You are here

Isocracy by definition, is a better idea than Democracy

With each person having equal political power,
instead of a ruling political class, Isocracy,
by definition, is probably alot safer and free'er,
than any form of democracy.

This way, the boring conflict between conservative vs. liberal would R.I.P., and Isocracy by definition,
is a much better concept than socialism/communism,

Are there any nations where an isocratic system
has ever been set up?


I imagine not.

When I joined the project I envisioned developing a concept that reform-minded governments could aim towards. The ideals of Isocracy, much like the ideals of Marxism and Smith/Ricardo's purest form of Capitalism are unattainable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to help the lowest members of society so they can be productive, nor does it mean we shouldn't aim towards free-trade among developed nations.

I doubt we'll ever see policy debated on a case-by-case basis through discussion among the citizenry. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim towards that Ideal.

The advantage isocracy has, is, it has never been attempted, as you mention.
Socialism and Marxism has been attempted and failed.

One concept I have seen work effectively is the system of barter. Yet,
with the system of barter, it requires that a person takes the time and effort
to use something which is not used in many mainstream societies, known as
common sense.


There are glimmers of isocracy in many moments of history. When Herodutus discusses the three forms of government - rule by one, rule by few, rule by many - and their merits he is confronted by an Athenian (iirc Otanes) who argues "I want neither to rule, nor be ruled". A similar sense can be found in Claude Henri de Rouvroy with his expression "From the government of men to the administration of things" and followed up by Engels with the suggestion of a state that would "wither away". There is a strong exposition in Sun Yat-Sen's Three Principles of the People.

The sentiment in all cases is to both limit away from controlling people and rather direct governance to the areas that it is most appropriate. This appears most effective however when it is built into lasting institutions (e.g., a constitutional bill of rights) which are less subject to the vagaries of popular and temporary opinion and are instead based on universal claims. So even documents like the Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BC), Cleisthenes' constitution of Athens (507BC), the Edict of Turda (1568), and the U.S. Articles of Confederation (1771) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) - all are contributions towards an isocracy.

Rather than total examples, look at particular examples within a society and its government. Does the individual have the right to control their own body? Can they engage in free exchange and action through mutual and informed consent? Do all receive their share of gifts of nature and the public goods? And perhaps most importantly: can people get rid of their government?