Replacing the Police and Military

A confederation of national guards would not lead to civil war. That would only be the case if the national guards were not confederated. What I'm advocating is handing over the regular military to the national guard, and having more local control. Have cross-training and coordination between the various national guards in the confederation, and allow soldiers to transfer from one national guard to another. But, at the same time, have the national guard(s) independent of the centralized State or federal government, to keep politics out of the military. Politicians should not be allowed to send troops to invade another country. Instead, the national guard should be accountable to the regional government at the state/province level. Moreover, the military should have some degree of autonomy. The leadership within the military should be democratically elected by the soldiers themselves, and they should also have the power to democratically depose/remove people from leadership positions at whim. High ranking leaders should have to be approved by democratically elected delegates in the regional government, and positions above the local national guard level should be approved by the delegates at the federal level. The national guards would be confederated and have a mutual defense pact, so that they would have mutual obligations in case or invasion or imminent threats. With soldiers ultimately making military decisions, they would only fight when it is necessary, because soldiers aren't going to decide to leave their families and put their own lives at risk unless it is for a good cause, but many will willingly go to war to protect their friends and families. I believe that such a restructuring of the system is what is needed in order to guarantee peace.

When it comes to communal rules (positive law), I think they should be determined by delegative democracy, coupled with a layer of digital direct democracy, allowing the people to directly veto laws passed by the legislature. This should be done mostly locally, following the principle of subsidiarity (that things should be done at the most local and smallest level capable of efficiently doing them, which does not necessarily mean that certain things won't be done at a federal level). These rules should be enforced by communal police forces, with officers chosen by lottery or on a rotational basis. If someone breaks the law and has to pay a fine, or whatever, they'd be able to contest it in court. And there should be a separate and independent organization for the investigation of complaints against officers. If an officer does something wrong, there’d be a trial in a civil court with a democratically elected judge/arbiter or tribunals.

The protection of persons and property (natural law), on the other hand, should be handled by communal security/insurance agencies (let’s call it “securance”) . These agencies should double as both security companies (to patrol and prevent crime, investigate criminal activities, serve as something akin to bounty hunters to catch criminals, etc. ) and as insurance agencies to insure persons and property against aggression and theft. People would pay a regular fee or tax for the service. If they are attacked and injured, the securance agency would have to pay out a claim to compensate them for any damages, medical bills, etc. If one is robbed, the securance agency would pay out a claim to replace or recompense the owner for the lost or damaged property. This is because there is no justice at all if there is not restorative justice. The whole point of justice should be to make things right again, as much as possible, rather than punishing the wrongdoer. The securance agency then investigates the crime and goes after the criminal, in order to force the criminal to have to reimburse the company for damages (to compensate them for the amount of the claim and for the time, effort, and legal fees associated with prosecution). After arrest by the securance agents, the suspect would be tried by independent courts on the basis of trial by jury. And they would only be obligated to pay the fines if the jury found them guilty and the court thought the amount was fair.

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on July 19, 2017.