolhardy. I would suggest a more parliamentary system for elections. They must be held within 2 harvests, but if 2/3 of the voting population is dissatisfied, at any point after the establishment of an Executive Council. At that time, all members of the council would be put up for re-election.

[Norbert]

Granted, I did not specify, but remember, there are many types of work. If one person is skilled at nothing better than watching over the animals, that, to me, is constructive. If someone wants to sit around all day, that is not. Watching the young children and playing with them to some would not be work, but, it frees up others to contribute their skills to the community, and, thus is work. Devising games to keep the children happy, and teaching the children other skills is useful to everyone in the long run.


By the way, Ward, the ASBs healed everyone of defects, as I understand it, so you may well have many more years in the community. Now, if they would have only done something for your looks....:p

[Flocculencio]

I don't think we should get into the policy of banishment, rather exclusion. If people want to live on their own and work for themselves, that should be fine. However, they should not expect to recieve the benefits of our labor without trade.

Thus the same thing should be applied to those who would refuse to work. They should simply be forced to fend for themselves, rather than banishing them, as that is in reality an incredibly ineffective punishment.

Makes sense- if someone wants to go off and homestead on their own instead of helping out with the community they shouldn't expect the cavalry to come riding in if they get attacked by raiders.

[Glen]

No banishment...it just defers your problems, since they might come back...

Learn the lessons of Athens...

[Nicksplace27]

I believe citizenship would be needed, so that we can't just start treating the natives like our own.

[luakel]

I also think we should have a town meeting at less ever two months and a vote of confadence for each member of the board every 6 mo's .
What does "vote of confadence" mean? You get kicked out if enough people don't like you?
No work, no Eat clause goes into effect.

If they continue not to work, then banishment.

if they turn bandit and begin stealing from our stores, then harsh penalties are needed.
What if they can't work? My bro has cerebral palsy, does that mean he has to starve?

[NapoleonXIV]

No banishment...it just defers your problems, since they might come back...

Learn the lessons of Athens...

That sounds ominous

[Grimm Reaper]

Uh, do we need much in the way of government beyond basic principles like the Bill of Rights?

Mayor and six other council members, should we elect the mayor or let the council choose among themselves? Meeting once per week, if only to discuss concerns and make proposals.

Also, I think the council members should also be specialists, say one as councilman for agriculture and another for medical and hygienic?

[Ward]

What does "vote of confadence" mean? You get kicked out if enough people don't like you?

yes it dose .



What if they can't work? My bro has cerebral palsy, does that mean he has to starve?


Rember he is cured of it . And why can he not help read to the little ones and keep then out of there parents hair as they are working .

[luakel]

yes it dose .
Well, I guess I'm probably going to be banished within the first few months then... :(

;)
Rember he is cured of it . And why can he not help read to the little ones and keep then out of there parents hair as they are working .
Well, it affects his voice as well. But if he's cured of it (don't know how that happened), then I guess all is well. I don't see why he should have to work, though, since he's only 10...

[Ward]

Well, I guess I'm probably going to be banished within the first few months then... :(
Know its only the leaders who get Voted on .
;)

Well, it affects his voice as well. But if he's cured of it (don't know how that happened), then I guess all is well. I don't see why he should have to work, though, since he's only 10...


Well he can help the other boys as they get fire wood and learn basic skills on how to live on the Frontear.

[Dave Howery]

Well, I guess I'm probably going to be banished within the first few months then...
nope. Believe me, there's going to be so much work to do that first couple of years, we'll need every pair of hands we can get... even grubby ones like yours... :)

[Psychomeltdown]

nope. Believe me, there's going to be so much work to do that first couple of years, we'll need every pair of hands we can get... even grubby ones like yours... :)
We'll make a man of him yet. In a month he'll be so tired and sore and hungry that the thoughts of Halo won't even haunt him anymore.

In four years he'll be a strong buck ready to take his wife and start a homestead. :rolleyes:

[Dave Howery]

We'll make a man of him yet. In a month he'll be so tired and sore and hungry that the thoughts of Halo won't even haunt him anymore.

In four years he'll be a strong buck ready to take his wife and start a homestead. :rolleyes:
but we'll always remember him as the little boy with big eyes toddling through the new world...

[schrammy]

a city councel with a mix of comunity service/property later on more and more capitalizem/free market or even an elected dictatorship (as long as he knows what he is doing)would be fine with me

[Glen]

No Dictatorships, elected or otherwise!

(Sorry, just getting to be habit ;) )

With as small a population we have, this should start out as a direct democracy. People can represent themselves.

We've already had it suggested that our heads of the various divisions of labor (medicine, construction, defense, etc.) comprise an executive council, which makes a sort of sense (more like a cabinet, really).

Maybe have someone from the community elected to chair the meetings of the cabinet and give oversight for the laypeople at large?

We're going to need at least one judge, also, to preside over legal proceedings.

[Imajin]

Since we're rather small, perhaps a system like the New England Town Meeting could work?

[Ward]

No Dictatorships, elected or otherwise!

(Sorry, just getting to be habit ;) )

With as small a population we have, this should start out as a direct democracy. People can represent themselves.

We've already had it suggested that our heads of the various divisions of labor (medicine, construction, defense, etc.) comprise an executive council, which makes a sort of sense (more like a cabinet, really).

Maybe have someone from the community elected to chair the meetings of the cabinet and give oversight for the laypeople at large?

We're going to need at least one judge, also, to preside over legal proceedings.



I agree with a judge but lets keep the laws so everyone can understand them .

[Othniel]

We're going to need at least one judge, also, to preside over legal proceedings.
Acualtly we should have a model for abritration so things don't have to reach the courts. With a little less than 3200 people we need people willing to serve as arbitators for every sector, of say 50 to two hundread people. (or a person over 50 people, and person over those that serve for every 200 people, and those directly under a council.) Service in this postion would be manadory for every adult, rotating once a year.

Or we could do something else, but the more the community can focus on working instead of disputs seems better

[Othniel]

Since we're rather small, perhaps a system like the New England Town Meeting could work?
Thats how Summerian became a kingdom over time.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I think that we should have a constitution, but few actual laws. I think we should work a common law/case law system within the constitutional framework.

I.E. Freedom of speech is going to be in the Constitution, as a guaranteed right. Thus, if there is a suit over said right, it goes to the courts which determine the bounds, or lack there of, of the Constitutional protections.

This allows for more common sense rulings and avoids bureaucratic stipulations etc, and gives us leeway to deal with things as we see fit while also guaranteeing basic rights.

[Glen]

I sorta see it the way Bulg suggests, though we'll undoubtably have our own laws crop up over time.

[Matt]

@ luakel

10 is too young for constructive work(and too dangerous). But the "Job" of the older childern is to look after the younger ones.

My general comments have already been voiced elsewhere. We need a milita were all males 16 and older should be able to serve in an emergency, augmented by a small "professional" force in a role similar to Rangers. The Rangers should be subservent to whatever civilian authority we deem appropriate to govern us.

[Norbert]

Perhaps the Shire-Moot system would work. The way I see it, with as many people as we have, we really should think of perhaps three smaller community bases, each with an elected leadership, with an overall council governing all communities. A Moot would be held to administer 'low-justice', with big problems being brought before the council (the Shire-Moot).

I am not saying that the communities will be far apart, just three to five miles apart, taking advantage of the area resources, but not straining those same resources.

[Steffen]

we have to keep in mind we have a lot of interesting personalities who don´t seem to take orders lightly. and we´ll surely have to build community infrastructure which is nearly as inglorious as farmwork.
so a council will have to do much work in convincing people to do something- so no confidence ideas have the disadvantage that bringing up the point of pumping out the privy is postponed until it lit. slops over.

So my idea would be setting up an executive council of 5-9 people tasked with overseeing departments (farming, policing, construction...) and a 15 people strong commitee which can veto a project or conduct of work by a councillor by a 2/3 majority.

[Norbert]

Something to think about is when the first meeting is to take place. As MBarry and the scouts are out and will not be back for a few days, and there are work details going that are doing work that needs to be done, the main meeting, in my opinion should wait until the scouts get back. Before that happens, though, we might think about which groups we are going to be in, as, by nature, there will be 'clicks' that will form: its in our natures. Perhaps from these 'clicks' will come the formation of, for the lack of a better term, 'political parties'. Think of who you want to represent you, and let them know what you want.

Questions to think about (for a start):
1: What rules are important to you?
2: If one of these rules is broken, then what is the punishment?
3: How are we to govern ourselves, and who is the governing body?
4: Who is to mediate the differences you have with someone else?
5: Should we have a Constitution/Charter as a guideline?
6: How should we deal with the native population?

I do not mean to be pushy, just trying to throw a realism into this. I think, if you want, we can throw this particular post out, and figure something else out. Let us not get bogged down with a rule system, I personally want to have fun with this ALT, and I would like to see us keep it fun for everyone else. If someone post something you do not like, don't log off and grumble about it, post a reply of what you might do in response to that situation.

[Forum Lurker]

The word meaning "exclusivist yet technically informal social groups" is spelled "cliques".

1: The only rule important to me is that no one forcibly interfere with my life, whether by beating me up, stealing my potatoes, or preaching hellfire and brimstone while I'm trying to have a Shabbat service.

2: The punishment should be whatever a disinterested, trustworthy party decides will dissuade them from repetition, and will recompense me for my losses.

3: We're small enough to permit direct election of a working council.

4: Someone that I and the other person can agree on as a neutral; if the other person refuses to accept a truly neutral mediator, I take the problem to the fellows with combat training and propensities for violence, and suggest that they should politely encourage the other fellow to be reasonable.

5: Yes. It should clearly lay out that what you do is no one's business unless you're hurting someone else, but if you are, then it becomes the business of those in charge of keeping people safe.

6: We should avoid violence where possible, but not when necessary for the colony's well-being. We should trade with them only what we can spare, and what will not come back to haunt us; we should accept them into our society if and only if they demonstrate a basic understanding of our language(s) and laws.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I suggest a vague but delineated Constitution.

From there we suggest common law/sense judges. We should have three levels. Upon appeal, it should go to the 2nd Tier (High) judge(s). If he throws it out a first time, and the plaintiff appeals, it goes to the 1st Tier judge. If that judge finds the case to be of warrant and statute, then the case should again go before the 2nd Tier Judge(s) for a second time. That judge should then review the case based on the legal reasoning of the 1st Tier judge, and decide.

[Soyuz]

Right now we have to consider what is most important. For the first year and maybe for the first year only, farming and building houses is vital. The rules should reflect that.

1: Theft, lazyness, disruptive behavior.

2: Harder labour (eg shoveling manure), a part of their personal property is taken to the community, all of their property is given to the community, we can't afford imprisonment, so death as the last resort.

3: The most knowledgebale person from each trade.

4: What, none of us have law experience?

5: Sometime down the line. Too much resources to write up now.

6: Again, I suggest using them for cheap labor.

[Hendryk]

2: Harder labour (eg shoveling manure), a part of their personal property is taken to the community, all of their property is given to the community, we can't afford imprisonment, so death as the last resort.
We can't afford imprisonment, but banishment should be the maximum penalty for serious wrongdoers (though hard labor would be more sensible IMO; we can always use a pair of hands, even if they're manacled at night). I know our community isn't a utopia, but we shouldn't right from the beginning have the death penalty on our law books.

[Flocculencio]

We can't afford imprisonment, but banishment should be the maximum penalty for serious wrongdoers (though hard labor would be more sensible IMO; we can always use a pair of hands, even if they're manacled at night). I know our community isn't a utopia, but we shouldn't right from the beginning have the death penalty on our law books.

I agree about no death penalty (although if someone snaps and starts going on a rampage and killing people, they'll have to be brought down)

[Soyuz]

I agree about no death penalty (although if someone snaps and starts going on a rampage and killing people, they'll have to be brought down)
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Read that it is a last resort.


And back to administrative questions - however you might conceil it, we will be living under communism for the time being. So I propose the 2 temporary laws until things stabelize:
1) Whoever doesn't work, doesn't eat
2) From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs
As well as the necessary centralized planning in each field of work from the most expericned people in that field.

[Hendryk]

And back to administrative questions - however you might conceil it, we will be living under communism for the time being. So I propose the 2 temporary laws until things stabelize:
1) Whoever doesn't work, doesn't eat
2) From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs
As well as the necessary centralized planning in each field of work from the most expericned people in that field.
This is also my understanding. Very Kibbutz-like, when you think about it.
In such a situation, I expect Wendy's deeply-ingrained Confucian instincts to take over:
Rule n°1: obey legitimate authority.
Rule n°2: get to work.
Rule n°3: what, you aren't working yet? :rolleyes:

[Flocculencio]

In such a situation, I expect Wendy's deeply-ingrained Confucian instincts to take over:
Rule n°1: obey legitimate authority.
Rule n°2: get to work.
Rule n°3: what, you aren't working yet? :rolleyes:

I'm Singaporean enough to agree with this plan of action...Confucian indoctrination and all that have somewhat undermined the traditional argumentative instincts of the Indian :D

Indian traditions go a bit more like this

Step 1: Agree, in theory, to obey legitimate authority
Step 2: Argue over who and what constitutes legitimate authority. An argument between two Indians can quite possibly have three sides.
Step 3: There is no Step 3!
Step 4: Break for lunch
Step 5: Resume argument
Step 6: Type-A personality manages to bring everyone under control
Step 7: Start Work
Step 8: Whenever a decision needs to be made, refer to Step 1 and so on.

[Glen]

We can't afford imprisonment, but banishment should be the maximum penalty for serious wrongdoers (though hard labor would be more sensible IMO; we can always use a pair of hands, even if they're manacled at night). I know our community isn't a utopia, but we shouldn't right from the beginning have the death penalty on our law books.

I am dead set against banishment as a form of punishment for criminals.

Basically, you are setting them loose to wreck havoc elsewhere, not to mention giving them the opportunity to attack the community at a later date.

I think the Athenians would come to later regret their practice of ostracism.

[Othniel]

Hmm, Supervised hard labor(quarry work I hear is misrable....but we can shuffle criminals around to different odd jobs, stripping them of their property...), and lowered rations might work better...

[Glen]

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Read that it is a last resort.


And back to administrative questions - however you might conceil it, we will be living under communism for the time being.

I disagree. This need not be 'communism' per se.

So I propose the 2 temporary laws until things stabelize:
1) Whoever doesn't work, doesn't eat

Two problems with this -
1) Who decides if you are working?
2) Are you going to stop people from eating food they have brought with them?

Let's ask everyone, voluntarily, to participate in a community field and livestock venture for the first year, so that they can learn the skills, get food start-up going, etc. Food from this venture will only be given out to those who agree to participate or have a doctor's note (and I'm tough, people).

Also, long before those fields produce, and long after our stored food run out, we are going to need other sources. This area can probably support us all for a year if we strip it in increasingly large areas. Also, our best bet for food during the farming year is the sea. Again, make participation in a group effort voluntary, but necessary for inclusion in reaping the rewards of the venture.

This all can be organized as a business venture, really, with us all owning joint stock in it, in a way.

2) From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

Just doesn't work. You have to reward ability, incentivise it. Basic needs for those who can't provide for themselves through no fault of their own, sure. Incentivise people to work hard though. Perhaps a base salary for everyone, but with bonuses for excellence/innovation. One thought might be to give temporary extra votes in the general meetings of the town for people who have excelled, as nominated by the council and agreed to by a majority of the community at the last meeting. What this also does is give a little extra clout temporarily to those who have contributed above and beyond (and thus might have a good head on their shoulders).

As well as the necessary centralized planning in each field of work from the most expericned people in that field.

Yes, but then confirmed by the majority. Centralized planning sucks long-term because no small group of people can correctly guage the needs and desires of the larger group.

Obviously, we will be all working closely together this first year, and it will superficially resemble a commune in some aspects. However, the guiding principles we establish are setting precedent, and need to be carefully thought through for their impact on the future, which may diverge.

[Glen]

Work should not be punishment...what does that then say about all our hard work in the community?

Crimes should be punished with restitution to the victims where possible (let's not deal with victimless crimes, shall we?), public humiliation and shunning (which works very well in this size of community), confinement when not working (I'm thinking that the stocks may not be a bad idea, out in the public where everyone can help keep an eye on them).

Everyone works; it should be a requirement of the convicted, but not a part of their punishment.

Convicts volunteering for extra labor, or hard/dangerous labor might be a good way for them to earn a little off their sentence. They would not be eligible for extra vote rewards until their sentence is completed (or expiated if they make extra contributions of work to the community).

[Glen]

There should be a general meeting of the community on the very first night. The basics have to be done immediately (the rest can come later).

Parliamentary procedure, I'd suggest Robert's Rules of Order.

Line forms behind Bulg for speaking, using the bullhorn if needed.

The Scouting parties on the first day should come back by nightfall. They are ad hoc and not well planned, designed only to tell us about our immediate surroundings and to augment area security. We'll send out a more organized scouting team in a day or two.

Some people should volunteer to stand guard and watch kids, giving their proxies to friends/families.

[Othniel]

Work should not be punishment...what does that then say about all our hard work in the community?jobs where we need extra people, but can't spare people from others? For example Going door to door to collect chamber pots and other stuff, like digging laterines..... needed, yet unrewarding work. A type of communal service. We give them undesirable jobs, where ther would be nothing to steal or hoarde. Certainly that is a detrenent, and keeps the community more productive.. (works well enough in the army...)

-snip-

Convicts volunteering for extra labor, or hard/dangerous labor might be a good way for them to earn a little off their sentence. They would not be eligible for extra vote rewards until their sentence is completed (or expiated if they make extra contributions of work to the community).
They should be disenfrantised until their service is done.

[Soyuz]

Two problems with this -
1) Who decides if you are working?
We've already got a definition of work... and the administrators will.

2) Are you going to stop people from eating food they have brought with them?
No, I'm referring to the collectively grown food. Although now that you mention it, we can expropriate all the initial food as well.

Let's ask everyone, voluntarily, to participate in a community field and livestock venture for the first year, so that they can learn the skills, get food start-up going, etc. Food from this venture will only be given out to those who agree to participate or have a doctor's note (and I'm tough, people).
a) This has to be REQUIRED. VERY few have the knowledge/resources/manpower to start a farm on their own.
b) But others with other important tasks (building houses, etc) will be exempt. Why should they starve?

Also, long before those fields produce, and long after our stored food run out, we are going to need other sources. This area can probably support us all for a year if we strip it in increasingly large areas. Also, our best bet for food during the farming year is the sea. Again, make participation in a group effort voluntary, but necessary for inclusion in reaping the rewards of the venture.
Exactly. Does that mean the fisherman/hunters get to screw everybody off monetarily before the harvest isn't ready yet and they have all the food? Or do you again expect each person to be a Robinson Crusou and farm, hunt, fish, clear the forest, build a house, make tools, take care of family all on their own?

This all can be organized as a business venture, really, with us all owning joint stock in it, in a way.
We can look at it like that... but who gets how much stock? Again, just disguising communism.

Just doesn't work. You have to reward ability, incentivise it.
And we'll reward it. With enough food to eat not to starve. If there is something left over we'll divide it again, on the needs.

Basic needs for those who can't provide for themselves through no fault of their own, sure. Incentivise people to work hard though. Perhaps a base salary for everyone, but with bonuses for excellence/innovation. One thought might be to give temporary extra votes in the general meetings of the town for people who have excelled, as nominated by the council and agreed to by a majority of the community at the last meeting. What this also does is give a little extra clout temporarily to those who have contributed above and beyond (and thus might have a good head on their shoulders).
Lol, by trying to get away from communism, you're just getting closer to it.

Yes, but then confirmed by the majority. Centralized planning sucks long-term because no small group of people can correctly guage the needs and desires of the larger group. Obviously, we will be all working closely together this first year, and it will superficially resemble a commune in some aspects. However, the guiding principles we establish are setting precedent, and need to be carefully thought through for their impact on the future, which may diverge.
No, I'm talking about the first few years, and the first one in particular. When we have housing and food, and time to spare to do other things, we'll make them, barter them, finally sell them at a market and move away from that system. Right now what can we buy/sell? We didn't bring anything that we didn't need ourselves. One man farming a forested landscape, or one man crafting something from start to finish will meet a starving end.

[Othniel]

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/owen/newview.txt

Maybe that might help...

[Forum Lurker]

I strongly agree with Glen that banishment is a very, very bad idea. Historically, what happens when you banish troublemakers is generally that they go hang with your enemies and help them out, or make you enemies if you don't have them yet. The whole "William Walker" thing of Stirling's? Drawn from plenty of historical examples, chiefest among them probably Alcibiades, the Athenian general who was largely responsible for the course of the Peloponnesian War.

[Glen]

jobs where we need extra people, but can't spare people from others? For example Going door to door to collect chamber pots and other stuff, like digging laterines..... needed, yet unrewarding work. A type of communal service. We give them undesirable jobs, where ther would be nothing to steal or hoarde. Certainly that is a detrenent, and keeps the community more productive.. (works well enough in the army...)

Or should taking on such ornerous jobs be rewarded?

I just don't want to stigmatize any form of needed work...that's the road to untouchables and other unpleasant ideas...


They should be disenfrantised until their service is done.

I thought of that, but no. Because then bringing criminal charges can be used as a political weapon. Let them vote, but they can't earn bonus votes until they've been released from their sentence.

[Soyuz]

BONUS VOTES???

WTF is that? I'd like anyone to explain how that's gonna work.

1 vote per household. That's how I'd settle it.

[Forum Lurker]

Per household? Not per adult? We don't want to discourage marriage/cohabitation.

[Soyuz]

Per household? Not per adult? We don't want to discourage marriage/cohabitation.
Yes, mainly due to those cloned wives you're bringing. I cannot consider them to be people, therefore they are not adults, therefore they cannot vote. But they still can influence their spouces, no problem.

[Glen]

We've already got a definition of work... and the administrators will.

Ah, more power for them...


No, I'm referring to the collectively grown food. Although now that you mention it, we can expropriate all the initial food as well.

That will have to be put to a vote, at the very least. I'd prefer it if people would voluntarily agree to the establishment of common stores, with their contribution being noted and credited to their account.


a) This has to be REQUIRED. VERY few have the knowledge/resources/manpower to start a farm on their own.

No it doesn't. The vast majority will see the sense in pulling together for the first year. I'd rather have most people working together voluntarily than all people working, but some forced into it.


b) But others with other important tasks (building houses, etc) will be exempt. Why should they starve?

Right, they shouldn't...

The more I think about it, the more I realize we are going to have to set up some form of wage/fee system, so that people can accumulate credit for the work they do, regardless of what type that is (though there may be some differences in renumeration). Basically, we make certain every job has a living wage, which means you can afford to buy food daily. We should have the communal stores on a quasi-ration system, meaning that you have to buy them, but you can only buy/withdraw only a certain amount at a time per individual.

Probably should just make the food 'free' for children and the infirm (which thanks to the ASBs, we don't have yet).


Exactly. Does that mean the fisherman/hunters get to screw everybody off monetarily before the harvest isn't ready yet and they have all the food? Or do you again expect each person to be a Robinson Crusou and farm, hunt, fish, clear the forest, build a house, make tools, take care of family all on their own?

Okay, this obviously needs to be thought out further. We need to be able to support a diversity of jobs (albeit less so than modern society), and no one group should have dominance.

Something I'll think about.


We can look at it like that... but who gets how much stock? Again, just disguising communism.

No, its not, because property can be used or traded, giving people some personal control over the utilization of resources. Similarly, the central planning of communism disenfrancises people from contributing to the decisions of how communal resources are used. Putting that into a democratic system will protect from that.

Everything someone does in our new society, everything they contribute, should receive some degree of reward and credit, and should give them some say in how resources they have helped create or contribute are allocated. Sometimes, even when the majority disagrees....


And we'll reward it. With enough food to eat not to starve. If there is something left over we'll divide it again, on the needs.

And we'll be living on drudgery and minimal effort...


Lol, by trying to get away from communism, you're just getting closer to it.

How so? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for pure laisse faire capitalism in an anarcholibertarian state...


No, I'm talking about the first few years, and the first one in particular. When we have housing and food, and time to spare to do other things,

Right...and who will determine when the time is right? And how many people are likely to agree with this system?

we'll make them, barter them, finally sell them at a market and move away from that system. Right now what can we buy/sell? We didn't bring anything that we didn't need ourselves. One man farming a forested landscape, or one man crafting something from start to finish will meet a starving end.

We can rent out tools when we are not using them. We can rent out large items to the community or others. We can sell the milk from cows, the wool from sheep, rent out our horses and oxen for use in the fields.

People can be given credit for working in the communal fields, or on community projects (buildings, policing, medical, etc.).

Heck, some smart folks brought along wind-up computers, so we can keep track on spreadsheets until we get a currency system up and running.

Point is, if you contribute, you should be rewarded comisserate with the value of your goods or services. That makes people WANT to work harder than might otherwise be required of them. People should be allowed the option to join co-op ventures and to contribute to community resources, receiving credit in proportion to that.

And if the community decides by democratic vote that some things need to be requisitioned for the good of the community, after all of that, it should only be by a significant vote of the whole community (supermajority?) and those items requisitioned should be reimbursed.

This is a system where you have things that are your own, where your work is your own, where you have freedom to choose how you will live your life. Such systems tend to work better than top down, forced planning, where everything is required, and you have little say and nothing is really yours, but 'the government's'.

In reality, this first year the differences between the two systems on the surface will be subtle, but they will have big differences on morale, and as we mature as a society, they will profoundly diverge. And I think switching from one system to another is harder than you suggest...

[Glen]

BONUS VOTES???

WTF is that? I'd like anyone to explain how that's gonna work.

1 vote per household. That's how I'd settle it.

First, it should be one vote per citizen, not household, as the base.

At a general meeting of the entire community, nominations are given of people who have performed outstanding service to the community since the last meeting. If a supermajority (let's say 75%) of the community votes to reward those individuals with a bonus vote, it is granted.

What this means is, at the NEXT general meeting of the community, those people on any one vote may cast an additional vote. They must use it at that meeting or it will expire (don't want people accumulating these things, or just holding onto their one vote for the 'right time').

That's the idea, at least.

[Glen]

Yes, mainly due to those cloned wives you're bringing. I cannot consider them to be people, therefore they are not adults, therefore they cannot vote. But they still can influence their spouces, no problem.

NO CLONE DISCRIMINATION!!!!

I find this concept of the clones the ASBs gave a bit childish, but they are citizens in our society now, and will be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else in the community.

[Dave Howery]

NO CLONE DISCRIMINATION!!!!

I find this concept of the clones the ASBs gave a bit childish, but they are citizens in our society now, and will be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else in the community.
well, it was either clones or nearly all the community would be single males... not a good scenario for survival...

[SionEwig]

Yes, mainly due to those cloned wives you're bringing. I cannot consider them to be people, therefore they are not adults, therefore they cannot vote. But they still can influence their spouces, no problem.

Excuse me!!!

There are many of us who do not have the cloned wives. We have our REAL wives. And while I will not speak for anyone elses spouse, I do know that mine will NOT put up with being disenfranchised.

[jolo]

I believe communism wouldn't even work if there were only 3 people on our little trip. But I won't interfere into what's happening in the main settlement if those people don't intefere in my activities.

Just as a reminder:

- As someone else stated somewhere, even the Amerindians living in small villages of 30-50 people used some kind of money.

- Communism never worked, never will. Even the Israeli Kibuzz weren't among the most rewarding ways of life, despite being helped a lot by 2 capitalist countries - they were more suitable to keep a lot of immigrants busy. As we don't have a capitalist country above us, we can't afford such communist nostalgia.

- Your ideas are a good way to recreate "Animal Farm". Lots of yelling around by people who believe themselves to be important, but little efficiency. A good way to create more and more authoritarianism.

[Othniel]

Excuse me!!!

There are many of us who do not have the cloned wives. We have our REAL wives. And while I will not speak for anyone elses spouse, I do know that mine will NOT put up with being disenfranchised.
Instead she'll disenfranchise you... acuatly when he said that I thought this meant that the household had to agree on what they are voting on..

That however would make me kinda queasy...

[jolo]

Yes, mainly due to those cloned wives you're bringing. I cannot consider them to be people, therefore they are not adults, therefore they cannot vote. But they still can influence their spouces, no problem.

A clone is exactly the same as an identical twin. Do you want them to have no vote either?

[Forum Lurker]

Ward's entire family is one household. None of them are ASB clones. Do they deserve only one vote between them all, just because you've got silly hangups about whether other people's spouses are people or not?

[SionEwig]

Instead she'll disenfranchise you... acuatly when he said that I thought this meant that the household had to agree on what they are voting on..

More likely, YES:D . And while it could work forthe household to have to agree, how many will take it as being disenfranchised? Not to mention then how do you count a household like Ward's. Is that one vote, or more.

Best to stick with 1 person = 1 vote.

(Hmmm, sounds like a campaign slogan:rolleyes: )



(oops, replied while you were editing what I was quoting, I think we agree )

[Soyuz]

Ah, more power for them...
They can always be removed by a vote.

That will have to be put to a vote, at the very least. I'd prefer it if people would voluntarily agree to the establishment of common stores, with their contribution being noted and credited to their account.
Huh? That's still communism - you give food to the community, and receive some back. Especially since I think the first harvest we would have barely enough to get by. That'll just be hording.

No it doesn't. The vast majority will see the sense in pulling together for the first year. I'd rather have most people working together voluntarily than all people working, but some forced into it.
If those people aren't doing what I outlined in a) or b) than they are clearly disruptive to the community. There are some jobs that will be VITAL to our survival, notably farming and building. If Mr.X decides to work as a musician, then I think we should either a)force him to work on a farm or b)ignore him and not feed him.

Right, they shouldn't...

The more I think about it, the more I realize we are going to have to set up some form of wage/fee system, so that people can accumulate credit for the work they do, regardless of what type that is (though there may be some differences in renumeration). Basically, we make certain every job has a living wage, which means you can afford to buy food daily. We should have the communal stores on a quasi-ration system, meaning that you have to buy them, but you can only buy/withdraw only a certain amount at a time per individual.
Who's gonna set it up and determine what's worth what? That's planned economy again. Espacially when everyone's working on the same field and everyone has different abilities.

Probably should just make the food 'free' for children and the infirm (which thanks to the ASBs, we don't have yet).
At least we agree on something.

No, its not, because property can be used or traded, giving people some personal control over the utilization of resources
Property? What property? Are you planning on dividing the fields from the start? Again, starving death alone, and I won't work hard on a field that's not mine. And I ask again, how are you going to divide it? First come first serve? Who gets how many shares? Someone will get screwed over either way.

Similarly, the central planning of communism disenfrancises people from contributing to the decisions of how communal resources are used. Putting that into a democratic system will protect from that.
The Executive Branch will be elected. The other one appointed upon who has more skills in what.

Everything someone does in our new society, everything they contribute, should receive some degree of reward and credit, and should give them some say in how resources they have helped create or contribute are allocated. Sometimes, even when the majority disagrees....
That's true, but will happen when an individual household is able to grow enough food to feed themselves, and has enough to support a working class. And when that working class has a) built all the housing and b) has enough time left over from repairing equipment to build new equipment.

And we'll be living on drudgery and minimal effort...
And you'll be living by hoarding and screwing the weaker half over.

For example:
There are 2 households: one 25 year old married couple, no kids, and another 40-year old couple, 2 underaged kids. Who can do more work? The 25-year olds. So they get more credit and more food. But who really needs it? The family with kids.

But your system fails to make sense when you refuse to answer who's going to distribute the credits and value each other's work? Isn't that what a central planning commitee does?

We can rent out tools when we are not using them. We can rent out large items to the community or others. We can sell the milk from cows, the wool from sheep, rent out our horses and oxen for use in the fields.
But what will we get in return? Food is eaten, you are a constant loser on that. And I thought each of us brought supplies for what we wanted to do ourselves...

Point is, if you contribute, you should be rewarded comisserate with the value of your goods or services. That makes people WANT to work harder than might otherwise be required of them. People should be allowed the option to join co-op ventures and to contribute to community resources, receiving credit in proportion to that.
Again, a person can do more, but need much less. You are already creting serious debt by putting people without survival skills at a huge disadvantage. This guy has extra food, but anther family needs food, even though they've spent all their credits... In a month we'll have landowners and serfs.

And if the community decides by democratic vote that some things need to be requisitioned for the good of the community, after all of that, it should only be by a significant vote of the whole community (supermajority?) and those items requisitioned should be reimbursed.
Ok, but what you call the "community" is the government. Right now the govt doesn't have anything, they only way to get it is collect taxes. Wouldn't it just be easier to collect the necessary tools as "taxes"?

This is a system where you have things that are your own, where your work is your own, where you have freedom to choose how you will live your life. Such systems tend to work better than top down, forced planning, where everything is required, and you have little say and nothing is really yours, but 'the government's'.
It isn't if you're working collectively on a field.

At a general meeting of the entire community, nominations are given of people who have performed outstanding service to the community since the last meeting. If a supermajority (let's say 75%) of the community votes to reward those individuals with a bonus vote, it is granted.
See, for some reason you know what's "outstanding service" is and able to distribute votes accordingly, but unable to set a quota for a person.

And why would anyone do that? If they've worked harder in your system, they earned more credits - already rewarded. Do you really wish for the rich to have more power in relation to how rich they are?

NO CLONE DISCRIMINATION!!!!

I find this concept of the clones the ASBs gave a bit childish, but they are citizens in our society now, and will be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else in the community.
I can't entrust to give the power to vote to a person who is 2 days old. But you're right. There are probably more real wives.

[Soyuz]

- Communism never worked, never will. Even the Israeli Kibuzz weren't among the most rewarding ways of life, despite being helped a lot by 2 capitalist countries - they were more suitable to keep a lot of immigrants busy. As we don't have a capitalist country above us, we can't afford such communist nostalgia.
Not necessarily. It worked quite well during the stone ages when you either share and work, or die in the jungle alone. And since we're starting from 0.01, for some time (year or 2) we'll have to do just that.

And our community is small enough not to be clogged down by beurocracy. And this won't last long...

[Flocculencio]

Property? What property? Are you planning on dividing the fields from the start? Again, starving death alone, and I won't work hard on a field that's not mine. And I ask again, how are you going to divide it? First come first serve? Who gets how many shares? Someone will get screwed over either way.

Plus what about the people who have other duties that leave no time for agriculture?

-The fishermen: They won't have time to work their own fields, they'll be out fishing every day

-The hunters: They might be away for week-long hinting expeditions tracking and killing game

-The rangers: Again they'll be away from the community most of the time scouting, patrolling and negotiating with the local tribes

And so on and so forth with blacksmiths, carpenters, herdsmen etc.

Giving everyone a small chunk of land for a cabin and a market garden makes sense but not giving everyone huge chunks of land which they won't have time to use effectively.

[Soyuz]

^^^ Flocc, you asking me? ^^^

And you do know that there will always be better pieces of land (farmland and for housing) and worse ones, so how do you decide who gets what? Who decides it?

[Othniel]

Plus what about the people who have other duties that leave no time for agriculture?

-The fishermen: They won't have time to work their own fields, they'll be out fishing every day

-The hunters: They might be away for week-long hinting expeditions tracking and killing game

-The rangers: Again they'll be away from the community most of the time scouting, patrolling and negotiating with the local tribes

And so on and so forth with blacksmiths, carpenters, herdsmen etc.

Giving everyone a small chunk of land for a cabin and a market garden makes sense but not giving everyone huge chunks of land which they won't have time to use effectively.Right Fields, and wood, and all gathered resources are owned by the city they are gathered for... while land people live on (not farm on, but raise childern, and sleep, etc.) is personal property.


I even have started working on addresses...:p

[Othniel]

^^^ Flocc, you asking me? ^^^

And you do know that there will always be better pieces of land (farmland and for housing) and worse ones, so how do you decide who gets what? Who decides it?
Chance, lottery, drawings. It will be homestead for the mainsettlement most likely. The land predivided, and then distrubted by lottery if I have my way, which might not be agreed to by the community, but I want to take that chance.

[Flocculencio]

^^^ Flocc, you asking me? ^^^

And you do know that there will always be better pieces of land (farmland and for housing) and worse ones, so how do you decide who gets what? Who decides it?

No, it's a general question. I have some concerns about this seeing as my player character's a ranger.

If people like me and MBarry get allocated a homestead there's no way we'll have time to farm it seeing as we might be away negotiating with a neighbouring tribe for weeks at a time. Our wives could do some of it but then that's unfair seeing as other people have a whole household available to work on the fields.

I agree with you that there'll be a problem over who gets what.

I'm just saying that rather one system or the other, elements of both might be in order but leaning more towards the communal system IMHO.

[jolo]

If those people aren't doing what I outlined in a) or b) than they are clearly disruptive to the community. There are some jobs that will be VITAL to our survival, notably farming and building. If Mr.X decides to work as a musician, then I think we should either a)force him to work on a farm or b)ignore him and not feed him.


What about the hunter who has had a bad day? No food? What about the hunter who was lucky within an hour, spend the rest of the day shagging Amerindian women, and comes back with his "usual" amount of game? How do you judge the work of hunters and scout who are out for several days?

What about the person who does some gardening for himself and his family, builds his own storage, and does something for the community like producing paper? That's no work? He's not supposed to eat his own stuff? He "disrupts" the community?

What about a guy who, with his musical talents, creates a good atmosphere on the market, so that many Amerindians come looking for barter? That person doesn't have the right to keep the money/food others give him? That Person cannot be regarded as a contribution to society and be payed accordingly by the people who profit from his services?

How do you reward Amerindians who'd like to join the community?

Your ideas might be suitable for 10 or so volunteers on a farm - but most (needed) professions won't work like that. If a farmer treats his employees like that and they let him, that's ok. Otherwise, it's nonsense.


Property? What property? Are you planning on dividing the fields from the start? Again, starving death alone, and I won't work hard on a field that's not mine. And I ask again, how are you going to divide it? First come first serve? Who gets how many shares? Someone will get screwed over either way.


Easy. Some is given for free, most is sold for a low price everyone can afford by selling some of his non-needed supplies. Then it's everyones free decision.

And a person who doesn't work too much on a field that's not his own will probably also not be too valuable for a field that belongs to the community.


The Executive Branch will be elected. The other one appointed upon who has more skills in what.


Again: This will lead to a lot of conflicts of interest. If you have two farms, one of them with a "council member" another without, you can be sure that the council member will have no difficulties why all the rare machines/tools/seeds and so on need to be on his farm, and not the other. A lot more examples, directly from reality, are available.


There are 2 households: one 25 year old married couple, no kids, and another 40-year old couple, 2 underaged kids. Who can do more work? The 25-year olds. So they get more credit and more food. But who really needs it? The family with kids.


Bad luck. But at the beginning, the children who are old enough have to work, too. Also, the 40 year olds will usually know more than the 25 year olds. If they can decide themselves what they do, they'll be able to use this advantage for everyones good. But I don't mind a tax system and spending some of the money on food for the children.


But your system fails to make sense when you refuse to answer who's going to distribute the credits and value each other's work? Isn't that what a central planning commitee does?


I prefer a market for that - much more neutral, much more adaptive to actual needs, much more efficient.


Ok, but what you call the "community" is the government. Right now the govt doesn't have anything, they only way to get it is collect taxes. Wouldn't it just be easier to collect the necessary tools as "taxes"?


No sense in that - the tools should stay where they are needed - with the people. A bureaucrat who decides who needs what is a waste of food and will sometimes be tempted to make a wrong decision.


I can't entrust to give the power to vote to a person who is 2 days old. But you're right. There are probably more real wives.


Also, as I understood it, the celebs have all the memories of the original.

[jolo]

Not necessarily. It worked quite well during the stone ages when you either share and work, or die in the jungle alone. And since we're starting from 0.01, for some time (year or 2) we'll have to do just that.

And our community is small enough not to be clogged down by beurocracy. And this won't last long...

I don't know of any such stone age society. You? Also, why use an economic system from the stone age when there are much better ones?

[jolo]

^^^ Flocc, you asking me? ^^^

And you do know that there will always be better pieces of land (farmland and for housing) and worse ones, so how do you decide who gets what? Who decides it?

With money, it'll just be simple bidding. At the beginning, lease might be the preferred model though - with an option of buying the land later.

[Othniel]

Even if it is communism we can't afford not to take care of each other. Ta do so would open the colony to the possiblity of much worse than dieases. We are forced into a situatuion where we are only as strong as our weakest link.

A muscian? Sure, but thats something that would be done as supplemental to other works as we will be short in most ambitions to labour. When it comes to clearing the land, guess what? Most of those materials will be relocated to be reused. We can't afford to waste anyone or anything at least in the first years..

[Ward]

They can always be removed by a vote.

Yes I think they sould be revoted in every 6 mo.'s

Huh? That's still communism - you give food to the community, and receive some back. Especially since I think the first harvest we would have barely enough to get by. That'll just be hording.
Yes and no . We are going to have to send out hunters and fishing parties to get us by until the guardens start to bear fruit.

If those people aren't doing what I outlined in a) or b) than they are clearly disruptive to the community. There are some jobs that will be VITAL to our survival, notably farming and building. If Mr.X decides to work as a musician, then I think we should either a)force him to work on a farm or b)ignore him and not feed him.

Well ifr Mr.X is working with the children and sings to them as his community work thats fine with me .

Who's gonna set it up and determine what's worth what? That's planned economy again. Espacially when everyone's working on the same field and everyone has different abilities.

As I said we all should put 7 hrs a day to the comunity and the rest of the day is yours to do with as you please .



Property? What property? Are you planning on dividing the fields from the start? Again, starving death alone, and I won't work hard on a field that's not mine. And I ask again, how are you going to divide it? First come first serve? Who gets how many shares? Someone will get screwed over either way.

I Belive that every Member of the Board be given a homestead of 5 Acres of land . But we will need large fields for some crops like wheat , Corn and that .


The Executive Branch will be elected. The other one appointed upon who has more skills in what.


That's true, but will happen when an individual household is able to grow enough food to feed themselves, and has enough to support a working class. And when that working class has a) built all the housing and b) has enough time left over from repairing equipment to build new equipment.

Im hoping that by the time late summer comes most familes will have a kitchen guarden that is feeding there families .


And you'll be living by hoarding and screwing the weaker half over.
why is this hording you will find that a privet plot will be what will be growing 60% of are food. Now take my Family I'm a farmer and my Grand kids know how to put in a garden they want some toys that Mr. X who works with wood makes they would help him put that guarden in for the toys .


For example:
There are 2 households: one 25 year old married couple, no kids, and another 40-year old couple, 2 underaged kids. Who can do more work? The 25-year olds. So they get more credit and more food. But who really needs it? The family with kids.
Are you sure about that .
But your system fails to make sense when you refuse to answer who's going to distribute the credits and value each other's work? Isn't that what a central planning commitee does?

The Central commity will see that every one get a share of the food .From the common fields .

But what will we get in return? Food is eaten, you are a constant loser on that. And I thought each of us brought supplies for what we wanted to do ourselves...

Most of us brought some food that they have know from the start was going in the comunity pot . As well as our large animals and med animals.
But any small animals are ther owners ,

Again, a person can do more, but need much less. You are already creting serious debt by putting people without survival skills at a huge disadvantage. This guy has extra food, but anther family needs food, even though they've spent all their credits... In a month we'll have landowners and serfs.

I for one will not stand for that For I will teach everyone how to but in a guarden and work a field .
Ok, but what you call the "community" is the government. Right now the govt doesn't have anything, they only way to get it is collect taxes. Wouldn't it just be easier to collect the necessary tools as "taxes"?
do you know how to keep a saw sharp or take care of a plow .I would rather see labor as a tax for the first few years .

It isn't if you're working collectively on a field.


See, for some reason you know what's "outstanding service" is and able to distribute votes accordingly, but unable to set a quota for a person.

And why would anyone do that? If they've worked harder in your system, they earned more credits - already rewarded. Do you really wish for the rich to have more power in relation to how rich they are?


I can't entrust to give the power to vote to a person who is 2 days old. But you're right. There are probably more real wives.


As far As I belive all adults over 16 should have an equal vote in the goverment .

[Doctor What]

- As someone else stated somewhere, even the Amerindians living in small villages of 30-50 people used some kind of money.


Not entirely correct--the shell money was used between bands and tribes as a form of currency--rarely within the band itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell-money

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/art/basket/images/pomodisk.jpg

[jolo]

Even if it is communism we can't afford not to take care of each other. Ta do so would open the colony to the possiblity of much worse than dieases. We are forced into a situatuion where we are only as strong as our weakest link.

A muscian? Sure, but thats something that would be done as supplemental to other works as we will be short in most ambitions to labour. When it comes to clearing the land, guess what? Most of those materials will be relocated to be reused. We can't afford to waste anyone or anything at least in the first years..

What if the musician brings in twice as much food or other needed ressources by drawing more Amerindians to our markets than he could ever make by working on a field?

And a free market doesn't mean we can't have food give-aways for children or the likes.

[Bulgaroktonos]

We need to keep this from being a fully direct democracy. I think it's going to be best to have an oligarchy of sorts. A full democracy is going to have way to many problems getting things done. Of course we should provide some form of check on the "oligarchs." Say whenever 2/3s of the voting populace is unhappy with the job they are doing, then we hold new elections?

[jolo]

Not entirely correct--the shell money was used between bands and tribes as a form of currency--rarely within the band itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell-money

http://www.kstrom.net/isk/art/basket/images/pomodisk.jpg

That is true - but it's probably partly so because it's not necessary - it's more like a big family, where everyone knows his or her job. Only unusal activities might lead to trade - if one person wants something from another person. How often will that happen in a tribe? And those communities had reasons to easily break up once they were bigger than 50 people. With more than 1000 people, it'll be difficult to organise things centrally without too much infighting.

[jolo]

We need to keep this from being a fully direct democracy. I think it's going to be best to have an oligarchy of sorts. A full democracy is going to have way to many problems getting things done. Of course we should provide some form of check on the "oligarchs." Say whenever 2/3s of the voting populace is unhappy with the job they are doing, then we hold new elections?

I believe it's completely acceptable to have all important positions elected - or a small parliament which does the work.

[Forum Lurker]

We need to keep this from being a fully direct democracy. I think it's going to be best to have an oligarchy of sorts. A full democracy is going to have way to many problems getting things done. Of course we should provide some form of check on the "oligarchs." Say whenever 2/3s of the voting populace is unhappy with the job they are doing, then we hold new elections?
I'd say 1/3 should be enough; if you're unpopular enough that you'd lose an election (1/2 support or less), the populace should be able to hold that election, and indeed it should be possible to force an election even without the votes to depose, simply as a formal means of stating dissatisfaction (so that, hopefully, the office-holder addresses the problem in one way or another).

[Bulgaroktonos]

I agree on elections. But that elected body should be the law making body as well.

We should have at least 6 judges three on an upper and three on a lower court, and I suggest life appointments, or at least until they quit. We need to make sure they remain independent of the people and the executive council.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I'd say 1/3 should be enough; if you're unpopular enough that you'd lose an election (1/2 support or less), the populace should be able to hold that election, and indeed it should be possible to force an election even without the votes to depose, simply as a formal means of stating dissatisfaction (so that, hopefully, the office-holder addresses the problem in one way or another).

But I'm thinking that the election should be on all "oligarchs" at once, rather than individually. This would inspire the "oligarchs" to work together and try to overcome possible differences, and just 1/3 might be too small a number if we want to keep governments in place.

Also, I think 1/3 could easily be the result temporary dissatisfaction, and that a higher number would represent longer term ineptitude, and thus a better gauge for the policies enacted.

[Soyuz]

Maybe you forget, but we have equipment dated from the 19th century if not earlier. And we have a whole lot of people who don't know how to farm. And you just want to send them on their merry way all on their own?

No, really, how many people (households) here know how to farm, from planting to harvest, and with 19th century equipment none the less? If you noticed 19th century farmers weren't the most leisurly folk around, and could only support a percentage of city folk. What are the urban-rural statistics for that era? MOREOVER, we also have to actually START farming, and clearing the forest, etc. That's even a bit MORE work. AND building housing.

And you're off playing the flute? ... ...

What about the hunter who has had a bad day? No food? What about the hunter who was lucky within an hour, spend the rest of the day shagging Amerindian women, and comes back with his "usual" amount of game? How do you judge the work of hunters and scout who are out for several days?
Doesn't have to be on a day-to-day basis.

Your ideas might be suitable for 10 or so volunteers on a farm - but most (needed) professions won't work like that. If a farmer treats his employees like that and they let him, that's ok. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
We'll be working on a farm/ clearing farmland, mostly. We can divide into 10 person groups for more efficiency.

Easy. Some is given for free, most is sold for a low price everyone can afford by selling some of his non-needed supplies. Then it's everyones free decision.
Wait, who is selling? So it's just first-come first-serve AND with a pricetag that goes to someone? :eek: I gotta get there fast and grab some good land, if that's the case.

Again: This will lead to a lot of conflicts of interest. If you have two farms, one of them with a "council member" another without, you can be sure that the council member will have no difficulties why all the rare machines/tools/seeds and so on need to be on his farm, and not the other. A lot more examples, directly from reality, are available.
But each peice of farmland will have a council member. And it's not for them to decide who gets what, but for the Legislative Branch (the most experienced guy in the field).

Bad luck. But at the beginning, the children who are old enough have to work, too. Also, the 40 year olds will usually know more than the 25 year olds. If they can decide themselves what they do, they'll be able to use this advantage for everyones good. But I don't mind a tax system and spending some of the money on food for the children
See, that's how serfdom gets started, but you ignored that post. Experience - absolutely not necessarily. And what if it's a bad enough year that there isn't enough in taxes to feed the children?

I prefer a market for that - much more neutral, much more adaptive to actual needs, much more efficient.
There'll be only 2 immediate needs - food and shelter. When there are more, then please, we'll have a capitalist system.

No sense in that - the tools should stay where they are needed - with the people. A bureaucrat who decides who needs what is a waste of food and will sometimes be tempted to make a wrong decision.
Really? Did every household that wants to farm brought a plow, a horse, etc?

Also, as I understood it, the celebs have all the memories of the original.
That's extra reason for them not to vote. Celebreties deciding your future? :rolleyes: :cool:

I don't know of any such stone age society. You? Also, why use an economic system from the stone age when there are much better ones?
Rather every stone age society was like that. When you're in the stone ages, use a stone age system. When you're in the 21st century, use that system.

Unfortunately the steps between stone age and 21st century include a slave-owner society and a serf society, so I rather avoid them.

[Ward]

I belive we should pool the seeds we brought and take the corn, wheate. potato, and alfa seeds and plant them in the common fields every one should have at less to 10 lbs seeds . The rest of seeds like guarden seeds should then be devided amoung each board menber and his family .

As for the milk from the cows and goats Yes they should go into a common pool but with in 5 to 10 years we should have herds were every one should have at less one animal of each type that is theres .


Ok Lets look at my Family which has two members of the board in it .
We took 1 Milk Bull and a Milk cow , and two female goats . We do not have a horse but we do have a Wagon now how would we move this wagon . We will have to use horses from the common pool to move it .

Now that wagon is ours but I can see it being use by the comunity as well as the plow I brought . now are small tools that I brought will be mine to use around the homestead .
I can see trades made were some one can use my tools .


Is my work more valubale than yours scince I know how to work the plow .
and you don't .

[Flocculencio]

That's extra reason for them not to vote. Celebreties deciding your future? :rolleyes: :cool:

I must say I can't agree with you on the no votes for clones thing. What about those of us (like me) who aren't bringing celebrity clones but just clones of normal women whom we find attractive?

[Bulgaroktonos]

Besides, voting on houses is extremely undemocratic. Clones are people. They are the maternal twins of their original copy.

[Soyuz]

Flocc, being sarcastic, note the smilies. Like someone brought Pamela Anderson. Personally, I don't think she should vote. :p

But seriously, you've convinced me. Everyone over 16 gets to vote.

[Norbert]

It will take time to sort all this out, and it will take time for people to learn the skills necessary to survive. While I do not mind a market wconomy, I do not think it will work until people learn what they need to know. So, I think at first a ration system would be the best bet. Everyone shares equally in the food brought in, with effort going to keeping everyone from starving. Myself, I will not have the time or energy to put into food production, most of my time will be spent getting the raw materials for housing and storage. As to rationing, I think we should start with a community kitchen and eating area. This will do two things: First, everyone has an equal chance of getting the food they need. Second, it is a forum to discuss the events going on, learning each others strengths and weaknesses, and giving people the chance to share techniques that are learned and will better enable us to survive.

[Glen]

They can always be removed by a vote.

True enough...Which reminds me, I think we ought to, the first meeting, take official votes on which administrative positions should comprise the council, and for each one nominations and vote for who should be in those offices. Many of them might be foregone conclusions, but at least that will make it officially an act of the community, rather than a fait accompli.


Huh? That's still communism - you give food to the community,

Actually, its more like selling food to the community.

and receive some back.

Okay, the rationing bit is a command economy act. That is something that needs some more regulation until we are past the earliest stages.

Especially since I think the first harvest we would have barely enough to get by.

That's why we do need to ask the community to commit to a rationing program, at least to the point of guaranteeing everyone (who is willing and able to contribute and those dependent) enough to eat.

That'll just be hoarding.

Not clear what exactly will be hoarding...you mean if people don't give over food they decided to bring with them?


If those people aren't doing what I outlined in a) or b) than they are clearly disruptive to the community.

No, that is not clear to me at all.

There are some jobs that will be VITAL to our survival, notably farming and building.

Oh, agreed. That is why we should mobilize the majority of our community in those efforts. But HOW you do it is sometimes as important as the DOING itself. I'd also add fishing to that list.

If Mr.X decides to work as a musician, then I think we should either a)force him to work on a farm or b)ignore him and not feed him.

If people decide that they value the music Mr. X is making, and choose to provide him credits they've earned with work vital to the community for his music, he should be allowed to buy food with that credit, up to the rationing amount.

If the community values it, then it is valuable. Remember that morale is also a vital part of survival, and something hard for central planners to provide...


Who's gonna set it up and determine what's worth what? That's planned economy again. Espacially when everyone's working on the same field and everyone has different abilities.

Well, that is going to take a little discussion. One part of the calculus will be how long people work at a given job any given day (effort). Another will be, of the vital jobs identified by the community, how many people are there who can actually do them (supply). We should probably put an upper and lower end on the scale for community designated jobs.

Yes, there is an element of planning involved. I am more proposing a mixed economy, at this stage.

Property? What property?

All that stuff the ASBs transported with you, and anything you collect or create here, for starters.

Are you planning on dividing the fields from the start?

For homes and gardens, sure. For actual fields, not so much. I'm hoping to convince most people to commit to a communal project for that.

Again, starving death alone, and I won't work hard on a field that's not mine. And I ask again, how are you going to divide it? First come first serve? Who gets how many shares? Someone will get screwed over either way.

See above. I am not proposing to start whole farms yet, though if someone is bound and determined to do that, I'm not going to stop them (I'm also not going to feed them unless they have something of value to trade, or credit they've earned from others for trade).


The Executive Branch will be elected. The other one appointed upon who has more skills in what.

We've got less than 2000 eligible voters. That says to me direct democracy for the near future, with the heads of those departments being confirmed by the community (the community and legislature are one). The department heads/council will function as the executive.

That's true, but will happen when an individual household is able to grow enough food to feed themselves, and has enough to support a working class. And when that working class has a) built all the housing and b) has enough time left over from repairing equipment to build new equipment.

Since the biggest demand will be for those necessities initially, that is what will happen. As the needs let up, more will be freed up.


And you'll be living by hoarding and screwing the weaker half over.

For example:
There are 2 households: one 25 year old married couple, no kids, and another 40-year old couple, 2 underaged kids. Who can do more work? The 25-year olds. So they get more credit and more food. But who really needs it? The family with kids.

Yes, you've got a point there. But we need those 25 year olds to want to do the work that 25 year olds can do, not the same amount of work as the 40 year olds. If you don't give them some incentive to work harder than the 40 year olds, many won't, not in the end.

By giving the 25 year olds more to work more than the 40 year olds, you are increasing the overall productivity of the society, which in the end benefits the 40 year olds with the two kids.

Now then, I do believe we should provide free education and food for underage children. They are the future for us all, and thus we as a community should be willing to help in that endeavor, while entrusting their overall raising to their parents.


But your system fails to make sense when you refuse to answer who's going to distribute the credits and value each other's work? Isn't that what a central planning commitee does?

I'm not refusing, just busy. You are right that initially our council will have to set relative values on goods and work, which should be agreed to by general vote of the community. We're in a bit of an artificial beginning in that sense since there is no real market yet to base all that on, and we'd like to jumpstart it. However, I can see those values eventually adjusting as people weight in on what is valuable or not by their own choices.

Again, I know we're starting out with a mixed economy (mainly due to the oddness of this situation), but I'm leaning much more towards market mechanisms and property rights that what you have been suggesting.


But what will we get in return? Food is eaten, you are a constant loser on that. And I thought each of us brought supplies for what we wanted to do ourselves...

But you may not use those every day, and thus can rent them out for other uses. Or use them as intended and get paid by those who are working to provide food.

Yes, food is a constant loser...as in constant necessity. Wish it weren't, but there it is.


Again, a person can do more, but need much less. You are already creating serious debt by putting people without survival skills at a huge disadvantage.

They are at a huge disadvantage. I didn't put them there, the ASBs did. I'm trying to help build a community where they have the best chances of surviving and thriving, despite that.

This guy has extra food, but anther family needs food, even though they've spent all their credits...

And why have they spent all their credits? We're mostly starting out with the same amount of stuff. We seem to agree that people will be credited enough for their work to buy enough food to live, and that those who can't work because they are children or injured will be fed regardless. If you're hungry, go sign up to work in one of the community projects (and we will be chronically short of manpower), and you'll earn enough to be fed (and I'd make certain we peg the rates so that they get a little bit more as well...we WANT people to be building up wealth).

In a month we'll have landowners and serfs.

You want land, go out and squat on it...there's plenty. So there goes your landowner class. And a serf is someone who is legally tied to the land, unable to leave, and indeed whose children are as well (of course, they also can't be thrown off the land). I think you are referring to debt peonage. You are already essentially setting that up for everyone by saying they have no property and won't be fed unless they do the work you designate.


Ok, but what you call the "community" is the government.

Its a direct democracy, so the community is the government, yes.

Right now the govt doesn't have anything,

They community has all their resources and abilities. How they choose to organize themselves and utilize those remains to be seen.

they only way to get it is collect taxes.

No, just the most consistant and convenient for the beaurocracy.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it just be easier to collect the necessary tools as "taxes"?

Not if people wanted to give something else, and not if they wanted to use those tools themselves. Wherever possible, I think the community should credit those who contribute those tools, so they may be compensated at a later time (whether it be days or years).


See, for some reason you know what's "outstanding service" is and able to distribute votes accordingly,

I have little idea what will constitute most of those cases of outstanding service. That's why I will let people nominate cases as they see fit, and the whole community can judge how outstanding they are.

but unable to set a quota for a person.

You lost me here...a quota of what for what?


And why would anyone do that? If they've worked harder in your system, they earned more credits - already rewarded. Do you really wish for the rich to have more power in relation to how rich they are?

Its yet another reward system, which in fact will probably be used for things that might not normally earn credits above and beyond. What about the person who at great risk to themselves saves a child from an animal attack? Maybe someone will give them some monetary reward...but I think it much more likely that they would be honored in the community council.

And yes, it will be a double incentive for other things, but there is nothing wrong with multiple incentives...they tend to synergize.

But this is just an idea I had. I'll bring it up, and we'll see if anyone wants to do it.


I can't entrust to give the power to vote to a person who is 2 days old. But you're right. There are probably more real wives.

There are actually quite a few of those '2 day olds' running around. If they are competent to make decisions, and to work (and it sounds like from descriptions they are both), then why would you stop them from participating in their own community? And what makes you think that you will be able to? Their 'partners' are going to support them, and unless I very much miss my guess, many of the others will as well.

[Glen]

Plus what about the people who have other duties that leave no time for agriculture?

-The fishermen: They won't have time to work their own fields, they'll be out fishing every day

-The hunters: They might be away for week-long hinting expeditions tracking and killing game

Wouldn't worry too much about them, at least at first. They will be bringing in food to the community a lot sooner than the farms will.


-The rangers: Again they'll be away from the community most of the time scouting, patrolling and negotiating with the local tribes

And so on and so forth with blacksmiths, carpenters, herdsmen etc.

Giving everyone a small chunk of land for a cabin and a market garden makes sense but not giving everyone huge chunks of land which they won't have time to use effectively.

That's sorta my view, though hopefully we can convince people of this rather than command it.

[Glen]

We need to keep this from being a fully direct democracy. I think it's going to be best to have an oligarchy of sorts. A full democracy is going to have way to many problems getting things done. Of course we should provide some form of check on the "oligarchs." Say whenever 2/3s of the voting populace is unhappy with the job they are doing, then we hold new elections?

I disagree. We do direct democracy for now, then representational as we grow too large.

Power for the few? Forget it, Bulg. Granted, some will have more power (and concommitant responsibilities) than others, but such is life. However, a lot of that is mitigated if we start off with as egalitarian a system as possible.

[Glen]

I agree on elections. But that elected body should be the law making body as well.

I disagree. Not at this stage of size. The community can serve as the legislature.


We should have at least 6 judges three on an upper and three on a lower court,

That seems fine.

and I suggest life appointments, or at least until they quit. We need to make sure they remain independent of the people and the executive council.

Makes sense, except we don't know enough about everyone to make those picks. How about election to a 5 year trial period, then reelection for life if we like the job they've done?

[Glen]

I belive we should pool the seeds we brought and take the corn, wheate. potato, and alfa seeds and plant them in the common fields every one should have at less to 10 lbs seeds . The rest of seeds like guarden seeds should then be devided amoung each board menber and his family .

Agreed, with the stipulation that the contribution of those seeds should be voluntary, and that their contribution be credited to them (for now, just write down the contribution...we'll have to figure out its value).

As for the milk from the cows and goats Yes they should go into a common pool but with in 5 to 10 years we should have herds were every one should have at less one animal of each type that is theres.

Would this be the best way? Just checking. Again, their cows and goats should be recorded (we can guestimate milk production by dividing total by number of animals...we don't need to be THAT precise yet).


Ok Lets look at my Family which has two members of the board in it .
We took 1 Milk Bull and a Milk cow , and two female goats . We do not have a horse but we do have a Wagon now how would we move this wagon . We will have to use horses from the common pool to move it .

Now that wagon is ours but I can see it being use by the comunity as well as the plow I brought . now are small tools that I brought will be mine to use around the homestead .
I can see trades made were some one can use my tools .

For those large items, we could also establish a common depot for their storage (save you some room and effort), record whose they are (again crediting them). These large tools could be rented by the community or by individuals. If you have a need for them, with reasonable advanced notice you get first dibs on use since it is still your tools.

The small tools you should keep, but perhaps be willing to rent out as needed.

We can either corral the horses communally (let's mark them so we know whose is whose), or just keep a listing of who has what so people can ask to rent/borrow.


Is my work more valubale than yours scince I know how to work the plow .
and you don't .

Both are valuable, but yes, Ward, yours IS more valuable than most. That is why you should receive something additional. We want you to keep doing that work, or teaching others it (which we should also credit...teaching).

You know the old saying? You get what you pay for? Its true...

[Othniel]

Oh, well I suppose my oppinion won't matter. By the way I've been roleplaying I'd seem unimportant in the formation of the goverment, and after it is set up I won't care much. Silent Approval of the masses will have to be sought no matter the opinions of anybody in this thread. For all we know the Constutional monarchy Britons will have a louder vioce and opinion.

Oh and don't stress eqaulity please, stress freedoms.

[Glen]

It will take time to sort all this out, and it will take time for people to learn the skills necessary to survive. While I do not mind a market wconomy, I do not think it will work until people learn what they need to know. So, I think at first a ration system would be the best bet. Everyone shares equally in the food brought in, with effort going to keeping everyone from starving. Myself, I will not have the time or energy to put into food production, most of my time will be spent getting the raw materials for housing and storage.

I guess I agree with this, but with two big additions. First, that this communal effort be voluntary. This is essential for the long term survival of our society. Second, that though it may not happen today, that you are being credited for your contributions to the community both in work and materials. This credit will serve as the base for when we do gradually have more and more of a market based system. Saying all for one and one for all now, but not later, just won't work since that means you would get screwed out of all the hard work and resources you're putting in now, or you're hoarding both waiting for the start of the market system so you can benefit more.

Even during the World Wars, the government sold liberty bonds....


As to rationing, I think we should start with a community kitchen and eating area. This will do two things: First, everyone has an equal chance of getting the food they need. Second, it is a forum to discuss the events going on, learning each others strengths and weaknesses, and giving people the chance to share techniques that are learned and will better enable us to survive.

Seems like a nifty idea. Though by night, a lot of people will just want some time to spend with their families (usually followed by exhausted sleep).

[SionEwig]

Flocc, being sarcastic, note the smilies. Like someone brought Pamela Anderson. Personally, I don't think she should vote. :p

But seriously, you've convinced me. Everyone over 16 gets to vote.

I would say that EVERYONE get a vote, no matter the age. Though with those under 16 it would be up to their parents/guardians as to wheter the parents cast the vote for them or the youngster actually casts the vote.

One person=one vote

[Ward]

I think we need to form a list of major jobs for people to sign up for.

1) Medical staff
2) Rangers
3) Hunters
4) fishermen
5) Woodcutters
6) Farmers
7) Builders
8) Daycare workers/ Teachers
9) Cooks
10) General labor
11) Herders

This list is not in any genersal order .

[SionEwig]

I think we need to form a list of major jobs for people to sign up for.

1) Medical staff
2) Rangers
3) Hunters
4) fishermen
5) Woodcutters
6) Farmers
7) Builders
8) Daycare workers/ Teachers
9) Cooks
10) General labor
11) Herders

This list is not in any genersal order .

Good idea, but this needs to be another thread.

[Matt]

Doc What sent this to me in a PM. I think it's relavant... esp the Amish comparision.

Interesting game--and a lot of people are really getting into it. If it wasn't for a bunch of stuff on my plate at the moment, I'll really be getting into it myself.

Want to pick your brain on a few things--

-Tech level of the ah.commers

The gang can be at medieval level of technology virtually instantly. Once the main camp is set up and the houses are built and crops planted, you can easily be at 18th/19th century technology by the spring (if not sooner).

But what about afterwards? At what point do you think the gang will be in any condition to start setting up powerlines and building ships and manufactoring plants and so forth? There was one post about building computers within 50 years--I really don't see that as a possibility. Yes--with all of the knowledge/skills that the group has, you could have the knowledge to build computers in 50 years easily--but don't forget, you need the numbers too. If I had to pull a number out of my butt, I would say that no significant stuff like sailing ships, car engines, etc won't be able to be built until the population hits at least 20,000--that's when you can start slacking off a bit on 'everyone must work to be fed' rule.

Your thoughts?

-Short term plan
I see a few posts about planning all kinds of stuff right away. Honestly--if I had to take a guess--I would say that this is the realistically only plan for the first year.

Month one
-organizing stuff
-sending out scouts
-moving people/items from point A to point B

Month two
-clearing land
-planting crops
-building homes
-sending out more scouts in surrounding area
-setting up defense
-training everyone on basic skills

Rest of the year
-setting up basic infrastructure
-setting up generators (diesal ones or solar panels that some people brought) or building your own (hydrodams, windmills, etc)
-setting up important buildings (medical clinic, corrals, storage buildings, smokehouses for drying meat, etc)
-setting up 'cottage industry' (all the people who know how to make cheese, candles, soap, pottery, jewelery, beer, etc get to work on this stuff). This is stuff that we need and also stuff that we can use to bribe the locals.
-getting on good side of the locals by trading with them, helping them out, giving them all the furs from the animals we killed, etc....
-more training on skills
-scouting out additional locations for lumber camps, fishing villages, mining camps, etc for year two.

That's going to be a busy first year--and I think that year two and maybe even year three will be following the same pattern.

You agree?

p.s. If you want--you can steal this entire message and post it in a thread.



The first couple of years well be down right middle ages, with a couple of modern tools to help us. Survival well be the priority.

You're right. For the first few generations, we well have too small numbers for alot of specialists. Doctors, the Rangers, a maybe a few merchents, but certainly nothing like a assembly line worker. I think within 20 years we can have 1860s levels. And that's probably a little ambitious.

Computers... they're generations away. A few of us have brought those wind up UN laptops, but those well break eventually. Thankfully we retain the knowledge, in writting for future generations.

Yeah--the whole currency thing is a bit ridiculous. I mean --just look at the local population. They have a 'currency' in the form of shells but it's more like a glorified barter system than anything else --and they had a population of around 100K!

1860's tech--do you mean city version tech or farming village tech? Dinky little farming villages really did not change that much tech-wise in the 18th-19th century--go to a farming village in 1800, 1840 and 1860 and you really wouldn't see *that* many changes besides what kind of guns or what kind of wagons were used. But I agree with you--besides a few nifty little gadgets, you would be living like the Amish for a good 10 years or so until everything is really organized and the population numbers are up.

Also--you may be living like medieval peasants but the rest of the natives are barely climbing out of the stone age--there will be a BIG difference between the Group and the locals.

And when it comes to trading, don't forget that what we think is crap will be considered valuable by the locals--imagine what a native who has a knife made out of stone or bone will think if you gave him a 10 dollar steel hunting knife? And since you guys already have tons of extra clothes, all those fur skins from the animals you killed aren't really going to be useful but to the locals that stuff is like gold....

I think you or ward are going to have to put the smackdown on some of the more crazier posters....

[Soyuz]

True enough...Which reminds me, I think we ought to, the first meeting, take official votes on which administrative positions should comprise the council, and for each one nominations and vote for who should be in those offices. Many of them might be foregone conclusions, but at least that will make it officially an act of the community, rather than a fait accompli.

Eh... sure. Although I still think they should be the most experienced people in their field.

Actually, its more like selling food to the community.
LOL. Remember that joke "You have a cow"? See under communism, the government takes the cow and then sells you the milk, exactly what you're proposing. :D

That's why we do need to ask the community to commit to a rationing program, at least to the point of guaranteeing everyone (who is willing and able to contribute and those dependent) enough to eat.
I agree on rationing, but people are inherently selfish, and currently that's not in our best interest.

Not clear what exactly will be hoarding...you mean if people don't give over food they decided to bring with them?
No, the food they would grow individually.

No, that is not clear to me at all.
If they're not helping in farming or building.

Oh, agreed. That is why we should mobilize the majority of our community in those efforts. But HOW you do it is sometimes as important as the DOING itself. I'd also add fishing to that list.
Yeah, hunting too. We can also excuse people for sentry duty as a paid "vacation" (from hard labor).

If people decide that they value the music Mr. X is making, and choose to provide him credits they've earned with work vital to the community for his music, he should be allowed to buy food with that credit, up to the rationing amount.

If the community values it, then it is valuable. Remember that morale is also a vital part of survival, and something hard for central planners to provide...
Well... ok. But I still think that an authoritarian method would be better than voting.

Well, that is going to take a little discussion. One part of the calculus will be how long people work at a given job any given day (effort). Another will be, of the vital jobs identified by the community, how many people are there who can actually do them (supply). We should probably put an upper and lower end on the scale for community designated jobs.

Yes, there is an element of planning involved. I am more proposing a mixed economy, at this stage.
See: "From each according to his abilities..."

All that stuff the ASBs transported with you, and anything you collect or create here, for starters.
I'd rather give that to the community.

For homes and gardens, sure. For actual fields, not so much. I'm hoping to convince most people to commit to a communal project for that.

See above. I am not proposing to start whole farms yet, though if someone is bound and determined to do that, I'm not going to stop them (I'm also not going to feed them unless they have something of value to trade, or credit they've earned from others for trade).
I'll agree.

We've got less than 2000 eligible voters. That says to me direct democracy for the near future, with the heads of those departments being confirmed by the community (the community and legislature are one). The department heads/council will function as the executive.

M-m-m-no. These are 2000 disorganized people that don't know WTF needs to be done. I'd rather put experts there. And you don't have to be an expert to control people in the executive branch.

By giving the 25 year olds more to work more than the 40 year olds, you are increasing the overall productivity of the society, which in the end benefits the 40 year olds with the two kids.
See: "From each according to his abilities..."

But you may not use those every day, and thus can rent them out for other uses. Or use them as intended and get paid by those who are working to provide food.

Yes, food is a constant loser...as in constant necessity. Wish it weren't, but there it is.
That's terrible. Tools should be distributed to who needs them if someones not using them.

They are at a huge disadvantage. I didn't put them there, the ASBs did. I'm trying to help build a community where they have the best chances of surviving and thriving, despite that.
Yes, on community farms, where they can learn from the experts and do some tasks that they can, even if they can't farm from start to finish.

And why have they spent all their credits? We're mostly starting out with the same amount of stuff. We seem to agree that people will be credited enough for their work to buy enough food to live, and that those who can't work because they are children or injured will be fed regardless. If you're hungry, go sign up to work in one of the community projects (and we will be chronically short of manpower), and you'll earn enough to be fed (and I'd make certain we peg the rates so that they get a little bit more as well...we WANT people to be building up wealth).
Because their demand is greater. An experienced farmer competing with a novice will always get more.

You want land, go out and squat on it...there's plenty. So there goes your landowner class.
Not really. You have to clear it too, which is tough alone. And presumably the initial land is the best one.

And a serf is someone who is legally tied to the land, unable to leave, and indeed whose children are as well (of course, they also can't be thrown off the land). I think you are referring to debt peonage. You are already essentially setting that up for everyone by saying they have no property and won't be fed unless they do the work you designate.

Maybe that's what it's called. But mine aren't in debt to anyone, I'm just preventing a sharp divide between the skilled and unskilled by mixing them for the time being.


They community has all their resources and abilities. How they choose to organize themselves and utilize those remains to be seen.

If, for examply, only 10% of the people know how to correctly farm, and it's put up to a vote on what do to for farming, I think the decision is not going to be the best one.

Not if people wanted to give something else, and not if they wanted to use those tools themselves. Wherever possible, I think the community should credit those who contribute those tools, so they may be compensated at a later time (whether it be days or years).
But we don't need anything else, but those scase