In a message dated 8/24/99 7:33:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
> 4) Set up a process by which citizens may create a local 'government'
> spanning any unclaimed region of physical space the national government is
> willing to try to defend, or any virtual space that they themselves have
> created. A local government could be anything from an authoritarian
> mini-state to a completely ungoverned anarchy. Its scope is limited only
> that it is forbidden to infringe on the perrogatives of the national
> government (i.e. defense and foreign policy).
one thing: whats to stop the first group along from claiming a vast majority, if not all, of the land in the possession of the national government? how do you decide who gets what land, in the case of simultainous claims? would this be operating on the "if you improve it its yours" territory-claim model?
> 5) Since a locality can not force people (or their money) to stay put, the
> various local governments will find themselves competing for citizens.
> Thus, we would expect that localities will evolve to actually give people
> what they want. Any vision of society that can actually work, and that has
> a significant number of adherents, should end up being implemented by at
> least one locality. Conversely, schemes that can not work well will tend
> be weeded out by economic forces as businesses migrate to more hospitable
it seems that in order to guarantee that a locality can not force ppl to stay put, the national gov must be prepared to use force against the local governments if they try to prevent the citizens from leaving. this sounds a lot like a basis for a national bill of rights and an accompanying police force...