Multiple concurrent "governing lifestyles"

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:32 pm

Multiple concurrent "governing lifestyles"

Post by TheDeamon »

This one has actually been an ongoing thought experiement for me after seeing someone else write some stories with somewhat comparable premise(and actually older discussions from ~2003 with someone I served on ship with that was very libertarian in his outlook). It also helps that for one rather large story rattling around in my head, it has kind of become the background data as to how "the government" functions for that particular setting. However, the mechanics and various other details start getting a bit weird, and I'm betting some of this actually would be up Ishpeck's alley as I know a significant portion of the premise is very Libertarian in nature, even though he seems to have progressed to something else entirely now.

Assuming that people were able to ignore or otherwise set aside the "small matter" that several secular and religious ideals of governance are mutually exclusive to each other and in many cases take an all or nothing approach to things...

How do you think a (meta-)government would have to structure itself in order to allow "other communities" be they secular or religious in nature to operate effectively under its collective umbrella, sometimes side by side with each other. Even when both communities may have mutually exclusive views on just about everything?


I imaginge some kind of commune/reservation system type of approach would be employed in the "best case" scenario where each "community" is largely allowed to set its own laws and expectations for behavior, delivery of services to community members, etc.

But what happens when the Communistic commune decides it wants to upgrade its computer network and contracts the work out to members of a Hyper-Capitalistic community and a dispute occurs during the iplementation of the contract? Presumably this would be where that mythtical meta-government would step in, but what would or should that intervention entail?

Are there "day worker" scenarios ongoing between the groups? For example a computer programmer that lives in a Communistic Commune who works at a tech company that operates within the bounds of the Hyper-Capitalists. (Presumably all of his income goes to the commune first, and the commune then decides what his entitlements are, but what about the reverse? The capitalists are likely to monetize practically everything, so value would be easy enough for them to asses and compensate accordingly, but what about the (Capitalist) College student who finds work as a janitor in a building belonging to the Communists?)

What about a multi-millionaire who decides to become a communist and changes their mind 5 years later? Did all of their assets get turned over to commune upon joining, or did the millionaire get to decide how much of their estate to turn over(so long as it didn't somehow enter the jurisdiction of the commune?) on their own discretion or is there some other form of asset protection being employed? Is (partial) recovery of assets given to the commune possible, what protections are in place for the commune itself to prevent such an event from destroying it, or is that decided on a commune by commune basis with only limited intervention by the meta-gov so long as they abide by their own laws? (I'm presuming the meta-gov is going to uphold the right to self-determination for anyone it considers to be an adult, although it may have carveouts on how easy/often it is for a person being able to change their mind)

How is the diaspora addressed for the different communities? I imagine much, if not most of such a nation would be more of a free association type situation and more directly controlled/regulated by the meta-gov. So while an Islamic Community could likely be setup such that Sharia Law rules within its borders(exceptions possibly being carved out for outsiders being brought in for certain tasks, which would invoke the meta-gov's laws instead). Once they step outside the borders of their respective community, they're also beholden to the standards of whatever community ruleset governs there.

But that is where the free-association side gets weird, can individual businesses and/or households associate/"align" themselves with another (nearby) community even if they're not geographically adjacant to each other? How are people able to tell what they're walking into? What if a local law(I'm thinking zoning in this case) conflicts with the community they try to associate with?

For the most part, I could see a communist/socialist commune, as well as variations of capitalism and/or (less stringent) religious communes as being able to function to some degree as diaspora, although the communists would have a harder time "being fair" about distribution of certain things, and would no longer be likely to have complete control over the services side of things while in that setting.

User avatar
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Multiple concurrent "governing lifestyles"

Post by Ishpeck »


Post Reply