Erik Douglas continues his contribution, see the previous three days for more.

The previous section reviewed several sources of P2P principles.  Now the question I address is whether and how the 4PoD framework might be used then to synthesize one or more P2P resonant state democracies.  The methodology I employ here is qualitative (and rather more artistic than scientific): I distil the values and norms derived in and from the previous section and reintroduce them into the 4PoD categories.  Some values and norms do not lend themselves to placement within these categories; in particular, there are those which are meta-categorical (i.e., the purposes and functions of a state whatsoever) as well as those which are pragmatic, concerned with economic issues (as opposed to the polis), or frame the nature of the state within a larger super-societal framework, such as the environment or biosphere.  Note also that some values appear in more than one category.

 

T.  Telos/ Purpose/ Function of the State:

0.   The purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens]

1.   To provided an alternative social order to those which exacerbate violence.

2.   Passively to act as a judicious arbiter for resolving conflicts between the parts of the society, both individuals and organizations.

3.   To remain compatible with and complementary to both the human spirit and the biosphere.

4.   To integrate the Polis, the Economy and Nature in the society, emphasizing a society that is ecologically interdependent.

5.   Actively to promote, facilitate and enable individual citizens and collective organizations to pursue their ends, thereby liberating and amplifying ingenuity, initiative, judgment and responsibility.

6.   In particular and especially, actively to promote non-capitalist, decentralized semi-autonomous and autonomous agencies to undertake many of the functions normally associated with the state as is practicable.

7.   To support and foster a society of local, self-sustaining communities that are globally connected (global villages).

8.   To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function.

9.   To remain as small as is practicable.

 

A. Formal Structure/ Law:

0.   The principles and purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens].

1.   To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function (e.g., sometimes, less is more) – thus, minimalist in character.

2.   Fundamental equality of citizens/individuals entrenched in a constitution.

3.   Supplemented by meritocratic distinctions of status for advisory roles (e.g., a “legal” class to act as facilitators for the judiciary).

3.   Restorative Justice over Punitive Justice

4.   Equitably distribute power, rights, responsibility and rewards.

5.   Severe limitations on the legitimate application of violence.

6.   Restrain and appropriately embed command and control methods.

7.   Governance by Consent.

8.   Holacracy/Sociocracy: Double linking, Circle Organization, Dynamic Steering, etc.

9.   Formal laws consistent and resonant with the values, purposes and principles found throughout the schemas.

 

B.   Actual Structure/ Body Politic:

0.   To be durable in purpose and principle, but malleable in form and function.

1.   Should be dynamic in significant part, learning, adapting, changing and innovating in “ever expanding cycles” according to principles of self-organization and self-governance in whole and in part as much as is practicable.

2.   Integrating the Polis, the Economy and Nature, encouraging harmonious combinations of cooperation and competition, constructively utilizing and harmonizing conflict and paradox as well as fostering diversity and complexity.

3.   Remain compatible with and complementary to the human spirit and the biosphere.

4.   Technophilic – Progressive perspective on science and technology.

5.   Emphasis on diversity/difference over unity

 

C. Community: Communication, Congregation, Collaboration, Civics :

1.   The purposes of the state must be clearly shared [by all citizens] in collective information commons, introducing unity to the society through common purpose and its formal exposition further distributed through glocalizing networks.

2.   Emphasize commons property and community assets.

3.   Emphasize citizen dialogue, deliberation and participation.

4.   Emphasize and facilitate structures that encourage and support civic participation.

5.   Individual Responsibility: empowerment and emphasis on the individual.

 

D.  Demos: Constituent – Organization – State Power Relationship (Bottom-up):

0.   Powered from the periphery

1.   Open, voluntary, accessible, participatory governance with horizontal accountability.

2.   Emphasizing leaderless, non-representational, delegative and participatory structures, such as coordinations.

3.   Integrative elections/ elections by consent

4.   Deliberative/ Discursive structures including deliberative development and decisions by integrative emergence

5.   Consent driven decision-making

6.   Consensus driven decision-making (process and goal)

7.   Harmonization/ Council Ceremonies/ etc.

8.   Holacracy, heterarchy & responsible autonomies over Hierarchical models: emphasis on local and decentralized control over centralized authority.

9.   Centered on global villages: local, self-sustaining communities that are globally connected.

 

E.   Economy and Environment: the Economy – Polis – Nature Triad

1.   Integration of the Polis, Economy and Nature emphasizing an ecologically interdependent society, thus remaining compatible with and complementary to the human spirit and the biosphere.

2.   Emphasis on economies which are sustainable, Gaia – centered, local and not premised on the growth of capital.

3.   Emphasis in economy on commons property and community assets.

4.   Emphasize global villages (local, self-sustaining, globally connected communities) as the fundamental collective unit of the economy and the polis.

 

Naturally, the above schema is neither complete nor even perfectly consistent, but it does provide a point of departure, or perhaps a sketch for such a beginning, to undertake the architecture of one or more explicit models of a P2P state.  Already, certain features recommend themselves for special note: e.g., the state should in its essential parts remain relatively small, for it is premised on a dynamic society.  The formal structures and laws that it does contain should frequently be of a kind that does not over-determine the details of the organizations which will drive both economy and much of the functioning polis; rather, they will themselves prescribe loose principles for the autonomous and semi-autonomous groups which will actually undertake the work in question.  Moreover, by taking a turn away from orthodox capitalist structures, but not adopting traditional socialist forms (specially Leninist), we find ourselves exploring a “third way” that is curiously resonant with the Zeitgeist. 

One of several questions left unanswered is whether, then, a unified executive branch of government is desirable whatsoever.  The cost-benefit analysis in light of these values leaves the matter unresolved.  Perhaps a new form of a plurality of executive organ(s) might be imagined, which might remain faithfully flexible, limited in scope, temporary, dynamic and adaptable to changing circumstance (though we might wish to bear in mind lessons learned in the Roman Republic). And do we support an active legislature composed of regional delegates whose tenure can be recalled at all times through popular referendum?  Similar questions about the judiciary, as well as further political organs to manage a range of stately functions.

Finally, many of the P2P values introduced derive their veracity from contexts that are much smaller in scale than that of most modern states. Do the suggested structures translate with scale?  Do people in their millions behave like they do in the hundreds?  These are some of the aspects to these questions we need to address.