How Capitalism Can Work

Capitalism is under attack in many countries as I write this. Protesters are up in arms about the way in which the economy works, how it generates a flow of money to larger concentrations of money, helping the rich get richer. Capitalism is however the economic equivalent of evolution and a fantastic method of improving technology and quality of life. I have provided a complete yet relatively brief overview as to why wealth tends to aggregate in my series on economics which may provide useful reference. This essay will specifically detail some changes that societies can employ to remove the detrimental effects of capitalism. We have seen how nations which do not make use of the competition mechanism of capitalism frequently suffer economic collapse from stagnation in industry. China is of course a bit of an anomaly in this regard and for that reason I would love the chance to study the mechanics of their political and economic systems fully.

China aside, it is dangerous to remove the capitalist element from an economy and I believe unnecessary to do so. I will jump directly into the proposed changes and assume the reader can appreciate the advantages of retaining a capitalist element within the economy if the detrimental side effects are gone. I touched on many of these suggestion within the final part of the economics series but both in general terms and very briefly. They were also linked to a broader subheading, where as in this essay I will specifically detail how they allow for capitalism to function as it is more relevant in the current climate. This whole crux of this essay may be summarised as follows; the most significant problem posed by capitalist systems is that they contribute to the aggregating tendencies of wealth. This will help to continually widen the wealth gap and with that bring all the associated social and economic ramifications.

The argument that capitalism appropriately rewards people for their labours is inaccurate. It does stand to reason that people of certain professions will be paid relatively appropriate amounts compared to each other based on their skill within that industry, but not compared with the rest of society. The best few people will always be worth significantly more than the next ability group of people, the difference in pay between other skill levels will decrease as you lower the skill. If plotted on a graph it would look like the inverse of half a normal bell curve distribution. I expect a comparison of professional footballers would be a good example of an industry where pay does reflect natural variance better than others. The top end will still be skewed by the aggregating properties of wealth, but indirectly, so much less significantly than those investing capital. The argument breaks down when people are able to invest their excess earnings and gain a return on them. As capital aggregates, those who have it at their disposal will tend to obtain a greater return than is appropriate for their labours. This is where ability or usefulness to society are no longer appropriately rewarded by capitalist systems. Once a capital threshold is breached ability is no longer as relevant and wealth may be sustained or increased with significantly decreased aptitude. Inheritance is an example where wealth my come into the hands of unworthy ability. The only currently valid argument for capitalism is the incentive it places on industry to provide quality goods at low prices. This article will only be focusing on how to stop capitalism from contribution to the aggregation of wealth and so will be unable to provide a complete solution to the aggregation of wealth. As such I will not be able to demonstrate how capitalism could offer an appropriate and fair wage to all abilities and provide a further argument in capitalism's favour. The advantages of the evolutionary mechanism capitalism places on industry are so great that alone it would suffice to warrant retaining capitalism. Even so I believe it is possible to reach a point where capitalism provides fair wages, but you shall have to trust me on this for now if you require the extra persuasion.

The first and foremost idea is essentially a combination of capitalism and communism within an area of economics that allows for all the positives of both ideas with all drawbacks removed. With all the recent coverage of Qaddafi I have stumbled upon a commonality of our views in this area. I intend to read further on this topic as I am discouraged when I find I share views with those who are able to act immorally. The area to which a blend of capitalism and communism can best be applied is the business model within society, the difficulty is how this new model may be implemented. This was previously touched on in my economics series in terms of profit sharing in companies however the optimal mix of communism and capitalism within the business model is a more radical suggestion than the more commonly, and beneficially, practised profit sharing.

The optimal situation from the perspective of the whole society viewed as one entity is where company ownership is based entirely on the proportion of time spent working for that company. Wages would still be paid and still used to reflect the responsibility, difficulty, danger, unpleasantness and other non-monetary incentives/disincentives a role can offer. Wages would still provide the stable part of peoples income with minimum wages set so as to easily cover the costs of living. The equivalent of shares that are sold to those with capital would no longer exist, these shares would be allocated to the employees. Dividends would be paid on these shares and be comparable to profit sharing schemes. The company would decide how much of profit would be reinvested into the company and how much would be given out as dividends. Shareholder veto would empower the workforce yet infrequently tamper with the benefits of executive management. Instead it would act as an incentive to socially beneficial business practices.

An example may make this description easier so let us assume a company with one hundred employees, each of which works the same twenty five hour week. There is one managing director who earns $100,000 annually and eighty workers at the bottom of the organogram who each earn $20,000. The remaining workforce are in the middle of both the organogram and in their pay. After wages, running costs and other expenses for the year have been paid the company made a profit of $1,000,000. The company then elects to reinvest 80% of profits into the company leaving 20% to be paid as dividends to the workforce netting each employee an extra $2,000 bonus. This is only a 2% bonus on the pay of the managing director but it is a 10% bonus to the lowest paid. As you can see the way in which the capital is divided is a dispersing process on wealth, always giving relatively more to the least wealthy.

Forcing companies to adopt such systems may cause issues with workers forcing high dividend returns on profits thus lowering reinvestment leading to a stagnation and ultimately failure of the company. Companies would be forced into ensuring the entirety of the workforce was contented to deter from such things, which would lead to better working conditions. Money and capital would no longer be the only source of power in the business world – time investment would count as well. The natural equilibrium for such a system is one where wages vary although I suspect by rather less than they often do at present. At equilibrium people would mostly be content with their pay relative to others. Those getting less would be happy knowing their job was less stressful etc. Rich and poor would still exists, the super rich would however vanish. The poor would work for the rich, themselves and each other, but the rich would no longer work for the super rich as they do now. The profits of business tend towards the pockets of the capital owners and not towards those who perform the labour in the present system. In my proposed system the profits are directed back at those who perform the labour and not those who provide the capital.

Another advantage of this system is the way in which in aids the principle of the division of labour within industry. At present there are few incentives to the worker to do the best job they can. They work for others who will have full control over the returns on that labour. The workers performance has little baring on the overall performance of the company, which in turn has little baring on their income (unless the company fails and can no longer employ people). On the whole workers are offered incentive enough to work hard enough to avoid disciplinary action but not to do their best job. It is only a worker's ethics that will provide an incentive to do the the best work they can when they are paid a wage and have no steak in the company, and not all persons posses a work ethic. If, however the entire workforce stands to directly benefit from the performance of the company and effectively has a share of ownership of the company while working for them then they will be far more inclined to perform their role to the best of their ability. All the parts of the machine will work in harmony towards a common goal rather than antagonistically for their own ends. While bad eggs may still exist they will be less tolerated by their fellow worker as well as the management and as such far less common place. By having company ownership based on proportion of time worked for that company the detrimental effects of capitalism are reduced without losing any of it's merits and the efficiency of the division of labour is increased thus yielding greater advantage to society.

Such radical change would be disastrous if implemented over night and needs instead to be slowly integrated. The only sensible way to achieve these ends is by offering tax incentives to companies who adopt systems like those suggested or take steps towards those ends. These incentives could be strengthened gradually over time, perhaps even with additional taxes for non-compliance. An immediate solution is not possible if we wish to retain economic stability alongside social stability. The differing policies of nations in the global economy make such transitions even harder. If a nation is too extreme with it's commercial taxation and legal obligations they will scare away industry and seriously damage their economy. This is the problem faced by England in light of the recent financial collapse in that the public wish to impose heavily on the finance sector however that sector accounts for the most significant portion of our exports and economy. If we managed to scare away all the large financial companies to other lands with more favourable rules and tax then England would be well on it's way to becoming a poor nation on the global scene. The only real solution to enacting economic change within a global economy is to slowly lead by example. The German economy is one of the best of the western developed countries post financial collapse, this is because they have built up a manufacturing industry renown for good quality that creates real commodities (compared to the whimsical commodities produced by the labours of the finance sector). While improving social condition are unlikely to convince other nations to adopt similar business models, the improving quality and cost of goods produced by companies using these models offers more convincing persuasion as they gain market share. Some of the other suggestions I will make in order to fix capitalism will build on this business model, that is a blend of both communist and capitalist ideas, by continuing to divorce wealth from power, reduce the wealth gap and stop wealth aggregating.

Monopolies do not partake in the evolutionary mechanism of capitalism as there is no competition to force improvement. This was also discussed in the economics solutions essay but now that we have a new business model in which we can view potential changes, which I shall call the cooperative business model, we are able to show how the problems can be solved while aiding the new model. It was also noted that companies with significant market share begin to move away from the beneficial capitalist model, increasingly so as they tend towards monopolies. As companies grew beyond a determined percentage of market share it would be more pragmatic and democratic to begin to empower the employees of that company rather than have state purchase part of the companies in question or simply raising corporation taxes. There are issues with requiring companies to effectively give shares in the company to employees, such as the need to have a different approach to national companies and foreign ones, and also the need to vary the threshold of acceptable market share from industry to industry. The benefits of using market share as an excuse to increase employee ownership of companies include speeding up the process by which the cooperative business model is common place in society, affording non cooperative model companies the option of remaining set up as they are, removing extra administrative duties from state who lack expertise, and allowing change to occur without retarding the operations of the company.

Just for the sake of some numbers we shall say that for the industry of company A the threshold of socially beneficial market share has been set at 20% or less. Upon company A exceeding this they would be forced into ensuring that employees were all afforded an equal minimum of shares to give employee ownership (accounting for only the minima of shares, not those already owned) equal to the degree the threshold has been exceeded by. Let us say that company A grows by 1% annually for 5 years and began at 20% market share. If the company has 100 total employees and 1,000,000 shares then assuming no further shares are made in this period the company would need to ensure each employee received 100 shares per year for those 5 years. At the end of the 5 years the company would have 25% market share but 5% of the company would be owned by it's worker base. As these shares would necessarily be the same ones that are traded in the global economy and not the new labour shares I proposed in the cooperative business model, these shares would need to come with a clause requiring that they depend on the continued employment and that they may not be sold.

Monopolies are companies of significant market share are bad for society for two reasons; because they increase the aggregation of wealth and they evade the useful mechanisms of capitalism. The only way to remove them is with either legislation or incentive. Incentives cost society upfront and are offer the slowest transitions. Legislation is however dangerous while a society exists in a global economy and needs to be both gradual and sensible to avoid damaging repercussions. The suggestion offered in this article is a legislative one but as it is helping change in two required areas simultaneously it is half as damaging and thus can be enacted at up to twice the rate. The two birds with one stone saying applies well even in social engineering! Incentives should still be used alongside mild legislation towards the desired ends – an object one just pushes or just pulls requires more energy to move than one that is both pushed and pulled, unexpected changes to that object will be less disruptive too. This is easy to demonstrate when moving a desk across carpet but I believe applies just as well to social engineering.

One of the few redistributive mechanisms which exist in society today are taxes, of which not all redistribute so as to diminish the aggregation of wealth. I firmly believe in progressive income tax as one of the main solutions to the wealth gap. It also aids the efficacy of both democracy and capitalism, it does this by helping to divorce power from wealth. A progressive tax system is one which taxes a person proportionally more the more they earn and not just nominally more. In other words the more a person earns the higher the percentage of their total income will be paid in tax. When this is the case the income tax will serve to counter the aggregation of wealth to an extent dependant on the extremity of the tax.

I believe the free market in combination with a perfect democracy can in theory be used to determine an appropriate earnings that is very close to what could be called our natural inequality. A more practical way to understand this would be to say that each person would receive an appropriate income based on their value to society. This is achieved by setting up the manner in which progressive taxes are levied based on earnings. Placing an upper cap on income after tax that is based on a lower level of earning in society has a normalizing effect on earnings. A cap could be applied within a company or within society or both. In a company it would be sensible to require that the highest wages earned within the company were no greater than some factor of the lowest earnings. This is a cap the company has control over themselves in nominal terms and requires no taxation to implement. It would be as simple as democratically voting in a law by which no person could earn over say, one hundred times any other employee and then making small adjustments to that value over time while allowing the private sector to set wages within their company as they see fit.

A national cap on earnings would be based on a multiple of the national average rather than of the minimum. A minimum wage seems like a sensible measure to enforce within a society but not a sensible thing by which to limit the cap as it is a predetermined figure not a mathematically relevant figure. Much like a company cap, the factor by which a national earnings cap could exceed the national average would be democratically determined. A proportional tax would then be calculated so as to make this the case. For example, society vote together and the result is that the wage cap is ten times that of national average. A simple equation can be derived which graduates the percentage of tax paid to increase as earnings do so that earnings after tax tend towards the cap.

Say for example the minimum wage is set at £10,000 per year based on a full time week and that the average earnings per year across the society are £25,000. There would be no tax for earnings below the minimum wage. Between the minimum wage and the national average a flat percentage tax would be charged, say 20% in this case. Above the national average a proportional tax would then come into play. A simple equation to cause post tax earnings to tend towards a limit could be as follows;

Earnings / National average = Earnings as a multiple of national average (which we shall call X)

Where X > 1 the person is eligible for proportional taxation.

The graph below shows the proportional tax rate worked out by;

( X – 1 ) / X = Tax rate upon earnings over national average.

The upper cap is not even twice that of the national average if using the equation given but a variable factor could be added to the equation so as to retain the proportional increase of tax with earnings but raise the cap to higher multiples of the average. The shape of the total net pay graph would change so that the curve was slightly less steep but reached a higher point before it flattens. 

This method does not include the flat tax for earnings over the national average. To smooth the curve I would continue to apply the flat tax upon all earnings above minimum wage and only apply the proportional tax to the remainder of earnings over the national average. This would prevent a potential level of earning just above the national average from paying proportionally less tax than those just under the national average. Either way it serves the same ultimate purpose in continuing to tax the richest most.

By capping earnings at some factor of national average you ensure that half of the wealth within society is taxed proportionally. This forces a divide of opinion with those below the average happier to increase public spending and taxes and those above more interested in lowering public spending and taxes. While a wealth gap is high, as it is in most countries, there is far greater voting power, and therefore control over the tax rate, with those earning under the national average. When a system like the one suggested is in this state taxes will therefore rise alongside public spending which will rebalance the equilibrium point. By using the national average income as the point at which proportional taxes begin you ensure a feedback mechanism that can find a happy equilibrium point that offers both income based on usefulness and a narrow wealth gap.

This can also be demonstrated using game theory. The point is that people are willing to pay for something if what they are paying for is a bargain. Those under the national average earnings are paying significantly less tax than those above and therefore get a better deal on public public spending, even assuming equal usage throughout society which is rarely the case, the poorest tend to always get most from public spending.

In game theory it is hard to asses the util value of education or the health service, both to individuals and as an average for society or demographics within society. This does not particularly matter as the poor will always be able to obtain X utils for a fraction of the cost levied upon the wealthiest. This will create a tendency to improve the welfare systems while the wealth gap is high. The equilibrium point at which public spending on welfare plateaus due to a desire to retain wealth is the same (or very close to) as when equal numbers of people fall either side of the national average earnings. While the equilibrium point may never be reached having systems which tend towards those equilibria points is still very beneficial. If the equilibria were reached you could assert that the income for each person in society was in accordance to the benefit they bring to society without causing any detrimental effect. Removing the proportional tax and the minimum wage while at the equilibrium point would allow income to closer represent the benefits an individual brings to society but would also be more damaging to the society as a whole.

Inheritance is another area in which the aggregating tendencies of wealth are exacerbated. I believe a similar system to income tax should be employed upon inheritance to significantly reduce this issue. The upper cap on income through inheritance would reasonably be a bit higher than those for earnings as ensuring ones offspring have as good a chance in life as possible is a strong emotion and a good investment in the future. Removing incentive to save and invest in the future is unwise and so inheritance tax would need to allow for a reasonably decent sum to be relatively free from progressive taxation. In the current economic climate it is likely easier to raise inheritance taxes more rapidly than income taxes but ultimately I would suggest that the caps upon inheritance should allow for more income than could be earned in a year.

The above suggestions of progressive income and inheritance tax, more stringent control of companies with market share to a point of dominance and of the cooperative business model serve to remove most of the factors in capitalism which cause wealth to aggregate due to companies that deal in tangible commodities and services. What they are not able to fully resolve are the issues surrounding the trading of capital and other non-tangible goods. The cooperative business model alone goes along way to helping solve some of these issues by removing shares in company ownership from the markets. To solve the issues with asset allocation, interest and loans will require a dedicated essay and so we shall have to suffice with improving the mechanisms of capitalism alone for now. These suggestions enacted sensibly without any attempt to deal with the financial sector would be of much greater benefit to society than to address the problems and loopholes

in the finance sector and leave the rest of capitalism, industry and the economy unchecked.

There is one final problem with capitalism which does not relate to the aggregation of wealth. The aim of business is to make profit, most of the time the act of doing this overlaps well with what is in the best interest of society. This however is not always the case, particularly in the fast paced economic climate under inflation. There is little overlap, especially in the short term, between profit and effect on the environment. As such there is little incentive offered within the capitalist model to conserve the planet and operate sustainably. These incentives need to be created by state in forms of taxation and legislation on industry. These, while sensible, cannot be wholly effective when many nations with differing policy exist within one global economy and one environment. Incentives towards ethical, sustainable and environment business practices should be placed upon the consumer as well as the producer, returning again to the merits of pushing and pulling something one wishes to change.

Value added tax or VAT is an interesting concept which I feel in reality is far more onerous on the poorer members of society than the rich despite efforts to remedy this. While I think it is unwise for a government to raise general funds from taxation on the final purchase of goods I think it is wise to place financial disincentives on products that are less beneficial to society and the environment than they could be. I can suggest a number of different attributes of a product to which a socially beneficial tax incentive aimed at the consumer may be employed. A travel tax could be placed on goods based on the distance travelled to final destination. This would need to factor in size, weight and method of transport to have the desired effect in reducing energy loss in transit, and as such would be a somewhat fiddly tax to place on goods. Other areas than tax penalties could be applied to goods are based on the land area required to produce the goods, or based on how harmful the product is when discarded, or how long the product lasts when compared to similar goods on the market, or how much packaging the product comes with, or how damaging to public health the product is such as fatty, sugary and alcoholic foodstuffs and cigarettes. Certain purely luxury goods could be taxed more like VAT simply to encourage useful labour output in society. Finally if a suitably way to grade or measure sustainability were found it would be a good way to tax commodities. Revenue from taxes of this nature should be used directly to counter the negative effects of these products. Great care would also need to be taken in setting up how the taxes were levied and how goods were evaluated to ensure that the incentives placed were not in fact being detrimental due to loopholes etc. It would also be a reasonable step up in terms of paper work and general accounting to oversee a wide array of different taxes on goods yet still well worth the effort.

The public, like the businesses, are not guaranteed to have any incentives themselves to pay greater taxes on goods to protect things like the environment. The implementation of tax incentives to create a perfect overlap with capitalist businesses profitability and social advantage cannot rely on democratic regulation and must have some constitutional imperative alongside a functional system of implementation. Designing a system as such, complete with a constitution, is a tricky task to which I have some potential suggestions, yet none seem water tight and so I shall leave until a future time that is appropriate to discuss this problem.

That concludes the suggestions I have by which we can improve the efficacy of capitalism as mechanism to advance society. I have been as brief as I can so that I am able to reference these ideas in other areas of my utopia rather than offer a daunting and dull full examination of the mechanisms, problems and solutions. I hope therefore that there is loss in the ability to see how the suggestions offered would help with the problems in capitalism as they now stand. The ideas expressed here are particularly useful in combination with those expressed in my article “utopian democracy”. While either set of suggestions have merit when considered in isolation they are clearly more effective when considered in combination. This should continue to be the case as I add ideas to the utopian vision as some systems require others to function and some simply add to the effectiveness of others. This essay stands more as an introduction to some important prerequisites to realising utopia, it just so happens to be particularly topical in light of the current civil angst towards capitalism and the super rich, hence the particular angle.

Religion

Having sincerely been an agnostic, an atheist and a religious person in my life I feel relatively comfortable open mindedly discussing religion despite the sensitive nature of the subject. My mother took me and my Irish Catholic grandmother to church on Sunday's, my primary school taught the bible in similar ways to how it taught maths and science. I knew nothing else and assumed, like the other things I had been shown, that these things relating to the Bible were facts. At around the age of seven or eight I began to question the logic of the religious teachings, I had discovered there were other religions with differing views, science and religion didn't agree with where we came from and so forth. Not finding that the teachings of religion agreed with my observations in life and my understanding of the world I chose to fully reject their ideas and revert to a scientific atheist outlook. These pessimistic atheist views of mine had no evidence to disprove them, much like religion in that it is unable to offer proof in favour of it's existence. Thus remains the stand off between religion and atheism.

From about eighteen onwards I gradually grew less resentful for having been tricked into religious belief in my youth and became slowly more open minded, accepting and spiritual. This process has continued to this day and I now consider myself, as I have for several years, to be an agnostic, this however is a term that is undergoing a change in meaning. Technically an agnostic is someone who asserts that the existence of a god is un-knowable, more of a philosophical stance on the difference between belief and knowledge. Commonly the word is used to describe those people who sit on the fence in this debate, generally through an apathy towards the whole topic rather than a strong philosophical stance on it. My personal take on agnosticism is an outlook which does not depend on either the existence of god or the non-existence of god but that works equally well in both cases.

Being even more technical I should probably call myself an agnostic theist but given my particular outlook this only really suggests that I am an optimist within my own belief system. I would like to see the introduction of some new words to describe the difference in types of agnosticism, one for the person who just doesn't care either way, one for the philosophical stand point and yet more to describe the proactive and spiritual of agnostics such as myself. I do not really hold the philosophical view of an agnostic as I do believe that the existence of god is knowable, that I do not presently know the answer does not mean that I cannot in principle. I will return to my particulars of my religious outlook at the end of this essay. First we must look at religion in more general terms so as to appreciate the reasons for my religious outlook.

There are two distinct categories in which we can place the effects of religions. We can call these macro and micro, or social and personal, or even internal and external. The point is that religion has a profound yet different effect on these two areas. In general I would say that the micro effects are positive while the macro ones are less so. In the latter case this is not a rule but rather a trend, and need not always apply. It is the result of how the religions have developed alongside society that have caused much of the large scale interactions of religions being detrimental to those societies and others. It is common place to site the various atrocities, inhumanities, wars and genocides that have occurred in the name of religion as an argument against religions in general. This appears only to be a mechanical problem that is well explained by Adam Smith in a section of The Wealth of Nations which may be found by following this link;

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions31.html

In summary, religions act much like companies. When allowed to grow to monopolistic sizes they tend away from a mutually beneficial relationship with the society. They operate best and are least able to have pernicious effects when there is much competition. In a religiously cosmopolitan society there will be no atrocities, inhumanities, wars or genocides in the name of a religion. I agree with Smith's reasoning and am able to somewhat support it with social changes since the Wealth of Nations was published. The various arguments against religion due to the negative macro effects it can have I regard as soluble, and as such, not a sound basis for argument.

The macro arguments against religion because of socially damaging consequences assumes these negatives outweigh the macro positives alone, before we even consider the micro ones. This is a big assumption to make as much art, culture, charity, scientific discovery and many more have all come from religious belief. It is however an impossible comparison to make between “A Convalescents Prayer of Thanksgiving to the Deity in the Lydian mode” and something like the Crusades. This is not problematic as we have mechanisms to remove the negative aspects of macro religion leaving a predominance of the incomparable positives. Thus even on a large social level religion can be a purely positive force, which is a significant kicker as I consider the micro religious reasons to be those of most benefit to humanity as I shall attempt to describe.

Religion, from the outset, has helped individuals come to terms with the paradoxes of human life and live a fuller, happier and more productive life. All other animals inherently have in them a will to live, this is something that humans must justify to themselves before they are able to revel in life. The human concept of self is a powerful tool as it offers us great reasoning capacity but it comes at the cost of subsequently requiring a reason to live.

Self esteem and self worth are terms to describe reasons for living and may be acquired in many ways. This topic was covered in general terms in my essay entitled The Meaning of Life in which I intentionally avoided discussing religion in detail as it is such a vast topic requiring at least an essay of it's own. I discussed it in general terms with all other forms of higher cause which included political, social or cultural as well as religious. I then concluded the essay in a pragmatic manner that could allow devout atheists the capacity to appreciate the sentiments, but that only related to my outlook in life that applies specifically to the non-existence of god possibility.

This essay will expand a little on the merits of attaining meaning of life in religious ways and will look more at the aspects of my life outlook that apply to the existence of god possibility. It may be easiest to show how religion can be helpful to the individual by illustrating the social effects of a more atheist or indifferent society. Western society has undergone a general loss of faith over the past hundred or so years. Around a hundred years ago western societies were predominantly mono-cultures. They were mostly white and Christian, those that were not tended to be somewhat segregated from the rest of the society. Neither I nor Smith would advocate this position but it was a relatively recent period where the vast majority of the people held religious belief and so useful for comparison. Since then we have observed a marked decline in the traditional religions of the western nations, a general accelerating decline in attendance to religious events and an increased apathy towards religion in general. This may be used as a case study to show some of the changes that this may have caused or aided. Such things can never be an exact science due to lack of control on the many other variables but it can provide good evidence when used in combination with good reasoning.

Over these years in which religious following has declined both science and technology have come to the forefront in terms of enhancing our lives and producing miracles. While religion has remained dormant for millennia, science has made countless medical breakthroughs, put men on the moon, created the atomic bomb, made communication instantaneous and offered bounteous rewards in ease and comfort of living. Science has made giant leaps in making a Heaven on Earth, which is great in many ways but is also not devoid of consequence. It has often seemed as if there were this war between science and religion, this as with the other macro religious problems is the result of unforeseen developments in society. Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive, it just so happens they find themselves in disagreement on a few issues which causes the problems.

Science having gained so much ground in understanding and the affections of people over the last century has had the effect of diminishing the value of religion. Religion now offers less to people than science and technology offer relative to a century ago. In essence people now hold more stock in the teachings of science than those of religion in modern western society. Many people who still actively practice religion do so with more open interpretations of the teachings rather than more traditional literal understandings which are more conflicting with science. While I feel that society has more to gain from the investment of resources in science than it does by investing in religious pursuits I do not think this is the case on an individual level at all. The downside of the more scientific outlook is the inability to provide suitable meaning for life.

As science has improved the tendency to place significance and meaning in material objects has increased. I summarised this well in an essay I started almost a year ago but never completed - As western cultures develop and advance scientifically, the understanding of our circumstances becomes clearer. We rely less on the spiritual and mystical, focusing more on the material and tangible aspects of our lives. This understanding helps humanity build ever better tools and machines, it allows for great medical breakthroughs and generally improves the physical quality of life however it does little to improve the methods in which people justify their existence.

While it is possible to attribute meaning to various material objects it is both dangerous and superficial. This does not stop it occurring, most frequently in affluent or non-spiritual persons. Ernest Becker calls a material thing from which we derive self esteem or self worth from a pseudopod. He describes them as an extension of the mental understanding of the self and as such the individual who has grown one of these pseudopods is able to feel as if things done to the pseudopod is done directly to them. He then cites a few examples, in the first a man parked his convertible outside a shop and returned to find another man sitting innocently in the car to see how it might feel. Unfortunately this particular car was a pseudopod of the owners, who promptly shot the other man for such a direct violation.

The second example is of those brokers who threw themselves out of their office block windows upon their balances reaching zero during the nineteen twenty nine Wall Street crash. So much of these persons self worth was tied up in their funds that when they ceased to exist these individuals effectively died, the act of suicide of the body was just a formality. The real world is one of constant change which means that beliefs, outlooks and understandings that relate to the real world must be adaptable and flexible so as to avert potential disasters.

Religion has always offered the individual a permanent and indestructible source of self esteem and worth. The idea of god lies outside the realm of the tangible and cannot be destroyed or disproved. All religions offer their followers this secure bedrock as foundations for their existence. Religion offers what nothing in the world of change can. It allows people to live with peace of mind, security, comfort, self worth, guidance and happiness, all with relative ease compared to the material world. Many more people seem capable of finding this inner peace through religion than seem capable of fashioning one via material wealth which is reason alone to lament the decline of religion in the more developed areas of the world. In a search for the meaning of life, religion is an oasis in a desert, offering abundant nutrition and refreshment to the soul.

Although religious ideas are able to endure physical changes in the real world they can be undermined with alternate ideas of the same nature, namely other religions. If I believe in my specific god and you believe in a different god we cannot both be exactly correct. Alternate belief threatens the security and sanctity of ones own beliefs. This mirrors the world of reality in that two contrary proofs undermine each other. In the realm outside of proof belief is able to perform the same role. The simple reason there has been so much hatred in religious feuds is because each religion threatens the very basis for existence for the members of the other religions. To cope with this threat when not in direct conflict religions will try to alienate and discredit others. This is easy when those beliefs are held by people in distant lands but when differing entrenched religious ideas are on each others door steps there is either conflict or decline in faith.

Another problem that exacerbates this issue is the immutable nature of most religious doctrine. It is a very hard to preach the word of god for several centuries and then to admit inaccuracies in those teachings as a result of scientific understanding or cultural change. This undermines the credibility of the religion and is dangerous in the same way that other religions may be to individuals who require the religion for their mental nutrition. The more rigid the religious doctrine the greater difficulty the followers will have in maintaining the positive benefits of their belief when confronted with other religions and cultural changes.

In the article by Smith the mechanism by which religions tend towards more rigid doctrines is described and solved. He elegantly asserts that by having a religiously free and neutral state that interpretations of religions would become more open as competition grew, and thus any pernicious effects from the undermining of self justification systems would be removed. Smith was half right in that this can be observed in developed western democracies with cosmopolitan cultures. What he failed to predict was the general decline in faith and increase in esteem for material worth.

When discrediting a religion or a particular aspect of a belief system it is the followers that stand to lose most. I see attacks on religions as an attack on a whole group of people. As mentioned in the meaning of life essay, each persons system of self justification is incredibly specific and personal, not to mention important to their well being. I see few differences between waging a war on a nation in which supply chains are cut off and people begin to starve and a powerfully persuasive argument discrediting the merits of a religious belief. Both harm and deprive innocent individuals more than the institutions. It is for this reason I strongly disagree with the recent efforts of Mr Dawkins. His work on The Selfish Gene showed his genius. His work on the god delusion is not only a waste of genius but unnecessary tampering in the delicate affairs of others. It is exactly the same as trying to convert people to a different religion but with none of the reasonable justifications for doing so, it undermines belief systems and makes life harder for those affected. When it comes to belief systems, if an individual is capable of finding any stability and happiness they should be allowed that comfort, not have the personal systems of others imposed upon them.

Returning to the issue Smith did not foresee in which a decline in faith is observed I see only one solution. To cope with the strains that science and close proximity to other religions puts on faith a new kind of religion is needed. A religion which is not contradicted so frequently in reality would allow the benefits of faith and higher meaning in this era of society. Ramakrishna was one of the first to tread such paths. In his life he practised Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, teaching that all religions lead to the same end. Having not yet read the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita I am not in a position to talk further on his specific views or teachings and will have to make do with my own. I suspect a good translation of the Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita would be a good place to start for any person wishing to explore their spirituality without ascribing to any particular religion.

Upon finding I had the room in my soul for some faith I set about looking for ways to satisfy this fancy. It is rather hard to place into words what reasons I have for accepting the possibility of there being a god. Three of the main reasons I would cite if pushed are; the distinction I place between body and conciseness, the unhelpful fact that I feel it in some vague indescribable way, and that the vast majority of people throughout history have and do hold some form of religious belief.

It is far less hard to describe the acceptable ways I found to allow an idea of god into my life. The things that drove me away from religion were a combination of the contradictions with other faiths and science, and also the obvious artefacts of a pre-industrial era left over as tradition. What enabled me to return to religious ideas are the beneficial commonalities between the religions. These are;

Suggestions on how to lead a good and moral life in the real world.

The potential to attain immortality.

The existence of a higher purpose, power or god.

Solid foundations to attain meaning for one's life within the internal realm of the self.

Without a purpose for existence morality is meaningless. I can logically construct a moral and ethical code which mutually affords the best outcomes for those people I interact with and myself. Over a large enough time-scale all our actions are likely to be utterly irrelevant and as such any logic based purely on reality that commands moral conduct towards others is also irrelevant. I am not suggesting people are purely self interested (although many are) and as such require an incentive such as Heaven so that they treat each other well. I am suggesting that more and more people will start to conclude that nothing matters at all as faith is lost in society. The amoral person is far scarier than the immoral person. An immoral person is just a moral person with differing views from the norm. My form of agnosticism does away with this issue as in the non-existence of god option nothing matters so any action is equally reasonable. However in the existence of god option there is purpose and therefore morality (and other things) apply. As both are possibilities, one of which dictates action while the other doesn't it is logical to act as if god does exists and thus morally.

On this premise I have to envisage a god that does not contradict reality so as to remain consistent. Given that my whole system is based on logic is somewhat assumes that my god obeys the laws of logic. This alone disproves certain things regarding religion, things like how in Christianity good people can wind up in Hell due to unfortunate circumstances, which a loving god could not allow. Beyond this my particular ideas of how god is manifest are far beyond vague or ill defined containing very little substance at all. Essentially I am willing to accept any of the ideas as to what god is that are possible as far as logic goes.

Society wide morality is rather like personal outlook/belief systems in that it is unique to societies based on their circumstances. Morality having the capacity to vary suggests that god will allow for any persons code provided it is justified and not an absolute doctrine of morality. In my Ramakrishna style interpretation of all religions being different interpretations of the same thing I feel under no obligation to make sacrifices or attend rituals to uphold a belief. I am obliged only to live a life in which I can look back at the end and call it a good life well spent by my own criteria. It is an accepting religion that allows many interpretations and understandings, all specific faiths are able to worship in it's churches and all other religious buildings may be used by it in return. It never tries to convert people or suggest new ways of looking at things, all it does is accept people for how they are. It is a humble religion that claims to know very little, willing to try any idea of for fit. It would be a religion based only on faith and not books or idols made by man.

It could be that god is consciousness and we are all tiny fragments of one great being. It could be that god is the universe and we exist as part of god's imagination. Both sound ridiculous when put in words and matter very little in reality. The point is accepting the possibility of a god, the faith is waiting to experience the actuality upon death. Sadly I think the era of new religious formation is past. Part of the allure of religion are the answers it can provide to big questions, while my personal take on religion does away with the harmful macro social effects of religion it offers few answers. This combined with a religious scepticism in an environment of monopoly religions makes it very unlikely any religion with similar values to my own will come into mainstream existence.

The real solution to the problems of religious conflict and lack of self worth in areas of declining faith are acts of humility from the notable figures from the established religions. If god does exists we can guarantee that it is not man made, which all religions are. For religions to survive they will need to start accepting the possibility of human error within their doctrine so that they can offer people the chance of faith without contradictions. I believe a society without faith would be duller, unhappier and less likely to endure. As with my stance on democracy and capitalism I find myself again with the topic of religion; I am for them all in principle but must elect for 'the none of the above' option when offered the choice of those that exist or have ever existed.

Utopian Democracy

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill

These sentiments, while pessimistic, have much truth in them. Democracy is deeply flawed yet it is the best solution we have found to the problem of governance. In this essay I wish to describe in which ways that present democratic systems are flawed and then propose solutions to either remove or reduce these problems. Before starting with this task I would like to briefly justify why it is that democracy is worthy of being the means by which civilization is ruled, whether that be in our present situation or in a utopia.

Democracy is the marriage of equality and freedom, both of which are fundamental principles for my utopian vision. As civilization is not something to which natural equality applies it is more reasonable to apply total equality in the ability to vote and weight of vote. Each citizen has accepted the “social contract” as Rousseau called it. While people may not be equal, the act of accepting a social contract is in essence the same. The inequality of individuals is removed from the debate as each acceptance of a social contract assumes the individuality of the person making that choice. If it could be represented as an equation in physics then the units of the inequality between individuals would be cancelled out by occurring on both sides. If one accepts the merits of equality where permissible and freedom then it is easy to accept that democracy is offering a fair and moral method of rule. These are the main reasons that I adhere to democracy and further justifications may be found in the appropriately titled essays.

If one does not accept the merits of equality and of freedom then we must look deeper to produce a suitable argument for using democracy. The Law of Large Numbers (or LLN) applies very well to people's opinions and estimations. If you have a guess the weight of the pig or the number of beans in a jar type event then the greater the number of participants you have the closer the average of their answers will be to the correct answer. While a few individuals may be very wrong, and the exact weight may never be guessed, the overall average will still offer robust results. While the LLN may be mathematically provable it is harder to accept that it applies to all areas of human choice. There is little way to ever test the correctness of any democratic decision and so this argument for democracy must remain an argument and not progress to a proof.

A utilitarian argument also exists for democracy as it is an area which can be effectively quantified. While utilitarianism is a logical method to select the best course of action, it is very hard to apply in most circumstances. This is because opinions as to what is the most good in any given situation are subjective. What is the utilitarian approach to saving either a medical doctor or two convicted murderers? If one values human life above all then saving the two people would be the utilitarian choice but if one accounts for the merits of human life then they may elect to save the doctor. As democracy is looking to find each persons subjective opinion the result of a vote will always show what people think is the most good. This means that it is always the utilitarian answer to the question, the problem is that the question is always; what do you think? not; what is the answer? If one is both a utilitarian and able to accept LLN as an argument for democracy then the answers to both of those questions should logically be consistent and not require a proof that is impossible to give.

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

While it is a tangential argument for democracy, education is still worthy of mention. Under a democracy it is in every persons best interests if everyone is educated as it improves democratic choice. Education also improves both the productivity and innovation of industry and personal freedom but this is the case under any form of rule. Additional incentives for a positive thing are always welcome however, and as such democracy should get a tick in the pro column for the promotion of education the populous.

“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame.” - Bertrand Russell

This is another pessimistic yet true statement but it does not need to be this way. If politicians did as they said they would then those people who voted them in would have no leg to stand on should they wish to blame anyone other than themselves. The accountability of individuals is something I feel strongly about. I am always riled when I hear of someone harming themselves through their own stupidity and trying to gain advantage from the situation by blaming others. Much freedom has been lost to the responsible individual on account of those who are not. The better the democratic system that is in place then the more accountable for their own situations each citizen will become. This argument is along similar lines to the previous argument, in that a democracy will provide incentive to responsible choice making and accountability for ones own actions. The democratic system I shall describe will hopefully negate the relevance of Russell's quote. A perfect democracy should lead to the quote “Democracy is the process by which people are only able to blame themselves”. People do not like to take blame as it hurts our egos yet it the best way to self improvement and advances in society. Democracy could be described in this way as the most mature form of rule. If a monarchy or dictatorship is the process by which we blame a person who we did not choose then I would assert that any present offering of a democratic system is not much more than a democratic monarchy.

Plato's philosopher kings may be a better logistical solution than a democracy but they are a much less consistent 'pot luck' approach to governance. Plato himself asserted that no civilization ruled by a philosopher king would necessarily remain so. The next ruler could always be a tyrant. This alone is enough of a flaw for it to not be a serious consideration for method of rule. Even if there became a method by which a true philosopher king would always rule, and that they were incorruptible by power, there would still be a similar degree of pros and cons for democracy and the philosopher king. As we have not yet found a way to make these assurances this particular debate is not worth having.

Mostly for the irony of commending Fidel Castro in an essay supporting democracy, I should like to use him as the only recent example I am aware of that may be described as a philosopher king. Castro has not been able to create a utopia despite having had great success in certain areas of civilization such as literacy rates. His hand was forced by global affairs to make an unsavoury choice in the best interest of his people in what is called The Cuban Missile Crisis. That choice has had lasting effects on Cuba, most of which have been detrimental. Things may have happened very similarly had Cuba been a democratic nation that made the same choices as Castro did. The difference is the human factor, Castro is a single person who can be more easily made to be a villain figure, someone to whom we can hold stronger emotions towards than a group of people. Grudges from bruised national egos will die with Castro at best. I would suggest these wounds would have healed long ago if it were a democracy and not Castro making the choices for Cuba, regardless of those choices. This is just one subtle example of an advantage a democracy has over a single leader. I will not however list any more as they seem insignificant alongside the unsustainable nature of the philosopher king. While Castro may help me to illustrate how Plato's vision of the philosopher king is a likely failure in the modern world I still hope Castro is remembered as such; a man with good intentions towards his people and the last of the philosopher kings.

I am strongly in favour of democracy in theory but most of the present systems in existence are flawed in numerous ways that each detract from the justifications for democracy. I do not wish to spend lots of time painstakingly de-constructing various democratic systems to fully show their failings. Instead I will give a brief an overview of the major problems as possible just so as to be able to later describe solutions to these problems. More could be said on these topics but I fail to see what purpose that would serve beyond being antagonistic. There have been understandable reasons for why present democracies are as they are but even seemingly unrelated changes can negate the need for previous ways of doing things. It is always worth looking at things to see how they may be improved. That is the intent of this next section, not to lay blame at people or belittle how they go about doing things.

The most widely criticised aspect, as thus the one of which people are already most aware, seems to be the lack of proportional representation in most present democracies. Various ways to simplify how votes are tallied often lead to situations where large numbers of votes are irrelevant. Situations can even occur where the total number of votes was greatest for a party that lost the election. To be fair and able to represent equality it is clear that each persons vote needs to count for as much as anyone else's and that the policy, party or person with the most votes should win the election. Not only does it undermine the virtue of equality but it massively reduces the effect of the LLN. By making a smaller sample of people in a position to decide the election, the result will tend less towards the optimal outcome. Similarly the utilitarian argument falls apart when there is disproportional representation. Although it comes with new risks, the age of computers has made the need of the systems that create disproportional representation obsolete. It is time to move voting to a paperless format, that in turn will make many other improvements more viable, inclusive of proportional representation.

If we now consider the fact that all democracies have candidates and parties competing for the ability to govern it is quite obvious that those parties and candidates must be most concerned with getting elected and not how best to govern. This is not trying to say that politicians do not care for optimal governance, only that they would be foolish in present systems, to not first consider how they might get in a position to govern. Another way to phrase this is by saying if a leader is faced with a choice, one that will favour re-election and another they believe to be best for the society I would wager the majority of people would follow the wisdom of Machiavelli and elect to go with the choice favouring re-election. This is understandable and can easily be justified on the basis that they will not be able to make other choices that would be best for society if they do not get re-elected, this however is a dangerous path to follow. It is rather like capitalism in this regard which makes companies pursue the most profitable path and not what is always best for the consumer. Certainly there is much overlap between what is best for society and what is either most profitable or most likely to help with re-election and so these systems have worked pretty well for us. The issues arise when there is not an overlap. Democracies have created politicians who's number one goal is getting elected. Capitalism has created a system where companies seek to make the most profit. The companies and politicians are not evil or wrong, they are what they must be in the systems that exist. If we want political choices made that are truly in the interests of the society at all times we must first look at the way in which the system functions and not those that partake in it. The same applies if we wish companies to consider ethical and environmental factors with greater priority. Here we encounter a problem as a one party system would not be very democratic, offering no choice or freedom to the individual. Unlike solutions to disproportion representation, this particular inherent problem will require much greater changes to be resolved.

There are other issues bound up with the aspect of present democracies where parties and candidates via for power for the upcoming term of office. The most significant of which I deem to be the short term nature of political choices made. If a certain group is only in charge for say four years they will mostly be judged on those years they are in power for and not the longer term things that happen after their term. Because of the reasons previously described the choices a party makes will be very hedonistic. To get re-elected one must look good from now until only then. In democracies the short term fix with long lasting consequences tends to be a commonly made choice over investment in the long term future. One advantage of the philosopher king over a democracy is that their term of office is significantly longer on average and as such the choices they make will tend to be more long sighted. Even a lifetime is not a long time in terms of civilization, change must happen slowly, and so any method that can improve the forward planning in political choices is welcome. One of the significant reasons for China's incredible economic growth is because the nation is much more inclined to consider the long term benefits of the things they do. Part of the security society offers is that of continuation thus providing the other benefits of society to all your offspring. An unstable society, ever changing and liable to collapse offers very little in the way of comfort that those who you leave behind will be protected. A good society must be sustainable therefore it must also have a sustainable government. While this ruled out the philosopher king and not democracy, this was in principle alone. In practice we have a sustainable government that is bound to make unsustainable choices which is less use.

Another concern of having political parties and candidates is due to the compromise of opinion it forces voters into. When voting for a party or a candidates people tend to factor in a few things; how much do a parties policies overlap with theirs, if that overlap includes their main issues, likewise how many policies the party supports that they disagree with and by how much. Tactical voting is also used in an attempt to stop specific parties from getting into power rather than supporting one. All of these factors have the effect of distorting the opinion of the nation. It is impossible to say why everyone voted as they did, it is very unlikely at least that everyone who voted for the winning candidate have exactly the same views as them. This could very easily lead to situations where those in power have support from the minority of society and their policies are not really desired by the nation. This would be the case even with proportional representation and so both of these issues need to be resolved before a democracy can properly function. By voting for a party of person that represents a complete package of political opinion you are forced to make sacrifices and compromises, which do not reflect your will, in order to participate in politics.

Honesty is another issue with elected representation. One assumes that the main factor considered when casting a vote are the policies that go with that vote. If a candidates misrepresents their intentions then the will of the people is not served. It is very hard to enforce a legally binding manifesto as circumstances change so that honest intentions may no longer be possible. While enforcement may be hard, simply ignoring the issue and accepting dishonesty as part of politics devalues the effective power of state and the pride and faith (in their rulers) of the nation. The ground rules laid down by Machiavelli regarding the honesty of rulers still applies; they should always lie when it is in their interests to do so however they should avoid ever being seen to lie. This is the reason it is hard to come across a straight talking or an honest politician and why they say so much in an ambiguous cryptic fashion.

The game of cheat is a very basic game to which Machiavelli unwitting described the optimal solution to general play. In cheat a standard deck of cards is dealt between all the players. They each then take it in turns to place some number of cards face down in a communal pile while stating the value of the cards and the number, for example three nines, or two fours. The only stipulation is that the value of the cards you claim must be all either one above or below the value of the cards the previous player claimed. After a player has placed cards in the pile and stated what they are, each other player has the option to call them cheat, at which point the cards are turned over, otherwise play continues. If the cards are as the person claimed then the person who called them out must take the whole pile in to their hand, otherwise the cheater takes the pile. The winner is the player who gets rid of their whole hand first. According to Machiavelli if it is your turn and you are able to lay cards that are of the required value you should do so without cheating. Only when you have no option but to cheat should you, and when doing so it is best to not get greedy and lay lots of cards down in one go. The game is a very interesting one for all it's simplicity. It also shows that you only need change the rules of the game to stop the Machiavellian solution being optimal which would be similarly applicable to politics.

The final issue with party politics in present democracies is associated with wealth. Parties need funds to campaign which they tend to acquire through donations from sympathetic high worth individuals, often linked to companies. There is a grey area between bribery and this process of corporate sponsorship. I have no problems with donations being given in support of certain political beliefs, I do however have a large problem with political beliefs being maintained in order to receive a donation. Those with access to large sums of money have the option of a silent vote which counts for more than normal votes. We live in an age where money and power are synonymous and this is reflected in the politics of democratic countries. It should be that industry, commerce and government are there to serve the people. In reality it seems more as if the people and the government serve industry and commerce.

I mentioned how forms of rule such as monarchy will have inherently less logistical requirements than a democratic rule. This is an argument against democracy in general with it being one of the most onerous in logistical requirements. All I can really say to counter this argument is a chilling phrase both of my parents used throughout my childhood - “if something is worth doing, it is worth doing properly”. To base something as important as running a nation upon something as inconsequential as organisational needs would be lazy and irresponsible. The easy way might be the path humanity will chose to follow but I would wager that path will lead to a dead end.

The risk of people choosing the easy and comfortable option and not what is the best for society is the main argument against democracy. Individual choice is fundamental to the idea of democracy so one cannot change the rules of the game to solve this issue as is possible with honesty. Each of the previous concerns have been the result of how democratic systems have evolved and may be resolved with changes that would not prevent a democratic rule. Thinking that people do not know what is best for them is an arrogant position to hold. It is the main characteristic which defines the two kinds of utopian. The origins of the opinions are not relevant to the point and as such an answer is required to this problem. The best I can offer requires a leap of faith, not until we truly embrace the democratic principle and put people in charge will they then grow to be able to do so effectively. It is is a vicious circle that assumes people cannot be trusted to know what is best so are never given the chance to learn how. As previously mentioned I feel it is a dead end path for a civilization to adopt a method of rule which causes the cultural* development to stagnate. If this premise can be accepted than it is a simple choice between a bumpy risky path or the dead end.

*I cannot find a better word than cultural but my meaning is more specific. It relates to the general improvement of social conditions over time. As humanity matures (at various rates over the globe) it has offered more just systems, tolerates less inhumanity and offers a better chance in life. Some of this is due to technological advances, but more is simply due to a cultural evolution. Democracy, and more recently the internet, have been significant in hastening this cultural progression.

Having outlined the merits and issues surrounding both democratic theory and existing democracies I shall describe what changes I believe will remove the issues. I will then go on to describe a possible manifestation of a system which incorporates all of those changes. I propose three changes, proportional representation, single issue voting and public disclosure. Combined these three changes become an extension of direct or pure democracy. The closest example of such a political system today is the Swiss government.

Single issue voting is where any changes to society by state, such as a law or a fiscal policy, are done so individually. Rather than holding a large election for a group of representatives who then make all such decisions for a period of time, those decisions would be put to the public as they were relevant and voted on in isolation. This allows each individual the ability to express their exact political will through their votes and not have to compromise with an approximate vote. It would also help with how wealth may be used to effect political change. To operate a system where most major choices were voted on nationally would mean much more voting was taking place and thus require the use of electronic data collation to be at all practical. Such a move would reduce the cost of any form of voting once set up and so is not a valid argument to avoid single issue voting. An additional advantage of a single issue voting is that it can remove the need of political parties, which in turn allows for the removal of all the problems associated with party politics as earlier described.

Proportional representation is well understood and easy to implement. It would however, require the changing of many systems already in place hence having not become common place already. Trying to elect a house of representatives using a completely proportionally representative system would be impractical, however deciding the outcome of a single issue that will effect the nation is simple. There is debate in the UK regarding a proposal to increase the speed limit from 70mph to 80mph on motorways. This is a perfect example of something that would be incredibly easy to allow the populous to decide using a proportionally representative system. A window of dates is set, the citizens who care about the speed limits log on and cast their vote, the most votes is the new policy and nothing more (or less) complicated or convoluted.

Complete disclosure in politics is important for several reasons; it allows for more accurate and informed decisions, it allows a nation to trust the state, it promotes good moral behaviour from the top down and does away with the obligatory corruption (that is to say, not all of it, only the recommended dose by Machiavelli). What I mean by complete disclosure is a law requiring honesty for all civil servants, leaders and politicians in matters of state combined with documented publication of state workings and movements. This is another area of politics that could make good use of the internet. I see no difference between perjury in a legal proceeding and dishonesty in political ones, yet the latter is accepted while the former regarded as a serious offence. The difficulty of proving such a thing is a minor issue as it is the incentives provided by a law and the message that it would send that would have the desired effect.

As for disclosure on the workings of state there is only one problem and that is disclosure on military budgets. In the present environment it might be considered unwise to make the information on how much a nation spends on defence and the breakdown of that spending freely available. This precaution however, seems ever less relevant for developed democracies. It has been said that war is just an extension of politics and that politics is just an extension of economics, it would also be fair then to say that there is no economic gain to be had by any nation declaring war on an economically powerful democracy. The only real wars (meaning not acts of terrorism and guerilla style warfare) that are likely to occur are those between two poor countries, and those where rich countries impose their will on poor countries, often while taking advantage of the local resources. The risk of loss to infrastructure is too great for wealthy nations to engage in any form of conflict on their soil. It is also likely that political and economic allies will come to the aid of a nation that has had war declared upon them. I can see the UN becoming ever more the global police allowing individual nations not only to freely disclose their military spending but also significantly reduce it. Humanity has perfected the art of war so well that we are in a tentative age of relative peace simply through having too much to lose. I must applaud the Swiss again in their approach to national defence. While it has not always landed them with the most favourable of allies it has completely removed them from all bloodshed and cost them little. To summarise, disclosure of government workings poses certain security issues which are becoming less concerning with time, for a variety of reasons, meaning we are able to make moves in the direction of a more open government. As for my utopian vision this poses even less of a problem however the reasons for this are outside the scope of this essay and will be discussed in a future essay entitled utopian defence.

Now we must describe how a democracy might look once these three requirements are put in place. The most apparent difference is the lack of political parties, as they presently exist, in utopian democracy. This was intentionally not stipulated as one of the three requirements for my utopian democracy as groups of people with similar goals and beliefs will campaign over issues and votes in a variety of ways. The key difference is that utopian parties will never themselves get elected nor have any power. They are there to increase support for their cause, raise awareness and generally influence the debate from their perspective. By never having any direct power the various issues associated specifically with party politics are reduced or removed. The idea of groups of people supporting opposing ideas on how to do things is healthy and therefore not something I wish to remove from politics. It is only the pernicious effect of needing to be elected as a pre-requisite to any socially advantageous changes that is so damaging to the usefulness of such groups.

Not having parties in power or elected representatives in parliament makes single issue voting much easier to implement but requires serious consideration for how best to orchestrate in terms of who is deciding when anything happens or how. What follows will be a description of a potential candidate for utopian democracy. There will still be a main parliament from which will come the decision to have a vote on an issue. The parliament will only vote on whether to put something to the larger national vote, they will not vote to decide the issue themselves. This main parliament will resemble a scaled up court of law more than current parliaments. Various types of people will be there to serve various roles. Those who would represent the equivalents of the jury would be the only persons in parliament with a vote. I shall call them ephors after the Athenian persons who took on a related role.

There are numerous ways in which the ephors may be selected. I am personally fond of random selection much like jury duty. It may be prudent to make it voluntary so as to not conscript apathetic persons and there may also be benefit to ensuring an balanced spread of areas from which the ephors are recruited. As a court case is a complete even it makes sense to have one jury for the whole thing where possible. As governance is on-going it would seem wise to have rolling substitutions as it were, say each day one or more persons leaves and the same number replace them, the numbers would depend on the overall size of the parliament and how many ephors were required in total. Twelve people, as is traditional in legal proceedings, for a whole country, seems far too few. A good approximate figure to begin with is unlikely to be much different from the number of elected representatives that nation has in parliament presently under non-utopian democracy. The term an ephor would serve seems like it should probably be around two weeks in which they are paid an identical wage to what they otherwise would receive. The purpose of these ephors is to bear witness to the proceedings in parliament, contribute as they see fit, and select by vote which things are worthy of having a national vote on and how to phrase that vote.

The equivalent role of the judge in utopian parliament is rather like the chair of a meeting or the host of a debate. They are tasked with remaining neutral, keeping order, ensuring people get their turn to speak in a fair and appropriate manner. This person could be elected or an employee of state, I am unsure as to which is the better option. Provided either had mechanisms for votes of no confidence to deal with instances of favouritism or corruption I can see no significant advantages to either option. This person would likely also have department who were responsible for the organisation of the hearings and topics in parliament. These jobs would be clerical, decisions would be determined using guidelines not opinion and so these roles would not be elected positions.

There would also be an equivalent group of people to the witnesses. For the various significant areas of government there would be a representative in terms of field rather than institutions, for example; economics not the Bank of England, health not the NHS etc. These persons would be renown experts in these fields and voted in to the position via nationwide vote. Their role would be to offer advice and understanding when called upon, or when facts are misrepresented or misunderstood. These people I imagine would be widely respected people nearing the end of their careers. I imagine multiple people would fill the positions so they could alternate when they were needed in parliament. There is no need to have terms for such roles so once voted in, to get out again you would either need voting out, to abdicate or to die! These people would be allowed to express personal opinions unlike the chair and so would have a significant influence on the parliament. Potential for corruption is reduced by limiting each of these experts to a specific field in which they are called to advise. The major areas would have permanent representation in parliament but specific experts would also frequently be summoned so as to provide information etc. These specific experts would for the most part be suggested by one of the permanent general experts or witnesses.

Combined with these elected witnesses are a number of unelected representatives who speak on behalf of a branch of state or public organisation. Each branch of state would be run by an executive who would be voted in. These persons would manage the smooth running of these institutions and internal budgeting etc while larger policy choices would be democratically decided, the executive must then implement the policy. These executives, the head of the NHS etc, would be some of the most powerful people in society and as close to a president or prime minister that could be found in utopia. Each executive being answerable to the nation and only responsible for a single organisation, not having control over any other executive will reduce the problems of monarchic control while maintaining the benefits of executive decision. In order to maintain the benefits of executive decision these heads of state branches cannot spend all day answering for things in parliament and must choose for themselves a representative to speak on their behalf. These chosen people fulfil much the same role as the various experts, they would be called on to justify choices and explain things relating to their branches.

We are left with two groups that are not unlike the defence and prosecution in the court room analogy although in practice they may look more like trade unions, local government and business lobbies. These groups are the closest thing in utopian democracy to a political party. They would either support or oppose suggested changes and alterations, they would promote the arguments for their causes and they would have particular changes of their own they wished to have enacted. The two groups do not in any way correlate to defence and prosecution, these roles would be determined on an individual issue basis into those groups for it and those opposed to it. The distinction between the groups is how they come into being and who they represent.

The first of these groups we shall discuss is the one that encompasses trade unions and business lobbies. Any industry that wishes to have a voice in parliament may form a union that they run, although possibly subsidised by state. These unions will elect their own representatives who are able to request the audience of parliament and sit in on any debate of interest to them on the upcoming agenda. Many of the motions and suggestions will be made by these groups although less are likely to pass on proportion from these suggestions than others due to the inherent bias. There would be no limit to the number of unions any industry could have representing them but weighting of priority would be given to those unions with greater numbers of members. There would also likely be some qualifying conditions for a union of any sort to command the highest level of parliament as we shall go on to look at. The unions would be from both private and public sector industry so that the workforce as well as management have their say from the public sector.

The representatives of the second of these groups would be the elected representatives of geographic areas. To facilitate the direct or pure democratic aims the nation would be roughly divided, as most are, into smaller areas, which are again sub-divided all the way down to the smallest of communities. In a country such as England a reasonable sounding number of layers of government would be three or four; national parliament, county council and then one or two further smaller ones. Each would feed into the one above a single representative who was to voice the issues of all of those they stand for. In a global utopia there could be up to seven layers of government with the world parliament being a few levels above most national ones. The most significant factor in considering how to evenly yet painlessly divide up a land mass is population, each area on the same level would ideally have a similar population to the others. Other relevant factors would be size and wealth but as each of these vary rather a lot the areas will have to be approximate and as such likely to be existing ones for the most part. Care would be needed with such divisions to ensure that proportional representation is not compromised in voting.

As to the exact workings of the middle layers I am not wholly decided, the top layer should be selected rather like a jury and the bottom layer should be entirely open for anyone to come along to meetings and make suggestions. Should the completely open bottom layer find a suggestion from one of its members to be worthy this will be passed up to the next layer and so forth allowing for anyone to participate in politics. All one needs is to go to their local community council meeting, which likely happens somewhere in the region of weekly or monthly, and have a good idea. Each council at each layer has one representative who sits in the layer above. Perhaps the best way to organise the various middle layers would be to allow these elected representatives voting power. The representatives of regions in the top layer have no voting power, only the ability to suggest votes to the ephors, while the bottom layer have a vote and don't even require election.

Some unions would form but fail to qualify for a seat in the main parliament and one of the most common reasons for this would be the scope of the industries effect. If a certain type of industry is found in only one or perhaps a few of the sub-regions then they would only reasonably be able to have an involvement at that level. Local business would be encouraged to get involved with local politics and governance as they would be able to work with the community for mutual gain. Companies would be allowed to send representative that were the ambassador of that company alone and not the whole industry. While few companies would ever reach the highest parliament, nor challenge the industry unions in the number of people they represented, they would still be significant to involve. As the local business grew they may find they are able to move to the next level of parliament. While suggestions, issues and elected representatives are able to move up levels in the utopian satellite direct democratic system there is also the scope for delegation. Certain things must be uniform across the utopia but not all rules or systems need be. Indeed there are advantages to allowing regional variance somewhat as it is in the United States. Should a certain practice offend or a certain privilege be sufficiently desired an individual is afforded the option of moving to gain this extra freedom. Where possible therefore each layer of government should pass the control of anything they are able to the level below thus increasing the public involvement and control in politics, specifically where it affects people the most. When a form of control is passed to a lower layer of government it will mimic the larger system but only apply to that area. The particular mid level council or parliament will chose to pass an issue out for the vote, all residents of that particular area will then be eligible to vote on the issue.

There is one final role required in the main parliament that I have yet to describe. This person has neither a vote nor a voice. They must attend all sittings of parliament and document how they would act for each vote that is passed. This person acts as a fail safe for times of crisis when a nation really needs the speed of action that only an executive can offer. This person is elected by national vote, probably a person of military background, and is able to assume control of all national choices once. This terms ends when the crisis is over or the nation vote them out and a new executive is elected. This person documents what they would do to reassure the nation of their proficiency, the information would be published alongside the result of a national vote to allow for comparison. In ideal circumstances the executive would never need to assume power but it seems a wise precaution to take none the less.

All proceedings that occur in government councils and parliaments would be protected by laws against the equivalent of perjury. Should individuals be suspected of corruption in these arenas, including the intentional misrepresentation of information, then they would be able to be tried by the courts of the land. The whole system is interlinked and counterbalanced from all angles. Those with power, influence and responsibility have both veto from the democratic public and legally binding obligations to ensure they act in the best interests of society. It is a checks and balances system that is normalised rather than cyclic thus preventing the stagnation of issues. This is not to say once passed another vote on the same issue will happen again shortly after. It would be unwise to prevent the reversal of a passed motion so as to be able to react to unfavourable results of sudden drastic changes of circumstance.

The methodology for altering fiscal policy, budgeting and taxation would be numerically controlled. A document would exist which detailed each of these things in an algebraic manner to account for varying economic climates. Votes on such things would come in the form of changing one of the factors on one variable, say lower income tax and then a selection of other variables from where this reduction may be compensated for, some options could be a raise on VAT or a reduction to the defence budget.

To ensure certain values or principles are retained there needs to be another clerical department. In the utopian case these values or principles are namely the three fundamentals; freedom, equality and sustainability. This clerical department is tasked with ensuring that no vote may be passed which would reduce the level of that fundamental the society had reached. This would be analytical and not opinion based and so these roles would not be elected positions. They would have the ability to veto any vote that had been agreed upon by parliament and as such would have significant power. It would be important therefore to enforce the use of the courts of law as the checks and balances system in this department more than others. Ideally this department would offer more than just veto and would offer alternative approximations of the vote that passed the fundamentals check.

While this essay has been rather large in comparison to most of my others it still feels as if it has only lightly dipped into each of the points. The topic of democracy is huge and may be looked at in much greater detail. This essay is more like a bullet point flow chart with brief descriptions for each bullet point given, along with a few tangents. I hope therefore that I have been able to logically point out the various inherent problems within the existing systems, and that the way these problems are removed via the three proposed changes is reasonably appreciated despite the relative shortness. Although less important to the overall issue, I suspect the hardest part to fathom an understanding for is the last part where I describe how a system incorporating the proposed changes could look. I have attempted a description of this before and found both tries entirely unsatisfying when compared to the vivid picture of the system I have in my mind. I may return to this particular area again in the future in an attempt to clarify my ideas further but until then I would be more than happy to expand on any point which is unclear do to assumptions I have made regarding those of the reader.