This is an invention meant to produce, eventually, an island in international waters, to legally found ones own state on it. That’s because of the difficulties of choosing an island for such an endeavour … there is essentially no terra nullius left.

The idea is this: one or more solar powered, autonomous, self-steering, unmanned ships that has an excavator on board that will dig up stones etc. from the sea bed. When full, the ship drives fully automatically to a GPS location for dropping the dirt. It does so night and day, driving within an area that is closed for normal ship traffic. But it also has radar with automated evaluation on board to avoid collisions.

The ship also needs a catapult-type device for unloading the dirt once an area is too flat to float over it, or even is visible as land but needs to be more elevated above sea level.

Of course one would operate these ships in shallow waters, ideally dropping the dirt over something like a sunken atoll or something else that has less than 20m water above it.

And of course, the politically correct way today to reason for this invention is to “help those islands endangered by global warming”. Governments would let rain down the money to build the technology for this … and if not, there is a polemic video to persuade them. Yea, or show them the stories of all these “submerged islands” already existing. And then, after the technology was in use for some years, I would get a chance to rent it for building my own island-state … 🙂

So-called single points of failure “are undesirable in any system whose goal is high availability”; so teaches Wikipedia.

Now, systems for social security are, on the one hand, designed with this in mind: resources that need to be highly available in individual life, such as health care and nutrition, should not depend on the individual’s ability to pay for them, as this would be a SPOF. But on the other hand: in the Western “developed world”, social security systems are central, government based systems, which makes these systems fail if the state fails to pay for them. Which is a very real danger, as can be seen from the German pension insurance, which crashed for demographic and other reasons.

Again, Wikipedia teaches us the principles of reliability engineering to avoid SPOFs: reduced complexity, redundancy, diversity (of implementation), and transparency (Wikipedia article “Single Point of Failure”). All of these are not, or only to a low degree, implemented in these centralized Western social security systems. The extended family was able to perform the task better, as it was a highly redundant system, existing in tens of thousands of instances in a society. However, this type of family does no longer exist in our society.

What to do? How about experimenting with the idea of the “small autarkic community” as a shared risk community. This is not about anonymous insurance, as this is doomed to fraud and inefficiency: it lacks for example tools to really educate and motivate people to lead a more healthy lifestyle. The autarchic community is about the smallest thinkable group that can bear all risks of individual life on its own; which might be about 100 people. They would live in one house together and care for each other in all aspects of the shared risks, like caring for the sick and elderly, supporting the unemployed financially (and emotionally), etc.. One could enter at all times if one is admitted (depending on ones currrent issues, and the ability of the community to bear them, and the number of free places). And one could leave at any time, to switch to a like community at another place or back into government-backed system. But one could not be kicked out of the shared risk community; which is necessary to be a true “social insurance” type of community.

Such a 100-person community could take over other tasks that are simplified by load balancing or risk sharing in a community. Like child care. This would then be called “human crechès“. Yes, why not use this animal concept in human culture also. This is way less expensive than government’s child care units like kindergartens etc.. It can also be implemented in even smaller groups: for example, five families could form a crechè for the time before the parents return from work. Which would mean that from each couple, one person has to take one day off in two weeks to organize the crechè at this family’s home.

Employment is a supra-individual state of an economic system: in a society, people depend on each other, and on infrastructure, to be able to do economic activity. So without other peoples economic activity, and without infrastructure, there is a deadlock: all people wait on other people (the customers) and on infrastructure to be able to start with economic activity. (The fact that modern market economies use counter-cyclical economic politics, investing both in salaries and infrastructure during times of economic crisis, seems to prove this “bad economy by deadlocks” thesis right.)

This does not only relate to total unemployment, but especially to inefficient (subsidizing) employment that only helps to survive, but not to a decent standard of living. Because: survivors need infrastructure to do more efficient economic activity, but for infrastructure to be built it needs money from a flourishing economy, and hence there is again the deadlock situation.

The way around this deadlock would be that government uses taxes to centralize money that can be invested into infrastructure, first in a limited area to get it “running”, and from the outcome of that area the infrastructure in other areas can be built. This is like the re-starting of cells in the electric grid after a total power failure: one cell helps to start its neighbour, and so on.

Government also has the option to build infrastructure by organizing people (like putting them in “labour armies”, as was done in the US during the Great Depression, which also did employ people). And it has the option to gain humanitarian help funds and invest them to build infrastructure. The problem in nations that never emerged out of this economic deadlock (like many African economies) is that government failed in all three points. It wasted its chances to start the economy, and major contributors to this are corruption, fraud and fraudulent conversion of aid funds for private purposes. That way, the “excess resources” that are present even in the poorest economies and could be used to improve the economy by building infrastructure are simply wasted.

Unemployment is also a problem of governments in highly industrialized countries. Here, governments try to force employment by the forced creation of new infrastructure that nobody needs (like environment protection projects of some sorts, esp. climate related). But this just distributes the existing economic resources to more people, so the standard of living falls. Also, large amounts of people in such countries still stay unemployed, as nobody has any interest or vision to create infrastructure for them (the underclass). They are just fed to keep them calm.

Infrastructure that enables economic activity (and hence, employment) includes:

  • Education. This is probably the most important thing: it is the “brain infrastructure”.
    • language
    • trade culture (you need to know what to expect to do trade)
    • collaboration
    • math, physics, sciences of all sorts (as they help to utilize natural resources)
  • grid supply systems
    • electric grid
    • water supply pipelines
    • phone network
    • data connectivity, Internet
    • roads
    • parcel shipment network
    • public security (as criminality hinders economic activity)
  • education system
  • trustable monetary system as the infrastructure to make payments
  • money supply systems to make investments (banks, …)
  • waste management systems
  • necessary supra-individual systems like mining etc.

So we saw that unemployment is never (!) a problem of natural resources, because their lack does not necessarily prohibit the economic development of a region. There are Russian scientific centers in deepest Siberia. Unemployment is always a social problem, a problem of organization of people.

And because it is a social problem, a problem about people on a systemic, supra-individual level, one individual alone cannot solve its own problem of unemployment. The question is now, in light of the government failures outlined above, what is the minimum amount of people, and what are the requirements for their organization, so that they can relief themselves of the unemployment problem? Such a group is called here an “autarkic community with respect to employment”, or simply, an “autarkic community”. Such a community would be able to start other like communities by “divide and multiply”; the hardest job would be, of course, starting the first one, as this starts from zero. Starting from zero is the task of crushing the deadlock situation described above, with the scarce resources one does not need for immediate survival; but this is possible, as it has been performed for example by the “Trümmerfrauen” after WW II: they did the upfront investment of building infrastructure, without getting a direct repayment for this hardest part of all work.

Because all communities would govern themselves, no mismanagement of centralized power can emerge that could damage this economic system again, as it does in mismanaged states. The worst thing would be for individual communities to fail and disband, allowing people to regroup into fresh start-up communities.

A quick outline of on such autarkic community as envisioned here:

  • Approx. 50-100 “economically desparate” people, with 15 being the minimum for such a community to work.
  • At least 15-20% of the members have to be already educated people (“bringing in the brain infrastructure”), but apart from this, no other infrastructure or resources are needed. The education mainly needs to be about organizing people efficiently to do collaborative tasks (e.g. in XC style), and some technical knowledge to make best use of natural resources.
  • The community can start with what they find, even if this is trash, and sleeping outdoors. All of human civilization was built from what lies around (and grows naturally), orchestrated by the power of the brain.
  • To be effective as a self-help for employment (which is the ability to work for improving ones own living conditions), the community has to be independent of government activities like building (or not building, or not maintaining) infrastructure. That is, it has to provide its own infrastructure: own schools, own roads (in the sense of cars that need no roads), own tools, own internal markets, own health system, own security, own electricity, … .
  • To not mess with the government any more than necessary (because corrupt governments tend to hinder the communities economic activity by corruption, high taxes and all sorts of mismanagement, as they do with all the other people): the community should be in a remote, scarcely inhabited area. See inspirations from the post “The monastery as a revived society model“.
  • As with monasteries, long (multi-generation) periods of calm, politically and socially stable conditions really help such communities to build up their infrastructure. Permanent need to re-orient in an ever-changing society structure (like in Western countries) is as adversive here as is war and the like.
  • A system that “all time is worth (and paid) equally” can be established here: it allows people who create infrastructure to accumulate time that can be later exchanged in goods produced with the help of this infrastructure.

This idea is mature if it is possible to jump-start such a community with 15 “organizers” and 85 economically desparate people.

Now this idea might sound much like libertarian economic theory  that advocates a no-regulation area as the best thing for economic activity. But this post is not about libertarian economy, not exactly. Because it acknowledges the organizing role of a government as necessary for people to be able to achieve a good standard of living. But because governments are not fulfilling this task for the unemployed, this is about self-help.

I would even go as far as to say that even the most highly “developed” nations live way belong their potential. Where the potential is the most intelligent, most orchestrated, most efficient, most sustainable solution to the problem of “getting from nature what mankind needs to live”. So that such communities could even be an alternative to economic activity for employed people in such highly developed nations.

A good part of this idea was inspired by me taking part in the foundation of a new company for electronics remanufacturing. It will eventually provide employment (and income to pay for life’s expenses) to all contributors, but it was a really hard task, nearly impossible, to set it up from zero. If this task of setting up the company infrastructure had been just a little harder, we would have been totally locked up in the “no infrastructure deadlock”. So in effect, the communities proposed here are little command economies, those of the smallest possible autarkic size. Where autarkic means that the employment of people does not depend on external parties; while the supply with raw materials may depend on them, as this is regulated by market forces well enough. Command economies have to be small, as the large ones die from the mismanagement present in large governments … .

I should add that the ultimate trigger for this post was an article about economic refugees from Africa: “Attacking Europe’s border fences” from BBC News. And also the first two parts of that story: “Billy’s journey: Crossing the Sahara“. And very especially, the comments from African people to these stories, commenting that Africa’s poverty is mainly because of greed and selfishness of the African leaders. So that I thought again how to help these people in place. But this topic of understanding the reason behind the “lack of work” kept recurring in my thoughts for approx. 2-3 years now, and also the topic of autarkic communities. But up to this post, I never really understood why people are unemployed, and did not have a clue as for the solution.

Now it is no new thing to propose to “build ones country” and “serve ones country” instead of fleeing for economic reasons. But what all these proposals miss is practicability. Because they all focus on individual self-help (which is impossible because the state of economy is a supra-individual problem, as stated above). Somehow these proposals believe, individual self-help would become a “movement” of many individuals, and by that society and economy would be transformed. But exactly in how to become a movement these proposals are silent. Surely not by starting with individual activity. And the idea of the autarkic community presented in this post is exactly about filling this gap of “how”. The autarkic community is large enough to be a “movement” on its own, on the supra-individual level where economy improves; and it is small enough to be feasible (in terms of organizing it bottom-up) and stable (in terms of being robust against the danger of mismanagement and exploitation, which endangers current large and centralized structures like states). It is the working hypothesis of this post that such a medium “size of society” exists which will make a society both economically feasible (and flourishing) and robust. If such a size cannot be found, there would be no hope for human economy in the long term.

The idea in this post can also be put otherwise: the autarkic community is a self-sustaining company (indeed, a micro-economy itself) that does not depend on centralized infrastructure and does not have gain maximization as its goal, but instead an equally well standard of living for all its contributors. Because, gain maximization in capitalist companies is the analogy to exploitation by corrupt regimes: some people get the money, and the others get not what their work is worth. The capitalists that get the money claim that this is their right because they set up all the infrastructure as investors (while their workers get only as much as they could produce without any infrastructure, so keep lacking a good standard of living).

Basically, why do we need a sovereign micro-society? The reason is not that it would be unbearable to live within a current state (some even deal quite respectfully with all their people, see e.g. the First Nations in Canada. The reason is that it could become unbearable to live in an existing state (like when it becomes totalitarian), and the reason is that it is mostly disgusting currently (just look at politics and how they behave and the reasons and motives drives politics: greed for money and influence, while a sovereign micro-society just wants calm, undisturbed, peaceful, sustainable existence). This post is just about another vision for a self-supported micro society. Currently I clearly favor the "sovereign ship" solution to that, but here is this idea, anyway.

There seems to be an internationally recognized process how to create an own state. First you choose a non-self-governing territory like one of the English overseas territories. Then you establish a population there, if not yet existent. Then you get registered at the UNPO. Then you need to get on the United Nations List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Then you you slowly enter in negotiations with the administering state, demanding more legal self-governance. Over time you get more and more independent (it's lobby work), and finally you can hold a referendum to get independent (like the referendum in Tokelau, for instance). It is then advisable to remain as an associated state in bounds with the former administrering state. Which is no bad thing, as one does not have to deal with dumb stuff like international relations and the military (both of which is not necessary for peaceful living).

Some more cocepts that are interesting in this context: extraterritoriality, international zone and neutral territory.

Now, here are the findings. The options here are sorted, the most interesting ones first:

  • Kerguelen Islands. Belongs to France, is quite huge (120x150km) and has no native population, just approx. 100 people in a research station. Being at 49° South, the climate is harsh but bearable (vegetation, sheep etc. can survive). This seems cool as a place for a 250 people large base of a sovereign ship-based community … the people in the base can grow food in greenhouses etc. and join the ship on the next yearly visit, when other people from the ship go to the land.
  • Falkland Islands. They have already a partial self-governing status. Just 3000 people on a vast island, mostly English speaking, and good telecommunications. It is a British overseas territory.
  • South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. There is even a ghost town that could be used:  Grytviken [source]. There are currently ~30 people present there [source 1, source 2]. There is even an account of a guy who rented four hectares of land on South Georgia, for an shilling per year, and lived there as an eremit [source]. South Georgia has already a partial self-governing status, comparable to the Falkland island [source 1, source 2].
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis. A two-isle nation in the Caribbean.
  • Corvo Island. One of the Azores Islands, has a nice climate, ~450 people and a lot to do in the economy (as people emigrate).
  • Greenland. Just over 50,000 people, the thinnest populated island on earth.
  • Some other island from the Azores.
  • Saint Helena. Nice climate, 4250 people and a lot to do in the economy. One could envision Internet centric companies to be founded there.
  • Palau. A very young sovereign state with 20,000 inhabitants, consisting of some islands in the tropic region. This state was the one offering asylum to Guantanamo detainees.
  • Nauru. A Micronesian island-state with 10,000 inhabitants. It is just one island, the world's smallest island nation (21 sq km). And the interior is not inhabited due to abandoned phosphate mining. There is plenty of stuff to do for people who want to invest in a small nation's development. Including their unfinished website. Immigration seems difficult to impossible, however.
  • Heard and McDonald Islands. Really remote, with no permanent population at all. Belongs to Australia. A nice site for a self-supported community of 250 people. Official site, including images and travel instructions:
  • Prince Edwards Islands. There is a weather station present there, but nothing else. Official site see here.
  • Crozet Islands. A small group of islands with harsh but bearable climate and just one weather station on one of them.
  • Tristan da Cunha. Really interesting, as it contains enough people to not be lonely (about 275), has a nice climate and a very interesting, community-based society structure. It is called "the world's most remote inhabited island" [source]. However "No 'outsiders' are allowed to buy land or settle on Tristan – despite many applications to join a society referred to as 'Utopia'." [source].
  • South Orkney Islands. It falls under the Antarctic treaty, so has non.recognizable claims of sovereignty. Which would be nice for establishing a community. But the climate is extremely cold.

Sources employed for creating the above list:

For years I am in search of better models for society. Here is another one. It has the special benefit that it can coexist with an area’s current political situation.

A monastery (at least the way it is thought to be) is founded by people who are critical of the social and political situation of their society. A monastery is located in a remote area, at a place where nobody else is interested in (e.g. in unfruitful lands etc.). This yields absence of political and military conflicts. The reason to found a monastery is to have more time for devotion (the relationship to God). In extension (to serve as a society model), the reason can be also to have more resources for all the stuff where resources are lacking for in the surrounding society. A monastery can exist in these remote locations because it is a center of learning and education that will be well-known in the surrounding region (so that trade can emerge: getting raw goods in exchange for processed goods and education). A study of monasteries around the world should be carried out to learn the pinciples of monastic living.

Outline of a modern (secular, but optionally faith-based) version of a monastery:

  • it would (or could) be essentially mobile (people living in AWD trucks), but may have a base in a remote location
  • because it is mobile, it can undertake operations in the surrounding region, like medical and construction operations, in the style of “labour army operations”
  • membership would be voluntarily, leaving would be possible at any time
  • there would be constant organized self-education within the monastery
  • there would be some integrated high-tech facilities for processing raw goods and taking part in operations (like well drilling equipment)
  • there would be special agreements with government about the special rights and protection of the monastery, and as soon as governments fails to meet these agreements the mobile monastery would move on (see the post on the “population market” model for society, but this is in smaller scale)
  • modern high-tech communication equipment would be used for agile collaboration (in the style of XC, that is, “extreme collaboration”)
  • all such monasteries would be self-governed (to prohibit abuse of centralized power over monasteries by not centralizing it)
  • a monastery would split in two wen it reaches a certain size.

The idea of a monastery is also, especially, to not interfere at all (or as little as possible) with the officials, official organizations and other stuff in power of a society. This is the only meaningful option of avoiding loss of life, freedom and other important goods in the contact with these ever-changing and unpredictable powers. If there is a lesson to be learned from history, then that political powers are never stable and never predictable in the longer term, so contact with them must be avoided by any means. This also says that members have to research and develop techniques to live in very remote and harsh natural environments, like deserts etc., to avoid any contact with officials. Of course, monasteries have the bad fame of being secluded; but there is no reason for that to happen, as service to the outside world can happen in these construction operations and the like.

This time I’m writing in German, as by chance, I wrote the idea in German when it came to my mind today. It’s the further development of the »Multiplying Power Community« idea into a model for a society, with jump-start-ability. Contact me if you need the contents in English.

Bzgl. der Grundversorgung autarke Communities als Gesellschaftsmodell: sie sind bzgl. Import und Export abgeschottet. Dieses Konzept ist kein Freihandel. Benötigt wir also ein anderer Motivator als der Gewinn über den Verkaufspreis, um Effizienz zu gewährleisten. Idee: Autarkie ist nur bzgl. der Grundversorgung gefordert (Nahrung, Hausbau, Medizin usw. in Eigenleistung), denn das gewährleistet Überlebensfähigkeit in Krisen. Für den Komfortlevel (der Bedürfnispyramide) dagegen gilt Freihandel, und jede Community tritt als eine Firma oder ein Dienstleister auf. Das ist auch notwendig, weil High-Tech nicht autark hergestellt werden kann.

Außerdem: es sollte staatliche Programme zur Gründung solcher Communities geben. Diese sollen auch als funktionierende soziale Systeme aufgebaut sein und etwa 500 Menschen umfassen (Kibbuz-Größe). Eine kleine Power Community (10 Personen) organisiert die Ausreise- und Aufbauphase (1-2 Jahre in jeder Community). Durch solche Maßnahmen können Staaten das Slum- und Hungerproblem in Städten lösen. Denn Menschen ziehen nicht vom Land weg, weil Nahrungsversorgung prinzipiell unmöglich wäre, sondern weil es kein System gibt, das effiziente Nahrungsmittelproduktion gewährleistet. Die Communities aber sind solch ein System (inkl. Transportmitteln, Verkehrswegen, Landbesitz, Produktionsstätten, …). Mitglieder der Communities wären durch Vertrag für je 5 Jahre gebunden, so dass Auflösung durch simplen Personalmangel oder Fachpersonalmangel erschwert wird. Communties sollen auch Behinderte, Waisen und instabile Personen integrieren, anteilig entspr. deren Anteil an der Gesamtbevölkerung.

In diesem System besteht also die Marktwirtschaft weiter, aber zwischen größeren Einheiten (den Communities), nicht zwischen Individuen. Das ist ein Vorteil, denn diese Einheiten können sich in Krisenzeiten selbst versorgen, im Gegensatz zu Communities.

Gewinnmaximierung ist nicht mehr das Ziel der Einzelnen (auf Kosten der Gemeinschaft), sondern das Ziel der Gemeinschaften (der Communities), i.S.v. Wohlstandsmaximierung. Die Communties müssen klein genug bleiben, damit jeder den Effekt seines eigenen Beitrags zum Wohlstand aller auch persönlich spüren kann (also evtl. auch nur 50-100 Personen). Beteiligung am erwirtschafteten Gewinn und an Gewinnsteigerungen geschieht, indem die Community jedem eine durch die Autarkie garantierte Grundversorgung bereitstellt, und darüber hinaus die Einnahmen der Community gleichmäßig an alle verteilt werden.

Communities wissen, welches Fachpersonal sie benötigen, und machen Ausschreibungen dafür (zuerst intern unter den Heranwachsenden / Mitgliedern ohne Ausbildung, danach extern). Benötigt wird Fachpersonal für die Community-eigene Firma, und Fachpersonal für die Autarkie. Letzteres ist, für eine Community von 500 Personen: zwei Ärzte (Redundanz gefordert!; ein Arzt gleichzeitig Zahnarzt) , eine Hebamme, ein Pysiotherapeut (m/w), ein Tierarzt, zwei Mechatroniker, fünf Handwerker (Kombinationsberuf aus Elektriker / Zimmermann / Maurer / Lackierer usw.), zwei Kfz-Mechaniker, ein Psychologe (Seelsorger), zwei Bäcker, zwei Fleischer, … .

Jede Community darf auch eine »Style-Guideline« haben, so dass sich Individuen eine Community aussuchen können die ihrem Lebensgefühl entspricht (Hippy, Rocker, Familienmenschen, …).

Mitgliedertausch zwischen Communities und zwischen Community und Restgesellschaft ist zulässig, wenn dadurch die Stabilität der Community erhalten bleibt.

Lebensmittel aus der Autarkie-Versorgung werden in Rationen verteilt, um zu gewährleisten dass sie auch aufgebraucht werden. Zusätzlich können sich die Mitglieder Luxus-Lebensmittel (Gewürze, Süßkram usw.) von ihrem Geldeinkommen leisten, hergestellt von den Komfortlevel-Firmen der eigenen oder anderer Communities.

Eine Community sollte anstreben, nicht mehr als 20% ihrer Ressourcen für Autarkie-Versorgung zu verwenden (in Industrienationen derzeit: 3% Beschäftigte im primären Sektor). Es bleiben 80% Ressourcen, die prinzipiell kostenfrei eingesetzt werden können. In Normalzeiten zur Wohlstandserhöhung gegen Geld als Gegenleistung von anderen Communties und der Restgesellschaft. In Krisenzeiten, wo niemand mehr die Komfortlevel-Produkte kauft, kostenfrei zur Krisenreduktion.

Es kann auch Spezial-Communities geben: mobile Communities, oder Charity-Communities (die ihre 80% freien Ressourcen kostenfrei einsetzen).

Besonders interessant am Community-Ansatz ist: perspektiv- und hoffnungslose Menschen können wieder Perspektive und Hoffnung erhalten. Was oft das Grundproblem ist. Auch erfordert die Gründung einer Community nich viel: eine Power Community zur Begleitung des Spin-off (inkl. Ausbildung), Land, etwas Kapital, und Nothilfe-Backup durch einen Staat oder einen Zusammenschluss anderer Communities für den Fall, dass in der Gründungsphase durch noch fehlende Autarkie externe Hilfe benötigt wird. Diese externe Hilfe kann aber später zurückgezahlt werden. Die Gründung solcher Communities inkl. Kauf des Landes, Verhandlung mit staatlichen Organisationen und Entwicklungshilfe-Organisationen kann von einer einzigen kleinen Power Community (10 Mitglieder) bewerkstelligt werden. Diese kann alle 2-5 Jahre eine neue Community gründen, und steht bereits gegründeten Communities nur beratend zur Seite. Eine Power Community braucht hochintelligente, hochspezialisierte Mitglieder, deren Lebensaufgabe die Gründung von Communities ist (etwas finanielle Gegenleistung ist natürlich möglich, sobald Communities Gewinn bringen).

Das hier vorgeschlagene System eignet sich sowohl als Gesellschaftsordnung, als auch zur Bekämpfung der Arbeitslosigkeit: Arbeitslosigkeit ist nicht das Problem, sondern Erwerbslosigkeit (fehlende Möglichkeit zur Sebstversorgung). Das aber kann in einer Community nicht auftreten, durch das Autarkie-Konzept. Arbeitslosigkeit bedeutet in einer autarken Community dann bloß 80% Freizeit und einen geringeren Lebensstandard. Das ist kein gesamtgesellschaftliches Problem. Und die Community ist in der Lage, die 80% sinnvoll zu investieren, wenn auch nicht so effizient wie bei der Produktion in der eigenen Komfortlevel-Firma. Möglichkeiten sind z.B. Beiträge zur lokalen Infrastruktur, Teil-Autarkie im Komfortlevel (würde in Zeiten eines funktionierenden Wirtschaftssystems, d.h. ohne Arbeitslosigkeit, als zu ineffizient gelten) usw..

Einer der Fehler der modernen Zivilisationen ist, Spezialisierung so weit zu treiben, dass Individuen nicht mehr in der Lage sind, sich selbst zu versorgen. Die Communities sind die Gegenbewegung, und sie sind wettbewerbstauglich. Sie gewährleisten Selbstversorgung, bieten aber auch (in den Komfortlevel-Firmen) die Spezialisierung, die für industrielle Produktion notwendig ist.

Wenn es eine Arbeitsplatz-Standaridierung zwischen Communites gibt, kann es auch einen »Community-Mitgliedsplatz-Markt« geben: Communities werben um neue Mitglieder (wenn denn welche fehlen), haben also die Motivation, attraktiv zu sein.

Wichtige Beobachtung: die interne Strukturierung der Communities und deren übergeordnete Strukturierung (z.B. Verbände, Unternehmerverbände, Staaten, …) ist beliebig. Wichtig ist bloß, dass es die Community als »Pflanze« (viell. auch »Zelle«), d.h. als selbständig lebensfähigen Organismus, gibt. Das bedeutet, dass keine Community sich in Abhängigkeiten begeben wird und darf, die ihre Autarkie beschränken. In Krisenzeiten, in denen die Community-übergeordneten Strukturen dysfunktional sind oder sich radikal ändern, besteht die Community durch ihre Autarkie-Fähigkeit.

Problematisch ist, dass Communities nur in Gebieten angesiedelt werden können, in denen keine oder nur geringe Gefahr von Missernten besteht. Das kann durch Vorratshaltung (3-5 Jahre) an Nahrungsmitteln, und durch Auftreten als Agrarlieferant für die Restgesellschaft (wodurch bei geringeren Ernten noch genug zur Selbstversorgung bleibt) etwas ausgeglichen werden, so dass Communities auch z.B. in vielen Teilen Afrikas denkbar sind.

Indem die Community als Solidargemeinschaft auftritt, sind viele Sozialleistungen völlig unnötig (Arbeitslosen- und Pflegeversicherung, Rentenversicherung (es bestehen Versorgungsansprüche ggü. verschiedenen Communities prozentual zur Zeit der jeweiligen Mitgliedschaft; in der Praxis aber viel unproblematischer, da die meisten Menschen sesshaft lebenslang in einer Community sein werden, viell. mit wenigen Austauschjahren als Gast woanders), tw. die Krankenversicherung durch eigene Ärzte).

Und, indem die Community als Solidargemeinschaft auftritt, werden viele Sorgen und allein untragbare Risiken aus dem Leben der Individuen entfernt. Staaten als Solidargemeinschaften sind möglich, aber instabil und unmenschlich (in Deutschland z.B. ist es schon lange nicht mehr so, dass Arbeitslosengeld als bereitwillige Hilfe des Staates für Bürger in Not gesehen werden kann; es ist das widerwillige Bewahren vor dem Verhungern, aus Angst vor Aufständen; ebenso mit Krankenkassen: das Anliegen des Systems ist schon lange nicht mehr eine gute Volksgesundheit, sondern es kämpft um sein finanzielles Überleben).

Indem die Solidargemeinschaft klein ist, wird es Möglich, Individuen für Fehlverhalten zur Verantwortung zu ziehen: Rauchen, Alkoholmissbrauch usw., was in großen Solidargemeinschaften (z.B. Staaten) ein Missbrauch des Gesundheitssystems ist, kann in Communities verboten werden, und diese Verbote können auch durchgesetzt werden.

Eine zwingende Voraussetzung für Autarkie ist eigener Landbesitz (d.h. das unbeschränkte, exklusive Nutzungsrecht an landwirtschaftlicher Nutzfläche). Denn die Community kann keine Pacht bezahlen, wenn sie in Krisenzeiten im »Autarkie-Modus« ist; denn in Krisenzeiten kann nichts verkauft werden, womit die Pacht bezahlt werden könnte, denn den Markt gibt es nicht mehr.

Diese Idee behebt auch das Problem der Hilfeleistung für hungernde und unselbständige Bevölkerung: es ist echte Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe, die sofortige Entlassung in die Unabhängigkeit, kein dauerhaftes Mit-Durchfüttern.

This idea is one of a series of ideas that I posted to Google’s Project 10100 (it’s just before their deadline now, so I need to hurry up somewhat …). The other ideas were the psycho hygiene system and Natural Scientific Theology. In this project, Google collects ideas and will honor the five ideas that help the most people by sponsoring their realization with 2 million USD each. You’ll notice that this idea is a derivative of my community concepts … I think that’s adequate because the style of community I intend is also meant to help a lot of people while starting with very little starting capital.

Now, I’m jus’ going to copy the answers to Google’s central questions for idea proposals here.

10. What one sentence best describes your idea? (maximum 150 characters)

One powerful, self-sustained 10-people community can help the world by founding a social company, and similar communities by divide-and-multiply.

11. Describe your idea in more depth. (maximum 300 words)

It’s sad that one day of an industrial nation does not really help the world, though it encompasses hundreds of millions of man-days. That’s because nearly every resource is used up for private lives, to gain “fun” and “meaning”. But these can be by-effects of helping the world to live. Therefore, here’s how to make helping the world an interesting and rewarding experience (and hopefully a mass phenomenon). It’s all about carefully orchestrating an environment where it’s fun and rewarding (flow-state like) to serve the world in. This needs:

  • Social integration. Therefore we propose founding organizations that are small enough to consist of just friends (10 people).
  • Synergy. It’s fun to be part of a team and see the synergistic effects of team work. Therefore, helping the world “alone” makes no sense. A synergistic group is needed, here 10 people, carefully selected and orchestrated
    personalities, with appropriate technologies, to be as effective as possible.
  • The feeling of really making a difference. Therefore, the organization must be small (10 people) and flexible enough to not waste the manpower to just steer it.
  • Time to rest. Helping the world is no fun if it causes burnouts. Therefore, the group must be able to provide a family atmosphere of rest.
  • Scaleablility. The success of the service must grow linearly with the group’s size, as it’s too frustrating for humans to see it grow slower. Therefore, the whole is modularized into 10-people communities, and every one can see it’s own success in service grow. Which helps to not be frustrated about a possibly slowly growing total number of communities.

12. What problem or issue does your idea address? (maximum 150 words)

Current ideas to help the world on its way suffer not from their quality, but from poor organizational structure, which makes funding philantropic activities the most difficult part of them. NPOs are commonly either central, government funded ones (which cannot do their work in countries with poor governments, and suffer greatly when the government must cut its expenses) or small ones, funded from a circle of private supporters (these cannot grow as private funding cannot grow fast). As the alternative, a type of organization is proposed here which: (1) needs no external funding, (2) grows by divide-and-multiply, so that there is redundancy that makes the project survive even if some 10-people communities decay.

13. If your idea were to become a reality, who would benefit the most and how? (maximum 150 words)

The people benefited by this idea are foremost the employees of the companies that the communities will found, each around 1000 employees. They will be able to lead a self-sustained life, and will profit form the internal education system in the company, which fosters higher life quality. Additionally, as these companies are social, a lot of people will benefit from the products of these companies. The kind of product is limited by the requirement that the company must make profit to nourish the founding community and its employees, but possibilities (here, in development countries) include: micro-credits, construction of public infrastructure like bridges and streets, teacher seminary, elementary school / high school, university, water processing unit, hospital, private security service (esp. for areas with corrupt policemen).

14. What are the initial steps required to get this idea off the ground? (maximum 150 words)

The first of these power communities needs to be created (it will multiply itself after that). It’s mainly about defining the intended “social system” to be created (after some research what would provide the “fun and meaning in serving” experience) and carefully selecting the 10 desired people to implement it, giving them the technology they desire (and some money), and let them start to do their job of serving the world. Their first steps as a community will probably be internal communication trainings, decision structure negotiation, getting money for their running expenses, finding the idea for the social company to found, then founding it.

15. Describe the optimal outcome should your idea be selected and successfully implemented. How would you measure it? (maximum 150 words)

The optimal outcome is if the first community finally results in a mass movement, by the divide-and-multiply principle, so that finally several hundreds of millions of people benefit either from the products of the social companies, being an employee of these companies, or even being a community member. This outcome might need some hundred years to develop.

Indicators to measure the current result are: number of communities, number of community companys, number of employees. This should bear some correlation to the effects on the human development indices of the impacted societies, which are too difficult to measure themselves. Indicators to measure the progress are the speed by which the before mentioned numbers change.

Start date: 2008-10-19
Post date: 2008-10-19
Version date: 2008-10-19 (for last meaningful change)